< April 17	April 19 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 06:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Balé Club Disc Golf Course[edit]

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

Promo piece on a non-notable sports/leisure facility. The only source cited is primary, and a search finds nothing beyond the usual social media and directory listings, and not many of them, either. (I've tried with different renderings of 'Bale', too — nothing doing.) Fails WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Now multiple sources shown; still only primary ones. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sources are all primary and appear to be mostly from databases, with run of the mill statistical information. A search on Google showed no reliable sources talking about the subject, not even in passing. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 14:48, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vadim Fedotov[edit]

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

This article doesn't meet the requirements of the WP:BIO because his company is not a leader in its industry yet. Unfortunately Fedotov also doesn't meet the requirements for WP:SPORTSPERSON. The editors of ru-wiki have been discussing his importance as a businessman and sportsman for over a year. As a result, his biography was deleted. So I propose to remove the English version too until the time when the company is sufficiently influential in the market, and this can be confirmed by sources. Ontrix (talk) 08:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 April 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone! When I've created this article, Fedotov was frequently seen in the news, and as inexperienced as I was, I thought he was worth mentioning as a sportsmen, he was a member of the German national under-19 basketball team in 2003-2005. Also, while studying at the Buffalo University, he was a forward-center of the Buffalo Bulls men's basketball team. I'm not sure what criteria there are for sportsmen' notability, but if it's not enough for Wiki, let it be removed, then.—ELindas (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't continue his sports career. Youthful achievements in themselves are not significant. He started his business career in large private and public companies but quickly left there as well. He started a personal business and hasn't developed it to a wiki-significant size yet. The article looks slick but I propose to wait for unambiguous evidence of its significance.Ontrix (talk) 12:11, 7 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!} 21:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 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 Athletics at the 1976 Summer Olympics – Men's 800 metres. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Erasmo Gómez[edit]

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

Sportsman who does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NOLY, as he did not win any olympic medals. I could find no significant coverage of him, indeed the only info I could find at all was that he finished dead last in the heat. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Nicaragua. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Athletics at the 1976 Summer Olympics – Men's 800 metres per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we have no significant sources that provide coverage. He did nothing that would meet notability guidelines. There is no good reason to redirect the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Athletics at the 1976 Summer Olympics – Men's 800 metres is better than deletion, as it will point anyone looking for this person to all that is really known. Redirects are cheap. I'm not sure how User:Johnpacklambert managed to search for sources at 17:03 after making 2 other unrelated edits at 17:02 - I have repeated concerns about his competency in the AFD arena. Bearcat is correct though - the only coverage I could find of him was the same New York Times article - for those without a NY Times subscription it's also available at ProQuest 122869633 Nfitz (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't me, just for the record, it was Devonian Wombat. Which is not to say I disagree with it at all, but it wasn't my statement originally. Bearcat (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. We don't have enough sourcing here to support a standalone article — the old consensus that non-medalling Olympic athletes are automatically notable regardless of sourceability problems has been deprecated, and their notability now depends more strongly on actually getting them over WP:GNG on the sourcing than it used to — but since he is named in the target article, there's value in retaining the redirect so that somebody who does look for information about him will land somewhere relevant. Bearcat (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Athletics at the 1976 Summer Olympics – Men's 800 metres. Sensible redirect, article itself doesn't meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:23, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William J. Federer[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO; a search turns up no sources other than ones affiliated with the individual. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 21:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Missouri. Shellwood (talk) 21:53, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-published (the publisher ‎ Amerisearch, Inc. is his own company). I don't find reviews in any reliable sources (Publishers Weekly, Kirkus). His books do sell on Amazon but as we know you can sell anything there. I do see some of his books in libraries, but until there are reviews or some other indication of notability I don't think he meets NAUTH. He's referred to as an historian but I haven't run into a bio that gives educational background. Lamona (talk) 22:21, 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 merge to The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader#Games. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (video game)[edit]

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

Lack of notability; the only reliable sources are a review from Pocket Gamer, and an article from Destructoid about the cancelled video game adaptation by Nihilistic Software. The Destructoid article is somewhat vague about any details about the game, and no platforms seem to have been announced, but there are many categories on the article for various cancelled platform ports, none of which I'm able to find a source for. This also seems to be a Java ME exclusive title, and no Android or iOS versions exist. The Pocket Gamer review goes into detail, but I was unable to find any other reviews of the game. Waxworker (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader#Games per WP:ATD. It does not seem notable on its own but can certainly be mentioned as part of the movie's marketing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader#Games per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ's suggestion. Haleth (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader#Games per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ's rationale. If those two sources are all there is, then I'm up for that. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 15:39, 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 redirect to List of quadrant routes in Bucks County, Pennsylvania#2000s. If there is a better, more accurate redirect possible, feel free to improve upon this one. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

County Line Road (Philadelphia-Bucks-Montgomery)[edit]

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

Declined PROD. Secondary state highway with no evidence of notability. Dough4872 20:42, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article doesn't demonstrate how County Line Road is notable. Simply existing and appearing on a map is not enough. –Fredddie ™ 20:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of quadrant routes in Bucks County, Pennsylvania#2000s, where this road is seemingly listed as number 2038. A quick perusal of that heading demonstrates that this road is only one among numerous other non-descript roadways. I wasn't able to find anything in Wikipedia:Notability (highways)#Secondary state highways and county highways, Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Notability and Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Streets#Notability guidelines to justify keeping this run-of-the-WP:MILL local roadway as a standalone. StonyBrook (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to the SR 2038 entry in that list would suffice since County Line Road between PA 309 and PA 532 is that quadrant route. Dough4872 23:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that redirecting to the line entry would be better than only to the heading, if it could be done somehow, maybe using an anchor. StonyBrook (talk) 23:37, 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 speedy delete. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WRBL-FM[edit]

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

completely and utterly non notable spammy "Radio" station spammed by the owner, only sourced to weebly. CUPIDICAE💕 19:02, 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!} 21:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vladislav Shumantov[edit]

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

Played 1 game then spent the rest of his short career in the amateur divisions. Such cases, even before the recent WP:NFOOTBALL changes, were deemed to have only a very weak claim to notability and were required to pass WP:GNG. This Google News search only yields trivial coverage, mentioning his name in passing as a children's football coach or a match report. A Bulgarian source search yielded nothing better than a birthday announcement in Struma and a trivial mention in Botevgrad. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bulgaria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 18 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 18:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about non-notable footballer which fails the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Career ended up going no where, doesn't pass GNG.--Mvqr (talk) 11:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject appears to lack the WP:SIGCOV required for a standalone article. GauchoDude (talk) 12:17, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

International Herb Association[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Kentucky. SL93 (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG. I only found routine coverage, e.g. confirming it has given out an award. LibStar (talk) 04:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I too could find no significant coverage for this organization.TH1980 (talk) 03:06, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anucha Kaenthongchan[edit]

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

Barely scraped through on the old WP:NFOOTBALL with 11 minutes of play before disappearing. Searches in Google News and a Thai language search yielded a trivial mention in Siam Sport and a brief transfer announcement about him signing for a third tier team in Ballthai. None of this shows a passing of WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Thailand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:23, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:27, 18 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 18:04, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My searches were not able to find any sigcov either: only passing mentions, database entries, and the like. A marginal NFOOTY pass has never been enough to overcome a clear lack of GNG-qualifying coverage, and that's particularly so after the recent RfC. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG as per comprehensive multi-language, multi-country search by the AFD nominator. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject appears to lack the WP:SIGCOV required of a standalone article. GauchoDude (talk) 12:16, 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 keep per WP:SNOW. XOR'easter (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Monica Gandhi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Monica Gandhi

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

not notable enough; privacy concerns and sexual harassment — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiscientist578 (talk • contribs)

— Wikiscientist578 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Medicine, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't understand the privacy and sexual harassment concerns that op states, but it passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Many articles in peer-reviewed journals. Any privacy or other concerns should be brought to police. Oaktree b (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, Gandhi and/or her staffers have been using sockpuppets to try and scrub this article for weeks now. Can't bury the truth, sorry doc.TheNewMinistry (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and probably lock the article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep bad faith nomination, subject is clearly notable, any other concerns can be addressed on the talk page. Theroadislong (talk) 19:53, 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!} 21:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

English irredentism[edit]

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

The article in question fails to say anything conclusive or non-discernible about its subject matter. Moreover, what little is said is vague and unclear. This is not helped by shoddy grammar, lack of sources, and the fact that the article is an orphan. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Ireland, England, and Northern Ireland. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage and lack of sources. --Vaco98 (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In terms of the title, there is nothing to indicate that this term has any broad use or accepted meaning (Meaning both WP:NEO and WP:GNG apply). In terms of content/purpose, even if we were to keep the title, what would we populate it with (I can't conceive of where it would be redirected, and there are insufficient sources to support any meaningful standalone content). In terms of the topic itself, it makes zero sense to me personally (from a historical, political or geographic point-of-view). In terms of the current text/description of the topic, why would hatred or fear of the Welsh by the English have anything to do with an irredentist claim of England over Ireland? As far as I can see, there is no policy reason (or value to the project) to retain this title or its content. Mine is a firm "delete" recommendation. Guliolopez (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per the reasons outlined above. There is nothing in the article, which is basically just an extended sentence to suggest notability. Dunarc (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find any reliable sources discussing this topic at all. AusLondonder (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the reasons given in the nomination are grounds, per se, for deletion; a good faith reminder of WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN, and that AfD is not clean up. However, per Guliolopez and AusLondonder, a lack of reliable sourcing existing to establish notability, certainly is grounds for deletion. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping that editors more eloquent than I could present more, for lack of a better word, abstract, reasons for deletion. Luckily, Guliolopez and AusLondonder pulled through. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 00:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is a one, run-on sentence stub with zero sourcing. The article reads like it was created on a whim and promptly forgotten.TH1980 (talk) 04:31, 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 merge to WordPress#WordPress Foundation. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 15:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WordPress Foundation[edit]

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

I can find no significant independent coverage of the WordPress Foundation itself that is not just coverage of Wordpress, having searched ProQuest, Google Scholar, and the internet in general. As it does not meet WP:ORGCRITE independent of its flagship product, the page should be a redirect to Wordpress. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Internet. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because it is the organization behind the product that is used by 42.8% of the top 10 million websites.^[1]
News of topic: https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/15/22977857/wordpress-tumblr-simplenote-internet-automattic-matt-mullenweg-interview, https://techcrunch.com/2010/09/09/wordpress-trademark/, https://wptavern.com/tag/wordpress-foundation and many blog posts. -- Avoinlähde (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More sources: https://opensource.org/node/504, http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/WordPress-Foundation-launched-910845.html, https://torquemag.io/2013/01/wpf-automattic/ -- Avoinlähde (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only one of those that has what I would consider significant coverage of the WordPress Foundation is the Torquemag article, which appears to be a semi-crowdsourced site with an unclear relationship to WordPress per its about page [1]. Even if we were to assume that it is fully independent and reliable, we would need additional articles in other reliable and independent sources providing a similar depth of coverage to demonstrate notability. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Torquemag is at most relationship to WP Engine, which has no affiliated to the WordPress Foundation (except, of course, they use WordPress-software, as do thousands of other companies). WP Engine is one of the many companies that offer hosting service. See here: https://wpengine.com/ -- Avoinlähde (talk) 02:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More sources of discussion topic:
https://torquemag.io/2013/01/wpf-automattic/ (the source that you mentioned)

https://www.makeuseof.com/wordpresscom-vs-wordpressorg/

https://kinsta.com/learn/wordpress-history/

https://www.wpbeginner.com/beginners-guide/who-owns-wordpress-and-how-does-wordpress-make-money/

https://greyhawkdigital.com/automattic-gives-wordpress-trademark-to-wordpress-foundation/

https://mamchenkov.net/wordpress/2010/09/10/wordpress-trademark-moves-to-wordpress-foundation/

https://www.nexcess.net/blog/wordpress-org-the-wordpress-foundation-and-automattic-whats-the-difference/ Avoinlähde (talk) 02:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...so a bunch of blogs without demonstrable reliability (except for maybe [2]), that all exclusively cover the Foundation in the context of Wordpress? I'm not seeing a compelling case for splitting. Content about the foundation should be included in a section of Wordpress based on what you've provided here. N.b. that as far as Torquemag is concerned, the semi-crowdsourced nature is as much, arguably more, of a concern for reliability than its connection to WP directly (see WP:UGC). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per nomination. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC) Merge, I think it makes more sense to add it to the Wordpress article under it's own section based on Mebigrouxboy's comment. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The articles (WordPress and WordPress Foundation) deal with the topic from different angles (software and organization behind it) and it does not make sense to cover them in one article. Second, the discussion is about deleting the article, not redirecting it. -- Avoinlähde (talk) 02:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect 40 of % whatever whatever does not an article make. Oaktree b (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would you clarify? -- Avoinlähde (talk) 02:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to WordPress#WordPress Foundation. MarioGom (talk) 14:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to WordPress under a new section, WordPress Foundation. Information in the article is unique, but it is of course undeserving of being an article. However, the information does belong on a page. Therefore, new section. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to WordPress#WordPress Foundation as per ATD. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:54, 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 Keep. There is a clear consensus that this should be kept in some form. Discussions about the scope of the article and/or merging the content should take place on Talk:Punjabiyat. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Punjabiyat[edit]

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

Amitized had tried to nominate this, but some of the steps weren't followed. I'm just listing this on their behalf. Following rationale is copied from their original attempt at nomination.

Delete - 10 years since this article was started, 3 lines is what we have until now. Moreover Google trends shows this is just a random buzzword pushed intermittently in online content. Amitized (talk) 07:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Hemantha (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hemantha (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Pakistan and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you @Hemantha. Amitized (talk) 04:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP as per citations. --_{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 08:16, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Much improved article due to the effort of NeverTry4Me since the above nomination. Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment NeverTry4Me Ngrewal1 - how do sources distinguish this from Punjabi Nationalism? The article states this is a linguistic movement (though we have Punjabi Language Movement), but it appears to me to be a term synonymous with movements around Punjabi identity and nationhood, albeit with different implications in Pakistan, in India and also acting as bridge for Punjabis in both states. I'm not necessarily against keeping the article, but it's not clear to me the distinctions with the already existing articles. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn Don't worry, I am on it to expand the article. I have gone through citations and it will help to expand the article. What I have learnt so far is, editors should expand/wikify the articles, instead of nominating for AfD. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 06:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @NeverTry4Me - whether the article is expanded or not, will not necessarily change the outcome here. We need to be able to show that there are reliable sources to justify stand alone articles, otherwise it will be necessary I suspect to merge this article with Punjabi nationalism. What sources allow us to distinguish Punjabiyat from Punjabi nationalism? Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 09:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn thank you for your valuable inputs. I honor your statement. Per my opinion, I have found "Punjabiyat" is NOTEABLE but there are some explanatory contradictions that differ from Punjabi nationalism. Of course we need to reach to an outcome about the subject.

I am trying to ascertain whether it should be Merged to Punjabi nationalism or expand as a standalone.

Going through tons of citation about Punjabiyat, till now what I have found is "Clean-up and major edit".

I honor your decision to not to agree with me, but I am searching/trying to find ways against AfD. Hope you w3ill understand my poor English. Regard _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 09:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep This is potentially quite complex, I doubt there is going to be a simple answer. "This interdisciplinary volume seeks to consider the notion of 'Punjabiyat', a loosely defined term often used to describe a sentiment of belonging or attachment to Punjab and/or the foundations of a shared, cross-religious, cross-caste, cross-class culture."^[2] "Punjabiyat or Punjabi identity evokes simultaneous contradictory images of a splintered identity, yet a potentially powerful economic, political and cultural force."^[3] "This paper demonstrates that a strong sense of Punjabiyat or Punjabi nationalism never existed in the undivided Punjab at any point in history." ^[4]

References

^ https://w3techs.com/technologies/overview/content_management/all/
^ Malhotra, Anshu; Mir, Farina, eds. (2012). Punjab Reconsidered: History, Culture, and Practice. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198078012.001.0001. ISBN 9780198078012.
^ Singh, Pritam (2012). "Globalisation and Punjabi Identity: Resistance, Relocation and Reinvention (Yet Again!)" (PDF). Journal of Punjab Studies. 19 (2).
^ Ahmed, Ishtiaq. "Punjab, Punjabis and Punjabiyat: A Convoluted Relationship". Pakistan Monthly Review.

This is clearly not a "random buzzword pushed intermittently in online content". I'm not convinced AfD is the appropriate location to resolve this issue. Regards Goldsztajn (talk) 10:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Certainly my intent was not to start a debate about 'Punjabi nationalism' on this AfD forum, when I voted KEEP above here. I was simply happy to see someone, in this case User:NeverTry4Me make an effort to add needed references on an article, that's all. It was my fault that I hurried myself and I neglected to closely read the line about Pakistan – which I have edited the above article to now read as: In Pakistan, its goal is a better status of Punjabi language along with Urdu at state level. Personally, I speak and like Punjabi, Urdu and English languages. My intent certainly was not to push or promote Punjabi nationalism or worse yet Punjabi chauvinism over any other language and culture. Ngrewal1 (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite. 'Punjabiyat' as a philosophical concept is notable phenomenon (in contradiction to the realities of Partition and communalism), documented in scholarly literature. But the article at present is more focused on politics, in a way that misses the point. --Soman (talk) 12:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but consider a merge and redirect to Punjabi nationalism. JBchrch talk 02:41, 27 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 14:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History of rugby union matches between Japan and South Africa[edit]

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

Their 2015 encounter was epic but one epic match does not automatically equal a rivalry. I have searched but was unable to find significant discussion of a lasting rivalry between these two teams per WP:GNG and WP:NRIVALRY. With only 3 games played to date, this seems like a massive WP:TOOSOON at best. Article in its current form is essentially a WP:NOTSTATS violation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby union, Lists, South Africa, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Think I left this one because of that 2015 match, but having searched for sourcing, I agree with the nom that there isn't really any significant coverage of the rivalry. Fails WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NRIVALRY. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NRIVALRY. --Whiteguru (talk) 01:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I do not see what makes this pair notable.Fulmard (talk) 06:13, 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. ✗plicit 07:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rohan Rathod[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Municipal councillors are not automatically notable. No major public post held. Lack of other achievements so fails WP:ANYBIO Venkat TL (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Municipal councilors are not notable under NPOL; no GNG-worthy coverage either -- Ab207 (talk) 06:55, 6 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 12:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nom. Oaktree b (talk) 16:06, 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 redirect to Ijazah. ✗plicit 14:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Idjaza[edit]

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

This article is a lower-quality duplication of Ijazah. A merger has previously been proposed, but comparing the body and sourcing of the two articles, I do not think there is much to be salvaged on this page. All of the sources are obscure, Arabic-language titles, while the existing Ijazah page is already well-fleshed out in prose from largely credible, English-language, scholarly sources. The table that appears on both articles should probably not even exist. This page should become an alternative spelling redirect. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:27, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Religion, and Islam. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:27, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: This is a lower-quality duplication of Ijazah and should redirect to that page. --Whiteguru (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Mccapra (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and speedy close this nomination per WP:SNOW. There's nothing worth discussing. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 00:03, 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. ✗plicit 13:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

PROD by User:Rugbyfan22 which I completely agree with Fails WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NRIVALRY. There is consensus for deletion on lists like this where no rivalry is present. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of rugby union matches between Ireland and Georgia as an example. I had to contest it as it was previously deleted via PROD in 2020 so an admin would have had to decline the PROD eventually anyway. I would also add that the topic essentially fails WP:GNG as well by virtue of the fact that there is a lack of discussion of a rivalry between these two teams. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby union, Lists, Japan, and Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apologies, couldn't find whether or not it was PRODed previously in 2020. But yep, fails WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NRIVALRY in my opinion as there is no significant coverage of the rivalry between the two sides, leading to this page being just a collection of stats and therefore failing WP:NOTSTATS. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as recreation of an article deleted by PROD. It is unclear how similar the new text is to the old, but exactly the same concerns apply. The original rationale was:
Fails WP:NRIVALRY and WP:GNG. No real reliable sources that discuss the rivalry in any depth. Just a list of stats and information which means it violates WP:NOTSTATS.
–LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Delete per nom but see other similar lists that may also not qualify for articles, mostly not Ireland related but created by the same editor late last year and more recently:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of rugby union matches between Ireland and Canada
- History of rugby union matches between Ireland and United States
- History of rugby union matches between Australia and Fiji
- History of rugby union matches between Argentina and New Zealand
- ~~History of rugby union matches between France and New Zealand~~
- History of rugby union matches between Italy and New Zealand --ww2censor (talk) 16:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment -I agree with the above in general, but not re History of rugby union matches between France and New Zealand - article has a lot of prose, is well-referenced and has passed a GA review - it's actually what this sort of article should look like.--Bcp67 (talk) 07:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Bcp67: I certainly agree on that one so have struck it. Indeed that is quite nicely done and one should aspire to such an article if there are sufficient source. Thanks for pointing that out. ww2censor (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am so pleased someone has put their foot down about these pages and pages of empty squares. WP:NOTSTATS. --Whiteguru (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The guideline on sports rivalries states that sports rivalries are not inherently notable, and so should satisfy general notability. This doesn't explain why the rivalry is notable because there doesn't seem to be a rivalry any more than any two teams are rivals (but we knew that). So what is left is indiscriminate information. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing more than a list of matches, fails WP:NOTSTATS.--Bcp67 (talk) 07:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTSTATS. Ajf773 (talk) 09:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NRIVALRY. Shankargb (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I do not see what makes this pairing notable.Fulmard (talk) 06:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Can we also look at merging History of rugby union matches between England and Scotland & Calcutta Cup? I have no idea why they are separate articles. There are a few like that as rugby likes Cups for head to head matches.Skeene88 (talk) 10:55, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Skeene88 that seems like a reasonable enough suggestion, so just go for it. ww2censor (talk) 11:18, 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 redirect to Glossary of video game terms#noclip mode. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noclip mode[edit]

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

Subject is not notable and verifiability issues. Only 2 sources, and I cannot find any other sources that do not talk about Noclip in other video games. Washing Machine (alt) (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Washing Machine (alt) (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Sources exist that are specifically about Noclip mode. Why I Love Noclip mode, Space Time Play: Computer Games, Architecture and Urbanism: The Next Level pages 119-120, I Am Dead Turns "No Clip" Mode Into An Artful Puzzle Game (granted, it is about the game I Am Dead, but also talks a lot about the mode itself in relation to its gameplay). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This is basically a dictionary term in my view. Redirect to Glossary of video game terms#noclip mode. I hate to "other stuff", but similar to God mode, a related cheat code/console command. I'm sure we can find sources about God mode too, but these are basic concepts within video gaming. -- ferret (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree. Noclip doesn't need an entire article on its own, and the glossary of video game terms definition is enough to know what it is. Washing Machine (alt) (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I have to say to that is WP:NOTPAPER. If something can conceivably have an article and has the sources, there is no real reason for it not to have an article. It certainly doesn't help users to have less information on something. If an article on God mode can be well-written, then I would welcome it. The only reason the article does not exist right now is because one user, Czar, unilaterally decided it shouldn't be there in 2014. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What can you really say about noclip or godmode though? You explain what it is in a few sentences, then present an example farm of a selection of hundreds/thousands of games that have them. -- ferret (talk) 16:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why it exists, the history of it, what games were notable for having it, what was its impact on gaming culture, these are all things that could be stated within a potential article and not in a glossary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Glossary of video game terms#noclip mode per Ferret, with no prejudice against its recreation in the future. The current version lacks any encyclopediac value, as well as sources to support it. Like ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ said, there is potential, but one would need to find the sources and rewrite it from scratch. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 14:56, 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 13:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of NASA contractors[edit]

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

Article documents a 2009 report - no longer current and perhaps never even necessary in the first place. askeuhd (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. askeuhd (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the issue. Washing Machine (alt) (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, if the spirit of AfD is that we should try to improve rather than delete, then there are sources that would enable that:

@CT55555: the spirit of the AfD from my perspective was that even probably sourced and updated, the article would be little more than a billboard for the listed contractors. However, this could very well be due to lack of imagination on my part. --askeuhd (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I find that a credible perspective. I avoided commenting on that, because I don't understand the purpose of the article, which is why I just commented on the "no longer current" part of it. CT55555 (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial for encyclopedia. --Yoonadue (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This content is not Encyclopedic. --Alan Islas (talk) 05:46, 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. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine Siren Alerts[edit]

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

The article does not seem to pass WP:NCORP yet. MarioGom (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Websites, Israel, and Ukraine. MarioGom (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The article in its present state definitely needs improving with more independent sources, but a quick Google search shows they are out there. Seems notable enough. Buttons0603 (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explicitly point to at least two of the sources that your search turned up. Don't handwave at sources in discussions. Cite them. Uncle G (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @Uncle G
  
  Here are some I found just be searching on Google:
  
  https://observers.france24.com/en/tv-shows/the-observers/20220419-ukraine-siren-alerts-an-online-notification-system-for-air-raid-sirens
  
  https://www.businessinsider.com/ukrainian-tech-company-alarm-app-alerts-citizens-air-raids-2022-3
  
  https://www.jpost.com/international/article-701351
  
  https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-03-14/huntington-beach-woman-kharkiv-russian-invasion ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  An article was posted today by Euronews about the application. I will be replacing links to the Twitter with that article since it confirms those dates and pieces of info. That should solve a majority of the information issues on the wiki page.
  
  Raising the alarm: One man's lone bid to save Ukrainians from Russia's military might | Euronews BOvcharenko (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very notable per sources identified above. Maybe on the long run this can be merged somewhere. gidonb (talk) 12:31, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I understand that many sources I cited are from Ukraine Alerts twitter account, I do need to clarify that the reason I did this was to cite specific dates as apposed to information. There are many sources of information as listed by @ArsenalGhanaPartey above. So it is lost on me as to why this would be marked for deletion by @MarioGom. Please help me understand by clarifying below. I will be working on adding the France24 source listed above.
Also note that it was spoken about on i24 as well which was cited in the article as well as Walla! BOvcharenko (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BOvcharenko: While Twitter can be used in some cases (see WP:ABOUTSELF), it is not a reliable source, which mean it does not count towards notability. Articles about products need to meet the WP:NCORP notability guideline. The criteria are summarized in WP:ORGCRIT: A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. This did not seem the case when I nominated the article for deletion, but sources examined during this discussion can lead to the article to be kept if they meet the cited criteria. Best, MarioGom (talk) 06:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are sources, I found a few from a quick google search. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 17:36, 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!} 21:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ala Bakhsh[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited by heirs or bequeathed to ancestors. All the sources, excluding one, are about Baksh's heirs or ancestors! TrangaBellam (talk) 12:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh and India. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:32, 18 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)} 13:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 00:05, 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. ✗plicit 13:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bang (progenitor)[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources.

Source analysis:

A couple of premodern chronicles (Firishta, Salim).

There is a source from 1946, which does not mention our subject. The same observations apply to the 1992 "encyclopedia" and Thaker (1970). A news-site, of unknown reliability, documenting the dilapidated condition of a tomb has been cited but it neither supports the preceding line nor has anything on our subject. Another news article, documenting a grave and attached legends, is cited but has nothing on our subject.

All these sources have been used to engage in original research about possible connections between Bang and Vanga or go to tangent explorations, to inflate the article.

Trautmann has the trivialest of mention. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology, Bangladesh, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. -- Mehedi Abedin 16:23, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lot of WP:OR - e.g. Bang being equivalent to the Hindu Vanga. Most references do not include reference to Bang. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 07:48, 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. Star Mississippi 02:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Casíllas[edit]

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

Casillas competed in the Olympics without medaling. We have one databae source on him, which is not even remotely close enough to justify an article. My search for additional sources came up with absolutely nothing. John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep, per the extra info/sources, below, but worst case then Redirect to Modern pentathlon at the 1936 Summer Olympics per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:23, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to keep (see below) from previous vote for a redirect to Modern pentathlon at the 1936 Summer Olympics per Lugnuts. WP:PRESERVE is editing policy. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 13:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would appear that later Casillas became a General in the Mexican Army (source here) and was the commander of the Military Zone of Chiapas (ref). Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting sources. I'll keep this page watchlisted. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to Lugnuts to give him a chance to preserve this article. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for this - I've updated the article with the new info, and this should grant extra notability to keep the article. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the new sources. Scorpions13256 (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging No Great Shaker, the only other voter in the discussion. Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With the new sources, it's a given. Thank you, Scorpions13256, for the ping. Have amended my earlier vote above. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 21:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Army general on top of the plausible keep to begin with. Jacona (talk) 12:38, 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 Speedy delete under G11, G12. This was speedy deleted by Jimfbleak under criteria G11 and G12 about 2 hours after the AfD was created. (non-admin closure) TartarTorte 13:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna DigiDesign[edit]

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

Looking like an advert piece. Notability of the title is not inherited from the references. Do not meet WP:NCORP. Jeni Wolf (talk) 11:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Entertainment, Companies, and India. Jeni Wolf (talk) 11:03, 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 11:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pop culture influenced by Sesame Street[edit]

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

This is just a bad WP:POVFORK of Influence of Sesame Street (a GA, setting aside the perhaps too generic name). With only three footnotes, this fails WP:IPC, WP:OR, WP:GNG, WP:NLIST, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:TRIVIA as well as WP:V. And to repeat myself, we already have a properly written Good Article on this topic too, so this TV-Trope-like artifact of the early years can be safely retired now. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and Popular culture. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. At best, this subject should be covered as a section in Influence of Sesame Street, but as almost all the content of the article is indiscriminate original research, a merge would be unwarranted. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are essentially no reliable sources being used to cover the topic, and the contents of the list is simply a list of trivia items, some of which are kind of dubious. If there had been any actual reliably sourced information on the topic, it could have been moved over to Influence of Sesame Street, but there just is not any. Rorshacma (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just a random list of trivia. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note: It's not logically possible for a 2006 article to be a fork of an article that didn't exist until 4 years later. In fact, per Special:Diff/44617687/44656573, this was a split, once again sweeping a "Trivia" section (in the original Sesame Street article) under the rug into its own article. Uncle G (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The rest of the Trivia section was removed in June 2006, a few months later. Flatscan (talk) 04:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article is little more than a collection of original research and trivia. It is also redundant to Influence of Sesame Street, which covers a similar topic. However, the content here would add nothing to that article, so a merge is out of the question. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Influence of Sesame Street per WP:ATD-R. While there may be nothing obvious meriting an immediate merge, there's also nothing here that demands it be hidden so that someone interested in mining the history should be prevented from doing so. Jclemens (talk) 02:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am totally fine with a redirect. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no usable content. The one news source – about a school banning t-shirts depicting characters as gang members – has section=bizarre in its URL and seems to be dead. I also oppose redirect:
- Redirecting to Influence of Sesame Street or Sesame Street is undesirable because they contain no content relevant to the topic, which would confuse a reader following the redirect. The common wording at WP:Redirects for discussion seems to be "not mentioned at/in target", and WP:RDELETE 2 may apply. Searching for Sesame Street pop culture returns no promising targets; inappropriate ones include List of human Sesame Street characters, History of Sesame Street, and Format of Sesame Street. Also note that Influence of Sesame Street is result 6, so it can still be found without a redirect.
- WP:RKEEP 1 does not apply because the page's history is not actually useful. I skimmed it, and the only significant additions I found were MADtv plot summaries, a Misinterpretations of Sesame Street product voices section (supported by YouTube videos, added by an IP editor, and removed within several hours), and an unsourced section about Fimbles. If the page is deleted, an interested user may request the content at WP:Requests for undeletion or Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles.
Flatscan (talk) 04:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not TVTropes. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:58, 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 keep. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bede Academy, Blyth[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 but tag removed on the grounds that it's a secondary school located in the UK AusLondonder (talk) 07:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 07:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 07:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep expanded significantly since the deletion nomination, appears to meet WP:GNG NemesisAT (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily enough here to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Except for significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are two articles from the BBC, the national British broadcaster, with singificant coverage. NemesisAT (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC Tyne article from 2007 simply notes the school was granted planning approval and mentions controversies surrounding the Emmanuel Schools Foundation. The other article is about a threat from the academy to expel pupils if their parents parked illegally. AusLondonder (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They still count as significant coverage

NemesisAT (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm afraid I really disagree that an article about illegal parking counts as significant coverage of this school. AusLondonder (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a wide range of coverage as cited in the references section of the article. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 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 Grails (framework). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Rocher[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources, beyond some mentions as Grails founder. It does not seem to pass WP:GNG. I Java Champion and Oracle's Groundbreaker Award are probably not enough for WP:ANYBIO#1. MarioGom (talk) 09:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 09:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 09:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are possible redirect targets (his software: Grails (framework) or Micronaut (framework)). Pavlor (talk) 05:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Grails (framework). I added the two books from this page to the Grails page, but that page has a bit of a mess in the references area which needs to be sorted out - ideally by someone with copies of the documentation listed there. Lamona (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:50, 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 keep. ✗plicit 11:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Denver and the Mile High Orchestra[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AFD closed as "keep" due to a bundle of sources that nobody bothered to add, and most of them turn up 404 so I can't judge their usefulness. Only good source I found is this; everything else is just interviews, social media, or passing mentions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 4 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!} 03:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Just because reliable sources were not listed, does not mean they don't exist. I found plenty. Added plenty of references as well. PaintedFlowers (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Just because reliable sources were not listed, does not mean they don't exist. Wikipedia's deletion policy hinges on whether they exist or not. I found plenty. Added plenty of references as well. PaintedFlowers (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for actually adding the sources. Nothing bugs me more than a ton of people saying "keep, I found sources" and then not adding them, and then the article going untouched for years and years afterward (as was the case in this article's last AFD). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon (talk) 06:39, 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 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!} 02:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lusku Samad[edit]

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

i can find exactly 0 sources to back up the supposed claim (which i'm not even sure what it is.) CUPIDICAE💕 03:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Poetry, and India. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

he is one of great writer and linguist of bhumij language. Kingsman3 (talk) 08:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsman3: What is needed are multiple reliable sources that support this. They don't need to be in English and they don't need to be online. Usually for writers around 3 mainstream reviews of at least two different works has been considered the minimum. Alternatively inclusion in a national biographical dictionary or even a specialist topic dictionary; or evidence of receipt of a reasonably major literary award or multiple shortlist placings. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete the current article is short and without any reliable sources and does not pass GNG. A search online did not turn up any further sources. --hroest 17:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon (talk) 06:39, 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!} 06:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sukune Inugami[edit]

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. I couldn't find any independent sources with significant coverage in either English or Japanese. Her jawiki article cites an entry in a print encyclopedia which I can't verify, and I also found an interview, but a single tertiary source and an interview surely do not suffice for WP:GNG. Mlb96 (talk) 03:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mlb96 (talk) 03:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Mlb96 (talk) 03:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Mlb96 (talk) 03:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Link20XX (talk) 03:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kashimashi: Girl Meets Girl per nom, fails GNG/NAUTHOR. Admittedly, I'm not sure if this is a good redirect target (since she only did the character designs) but with her only other notable work also at AfD, it is the only possible place. Link20XX (talk) 03:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inadequate sourcing to meet notability for WP:NAUTHOR and WP: GNG. Unreliable coverage and not independent. Redirect option seems to be procrastination, in regards to her only potentially-notable work also being up for deletion. NiklausGerard (talk) 03:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon (talk) 06:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per attempted WP:RS searches and nom. I do not see her name as a viable search term to have as a redirect. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:14, 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. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Cox (civil servant)[edit]

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

Knight Companion isn ot enough for notability--2nd lowest rank of the order. Routine civil servant DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPOL Rlink2 (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He's a civil servant, not a politician, so Wikipedia:NPOL has no application, and in any case does not supersede the general notability guideline. Atchom (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep He has obituaries in two leading UK newspapers which is as clear cut indicator of notability as is imaginable. The argument about the KCB being the "second lowest" of the Bath is a non sequitur: it is still an extremely high award. WP:NPOL does not supersede the general guideline for notability which is about independent and in-depth coverage, which this article clearly has. Atchom (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Senior civil servant who received a knighthood in 1976 and had at least two obituaries in national broadsheet newspapers Piecesofuk (talk) 05:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have always considered that CBE and above (and KCB is well above) is enough to meet WP:ANYBIO #1. Any knighthood therefore is. See here to illustrate clear consensus on this matter. Plus obits in major newspapers, again always considered sufficient for notability. Ridiculous nomination with no basis in any sort of guideline or policy other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:34, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination is a bit faulty because he wasn't a politician, so NPOL wouldn't apply and a "routine civil servant" is not awarded knighthood, and the in-depth obits in the London Times and Daily Telegraph are excellent sources with SIGCOV... Keep per ANYBIO. Jacona (talk) 15:36, 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 ~~soft~~ redirect to List of films directed by Tex Avery#1942–1957: MGM era. Star Mississippi 02:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC) ETA: per this inquiry not sure why I clicked soft. Didn't mean to as I'm not sure what a "soft" redirect is since it doesn't go to refund. Redirect remains as closed. Star Mississippi 12:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Flea Circus[edit]

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

DEPRODded by page creator. The original PROD reason was: Fails to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NFO. None of the content is worth merging to other articles as it has only plot. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 06:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Comics and animation. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 06:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of films directed by Tex Avery#1942–1957: MGM era - While searches bring up plenty of hits regarding this film, none of them are actually in-depth at all. Many are just simply listings of Avery's filmography, with a one or two sentence summary of the plot at most. The only actual sources I can find that talk more in-depth about it seem to all be from non-reliable sources, such as blogs or this self-published book. The most promising source I was able to find was an entry in this book, however a Spanish speaker would be needed to verify that the entry has more than just a plot summary. And even if so, it would still only be a single reliable source. That said, a valid target exists, so a Redirect would be more appropriate than a straight deletion. Rorshacma (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone more fluent than I could probably glean more, but my very rudimentary skills got the basic gist. The first paragraph is a summary of the cartoon, the second part is a bit of discussion. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is basically the writer saying that the cartoon features a flea circus, which IRL is represented to the public as well trained fleas but in reality is just a series of mechanical doo dads that make it appear that this is true. The final paragraph says that the song is based on or came from an MGM musical. (My college Spanish teachers would be so proud that I was able to muddle through...) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK ok, I used Google Translate for some of the bigger words not covered in class or obvious in context. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above; redirects are cheap. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 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 delete. Sources may exist but have not been provided, and consensus is clear that material does not meet standards. Should someone want to actively work on this, happy to provide. Star Mississippi 02:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sharona Fleming[edit]

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

A number of fictional characters, particular from Monk have recently been tagged for notability, suggested to be merged, replaced with redirects, and then reverted. This particular article seems to lack any mention of real-world impact and looks ripe for deletion, merging, or redirecting. Lithopsian (talk) 12:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google News link shows me plenty of apparent coverage. Suggest nom review it per WP:BEFORE and explain why it doesn't meet GNG in light of that, or withdraw nomination and incorporate the relevant parts. Jclemens (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We did talk about this recently, and for me this is still a WP:GOOGLEHITS argument ("I see plenty of mentions=hits in my GScearch). If you see GOOD sources, please list them. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and you still fundamentally understand the difference between "I see good entries" and "there are X number of hits" arguments. Again, not my job to do WP:BEFORE, that would be the nominator's. I've never watched an episode of the show and have no idea how to really evaluate which are truly worthwhile, so I'm not going to waste my time doing it badly. Jclemens (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You on the other hand don't seem to understand that the WP:BURDEN lies on those seeking to keep content to show the relevant sourcing and verifiability. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think that the article would be worth retaining, and also after being reviewed per WP:BEFORE (even though I'm not as much of a Monk fan as I once was when I heavily edited the page). DReifGalaxyM31 (talk) 03:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As written, it fails WP:GNG being a pure plot summary. I did a BEFORE search (and yes, here I concur with the commenters above that the nom seems to have forgot about this best practice), but sadly, I see little but plot summaries. I found a sentence or two of analysis here ([3]) but IMHO that is not enough per WP:SIGCOV. If someone really cares, you could use this to add some analysis info, a sentence or so, to her description in the article about the TV series. Do ping me if more sources are found, but for now I don't see sufficient grounds for retaining this article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:13, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 06:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a pure plot summary, which is what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Article does not meet the WP:GNG as there are no reliable independent sources that provide suitable coverage. Any relevant plot detail is already covered in other articles, including articles about individual episodes. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing more than plot detail. Not relevant to Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elba Soccarras[edit]

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

Weak sourcing and Wikipedia is not WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Colombia, and New Jersey. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The New York Times wrote an article about her. I added it in. CT55555 (talk) 11:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Additional sources, including biographical information: Cop's long fight to get justice for Alzheimer's victim who was dumped at a mall (NY Daily News, 2009), After 15 years, mystery woman identified (AP/NBC News, 2009), Family members are glad to know about 'Elba,' N.J. investigator says (NJ.com, 2009); previous coverage: For nearly 14 years, a woman no one knows (AP/ABC7, 2008), For a Jane Doe, Seeking an Identity and Immigration Status (NYT, 2008), The woman no one knows (NJ. com, 2008). Beccaynr (talk) 12:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as an event article - WP:BLP1E generally discourages an article on a person when they are 1) only covered by reliable sources in the context of a single event, and 2) otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, and 3) the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. All three conditions appear to be met based on the sources currently identified. However, per WP:EVENT, there is some WP:INDEPTH, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE in WP:DIVERSE sources, including a national WP:GEOSCOPE. My !vote would be stronger if sources more clearly indicated a WP:LASTING impact. Beccaynr (talk) 12:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. CT55555 (talk) 12:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:34, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 06:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Beccaynr and CT55555, if this were to be an event article, what would it be named? Jacona (talk) 15:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All indications suggest that @Beccaynr is better at this than me. But to make a suggestion:

"Identification of Elba Soccarras"? CT55555 (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One option could be The Hagedorn Jane Doe case, per the 2008 NYT use of the phrase. However, the event seems more associated with the Woodbridge Center mall (e.g. NJ.com 2008, NYDN, 2009), so Woodbridge Center Jane Doe case or Woodbridge Center mall Jane Doe case would probably be most helpful for readers. Beccaynr (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as an event article, I would plan to try to rewrite this article into more of a chronological order as a case, instead of what currently seems like a pseudo-biography (as discussed in WP:BIO1E). Beccaynr (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A person with an extraordinary life that was duly recorded and reported in media around the world. Verifiably notable. The "event" was her life as a whole. -The Gnome (talk) 16:29, 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 merge to Bill Burr and Al Madrigal. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All Things Comedy[edit]

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

Deprodded with suggestion of looking for further sources, but I found none. Current sources in article are either WP:PRIMARY or only mention the subject in passing ("All Things Comedy Host X to do Y"). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:30, 3 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?)} 16:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the subject passes WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Merge to Bill Burr and Al Madrigal. I'm willing to admit most of the sources do not provide in depth coverage of the subject, but I think there is salvageable content here. TipsyElephant (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Province and NPR noted that the ATC network was part of the podcasting boom way back in 2014 and a decade after the company was established it is still receiving news coverage.^[1]^[2] The ATC network is one of the only cooperative/collective/artist-owned podcast networks I'm aware of and one of the only podcast cooperatives that has a Wikipedia page so far.^[3]^[4] According to Deadline Hollywood, the ATC network is "the leading comedy podcast network featuring shows hosted by some of the industry’s top comedians and has over 15 million listeners and 50+ shows."^[5]

Some of these sources are probably routine, but I think it's worth noting that different parts of the company has received coverage from reliable sources for years. The ATC comedy festival has been discussed by multiple reliable sources.^[6]^[7] The ATC partnership with Comedy Central for three comedy specials has been discussed by multiple reliable sources.^[8]^[9]^[10] The first was "Paul Virzi: I’ll Say This,"^[11]^[12] the second was "IanTalk: Ideas Not Worth Spreading,"^[13]^[14] and the third was "Jessica Kirson: Talking to Myself."^[15] The Patrice O’Neal documentary produced by ATC was discussed by multiple reliable sources.^[16]^[17]^[18] The ATC partnership with Miramax received coverage in multiple reliable sources.^[19]^[20] The ATC network also has a record label called All Things Records.^[21]

All Things Comedy produces multiple Spanish-language podcasts such as Leyendas Legendarias and El Dollop. The Capital Times called Leyendas Legendarias "one of Mexico's top podcasts,"^[22] the LA Times called it "the #1 Spanish-language podcast in the world,"^[23] It also won "Best Spanish Language Podcast" at the 2021 iHeartRadio awards.^[24] Based on this I think it's fair to assume there are more Spanish-language sources out there that discuss the ATC network (see WP:NPOSSIBLE or WP:ORGIN). The network has also produced quite a few notable podcasts and Wikipedia already has pages for seven of them: Your Mom's House, The Dollop, Tom Rhodes Radio, The Champs (podcast), Come to Papa (podcast), Monday Morning Podcast, and The Naughty Show. The article could at least be moved to "List of All Things Comedy productions" for navigational purposes. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Gee, Dana (March 13, 2014). "Podcasts a Comic Experience: Bill Burr Among a Growing Group of Comedians to Take Laughs Online". The Province. Postmedia Network. p. 71. Retrieved April 3, 2022.
^ Enriquez-Sarano, Louis (August 19, 2014). "Did You Hear the One About the Stand-Up Comedian and the Podcast?". NPR. Retrieved April 4, 2022.
^ McGlynn, Katla (March 23, 2015). "5 Things Comedians Can Learn From Bill Burr and Al Madrigal". HuffPost. BuzzFeed. Retrieved April 5, 2022.
^ Espinoza, Russ (March 13, 2015). "When Bill Burr and Al Madrigal Saw Corporate Suits Trying to Profit Unfairly Off of Comedians' Podcasts, They Started Their Own Network Where the Comedians Own It All". The Austin Chronicle. Retrieved April 4, 2022.
^ Petski, Denise (July 19, 2021). "Al Madrigal Inks Overall Deal With CBS Studios". Deadline Hollywood. Penske Media Corporation. Retrieved April 4, 2022.
^ Young, Amy (October 24, 2017). "Here's Everything You Need to Know About the All Things Comedy Festival". Phoenix New Times. Voice Media Group. Retrieved April 4, 2022.
^ Hwang, Kellie (October 10, 2017). "Stand Up Live in Phoenix to Host Comedy Podcast Festival With Doug Benson, Felipe Esparza". The Arizona Republic. Gannett. Retrieved April 4, 2022.
^ Milligan, Kaitlin (September 24, 2018). "Comedy Central Signs Production Pact With Bill Burr and Al Madrigal's All Things Comedy". BroadwayWorld. Wisdom Digital Media. Retrieved April 4, 2022.
^ Goldberg, Lesley (September 24, 2018). "Bill Burr Inks Comedy Central Deal: Bill Burr Has Signed a Comedy Central Deal That Will Include a Stand-Up Series and Multiple Specials". The Hollywood Reporter. MRC. Retrieved April 4, 2022.
^ Petski, Denise (September 24, 2018). "Comedy Central Teams With Bill Burr & AL Madrigal's All Things Comedy for New Stand-Up Series & Three Specials". Deadline Hollywood. Penske Media Corporation. Retrieved April 4, 2022.
^ Baysinger, Tim (September 24, 2018). "Comedy Central Signs Production Deal With Bill Burr and Al Madrigal's All Things Comedy". TheWrap. Retrieved April 4, 2022.
^ Hartshorn, Tori (October 29, 2018). "Bill Burr Presents Paul Virzi: I'll Say This One Hour Stand Up Special 11/2 on Comedy Central". BroadwayWorld. Wisdom Digital Media. Retrieved April 4, 2022.
^ Hartshorn, Tori (July 3, 2019). "Ian Edwards Stars in All New Comedy Central Hour Special Bill Burr Presents IanTalk: Ideas Not Worth Spreading". BroadwayWorld. Wisdom Digital Media. Retrieved April 4, 2022.
^ Milligan, Kaitlin (June 28, 2019). "Comedy Central Announces Bill Burr Presents IanTalk: Ideas Not Worth Spreading". BroadwayWorld. Wisdom Digital Media. Retrieved April 4, 2022.
^ Milligan, Kaitlin (October 18, 2019). "Comedy Central to Premiere Bill Burr Presents Jessica Kirson: Talking to Myself". BroadwayWorld. Wisdom Digital Media. Retrieved April 4, 2022.
^ Ramos, Dino-Ray (October 22, 2019). "Comedy Central Partners With All Things Comedy for Patrice O'neal Documentary". Deadline Hollywood. Penske Media Corporation. Retrieved April 4, 2022.
^ Greenough, Jason (October 24, 2019). "Patrice O'Neal Documentary to Begin Filming This Fall". Vanyaland. Retrieved April 4, 2022.
^ Wright, Megh (October 22, 2019). "Patrice O'Neal Documentary Headed to Comedy Central". Vulture. New York Media. Retrieved April 5, 2022.
^ Grobar, Matt (March 3, 2022). "Comedian Bill Burr to Write & Direct Comedy 'Old Dads' for Miramax; Will Star Alongside Bobby Cannavale and Bokeem Woodbine". Deadline Hollywood. Penske Media Corporation. Retrieved April 4, 2022.
^ Templeton, Mackenzie (March 6, 2022). "Mandalorian's Bill Burr Will Write & Star in Directorial Debut Old Dads". Screen Rant. Valnet. Retrieved April 5, 2022.
^ Seabaugh, Julie (July 3, 2014). "L.A.'s New Wave of Indie Comedy Labels". LA Weekly. Semanal Media. Archived from the original on July 7, 2014.
^ Lorenzsonn, Erik (March 18, 2020). "'Leyendas Legendarias' Madison Resident Produces One of Mexico's Top Podcasts by". The Capital Times. pp. O27. Retrieved April 3, 2022.
^ Exposito, Suzy (February 20, 2022). "Los Podcasts Hechos por y para Latinos por fin se Abren Paso en la Corriente Principal" [Podcasts Made by and for Latinos Are Finally Making Their Way Into the Mainstream]. Los Angeles Times (in Spanish). Nant Capital. Retrieved April 5, 2022.
^ Fields, Taylor (January 21, 2021). "2021 iHeartRadio Podcast Awards: Full List of Winners". iHeartRadio. iHeartMedia. Retrieved April 5, 2022.

Comment if the consensus is that All Things Comedy is not notable then I think there should be some discussion as to whether it should be merged or redirect to Bill Burr or Al Madrigal. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TipsyElephant: Vomiting all the sources back up doesn't help. Almost all of those sources are only passing mentions or name-drops, and not WP:SIGCOV. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: only four of the sources I cited are currently referenced in the Wikipedia page so I wouldn't say I "vomitted" them back up. Even if every single one of the sources are invalid there are still WP:ATD that were not pursued such as merging the contents into Bill Burr. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Participants are asked to consider a potential target for merger or redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 06:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Change my !vote based on the ability to merge content to multiple articles ~~Delete~~ This is an organization therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply and require multiple sources of in-depth references containing "Independent Content". None of the references meet the criteria, they're either passing mentions or they rely entirely on information provided by the organization or people associated with the org. There also isn't an obvious redirect - the org was founded by both Al Madrigal and Bill Burr and is already mentioned in both of their articles therefore it doesn't make sense to redirect to one or the other. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bill Burr and Al Madrigal the text that can be salvaged on the basis of sources. There is no ground on which to support a separate, independent, Wikipedia article on the subject. Passing references and the like do not cut it. -The Gnome (talk) 16:43, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Muhammad Shibli[edit]

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

Fails WP:N. No hits in Gbooks or GScholar. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:10, 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Fenton[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

businessleader.co.uk [4] and businessmondays.co.uk [5] contain no independent reporting, they seem to be copied from the same press release. company-information.service.gov.uk [6] is a primary source. fed.education [7], thedrum.com [8], School of Marketing [9], Steve Pugh [10], TEDx [11] are not independent. scribd [12] is self-published. Business Insider is a passing mention in a listing [13]. Only bdaily.co.uk [14] seems to be somewhat reliable (and still is probably from a press release). It does not seem to pass WP:GNG. MarioGom (talk) 05:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, United Kingdom, and Australia. MarioGom (talk) 05:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @MarioGom: just wondering why this is listed at the Australian deletion sorting list? AusLondonder (talk) 14:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AusLondonder: Sorry, I had a brain fart. It should have been New Zealand. MarioGom (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well they're both Down Under :) AusLondonder (talk) 14:18, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not seeing any SIGCOV from independent sources.-KH-1 (talk) 09:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not seeing any SIGCOV from independent sources.— NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 03:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inadequate sourcing to meet notability, per WP: GNG. Reads somewhat like WP:RESUME & WP:ADMASQ. NiklausGerard (talk) 02:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly sourced to the usual press release farms. No significant or in-depth coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 14:21, 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 or specifically there is consensus not to delete the article, but no consensus on what to do with it next. As ever, the normal editorial actions of merging an article can be taken by anyone, either directly or pursuant to a talk page discussion. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jan-Erik Olsson[edit]

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

This individual is known for one event only, WP:1E. Most of this is covered in the bank robbery article itself. I'm not seeing the reason to have a separate article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Thailand, and Sweden. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Olsson has been the subject of sustained media interest for decades, and enough to merit publication of his autobiography many years after the event. He was the main culprit behind the most well-known robbery in Swedish history (and one of the most famous robberies ever, as it – whether the psychological basis was sound or not – led to the coining of the term "Stockholm syndrome"). //Julle (talk) 06:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Norrmalmstorg robbery. Olsson paid a major role in a notable event so WP:1E applies rather than WP:BLP1E and we should make an editorial judgement about whether he merits a separate article. His article is essentially about the robbery, plus a paragraph of background and a paragraph of trivia about his subsequent life. I see nothing to indicate that he is notable for anything other than the robbery. The present content would be better covered in Norrmalmstorg robbery or, in the case of the trivia, deleted. Subsequent newspaper discussion of the robbery does not change this and an autobiography does not contribute to notability. However, if reliable secondary sources can be found that indicate that his notability extends beyond the robbery I would be open to changing my mind. Wham2001 (talk) 12:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Julle. Per sustained coverage for decades. Within WP:GNG. Sources are good.BabbaQ (talk) 19:41, 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jerred Price[edit]

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

I've declined a WP:G11 request on this as I don't think it's unambiguous spam (it looks to me like a fairly generic local politician bio). I'm not convinced however that either his musical or his political career is significant enough to justify Wikipedia hosting a biography—there are a lot of sources but on a quick dip it seems to mainly be routine coverage of local council decisions rather than about him specifically. ‑ Iridescent 05:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Politicians, and Tennessee. ‑ Iridescent 05:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Iridescent. The page looks quite neutral (a fairly written bio yet requires solid citations). However, could be improved in various ways. I've gone through multiple links that are quite significant to justify his presence on Wikipedia. A more expert opinion than mine is required here. Mr.aunali (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hyper-local politician fails WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 22:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the very definition of a hyper local politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Strictly WP:ROTM coverage. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the field he is in, coverage seems routine. Fails to meet WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. In an optimistic light it could be possibly WP:TOOSOON. NiklausGerard (talk) 23:49, 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!} 21:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Smith (journalist, born 1967)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BIO - non-notable correspondent for NPR, could not locate any indication of notability online. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 04:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Journalism. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 04:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR because this person's work is widely cited. They are a news correspondent for Planet Money, which is a popular podcast. I would guess it is top 1% by popularity. This person is one of the people who manage its content, and a front facing person for representing its quality.
- Here is his appointment as university professor, relating to his journalism - https://journalism.columbia.edu/robert-smith-host-planet-money-lead-knight-bagehot-fellowship
- speaker - https://business.okstate.edu/engage-magazine/fall-2018/ill-be-sharing-the-story-of-how-we-created-one-of-the-most-popular-podcasts.html
- interview as expert - https://www.avclub.com/planet-money-s-robert-smith-answers-our-stupidest-money-1820613706

None of these are conventional WP:RS to establish WP:GNG but I think they establish WP:AUTHOR, which are special criteria for this profession. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Improve I'll be honest, it's not a great article as-is but Smith had a long career at NPR and has a number of achievements which should be on that page. The goofy photo nonwithstanding, I think he fits WP:AUTHOR. Jessamyn (my talk page) 01:06, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a little improvement incorporating the links above and maybe that will make his notability clearer. Jessamyn (my talk page) 03:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are sources significantly about him (OSU, Talking Biz), but in particular the Peabody award makes him notable. The combination of sources and award nails it. Lamona (talk) 02:38, 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 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!} 06:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Simms (software developer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Little to no coverage outside of self-published sources or interviews (which are generally not considered to be secondary/independent sources). -Liance^{talk/contribs} 01:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 01:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 01:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 01:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a suitable redirect target: Linux Game Publishing. Pavlor (talk) 07:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ancient bio that seems to have slipped through the cracks of Old Wikipedia. No assertion of notability independent from the company. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:44, 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 07:16, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Braddell Road Kapok Tree[edit]

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

Passing mention in the National Heritage Trail link, Heritage Tree has very limited notability, see here. While there may be botanical, social, historical, cultural and/or aesthetical value for the tree, it is not listed in National Parks Board site (primary source). While the National Parks Board listed this particular tree, it is of passing mention. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears that I have misjudged the notability of this. I'll try not to make the same mistake again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somebodyidkfkdt (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. – robertsky (talk) 03:45, 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!} 02:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1998 Cyprus International Tournament[edit]

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

Out of process mainspace creation after Draft:1998 Cyprus International Tournament was declined. User does not respect consensus, so we're here. No evidence this tournament was notable, no viable AtD. Star Mississippi 01:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Cyprus. Star Mississippi 01:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping: DoubleGrazing KylieTastic Star Mississippi 01:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. I thought the lack of referencing was an oversight, but having tried searching, it turns out there simply aren't any sources. (Just out of curiosity, I also tried in Finnish, seeing as Finland was in the tournament; got less than a page of hits, all of them to various wikis only.) As a side note, it seems the intention may be to create an article for each year, but that probably isn't viable when even the parent article Cyprus International Football Tournament may fail on notability; certainly does ATM on referencing. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My main reference was the RSSSF, an organisation described by German newspaper Der Spiegel as a "Wikipedia of football statistics", but there is also the footballdatabase.eu and 11v11.com, although the later does not have any reports of the Norway Olympic games. This is three references/sources I have named, it's got to be something. Clenixon (talk) 12:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - after this AfD, we may wish to review 2008 Cyprus Four Nations Football Tournament Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am the catalyst of all this, and I personally think that Wikipedia shouldn't outcast non-notable pages. It should encompass as much as possible, as long as there are references and sources to prove its existence. If the problem is "needs more citations from reliable, independent sources", then I can add more sources, and you can even help me with that. I put many hours on this and tried to do everything right in order to get this pages online, but if it's not enough, please help me. Together we can enrich Wikipedia. (English is not my mother tongue, so be understandable). Clenixon (talk) 11:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your view is completely contrary to Wikipedia's policy outlined at WP:NOTDATABASE which says merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Also see WP:N which links to WP:GNG which clearly explains that A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Are you able to link to any significant media coverage of this tournament? If the answer is "no" then the article should be deleted or redirected to another article. WP:SPORTSEVENT also goes on to say that news coverage should be extensive (e.g., outside of the week of its occurrence and in non-local newspapers). and Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting... but then why are there so many Wikipedia articles who's news coverage isn't extensive and yet, exist. Clenixon (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - RSSSF, 11v11 and footballdatabase.eu are indiscriminate stats databases but Wikipedia is not itself supposed to be an indiscriminate sports stats database, see WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Also fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSEVENT per my response above. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:04, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Spider, there are many Wikipedia articles who's solely reference is the RSSSF. Clenixon (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, send those to AfD as well if no sources other than RSSSF exist for that subject and a search concludes that the article cannot be improved. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You little Spider... do you really think I will do that? Some of those pages exist for three or more years and have been providing information and knowledge to all those who have passed by, but now, just because it's "not-notable", it might get deleted. With all the respect, but I can't do that, I really can't. I need those pages to be online because it helps me for my works. I understand if you can't help me with this page, so I hope you will understand for not being able to help you destroy those pages. Clenixon (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Clenixon: FWIW, my (entirely non-expert) take on the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument you're invoking is that if other articles indeed do exist which also flout the guidelines, that's no grounds for creating more similarly-offending articles; it's grounds for dealing with the existing ones to bring them in line with the rules. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Offending articles? I am just trying to enrich Wikipedia with articles of stuff that are true and even verifiable. I followed every rule (or at least I tried hard), but because it's not important and notable enough, it's "not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". Please help me with this, cause I have tried everything. I really want to understand how can I improve this article (and more similarly articles) and get it online. Clenixon (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the biggest issue @Clenixon is that no amount of improvement can fix an article that doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion. It's the subject that's the issue, not the state of the article. I need those pages to be online because it helps me for my works. is basically WP:ILIKEIT which is not a reason for inclusion.

Not to speak for @DoubleGrazing but offending article means articles that don't meet guidelines. Because others exist that haven't been handled doesn't mean we should create more. Star Mississippi 20:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then. I understand.

Would it be too much to ask if the "Cyprus national football team results (2010–19)" is an article that meets the criteria for inclusion. Nearly every European national team has it. I would like to attempt to create this article. Is it possible? Could any of you review my submission when it's done? Clenixon (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glad it's clear. Sometimes things aren't. If you're on board with deletion this can be closed early. Happy to have it run seven days if you'd prefer.

I can't say for sure whether that would be notable, but I would be willing to review it once you've submitted it if others weigh in indicating it would be a potentially suitable topic. Draft space is almost certainly your best bet rather than creating it in mainspace. You can either ping me on the Draft talk or on my Talk page. Star Mississippi 22:10, 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!} 02:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inanimate Objects Party[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ORGCRITE, coverage in secondary sources appears limited to a brief mention in an academic paper about discourse at RPI, student publications and possibly some coverage in a local paper that is now a dead link. Even if that article is substantial, I don't think we make the cut. Previously this was converted to a redirect a few times, but given that there is apparently no mention at the target, deletion seems preferable. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and New York. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination (and as one of the earlier redirectors). CapitalSasha ~ talk 02:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nowhere near meeting WP:SIGCOV. AusLondonder (talk) 17:57, 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. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Manjilas Double Horse[edit]

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

Instant food company does not seem to meet WP:NCORP- coverage is of WP:RUNOFTHEMILL events for an instant food company. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and India. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP, a mere 3 gnews hits. LibStar (talk) 01:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article needs work, but it has some good sources. It has high independent press coverage and analyst reports. So it is notable as per the primary guidelines of Wikipedia. I think we should work to make this article better, rather than simply flagging it for deletion.Zayn Dex (talk) 05:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only reference worth considering in the article for NCORP purposes is this Hindu source - which is just a couple of paragraphs long and is mostly a routine announcement. As noted by LibStar, there is nothing else available from search. Hemantha (talk) 08:20, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I searched for "Double Horse -wikipedia" and got these results from Google.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6] Zayn Dex (talk) 14:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC) Zayn Dex (talk) 14:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "The flavours of Kerala on a platter". The Hindu. 2018-11-25. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2022-04-23.
^ Gladson, JAC (August 25, 2020). "Sunrisers Hyderabad close all sponsorship slots for IPL 2020". The Times of India. Retrieved 2022-04-23.
^ "Double Horse celebrates its 60th anniversary, announces scholarships for researchers". OnManorama. Retrieved 2022-04-23.
^ "Double Horse enters Tamil Nadu market | Kochi News - Times of India". The Times of India. Apr 30, 2013. Retrieved 2022-04-23.
^ "Manjilas ropes in Master Chef Kicha as brand ambassador for its Double Horse snacks". Indiaretailing.com. 2016-12-07. Retrieved 2022-04-23.
^ "Manjilas to bet on ready-to-eat segment". Indiaretailing.com. 2007-07-20. Retrieved 2022-04-23.

Please review WP:NCORP. The search you perform is linked directly above in this page and something conscientious AfD voters regularly review. The links found are all routine announcements and press releases. I had already reviewed the Hindu source in my comment. Hemantha (talk) 06:43, 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. If there is a desire to retrieve the content for the purpose of merging, anyone willing to do the work may request this at WP:REFUND without reference to me. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Essential Sudoku DS[edit]

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

Undeleted by article creator, who claims sources clearly exist beyond the Nintendo Life. I have searched high and low for these supposed sources but have come up with nothing, nor have they posted them anywhere. Note that this game is "Simple DS Vol. 7" in Japan, part of Simple (video game series), but it wouldn't make much sense to merge this into that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails notability guidelines, I was also unable to find any potential sources, both on Google and Archive.org. Waxworker (talk) 23:42, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I did an extensive search but i came up empty. Timur9008 (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Have never seen or heard of this game. ArdynOfTheAncients (talk) 20 April 2022 — Preceding undated comment added 17:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how an "extensive search" can have come up empty. It's on Giant Bomb, GameFAQs, Mobygames, and Game Kult, as well as appearing on blog sites, another reviews site and specialised wikis. Looking at the edit history there are a number of contributors who added to the page, so it's not as if it's a game that nobody has heard of. Tim (Xevious) (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Literally none of those are reliable sources. Most are not examples of significant coverage and others are user-generated. Please read WP:RELIABLE for why being on any of those sites does not indicate notability. The argument is not that "nobody has heard of" the game but that it is not notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Simple (video game series) It is worth a mention in the third paragraph of the Development section as a game that was localized, and the one review could be used to seed a Reception section as well. Jumpytoo Talk 19:38, 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!} 02:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sadat Al-Baaj[edit]

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

Not a single WP:RS in this article. Created and expanded by socks who are now banned and have a long history of religious-related POV-pushing. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:15, 3 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!} 23:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added a source about the existence of these Sadat sayyid families, the book details everything that is on this page Sadat Al-Baaj. I hope this page will not be deleted, but will help to find other sources and supplement and wikify this page. https://archive.org/details/20200709_20200709_0644/mode/2up 89.146.66.125 (talk) 06:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing suggests that the book is WP:RS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear specialist wiki, this book was written by a scientist of genealogy, the book indicates the name of many reliable sources, and everything that is on this wiki page is also written in the book, I see you are an expert on Iran and probably an Iranian maybe, you know about the Khuzistan, Solmas , Ahvaz (Iran), many Sadat al-Baaj sayyids live there and call themselves descendants of Syed Ali ibn Muhammad al Baaj ibn imam Ali al Hadi a.s. These Al-Baaj families really exist, so far I have found these sources that are listed on the page, maybe there are other sources, yes, I really need to admit that there are many sources about these sadat families in Arabic resources, it will be difficult to find in English, I hope other wiki participants in the future will also help to supplement this fresh page, find links to sources and resources. please don't delete this page. 89.146.66.125 (talk) 12:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly read WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. This seems to be one of the socks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:24, 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. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Winters[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Has a few bit parts here and there but nothing of substance. Cited sources barely mention her at all. Prod removed with addition of sources that are no better. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This characterisation is quite one-sided - Winters directed a major Bach Festival at Carnegie Hall in 2020 and has had a substantial professional musical career, including a major commission by Lincoln Center for a show commemorating the sinking of the Titanic in 2012. She also performed on Saturday Night Live and in numerous festivals worldwide.

The page had more than 700 views in 2021, suggesting significant interest. Betongmandarin (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Betongmandarin: Please read WP:BAND, our list of notability criteria for musicians. Which one of these does she meet in your view? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm uncertain, because my searches of Google news suggest she is notable, but it's paywalled.

Article needs work, too much uncited stuff and currently not convincing me she's notable based on the article, but online searches suggest she might be. CT55555

I note she claims (and I'll assume it's true) to have played in 3,000 concerts, which seems high (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CT55555: Those are all articles that mention Winters in passing, and I'm not sure "Grateful Web" is a reliable source. Also, number of concerts has nothing to do with notability; WP:BIGNUMBER is not a valid argument. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See the three interviews in Ambush Arts, Cincy Groove and Puremusic, all Additional Sources for the page. With these Winters meets notability criterion 1 on the WPBand list (and bear in mind this is work done in the folk/singer-songwriter culture that gets limited mass media coverage, see WPNMUSICOTHER): Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent Betongmandarin (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are not considered "non-trivial". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:09, 12 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!} 23:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:23, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - weak sourcing, fails MUSICBIO by the looks of it.-KH-1 (talk) 09:31, 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 keep. and nomination withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Escola de Administração de Empresas de São Paulo[edit]

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

This is pretty much spam. The article has also been nominated for deletion in the Portuguese Wikipedia. --Bageense^(disc.) 18:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. --Bageense^(disc.) 18:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Brazil. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seventy-year-old degree-awarding institution. No good reason given for deletion; the quality of the article is irrelevant to the notability of the subject and what other wikis do is irrelevant to us. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and what other wikis do is irrelevant to us. I already knew that, but I'm glad to see it blatantly stated. --Bageense^(disc.) 04:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found some academic journals detailing the history and importance of the organization via the Wikipedia Library ([15]), so it seems to satisfy WP:NCORP. The article definitely needs some cleanup, as most of it is unsourced and spammy. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 15:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as the proponent, I intend to recreate this article in my Wikipedia, this time without spam. Then I might translate it to English, in order to fix the problem here too. Thanks for those who've helped... maybe it wasn't a good idea to open this proposal. @Explicit: I don't know if you can close this proposal sooner. --Bageense^(disc.) 08:35, 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 Moot. Respect the AFD process please. Did you raise your concerns about the close with me personally at the time? I don't recall thay. DRV exists for closes calls you disagree with. Canvassing and disregarding consensus are a good way to get banned from AFD and I say that as an admin more likely to be challenged over deletion calls then any other reason. This clearly isn't going to be deleted so let's just leave this here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Leave (Simba Tagz song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The previous AfD for this song closed a little while ago as "no consensus". Someone did not notice that all "keep" votes committed the "there are sources" fallacy without delivering any. Two links provided in the debate are self promos or paid promos in non-critical blogs. The article is currently dependent on one of those plus two dead links. All else to be found are more of the same and even those are rare. Nobody has delivered anything else except flimsy claims of systemic bias. Those convinced that there are sources proving this song's notability are encouraged to deliver this time. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note - The dead links mentioned in the nomination have since been removed by another editor. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:18, 5 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!} 23:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no proof of sourcing found. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - more than enough time has been provided for people to find sourcing that confirms an WP:NSONG or a WP:GNG pass and nothing has been provided so deletion is the only valid option Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the nominator started this AFD less than an hour after the previous AFD ended as "no consensus". They did contact the other person who thought it should be deleted [16] about this discussion, but no one else. I have now contacted the three others who voted in it about this discussion. Contacting only those who will vote how you want instead of everyone is against the canvassing rules. Dream Focus 23:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A possible procedural error on my part, but I contacted not a voter from the previous AfD, but the nominator, and it was not to get a new vote, but to opine that the previous AfD initiated by that person was mishandled by the closing Admin. My disagreement with the Admin's action was also the reason for my re-nomination, which is stated quite clearly above. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomsdayer520: contacting a single voter who said "Delete" while not similarly contacting the voters who said "Keep" is indeed a procedural error, as it's regarded as WP:CANVASsing which can influence the direction of the new vote. I don't doubt that this was a good faith error in your part, so no harm done, but in future please take care to be fair when notifying editors of discussions. In general you need to notify either everyone involved in previous discussions, or nobody involved in them. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:47, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:SONG per argument on previous discussion. SBKSPP (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TBH the nom should've waited for at least a month before renominating it. The closure of the previous discussion is a good one. SBKSPP (talk) 00:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm convinced with the sources presented by Sean Stephens, aside from the ones presented in the previous discussion. They're reliable enough and most of them are in-depth IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 00:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found four sources: here, here, here, and here (this offers some insight into the origins of the song too). Make what you will of those (the second one is incredibly brief), but this appears to be somewhat notable. Sean Stephens (talk) 03:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 1 - this looks like a standard press release. I can't find anything on Naija Review to suggest that it's professional journalism. Ref 2 - just a download link. Ref 3 - 404 error. Ref 4 - passing mention of the song and doesn't even have the correct title for the song. It actually calls it "Don't Leave Me" which shows that the standard of journalism isn't high here. Ref 5 - "This site can't be reached" error. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my arguments in the previous AFD, and also per evidence raised by the two comments above this one. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Nominator - I have surely created some controversy, but nobody has yet discussed the reason for my re-nomination of this song for deletion after the previous "no consensus". That reasoning has been at the top of this page this entire time, regardless of an error I may have made after that. I contend that the Admin who closed the previous AfD committed an error too. Counting votes and the number of sources is not enough; we must look at the quality of the sources. I contend that every "source" proposed in this discussion and the previous one is unworthy of the requirements at WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV, and by extension WP:NSONG, because they are clearly reprints of the singer's press releases or basic announcements of the song's existence. Oh well, I don't have to look at the article ever again. In the event that someone stumbles across it in the future, perhaps they will wonder why it is here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:16, 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. Previous AFD was for a different person with the same name. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Shafer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Has a handful of credits, most of which are overstated. Worked with a non-notable Christian band that reached the lower regions of a low-level Radio & Records chart. Toured with a couple musicians and sang backup, but this is attributed solely to Allmusic database listings. Got some coverage for competing on The Voice, but it's all either local newspapers or unreliable sites like Reality TV World. He placed tenth on his season of The Voice and did nothing of note since. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The previous AFD under the name "Dan Shafer" was for a different subject. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:32, 3 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!} 23:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:08, 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 01:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EspoCRM[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has been speedily deleted and recreated multiple times, per the page logs. The sources in the article are personal/corporate blogs, documentation pages, WP:FORBESCON, or sources that don't cover the source significantly (e.x. it's got a one-sentence mention on a list containing 101 open source apps). I'm unable to find independent coverage by multiple reliable sources which cover the software significantly, so I believe that this software fails WP:GNG. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:28, 3 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!} 23:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. XOR'easter (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - those few sources which are significant are unreliable, and those which are reliable are insignificant. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Ganesha811 (talk) 00:09, 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.