The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 I will history merge this version with the existing draft. Whether to merge the different seasons into one article can be discussed further elsewhere. – Joe (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1924–25 Lega Sud[edit]

1924–25 Lega Sud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Previously deleted article. Non notable football season. Insufficient references to satisfy GNG. Whiteguru (talk) 02:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Italy. Whiteguru (talk) 02:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 18:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and merge all Lega Sud season articles into one article. Sorry, but terrible nomination, the 1920s Lega Sud is an important part of historic Italian football, the seasons should be merged into one article. There are numerous Italian books on the histories of Italian football and this league has a lot of mentions. I am also confused why you are nominating one article in this series. Govvy (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - an early second tier of the ancestor of one of the great Leagues. Definitely notable. In Vitrio (talk) 23:05, 21 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!} 02:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This page was not previously deleted as claimed by the nom. It was previously unilaterally moved to draft space at Draft:1924–25 Lega Sud. Draftifying is not deletion by policy. If kept, the draft should be history merged back in to maintain attribution as the new article is quite clearly a copy-paste with the addition of a few new refs. SpinningSpark 16:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (for copy-paste issues and no attribution), or ATD merge (not "keep and merge") all to single article per Govvy with draft "history merged back" for noted (and needed) attribution. -- Otr500 (talk) 04:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Lucia–Spain relations[edit]

Saint Lucia–Spain relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Another bilateral article mostly based on the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. No embassies, state visits. The agreements are relatively minor. LibStar (talk) 01:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Spain, and Caribbean. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:01, 20 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!} 02:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am amazed at how many "X-Y relations" articles there still are after all this time. Didn't we agree ages ago that most of these are trivial and that not everything involving two random countries is a noteworthy "relation"? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes we did agree, but some people keep on creating non-notable ones! LibStar (talk) 06:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence of significant coverage. Yilloslime (talk) 00:43, 28 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!} 23:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chin Chun Motor Co., Ltd.[edit]

Chin Chun Motor Co., Ltd. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No significant coverage and fails WP:CORP. It also can't be merged anywhere per the Wikipedia policy WP:V. SL93 (talk) 01:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Taiwan. SL93 (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment there seems to be less information than in the Chinese (Taiwanese?) Wiki page on the same topic. Also there are references that are cited for the statements made. I wonder if that information should be transferred here first so a more appropriate decision can be made? NealeWellington (talk) 08:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• NealeWellington (talk · contribs), I've posted some sources below. Cunard (talk) 07:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. 陳信榮 (2008-05-23). "慶眾廠房人員，租給三陽。生產線復工，產製Porter新貨車" [Chin Chun Motor factory staff, leased to Sanyang. Production line resumes to produce new Porter vans]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. A13.

     The article notes: "慶眾汽車過去以生產福斯（VW）T4商用車聞名，結束與福斯的合作關係後，2000年時曾取得現代汽車代理權，但2002年代理權轉由三陽接手，慶眾就轉型為三陽代工廠。"

     From Google Translate: "Chin Chun Motor used to be famous for producing Volkswagen (VW) T4 commercial vehicles. After ending the partnership with Volkswagen, it obtained the agency rights of Hyundai Motor in 2000, but in 2002, the agency rights were transferred to Sanyang, and Chin Chun Motor transformed itself into the Sanyang foundry."

  2. 陳信榮 (2006-08-07). "起亞車組裝，慶眾台朔裕隆爭代工。母廠現代集團證實，起亞透過太古永豐尋覓夥伴，但目前言之過早" [Kia car assembly, Chin Chun Motor and Formosa Automobile Corporation compete for OEM. Parent factory Hyundai Group confirms that Kia is looking for partners through Swire Yongfeng, but it is too early to say]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. A11.

     The article notes: "慶眾汽車轉型為同集團的三陽工業「專屬代工廠」後，為三陽代工、經銷現代商（Hyundai）用車產品，以及代工生產國防部軍用卡車。由於現代與起亞產品系出同門，設計、零件共用比率極高，成為慶眾汽車爭取起亞代工的優勢，慶眾可針對現代與起亞車款，同步開發零件，降低生產成本。但市場傳出慶眾汽車取得三陽轉過來的軍卡組裝訂單後，對爭取起亞代工案態度趨於被動；但業界質疑，現代集團是否願意讓慶豐集團統包現代與起亞在台所有業務。"

     From Google Translate: "After Chin Chun Motor was transformed into the "exclusive foundry" of Sanyang Industry, which is the same group, it is the OEM for Sanyang, the distribution of Hyundai's vehicle products, and the OEM production of military trucks for the Ministry of Defense. As the products of Hyundai and Kia are from the same family, the ratio of design and parts sharing is very high, which has become the advantage of Chin Chun Motor in striving for Kia's OEM. Chin Chun Motor can simultaneously develop parts for Hyundai and Kia models to reduce production costs. However, it was reported in the market that after Chin Chun Motor obtained the military card assembly order transferred from Sanyang, its attitude towards winning the Kia OEM case tended to be passive; however, the industry questioned whether Hyundai Group is willing to let Chin Chun Motor take all the ownership of Hyundai and Kia in Taiwan. business."

  3. 陳信榮 (2007-10-19). "取得中國大金龍技術授權，慶眾將在台產銷大陸巴士" [After obtaining technology authorisation from China's King Long, Chin Chun Motor will produce and sell mainland buses in Taiwan]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. A2.

     The article notes: "慶眾汽車看準國內旅遊巴士需求市場，透過同屬慶豐集團的三陽工業牽線，取得中國大陸第一大巴士製造廠金龍聯合汽車公司（大金龍）技術授權，擬在台組裝金龍巴士銷售。但慶眾汽車主管昨（18）日不願證實。不過，消息人士透露，此計畫若順利推展，慶眾最快能在一至二年內開始生產金龍巴士，將成為第一輛在台生產「大陸車」。"

     From Google Translate: "Looking at the domestic tourist bus demand market, Chin Chun Motor has obtained the technical authorization of the largest bus manufacturer in mainland China, King Long United Automobile Company (King Long), through the help of Sanyang Motor, which is also under the Qingfeng Group, and plans to assemble King Long buses in Taiwan for sale. However, the head of Qingzhong Automobile was unwilling to confirm yesterday (18). However, according to sources, if the plan goes well, Qingzhong will be able to start producing King Long buses within one to two years at the earliest, and will become the first "Continental car" produced in Taiwan."

  4. 陳信榮 (2004-10-23). "慶眾停產T4 擁抱現代商用車 採先進口後國產方式 透過現有經銷通路販售 強調不影響福斯車主保固維修權益" [Chin Chun Motor stops production of T4, embraces modern commercial vehicles, adopts imported and domestically produced methods, and sells through existing distribution channels, emphasizing that it will not affect the warranty and maintenance rights of Volkswagen owners]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. B5.

     The article notes: "與三陽工業（2206）同屬慶豐集團的慶眾汽車，早年是與福斯汽車合資成立，並導入T4商用車生產迄今，後因故福斯撤資，慶眾仍保留在台組裝銷售T4權力直至2010年。"

     From Google Translate: "Chin Chun Motor, which belongs to the Chinfon Group together with Sanyang Industry (2206), was established as a joint venture with Volkswagen in the early years, and has introduced T4 commercial vehicles for production so far. The public still retains the right to assemble and sell T4 in Taiwan until 2010."

  5. 陳信榮 (2007-06-18). "有利爭取韓國車廠業務。慶眾轉型 專業汽車代工。集團整合，銷售服務部門，併入南陽實業，通路互補，提升新車銷售量與產能利用率。" [It is beneficial to win the business of Korean car factories. Chin Chun Motor transformed into a professional automobile OEM. Group integration, sales and service department, merged into Nanyang Industrial, complementary channels, increased new car sales and capacity utilization.]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. A3.

     The article notes: "慶豐集團整合旗下汽車事業，本月起將慶眾汽車銷售、服務部門，併入三陽工業子公司南陽實業，慶眾汽車轉型為純汽車代工廠。 ... 慶眾集團積極抓住柴油車成為市場熱潮的商機，包括慶眾積極協調韓國原廠，希望能提供更具競爭力、能符合四期法規的新商用車種，明年在台生產、上市；"

     From Google Translate: "Chinfon Global Corporation has integrated its automobile business. Starting from this month, Chin Chun Motor's sales and service departments will be merged into Nanyang Industrial, a subsidiary of Sanyang Industrial. Chin Chun Motor will be transformed into a pure automobile foundry. . . . Chinfon Global Corporation actively seizes the business opportunity of diesel vehicles becoming a boom in the market, including Chin Chun Motor actively coordinating with Korean original factories, hoping to provide more competitive new commercial vehicles that can comply with Phase IV regulations, which will be produced and launched in Taiwan next year;"

  6. "慶眾推出Porter自排款" [Chin Chun Motor launches Porter self-payment]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). 2006-11-02. p. B12.
  7. 陳信榮 (2006-08-23). "代工起亞汽車，慶眾呼聲高。替三陽生產現代商用車Porter，取得有利位置；台朔展現爭取誠意，減增資宣示經營決心。" [OEM Kia Motors, Chin Chun Motor's voice is high. Produced the Hyundai commercial vehicle Porter for Sanyang, and gained a favorable position; Taishuo showed its sincerity, and reduced capital and increased its capital to declare its determination to operate.]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. A10.
  8. 許信華 (2005-07-08). "慶眾九人座特仕車版本，營造頂級豪華舒適氣氛" [Chin Chun Motor nine-seater special car version, creating a top-level luxurious and comfortable atmosphere]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. D4.
  9. 陳信榮 (2005-03-31). "現代柴油小貨車，慶眾5月起產銷" [Hyundai diesel minivan, Chin Chun Motor will start production and sales in May]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. C8.
  10. 陳信榮 (2005-03-18). "慶眾獲現代精工代理權。將進口佳樂寶越野吉普車，開闢休旅車商品線" [Chin Chun Motor obtained the agency rights of Hyundai Seiko. Will import Jialebao off-road jeeps to open up a product line of SUVs]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. C16.
  11. 謝淑慧 (2004-12-25). "慶眾汽車T4年終大裝檢 展開" [Chin Chun Motor T4 year-end large-scale inspection]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. B11.
  12. 陳信榮 (2004-11-20). "明年第二季，慶眾將產銷現代商用車，元月進口Porter柴油貨車，隨後導入H1廂型商旅車" [In the second quarter of next year, Chin Chun Motor will produce and sell modern commercial vehicles, import Porter diesel trucks in January, and then import H1 vans.]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. B5.
  13. 吳韻儀 (2012-06-25). "德國精神落實慶眾。技術可以轉移，品質精神是否可以移植？台灣第一家與德國車廠合作的慶眾汽車，正嘗試著這樣的實驗。" [Chin Chun Motor implements the German spirit. Technology can be transferred, can the spirit of quality be transplanted? Chin Chun Motor, the first Taiwanese automaker to cooperate with a German automaker, is trying such an experiment.]. CommonWealth Magazine [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-04-25. Retrieved 2022-04-25.
  14. "Volkswagen eyes assembly plant in Taiwan". Taiwan Today. 2010-06-15. Archived from the original on 2022-04-20. Retrieved 2022-04-25.

      This articles provides a paragraph of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "In 1991, Volkswagen had partnered with Chinfon Trading Group and jointly invested NT$4.8 billion (US$148.37 million) in the establishment of Chin Chun Motor Co. Ltd. to produce the Volkswagen Transporter T4 front-engined van on the island. However, with the two firms constantly at loggerheads over business operations, the relationship eventually ended on bad terms, with the German automaker deciding to pull out of Taiwan in the wake of the Asian financial crisis in 1997."

  15. 中国机械电子工业年鉴: 机械卷 [China Machinery and Electronics Industry Yearbook: Mechanical Volume] (in Chinese). Beijing: China Machine Press [zh]. 1992. Retrieved 2022-04-25 – via Google Books.

      The article notes: "是 1991 年 7 月 10 日,隶属台湾三阳汽车工业公司董事长个人事业的庆众汽车投资公司与德国福斯 V.W.公司签约,在台湾生产 V.W.商用车,成立台湾第 11 家汽车制造厂,庆众汽车公司投资比例占 66.6 % ,德国福斯 V.W.公司占 33.4 %。"

      From Google Translate: "On July 10, 1991, Chin Chun Motor, which is affiliated to the personal business of the chairman of Taiwan Sanyang Automobile Industry Co., Ltd., signed a contract with the German V.W. company to produce V.W. commercial vehicles in Taiwan, and established the 11th automobile manufacturing plant in Taiwan. The investment proportion of Chin Chun Motor accounted for 66.6%, and the German V.W. Company accounted for 33.4%."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Chin Chun Motor (traditional Chinese: 慶眾汽車; simplified Chinese: 庆众汽车) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 07:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I expanded and added sources to the previously unsourced article. There are more sources and more content in the Chinese Wikipedia article at zh:慶眾汽車. Cunard (talk) 07:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep as would be happier if there was more coverage other than one independent source (Economic Daily News - three articles). The quote from a directory and a government paper lean towards self promotional so I don't think they are sufficiently independent of the subject. Thanks to Cunard for updating and hopefully someone else will put in further information. NealeWellington (talk) 09:29, 25 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!} 02:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I think that Cunard has shown that there are enough reliable sources about the subject for sufficient coverage. Alan Islas (talk) 11:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep agree with Cunard. Thanks for finding sources. Taung Tan (talk) 09:57, 30 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 Pain of Salvation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Andersson[edit]

Simon Andersson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, I was unable to find coverage online or on Proquest beyond the inadequate sources currently cited. Redirect to Pain of Salvation, their most notable associated act, seems appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Sweden. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Pain of Salvation, in agreement with the nominator's reasoning. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Active Theory[edit]

Active Theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The subject does not appear to meet WP:NCORP. The commarts.com seems to be the only in-depth source, and it's likely native advertisement, since the site sells "feature articles" like this one [1]. MarioGom (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. MarioGom (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Netherlands and California. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Communication Arts carries feature articles, while observing professional standards. It also sells advertisements. How is that a problem? gidonb (talk) 23:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If the source is paid by the subject, then it's not independent coverage. WP:NCORP requires independent reporting to pass the notability threshold. MarioGom (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no suggestion of payment. gidonb (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: as per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 04:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 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. ✗plicit 11:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inikiri Bernard market[edit]

Inikiri Bernard market (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence that this is notable. No RSs provided and none found in WP:BEFORE. Content could easily be accommodated in Inikiri Umuezeoka if needed and which itself is poorly sourced  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom. Inikiri Umuezeoka itself got deleted and doesn't look like this is a notable market either. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 04:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non-notable market, searches from google doesn't give any hits. Jamiebuba (talk) 10:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Jones (footballer, born 1909)[edit]

Christopher Jones (footballer, born 1909) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 22:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Wales. Joeykai (talk) 22:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Looking in the media, there was a Chris Jones who signed for Bangor City F.C. in 1935-36, having played 2 years with Rochdale, and "did well with Aberdare - age 22". Which puts the birthdate off by 3 years - this is from the Birmingham Gazette, and there's 1936 match reports in the Liverpool Echo. I'm not sure if it's the same person though ... but how many Chris/Christopher Jones back then with Rochdale? Nfitz (talk) 06:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  According to ENFA there was a Christopher Jones who played for Gellifaelog Amateurs and Rochdale between 1927 and 1930 - mo mention of any other clubs. GiantSnowman 18:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete we clearly do not have enough sourcing to show that this person is notable. Considering how common Christopher is as a first name and Jones as a last name, any argument that boils down to "someone three years different in age with the same name is the same person" does not work. This is a super common name, and so we need to make sure to not build the Frankenstein's Monster and falsely link multiple people just based on the same name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There was no argument made, User:Johnpacklambert; I provided what information I'd quickly found in one source to help others who'd also be looking. I only spent a few minutes looking, so definitely not time to have an opinion; that we don't even know when he played where is very concerning. Absolutely we need to make sure. Where did you look, and what did you find JPL? Nfitz (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Is JPL no longer topic-banned from these?? Govvy (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability, fails GNG. GiantSnowman 18:09, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Lorentzen[edit]

Christian Lorentzen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The individual fails WP:NBASIC and WP:GNG; there are not multiple independent reliable sources that cover him significantly. The references currently in the article include a bio blurb from his employer (cited twice), a writing of his in the London Review of Books, an article that does not so much as mention his name, an advertisement for an essay collection he put together, and a YouTube video from "Bloggingheads.tv". No such references contribute towards WP:GNG, as they fail WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:RS, and/or fail to provide significant coverage of the individual. An online search for significant coverage of this individual yielded this NY Times piece on a play he participated in (though it really doesn't provide any significant coverage of him other than quoting him and indicating that he took a sip of a drink), and a handful of pieces that briefly quote him. He's written in a lot of places, but there isn't really enough coverage of him to meet WP:NBASIC and/or WP:GNG, so the article should be deleted as non-notable. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Journalism, Literature, News media, and Entertainment. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is the kind of article I hate to see deleted because it will be writable eventually, but for now it's not and so we can't write it. For future reference, there's a critical profile here[2], and a symposium here[3] on his well known Harper's article[4], there's also his involvement in the hipster kerfuffle stemming from his TimeOut New York article (discussed, e.g. here[5]), and there's routine coverage of his moves from one publication to another, but I think we're awaiting a couple more long profiles before we can have an article. He's been associated with enough different publications that I don't think any one publication makes sense for a redirect.--Jahaza (talk) 06:50, 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. -- ferret (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I thought I'd get an option to say why but XfdCloser powered ahead :) This was an exact copy of the previous article, so my intent was to close this as a G4. -- ferret (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Killing Day[edit]

Killing Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article has been previously been deleted for lacking significant in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources (i.e. failing WP:GNG). Since this is still the case, this article should be deleted. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Software. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:24, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Azaan Sami Khan[edit]

Azaan Sami Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Contested draftification, or a unilateral move after draftification by another editor who misunderstands the notability criteria. My instinct would be to draftily again, but that would be move warring. WP:IAR does not apply here, so we are at AfD. Fails WP:NACTOR/WP:NMUSICIAN. References, while in ostensibly reliable sources, are pure churnalism. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Television, and Pakistan. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As nominator noted, fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:NACTOR. Ravensfire (talk) 22:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clearly misses Wikipedia guidelines. Edward Saxston (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG and there's no indication of any subjective criteria being met either. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 18:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG, WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Nothing in the article indicates that he satisfies general notability, musical notability, or acting notability. This page was moved from article space to draft space by a reviewer, but was then moved back to article space. It still isn't ready for article space, probably because the subject is too soon. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 30 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. – Joe (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anjali Phougat[edit]

Anjali Phougat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't appear to be notable, also was deleted previously. AmirŞah 19:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Fashion. AmirŞah 19:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - Sources appear to be sufficient to provide notability under WP:NBIO, though the language barrier may be preventing me from doing a full breadth check. (However, if this is an exact copy of the previously deleted article I'm all for a WP:G4.) Kirbanzo ^{(talk - contribs)} 20:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete browsing through the sources (I've even removed some) this is nothing more than the effort of a PR person to get her name out there - both our article and the majority of the sources. They're almost entirely churnalism or blackhat SEO. PRAXIDICAE💕 20:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As Prax pointed out, this is an evidently PR-driven article. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep current sources in article are covering context of article and unreliable sources was removed by Praxidicae. Meets WP:NBIO. Mahdiar86 (talk) 11:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - similar to my !vote in the previous AfD discussion, based on my WP:BEFORE and a review of the article and its sources, it continues to appear to be WP:TOOSOON for WP:BASIC or WP:CREATIVE notability to be supported by independent and reliable sources. During my search for sources, I found a 2021 Deccan Herald interview with some biographical content that appears independent, with an overall focus on her Cannes award, a 2021 Tribune interview with secondary content essentially limited to the headline, a brief 2021 Tribune interview where she offers advice to youth, and a brief statement from her about her mother in a 2021 Free Press Journal article. In the WP article, there is a glowing but vague 2021 profile with no byline from APN News (e.g. the profile: "She has designed outfits and has been involved in a number of fashion events such as the New York Fashion Week, Miss New Jersey and so on. Her works have featured in Miss India contests as well" which can be compared to the current WP:CLOP in the article); based on a quick scan of APN related articles, this outlet appears to package product promotion as news. Beccaynr (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The subject doesn't seem to be notable. Lacks significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Fails WP:BASIC. DMySon (talk) 02:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- lacks notability, WP:NBASIC. RS6784 (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

World Durood Day[edit]

World Durood Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There is no such world day. It seem a local event, not enough notability to include in wikipedia. No WP:SIGCOV. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems a little suspect as a 'world' event; more like it has mainly been publicised by 'WPNEWS18' and not substantially reported in reliable sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The first source is a Hindi article, for a Muslim holiday. I would expect to see Arabic sources. Leaning non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 19:01, 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. This garden either doesn't exist or is a private garden. I read through the very interesting comments from editors trying to track down the facts about this place but I don't see anyone advocating keeping this article. Great detective work though. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jardin botanique alpin "Daniella"[edit]

Jardin botanique alpin "Daniella" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article is a stub covering an apparently non-existent or at least non-public and non-notable botanical garden. The address given appears to be a small, private residence with a 175m² garden behind it. The one source provided in the article is an entry in a database of botanic gardens which itself contains conflicting information regarding the location of the garden. See 2017 discussion on article's talkpage for more info and views: Talk:Jardin_botanique_alpin_"Daniella". Eric ^talk 17:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Eric ^talk 17:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More info: Google Maps link of address given in the cited BGCI entry; should open in satellite view centered on property. Note that the coordinates given in the article (and on the BGCI entry) point to a site approximately 2.5 km to the east, also a residential street. Eric ^talk 17:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The French wiki article says it's a private botanical garden. I see no sources in French either. It appears to be a plot of land someone owns and just calls it a botanical garden. I get some mention on an EU website in a pdf, but it's in passing. Non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete BGCI appears to be a self-published source; or at least, when I clicked the link they offered to take my info to register me as a garden conservator. I'm tempted to add some random address near a patch of green in someone's backyard and see if I could add my "garden" but I didn't take it further. (If anyone decides to try this, please ping me with a link to your "garden".) I wonder if there are other "gardens" sourced to BGCI, and whether we should cross-post this to WP:RSN or to WP:Spam blacklist? (Courtesy link for the record, in case the article is deleted: BGCI.) Mathglot (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – linked with French Afd discussion, here. Mathglot (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well done, Mathglot. Didn't occur to me to do a parallel AfD on fr.wp. I note their article has the same coords as here. Eric ^talk 21:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added Spanish here. Mathglot (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• As mentioned on the article talk page, the book checks out, and has the garden listed, address simply "87000 Limoges" however and the telephone number that of the mayor of Limoges. The 1 sentence in the book says that it was founded in 1983 and has ~1800 species. The 1990 International Directory of Botanical Gardens lists the only botanical garden in Limoges as the Jardin botanique de l'Evêché in the Place de la Cathédrale in 87100 Limoges, as does ISBN 9780898310412. Those two 1990s books would have had a 1983–2004 botanical garden with ~1800 species if it really existed. The French article post-dates both this one and the Spanish one. Are you enjoying that the Spanish article's picture is actually of somewhere in Austria? ☺ I suspect a copyright trap by Racine. Uncle G (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I took another approach, and searched for jardins botaniques alpins en France, and got this this map mash-up as the top result. With one exception, all the alpine botanical gardens shown are in the southeast, near the borders of Switzerland and Italy, where—surprise!—you find the foothills of the Alps, from which alpine gardens take their name, and are likely to thrive. (The one exception is the Jardin botanique de Lyon.) No map pins in Limoges, or nearby.

  So then I tried again, showing the top 100 web search results for jardins botaniques a Limoges, and you get a few dozen "Jardin de l'Évêché" results, and the "Daniella" garden shows up twice: once on the BGCI site, and once at this page, which is a mirror of the fr-wiki article. The odds that an actual botanical garden exists in a major French city, and appears on no website in the world, other than a questionable WP:SPS database, and a Wikipedia mirror, is vanishingly small. Admittedly, this is not a proof, as a single, reliable source would be enough to take apart this argument. But, we don't have a single reliable source. Mathglot (talk) 03:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suspect that the Racine book's entry is a copyright trap. If it's fictitious, it's not harmful enough to be a problem when people call the telephone number and find the mayor of Limoges explaining that there's not really a "Daniella" botanical garden, but there's a nice one by the cathedral. But absent such a suspicion, which you haven't mentioned in 3 years, why do you discount Michel Racine as an expert? Because by your own assertion xyr book, which was pointed out on the article talk page in 2017, and which supplies address and telephone number, is exactly the source that takes apart your argument. Uncle G (talk) 05:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – in response to a request at fr-wiki, there are now four replies from French users who live in Limoges and have never seen nor heard of this garden. One has gone further and has contacted the French Botanical Garden Association and is waiting for a response, and is also planning to swing by the indicated address this weekend and investigate further. See fr:Discussion:Limoges#Question sur un jardin botanique limougeaud. Mathglot (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – The BGCI entry has been added to the article by User:Oldhedge who has been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently adding hoax references. --Cyfal (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Whoa; good catch. Adding link to this discussion (ongoing; current perma) which lists a bunch of fake references by Oldhedge, and also includes this comment of yours:

  I've also checked Oldhedge's contributions which were already modified by someone else, and tried to revert them, too. With very few exceptions (like this one), all of them seem fake references and links.

  Looks like this is possibly just one of many that Oldhedge has added fake references for. Mathglot (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The BCGI link says they aren't even a member of the BCGI. It's a private garden with an unknown nunber of staff and all other info is blank. Very suspect. Oaktree b (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – French user fr:Hymass (talk · contribs) has been responding at this French discussion, and has spoken to the resident at #16 where the Google map points. If I'm interpreting their response correctly (fr:diff; fr:perma), it sounds like the owner used to have a backyard garden, but ceased maintaining it in 2005. (Even were it maintained, I would still vote "delete" as a non-notable, private backyard garden.) Mathglot (talk) 03:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As Mathglot already said, according to the response of French user Hymass this is a private garden. My translation of what he wrote: "So, contrary to what I said above, I did not visit the person living at this address but I phoned him. Good news: the coordinates are correct, it is the private garden that can be seen behind the house; unfortunately the owner of the garden has stopped tending it since 2005." --Cyfal (talk) 10:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Virus[edit]

Flying Virus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:SIGCOV. Found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and nothing else suitable enough was found to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE. The Film Creator (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment found one review at CineMagazine [6] DonaldD23 talk to me 18:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't find anything except tv schedules. If there's more coverage out there I'm willing to change my mind, but at this point I just can't find it. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No assertion of notability independent of IMDB and streaming services. That it is shown somewhere does not itself make it notable.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no remaining delete proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 02:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Home Team (1998 film)[edit]

Home Team (1998 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:SIGCOV. Found only one review (needs two in order to be eligible) on Rotten Tomatoes. Nothing else suitable enough was found to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE. The Film Creator (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I can only conclude that as in the case of another article I created, imdb didn't have enough information and I saw Wikipedia as a place I could provide the information to anyone who wanted it. The other film that was deleted had more information on imdb than on Wikipedia at the time of the deletion.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I added some more sources. The late 90s is a bit of gap in sourcing in 2022 due to so many newspaper archives being paywalled now, but I found a few things in a quick check to get started. The great Steve Guttenberg has carried many a poor movie.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I am now convinced this film, despite apparently being terrible and a flop, is notable. I've added enough so show that. But here's something funny too. Vchimpanzee, when you created this article, it looks like you happened to use the film article you'd previously edited earlier the same day as a template, Under Suspicion (2000 film). (This edit: [7] was the prior edit). I typically do the same thing. You left in Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman (and other producers of that film) as producers on the Home Team article from the old article, and no one ever caught this. (I've made the same error before, I am sure.) As I'm reading up on this movie today, I'm like "how in the world did Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman fund this pile of crap? Personal favor to Steve Guttenberg?" But then I couldn't find any real source for such famous backers. I don't think this has really been noticed, but in a December 2021 article from a radio station (KEEL in Louisiana USA), they reference Freeman and Hackman as the producers of the 1998 Home Team (which is about soccer) in discussing a 2022 film also named "Home Team" (which is about football). Though clearly unrelated, this article claims the new Home Team is a "soft-reboot and semi-remake" of the 1998 version. I'm dying laughing, but I've also corrected the issue.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I usually catch these problems.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We will never be perfect around here, you do excellent work from what i see!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I withdraw this nomination per WP:NEXIST and per User:Milowent’s article improvements. The Film Creator (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate that! I do understand why you nominated it, it did need some work.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn by nom. No opinions to delete, hence speedy keep (non-admin closure) 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My Brother the Pig[edit]

My Brother the Pig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and nothing else that's suitable enough was found to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE. The Film Creator (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP found reviews at Dove [8], Decider [9], Spinning Image [10], Radio Times [11] DonaldD23 talk to me 18:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I withdraw per WP:NEXIST thanks to User:Donaldd23's feedback and per User:ReaderofthePack's article improvements. The Film Creator (talk) 19:51, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KVN Productions[edit]

KVN Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

non notable production company pushed into mainspace repeatedly by socks PRAXIDICAE💕 15:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The citations do not support notability, as they are not in-depth significant coverage, but are simply name checks that say noting about KVN. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. The history of the article in relation to sockpuppets leads one to think that it may be a conflict of interest or likely WP:UPE. Netherzone (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: as per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 07:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. None of the sources in the article are significant coverage of KVN; I didn't find anything other than promotional type stuff elsewhere.Jacona (talk) 12:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 03:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bailey Walsh[edit]

Bailey Walsh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article lacks any reliable sources. I was unable to find any other sources that said anything that is for sure about this person. There was an attorney named Bailey Walsh, who worked for the federal government, but I was not able to find much about that person, and nothing that for sure indicates it was the same person. A Bailey Walsh was an attorney for 2 Chicago companies in 1953, he is mentioned in an over 1000 page federal document from that year. The 1936 mention in a very detailed report (thus a primary document) is probably this Bailey Walsh, and from it we learn that at some point prior to 1936 he was assistant US attorney for the western District of Tennessee. Being a US attorney for a specific district is at least a strong indication of notability, being an assistant is not, so the non-secondary sources I find on what is probably this person indicate his postions are not notability giving, and I cannot find any reliable secondary sources that mention him at all. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure, but state party secretary may have been similar to later state party chairmanships, although it might actually be a subordinate position. We have in other discussions held that such positions were not general default notable, we need reliable sources saying something substantive about the individual, which we lack here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Tennessee. Shellwood (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Given the era, it's harder to locate sources bit the nom appears to have tried hard. However, there's nothing to indicate Walsh held any particular position that would have generated significant coverage in multiple reliable sources anyway. AusLondonder (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 23:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable under WP:NPOL at all, and there's absolutely no solid sourcing being offered to suggest that he would get over WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I think he passes WP:GNG. A search on newspapers.com revealed sources that provide WP:SIGCOV: [12] [13][14]; in addition to these, there are several sources that don't provide sigcov, but fill in the gaps of his life (ex. [15] [16] [17]) (I didn't clip most, but they're on newspapers.com [18]). I think these demonstrate that he was notable. Curbon7 (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Pinging @AusLondonder@Bearcat@KidAd to see what they think. Curbon7 (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the sources identified by Curbon7, which show clear evidence of SIGCOV. Atchom (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Held the top national position in the Republican Party, arguably meeting WP:NPOL. There are now sources providing WP:SIGCOV in the article and additional sources listed above as well as more at newspapers.com and newspaperarchive.com, thereby meeting the general notability guideline. Jacona (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep sources shared by Curbon7 establish notability NemesisAT (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning keep per WP:HEY, at this point. BD2412 T 19:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the sources available through newspapers.com more than adequately satisfy the GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roxolana (singer)[edit]

Roxolana (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Although the subject participated in a major music competition, she was fourth and never featured hence does not meet WP: NMUSICIAN, also I can't find sources to prove notability. Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 13:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Ukraine. Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 13:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agree with nom. Oaktree b (talk) 17:21, 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 draftify. ✗plicit 12:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Ogbechie[edit]

Chris Ogbechie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:ACADEMIC). Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 14:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify A quick Google search showed a strong chance that this subject passes WP: GNG. Whether or not the article is ready for the mainspace is debatable, but notability on Wikipedia extends past the article alone. On the first search page there are multiple in-depth accounts from independent sources; whether or not they are regarded as reliable is another question. I believe they are. The article itself also has some “peacocking” which I addressed prior to this statement. NiklausGerard (talk) 02:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify: While it is likely that Ogbechie passes WP:NACADEMIC this is a total WP:BLP failure. One single reference is insufficient, but does let it slide past a WP:BLPPROD. This might have been better draftified unilaterally than coming to AfD, and that would be the best outcome to allow referencing and development 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:18, 29 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 14:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Kolodziej[edit]

Joe Kolodziej (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article fails notability requirements for inclusion (WP:N). It appears to be promotional advertisement and puffery. A WP:BEFORE Google search fails to turn up multiple independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage (WP:RS). The article references primary sources for some claims but most are unsourced so are not verifiable (WP:V). I would not be opposed to a redirect should a proper one be offered. ARoseWolf 14:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly everything can be sourced. Your opposition to anything or support for anything comes from where exactly? This is not an advertisement and not a puff piece. Multiple reliable sources for what exactly? Stick2700 (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I see no evidence at this time that this person is notable. I will happily change my mind if references are provided to reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to this person. Cullen328 (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Cullen328. —Svārtava (t/u) • 16:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per Cullen328 above. Nothing here indicates WP:GNG is met. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless someone can PROVIDE sources (for a lot more than is here now), and not just assert that things can be sourced. Uporządnicki (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A person with a job. Does not rise anywhere close to the level of meeting GNG. --Kbabej (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Before the AfD started there was a lot of content about Kolodziej's accomplishments within the hockey universe, but none of it was verified by references. Hence the very short version under consideration at AfD. Between the AfD nomination and an Administrator's decision, referenced content can be added by Stick2700 (and other editors), with a stress on referenced. David notMD (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no evidence this person meets the notability standards of Wikipedia, based on lack of available significant coverage about him. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not satisfy WP:GNG. Flibirigit (talk) 10:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  And now, when everything is sourced, outside verifiable sources you change things back? Either delete the article, or verify the citations. You people are unbelievable. You allow the article to be started ten years ago by a cyberstalker and real life stalker, and now, when sources are provided you block edits? No wonder people say Wiki is a sewer. Stick2700 (talk) 12:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there are concerns about the article as it is or about improving the article not relevant to this deletion discussion then you are asked to take it to the article or user talk page. Thanks --ARoseWolf 12:40, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Matrix[edit]

Tyler Matrix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No notable wrestler. Sources are reports of events, WP:ROUTINE, which don't established notability for the subject. No in-deep coverage of the wrestler. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:30, 26 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 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Wrestling, and Alabama. Shellwood (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG.LM2000 (talk) 07:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amon (wrestler)[edit]

Amon (wrestler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No notable wrestler. Sources are reports of events, WP:ROUTINE, which don't established notability for the subject. No in-deep coverage of the wrestler. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Wrestling, and Kentucky. Shellwood (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG.LM2000 (talk) 07:26, 29 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 11:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Roadents[edit]

The Roadents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable animated Web series. PepperBeast (talk) 11:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk) 11:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only 3 sources, not notable, does not indicate where to find the series. ArdynOfTheAncients — Preceding undated comment added 17:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, very thin on sourcing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Harris (naturalist)[edit]

Jim Harris (naturalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unable to find sufficient sources independent of the subject of this WP:BLP to establish WP:GNG, does not appear to meet the criteria for WP:NAUTHOR J04n(talk page) 12:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Authors, and Environment. J04n(talk page) 12:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the article lacks any indepdent sources, which is an absolute requirement of BLPs. The function of Wikipedia is not to be a platform to tell what someone says about themself, Wikipedia is always to be built on secondary sources which this article has absolutely none backing it up.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems like this was created by a SPA account by someone with a user name Jim Rattlesnake and this does suggest exactly what I think John Pack Lambert is implying above. CT55555 (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think I was implying anything. A lot of articles we have lack secondary sources, but are not made by people with conflict of interest. This appears to have conflict of interest, but a lack of secondary sources may just be because someone went with a few sources they could bring together, it does not always mean there is a special connection.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I apologise for reading too much into your comment. I share the perception that @Netherzone has below. CT55555 (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'm pretty sure this is an autobiography. It is unsourced, and a BEFORE search to see if it could be improved reveals nothing except wikipedia-mirrors, and book sales sites. Does not meet WP:NAUTHOR nor WP:GNG. It has been here since 2006, and if it can't be improved after 15 years, it should not be retained as the subject is non-notable. Netherzone (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unable to find enough SIGCOV. Does not meet WP:NAUTHOR nor WP:GNG. Mahdiar86 (talk) 10:25, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Park Cinemas[edit]

Crystal Park Cinemas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Although this company has produced a few notable films, it does not appear to have received the significant coverage in independent reliable sources needed to meet WP:NCORP. My WP:BEFORE search in English and Kannada found only single-sentence passing mentions, for instance sources that say "The series will be produced by T R Chandrashekar and Crystal Park Cinemas" and nothing more. None of the available sources qualify as significant coverage, in my view. (NPP action) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In searching I am unable to find better sources than the nominator. Perhaps a case of 'too soon' given that the company began in 2017. Gab4gab (talk) 20:25, 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. ✗plicit 12:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

War Theatre (art)[edit]

War Theatre (art) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Hoax? The two sources are not correct (ISBN links to other books, title of first one as given don't exist). I can't find references which use "war theatre" with this meaning (as far as meaning can be found in this article). If it exists and is notable, it will need a thorough rewriting. Fram (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The problematic unverifiable book reference has also been inserted into Site-specific art, purporting to support an added text which, even allowing for art-speak's tendency to utilise the word-salad bar, is ungrammatical and incomprehensible: [19]. AllyD (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  And another here at Found Object [20], I am also thinking this might be a hoax as Fram suggests. Netherzone (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as undecipherable drivel – whether or not the topic is actually notable and whether or not the sources are faked. SpinningSpark 10:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG and may likely be a hoax. The book authored by Paul Winthur and supposedly published by Cambridge University Press is not listed as a publication on the Press's website, nor do they list Winthur as an author. The creator of this article has added this citation to several WP articles along with original research. It's perplexing, but nevertheless, assuming good faith, this article does not meet our criteria for notability and should not be retained in the encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete The article is pure gibberish with unreliable sourcing.TH1980 (talk) 03:41, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As discussed above, an unreliably-sourced and incomprehensible article whose presence does no service here. AllyD (talk) 09:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Major Lazer. – Joe (talk) 13:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Skerrit Bwoy[edit]

Skerrit Bwoy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG also concerns about sock puppetry and undisclosed paid editing. Theroadislong (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I accepted this via AfC and still think he may scrape by GNG. However coverage is thin and totally concur with nom on UPE, so have no objection to it waiting for an uninvolved editor to create it. So um weak neutral? Star Mississippi 19:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  in the event I am a hold up from a closing consensus, I'm fine with Redirect too Star Mississippi 19:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, apparently he's been the subject of another earlier documentary as well from an independent source, which I've added to the article and which is referenced in an anthropology textbook. That with the Vice Article, Miami New Times, etc., I'm surprised, but I think there's sufficient coverage here.Jahaza (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The MNT article is basically local small talk and the Vice article isn't even written by staff - it's a contributor/freelancer. CUPIDICAE💕 13:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The staff vs. contributer/freelancer thing is not a relevant distinction except for certain publications like Forbes that run a self-publishing platform alongside their actual publication. AFAIK, Vice doesn't do that and like other magazines/web sites has both staff and freelance writers, but they're all writers for the publication. The news hook for the MNT article is the local concert, but it's a paper that gets read for its pop culture coverage beyond Miami.--Jahaza (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It absolutely is relevant because it's not subject to the publications editorial oversight and it's obvious it was a paid for spam piece. CUPIDICAE💕 17:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have some evidence for that? You can't just assert that it's advertorial without any evidence?--Jahaza (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Jahaza. I didn't put my two cents in before. Among 6 references I saw at the time of nomination [21], there were: 2 "included in a list", 1 "interview (primary source)", and 1 "article that deals with them tangentially"; but 2 articles that focus on them in depth. Seems the sourcing has improved since then. _signed, Willondon (talk) 00:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strike that, per CUPIDICAE. The 2 articles I referred to were Vice and MNT. They are of lesser value than I at first thought. _signed, Willondon (talk) 14:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This article was created by Wizgirl1470 and Uptopclickllc, confirmed socks of each other. Note that Uptop Click provides "brand consultation, strategic market planning, Spotify marketing and Publicity" to Skerrit Bwoy, so a clear and undisclosed conflict of interest and a violation of paid-editing requirements. --Yamla (talk) 09:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Even if we don't think there should be a separate article on this guy, he's confirmed by sources like Rolling Stone[22] to have been been a member of Major Lazer and rather than deleting, some of the info should be merged there and the article redirected.Jahaza (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon (talk) 06:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Major Laser seems the best. Oaktree b (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per my earlier analysis and Oaktree. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If we are serious about undisclosed paid editing being against policy (as well as the ToU) then we simply can't allow this page to stand. SpinningSpark 10:47, 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 keep. sources have emerged rendering much of the nom moot. Star Mississippi 02:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Roesch[edit]

Andy Roesch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This was created by the subject's great grandson, and reads like something someone would write on a family member, not like an encyclopedia article. There has been no sourcing for 10 years, the one source I added lacks significant coverage. The creator claims there are entries in the New York Times but my search for such sources produced nothing at all. My searches in multiple different places turned up no significant coverage. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and New York. Shellwood (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Inadequate sourcing to meet notability for WP: GNG. Coverage non-existent and firsthand account is not independent. NiklausGerard (talk) 05:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unreferenced so unable to verify claims made in article. My own searches found namesakes. LibStar (talk) 07:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, found [23] [24] [25] and [26]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found articles in the NYT here and here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Changing to weak keep after delving into sources. Most are 1-2 sentence or a paragraph announcing the results of a race, with the exception of the obit. It depends on how sports figures from his time are judged, and I have no idea about that. Still many thanks to BeanieFan11. I see at least four sources specifically about him. I'll see what I can add to the article. I added what I could to the article. Also note that he is sometimes listed as "Andrew" or "Andrew J." Lamona (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon (talk) 06:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. this and this, plus a few lesser articles amount to the WP:SIGCOV required to meet WP:GNG.Jacona (talk) 14:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's unclear why this has been nominated. Subject passes the WP:GNG per sources above. Nominator complaints about the sources IN the article, however per WP:NEXIST that's not a rationale for deletion. He also suggests that Wikipedia has deadlines. There is no such thing. gidonb (talk) 16:25, 30 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. Although what becomes clear is that this needs serious cleanup if it is to be kept. Sandstein 11:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commune (model of government)[edit]

Commune (model of government) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No independent, reliable, secondary sourcing for the "commune as a model of government"; none in the last decade and none forthcoming. An article for revolutionary government would be scoped too wide for our purposes. While Commune (Marx) could link to his The Civil War in France (where he discusses the Paris Commune), it would not make sense to use this "model of government" article title for that purpose. No other suitable redirect or merge targets. czar 01:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar 01:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not unsympathetic to this nomination; given the article reads more as an essay with appearances of SYNTH, TNT might be the correct option. I'd be interested to hear others' views. However, as a topic, there's multiple analyses available that cover examples such as the Paris Commune, the Baku Commune, the Canton Commune, the Kwangju Uprising (the latter referred to as a commune) and the Chiapas Commune. The subject itself, the structure of insurrectionary political organization, should be differentiated from an intentional community. Of course there's an overlap here with Soviet (council). There is sourcing that could be used for an article but which would require treading a careful path not to end up in SYNTH.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]} ... but not clear to me in its current form this can be rescued.

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon (talk) 05:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SYNTH. Intentional community might be a redirect target, although that might be confusing rather than beneficial. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with cleanup Per what Goldsztajn has said. There's decent analysis published about this topic, but cleanup is required here. AusLondonder (talk) 15:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There can be no doubt that this is a notable topic. So the only question is whether it is in such a poor state that TNT is called for rather than cleanup. I don't think that is necessary, language problems are fairly straightforward to deal with. My main criticism is that there is insufficient focus on the anarchist conception of the commune, for which I suggest Ruth Kinna's book The Government of No One: The Theory and Practice of Anarchism ISBN 0141984678 would make a good starting point for sourcing. SpinningSpark 10:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Spinningspark@AusLondonder@Goldsztajn, sorry for not responding sooner. What sources are you referencing as giving "no doubt"? I've reviewed the above sources and there is no common concept of "revolutionary commune" about which we have enough sourcing to write an encyclopedic article. I have Kinna's book and every mention of "commune" is in reference to the Paris Commune (or Kropotkin, in reference to federations of self-governing municipalities in the model of the Paris Commune), but that goes back to my original point. Anything that warrants saying about the legacy of the Paris Commune as a model can be covered in the existing article's Legacy section and split out summary style when shown an overabundance of sourcing. Anything that warrants saying about Kropotkin's views on revolutionary government can be covered in his biography or The Conquest of Bread. Medieval communes are already covered. Temporarily reclaimed spaces are usually labeled temporary autonomous zones or liminal spaces. The question is what sourcing discusses a "commune model of government/revolutionary government" as a concept with dedicated coverage. I don't see it here and I'm curious where you do. I only see a lot of content that fits in other places and not a unified concept.

Source analysis

• "Kropotkin's commune and the politics of history" covers Kropotkin's discussion of the Paris Commune as a model, from The Conquest of Bread (where any related commentary should be covered
• the Brill encyclopedia is inaccesible to me but from what I see, it's covering the concept of commune (administrative division), not its Paris/revolutionary connotations
• Kwangju Commune uses "commune" as a synonym for uprising and doesn't describe a revolutionary government
• the rest do the same thing: besides cursory mentions of Oaxaca and Oakland Communes, there is no discussion of a revolutionary government, it's just a loanword that refers back to the Paris Commune (and should be covered as part of the Paris Commune's legacy) but does not refer to a common concept; by the same token, Canton Commune redirects to Guangzhou Uprising and there are plenty of others in Commune#Government and military/defense but again, they do not refer to a common conception of a revolutionary government beyond using the word "commune" as a dictionary definition
• "The Commune Concept in Mao Tsetung Thought" refers to a "'commune state' or commune-type government" in reference to a "commune-type revolution as exemplified by the Paris Commune" (p. 63). There is a great section on "What Is a Commune?" which is the question we are asking in this discussion, and the answer is "a prototype of modern revolution" based on Marx's analysis of the Paris Commune (The Civil War in France). Note that this is Marx's own conception, so the only responsible place to discuss that is in its existing article. There is no distinct concept of a "commune" between Marx and Kropotkin and every uprising that has been called a Commune about which to write an encyclopedia article.

czar 23:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll come back to this for a longer response, but I see a difference between insurrectionary and revolutionary, the former being more time limited and less governmental, rather than organisational. Whether the sources justify that is a different thing. :) Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per Nom and 力. -- Otr500 (talk) 04:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 12:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disinformation (album)[edit]

Disinformation (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I don't think the album itself meets notability criteria from WP:NALBUM. Tow (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Tow (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Definitely non-notable, the only true review is by AllMusic - the rests are reviews of the whole group (or small parts of album reviews, such as the one by Robert Christgau). Réunion (talk to me) 16:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or, maybe better, redirect – In full disclosure: I didn't start the article, but added RS references to it last July. In addition to the cited RS, there are also mentions in another NYT article, from 1999, in a few early 2000s Akron Beacon Journal articles, and in a few Ralph Carney obits. Caro7200 (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think redirect would be a good option, probably better than deleting the article if someone actually wants to know where it's gone. Maybe we can incorporate something in this article in the Tin Huey page. Réunion (talk to me) 22:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Appears the sources mostly cover the band or artists themselves rather than this album. I feel a redirect is the ideal solution for this case. Tow (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:NALBUM with sources added to the article by Caro. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 00:18, 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) 06:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Abstain User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:11, 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 Reiji Yamada. Star Mississippi 02:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zetsubō ni Kiku Kusuri[edit]

Zetsubō ni Kiku Kusuri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unreferenced article. No evidence of notability in over ten years since its creation. - Xexerss (talk) 06:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan - Xexerss (talk) 06:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Reiji Yamada per nom, fails GNG/NBOOK. Link20XX (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 09:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:00, 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 Hiroya Oku. further input is unlikely. Valid ATD Star Mississippi 02:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maetel no Kimochi[edit]

Maetel no Kimochi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Some months ago I tried to fix the article, but I couldn't find enough reliable secondary sources. I found out that it was licensed in other countries, like in Italy, but I didn't find anything useful and reliable in that language either. - Xexerss (talk) 06:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan - Xexerss (talk) 06:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Hiroya Oku; I conducted a search for refs and I couldn't find any, though admittedly I don't know many good places to look for reviews for manga in Italian, so it is possible that sources exist. Link20XX (talk) 14:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 09:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:00, 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 Rugby union at the 1900 Summer Olympics. Star Mississippi 01:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eduard Poppe[edit]

Eduard Poppe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Prod and notability tag removed without explanation or addition of sources. Prod justification was Fails WP:GNG, WP:SPORTCRIT #5, WP:NOLYMPICS, and violates the general criteria of WP:NOTDATABASE - all we know about him is his name, his nationality, and that he played for FC 1880 Frankfurt. No significant coverage in our article or the German article, and no coverage identifiable in a search. BilledMammal (talk) 11:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Germany. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We lack any substantial sources to say anything of substance about this individual. In many ways this article is coatracking about the German competition in the 1900 Olympics, but even there it is worse than nothing. There were no official national teams in the Olympics period until at least 1908. Having these sub-stub articles on competitors in the Olympics that tell us nothing about them is making too much to edit and leading us to have text that misleads readers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• If nothing can be found on this guy, then redirect to Rugby union at the 1900 Summer Olympics per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Not notable. I agree with User talk:Lugnuts. Mommmyy (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Rugby union at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Rosters Doesn't appear to be enough for a GNG pass, although there might be some offline sourcing in books for example. Without this though, redirect is a suitable WP:ATD and there doesn't look to be any confusion with the name to stop a redirect here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:08, 30 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 Rugby union at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Germany. Sandstein 11:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Latscha[edit]

Hans Latscha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Prod removed without explanation or addition of sources. Prod justification was Fails WP:GNG, WP:SPORTCRIT #5, WP:NOLYMPICS, and violates the general criteria of WP:NOTDATABASE. No significant coverage in our article or the German article, and no coverage identifiable in a search. BilledMammal (talk) 11:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Germany. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there is nothing known about this individual other than he was on the Rugby team when it went to the Olympics, and was in a competition where everyone came in in the top 3. Beyond that, medals were not given out in the 1900 Olympics. There were no national teams until the 1908 Olympics. This article just reeks of presentism and trying to anachronistically apply the current Olympic framework to our understanding of a game that pre-dates the current framework.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• If nothing can be found on this guy, then redirect to Rugby union at the 1900 Summer Olympics per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Rugby union at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Rosters Doesn't appear to be enough for a GNG pass, although there might be some offline sourcing in books for example. Without this though, redirect is a suitable WP:ATD and there doesn't look to be any confusion with the name to stop a redirect here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:08, 30 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 Rugby union at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Rosters per WP:ATD. – Joe (talk) 13:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fritz Müller (rugby union)[edit]

Fritz Müller (rugby union) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Prod and notability tag removed without explanation or addition of sources. Prod justification was Fails WP:GNG, WP:SPORTCRIT #5, WP:NOLYMPICS, and violates the general criteria of WP:NOTDATABASE - all we know about him is his name, his nationality, and that he played for FC 1880 Frankfurt. No significant coverage in our article or the German article, and no coverage identifiable in a search. BilledMammal (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Germany. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete another misleading article. There were no official teams from any country at the Olympics before 1908 period, so the wording of this article is very misleading. We also lack any significant sources on this individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• If nothing can be found on this guy, then redirect to Rugby union at the 1900 Summer Olympics per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Rugby union at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Rosters Doesn't appear to be enough for a GNG pass, although there might be some offline sourcing in books for example. Without this though, redirect is a suitable WP:ATD and there doesn't look to be any confusion with the name to stop a redirect here.
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per JPL. Not opposed to "Redirect" as ATD per Spiderone. -- Otr500 (talk) 04:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Rugby union at the 1900 Summer Olympics. Star Mississippi 01:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Willy Hofmeister[edit]

Willy Hofmeister (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Prod removed without explanation or addition of sources. Prod justification was Fails WP:GNG, WP:SPORTCRIT #5, WP:NOLYMPICS, and violates the general criteria of WP:NOTDATABASE. No significant coverage in our article or the German article, and no coverage identifiable in a search. BilledMammal (talk) 10:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 10:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• If nothing can be found on this guy, then redirect to Rugby union at the 1900 Summer Olympics per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete half the article is pure falsehood. There was no silver medal given at the 1900 Olympics for anything, the giving of gold, silver and bronze medals begins in 1904. There were no teams competing for any nation until at least 1908, so the wording about that is also false. There is no sign of sourcing to show that this person is in any way a notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Rugby union at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Rosters Doesn't appear to be enough for a GNG pass, although there might be some offline sourcing in books for example. Without this though, redirect is a suitable WP:ATD and there doesn't look to be any confusion with the name to stop a redirect here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable individual with insufficient sourcing to meet the standard for an article. A google search did not turn up anything of additional substance. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC. NiklausGerard (talk) 23:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:09, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) PamD 16:17, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zapatilla (mountain)[edit]

Zapatilla (mountain) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unsourced since its creation by an editor who made no other edits, in 2011. Does not appear on maps that I can find, although there is a ski run called "Tuba Zapatilla" in Candanchú. Either non-notable or possibly a hoax. It was edited (unconstructively) in 2020 by an IP I've just reported for vandalism, which may be a coincidence (but it was led me to look at this stub). PamD 10:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. PamD 10:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delving further I find that it shows up on Google maps with four "reviews": can't find them online elsewhere (looking for phrases in their original texts): is this enough for notability for a mountain? PamD 10:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. According to the Candanchú there is an off-piste ski run at this resort called Tubo Zapatilla. This seems to be a well known difficult run. This site describes the run as being located on the "sole" of Zapatilla, implying that it is on the lower slopes of a mountain of that name. SpinningSpark 11:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have made the necessary updates on the page. RPSkokie (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It's strange that it doesn't get a mention in Spanish wikipedia (see their dab page. I note that it is mentioned in our article on Aspe peak, but not the Spanish equivalent, and that mention was added by an IP whose only other edit was immediately reverted as unsourced OR. Perhaps it is genuinely a little-known minor summit, but there seems something odd. PamD 15:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw: tracing the photo from Commons added to the infobox by @RPSkokie: led me to A Zapatilla in Aragonese Wiki - first time I've been there, I think - written by an editor there with a serious contribution history, which gives me confidence that this mountain is real and wiki-worthy. Have linked the Aragonese article to this one. Thanks for the improvements to what was an inadequate little stub for far too long! PamD 16:14, 29 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. consensus is the quantity of references does not meet qualtity required Star Mississippi 01:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Riess Group[edit]

Riess Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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