< April 27	April 29 >

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

The result was merge to Dong-Eui University. (non-admin closure) Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dong-eui Medical Center[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Marked for notability concerns since 2014. Could not find significant coverage in English. I would reconsider if something is found in Korean. Note there is no Korean wiki article. LibStar (talk) 00:01, 29 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 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, and South Korea. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No in-depth secondary coverage found in English. Just listings in directories. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Dong-Eui University, of which it is a part. agtx 03:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Agtx and WP:ATD. -- Otr500 (talk) 12:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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!} 04:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mud Coffee[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I believe this fails the tests for WP:N and WP:CORP. This article would need to be completely rewritten to escape the advertising tone it has now. I don't think it's notable enough to deserve the effort. Googling "Mud Coffee" in quotes produces 74,000 results but most of the top ones are either the business's own web presence or unrelated brands and techniques. Aside from a single write-up in the New York Times in 2001, which is the article's sole citation, I only found one other secondary source mention. Tisnec (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: New York, Food and drink, and Companies. XOR'easter (talk) 18:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Searches for "Mudtruck" should also be included. Here is a third news mention, and a fourth here. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are in-depth. One says the outlet is on an indefinite hiatus, the other isn't even about this location but a sister location. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the company and mentions the other locations, so I think coverage of the individual locations is coverage of the company, don't you? Also, I don't think it matters if the article talks about it closing. If it wasn't notable, why would anyone write about its closing? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brief mentions are not in-depth coverage. See WP:CORPDEPTH. Also, no evidence that the sister location is the same company or a different company. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a promotional article and the subject is a non-notable local coffee shop. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 21:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As noted would need a complete re-write given current overly promotional language. However, I'm not seeing significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to justify that. Also consider WP:AUD: "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability." AusLondonder (talk) 12:58, 24 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, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:05, 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 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!} 04:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Morchopna[edit]

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

There is citation tag added since 2017, no reference has been provided. It is a simple village and not even princely state, the content of the page is itself dubious. Considering all this is the appropriate step RS6784 (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. RS6784 (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of Raj-era sources for this by I'm struggling to find anything after 1947. Is this village now known by a different name? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to get more information from post-1947 days but didn't got much data, to me it looks like a case of promotional stuff. If the village name has changed then it is a misleading page to the viewers. RS6784 (talk) 13:41, 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, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem to consist of a lot of OR, Yes I think I lean delete. Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 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 per consensus. Fails notability guidelines as described according to several relevant policies/guidelines. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oritsewinor Kevin Olu[edit]

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

Non notable business person and certainly doesn’t need NPOL despite the attempt to make it appear so. PRAXIDICAE💕 23:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep : wow, wow, wow lol I hope other contributors can also read from here User_talk:Praxidicae#Why. You never said the article didn’t passes WP:GNG which of course it does with a lot of notable reliable references from Vanguard (Nigeria), The Sun (Nigeria), The Guardian (Nigeria) and so on when search on Google rather you called it a non notable business person without a proof lol. Subject article passes WP:GNG and as a politician he passes WP:POLITICIAN. He has gained significant coverage from different reliable source over the years as a Political party member of the PDP, Elected in various positions over the years and currently the SSA on security matters to the current governor of Delta State. @Praxidicae I believe you AFD the article not because it has any issue but because you already had your threaten statement but still I go stand for peace & hope you do too --Gabriel601 (talk) 01:17, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Despite the creating editor's obvious strong feelings that this is a notable politician, he fails WP:NPOLITICIAN since he has only been a "Former : House of assembly aspirant Warri north delta state PDP" which means he has never been elected. The references show a person who aspires to, but has not achieved notability. Even the picture shows him arranged in a self aggrandising posture.He does not meet the criteria for WP:BIO. He is an assistant, doubtless important to the role he assists, but not notable in a Wikipedia sense. There is no issue with the references being WP:RS, but they lack independence, being interviews with Olu, not being about Olu. Thus they are primary sources.
Regrettably, this was a disputed draftification, made against strong advice. I cannot suggest re-draftification since I do not believe that Olu has inherent notability. When he does he may have an article about him here
I wish the creating editor had not moved the draft back to mainspace and would have taken advice. The foregoing would have been my WP:AFC review. Now it is my AfD opinion. It was not appropriate for dratification instead of AfD, because that would have been move warring 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 08:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article features categories that claim this individual is a member of the Senate while the article Delta State Peoples Democratic Party claims he is a member of the House of Representatives representing Warri. I have been unable to substantiate those claims. AusLondonder (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AusLondonder I believe the article is constructed such that the reader might believe that Olu is what he is not. The categories are of particular interest and I had not noticed them previously. I have firm doubts that Category:Members of the Senate (Nigeria) or Category:Delta State politicians should be present. I find it a deceptive article. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Timtrent, AusLondonder. It is indeed a possible deceptive article. Next year (2023) is election year in Nigeria, it is my opinion that politicians may be trying to boost their image. Now, I’m looking at a more serious issue, which is the creator of the article might have breached our TOU, I’m going to take a closer look and file reports accordingly before tomorrow. Celestina007 (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per nom, this article is not only lacking in sources, but has all the trapping of possible undeclared paid editing, see move warring which is mentioned in UPESIGN#5 Tbh one of the many reasons I can afford to take a wiki-break is primarily because of the existence of Praxidicae, she is extremely sound in dealing with Nigeria related articles which is extremely difficult and also because of existence of anti spam. Now this article is the quintessential example of an WP:ADMASQ which fails every known notability criterion or criteria for inclusion. They lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The sources are all either interviews, or have a strong 'press release' feel about them, or both - I'm not seeing organic in-depth coverage in RS. I get the sense that Wikipedia is being used as an extension to someone's PR campaign, which I object to. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — interviews, fails the general notability guidelines. Reading Beans ^{Talk to the Beans?} 17:40, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who Gets the Dog? (2007 film)[edit]

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

Deprodded with addition of a review, but I could find no other sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ I added the Guardian review. As it was screened primetime on the most popular tv station in the UK it is highly likely it was reviewed in a number of newspapers such as The Times, and Telegraph and others. Unfortunately those newspapers are paywalled. Could someone with access to Newpapers.com search for the search term Who gets the dog ? Kevin Whately. Just to note the Commonsense media review is for a different film of the same name, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found only TV Guide listings. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe its on ProQuest? Atlantic306 (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is what looks like a reasonably lengthy article about the film in The Stage as shown previewed here 7th down but I don't have access, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've found quite a few reviews for this, as well as some production info. I can't find the viewership numbers, as those seem to be hidden behind further paywalls that I can't access. In any case, the reviews for this are kind of hilarious in that it was almost universally reviled by the press, who were a bit more candid than they otherwise would have been. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep changing to full keep in light of the extra reviews found and added to the article such as The Telegraph and The Independent to go with The Guardian and others so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:25, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rohan Vinod Mehra[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Disputed CSD and disputed edit to become a redirect to Baazaar. Created by sockpuppet after master's block. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dhirenmb. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is worth staying. This actor has also played the role of writer, director and composer for a few short films. He also happens to be son of a very very successful Indian actor. Thanks, Vikram Maingi (talk) 04:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:48, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Every single ref is an interview. Primary sources don't count towards notability per WP:BASIC. Hemantha (talk) 07:31, 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 merge to Tamar (daughter of David). Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amnon and Tamar story[edit]

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

We already have articles for Amnon and for Tamar (daughter of David), which deal almost exclusively with this story. Having a third article for the same subject seems like overkill. I redirected this to Amnon, but on second thoughts a redirect to Tamar (daughter of David) may be better. The article creator thinks it is better as a stand-alone article, so here we are. Fram (talk) 10:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Religion. Fram (talk) 10:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tamar (daughter of David). Given the amount that has been written and created about the incident, I think it would be possible to have a separate article on the "story" in addition to the articles on Tamar and Amnon, but that article would by WP:COMMONNAME probably best belong at Rape of Tamar, which is currently a redirect to Tamar (daughter of David). This would raise certain other questions about whether the encyclopedia should center the act over the victim, but we can set those questions aside for the moment. Given the current relative paucity of the article at Tamar (daughter of David) there's plenty of "room" there for more info after a merge.--Jahaza (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:58, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Margie Warrell[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Very little in-depth coverage from any sort of reliable independent source and lots of promotional fluff. JTtheOG (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, News media, and Australia. JTtheOG (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per WP:HEY. It's an unusual use of HEY I know-- I significantly edited the page in an attempt to save it because she has notoriety as a speaker, but after significant research (via Google, Newsbank and WikiLibrary) I found very few RSs. Possibly there's a weak case for WP:AUTHOR, but given the lack of sources I could find I think I would vote delete.
Delete. At initial glance I was thinking she would have some RS coverage based on her speaking and books, but I couldn't find non-interview RS that covered her or her books. Lots of listings to speak, and some interviews, and some book listings, but nothing that would amount to making the subject notable. (Note: If other editors find something I missed, feel free to ping me!) --Kbabej (talk) 22:42, 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 merge to Megamind. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Megamind: The Button of Doom[edit]

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

Unsourced. Not seem notable, unlike the theatrical film. Just plot and cast. A small summary could be merged to Megamind. Indagate (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Entertainment. Indagate (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable spinoff with zero sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:20, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge into the article for Megamind. There could probably be a section in the article about the short film with a very limited amount of information, but no more than that. There's really no usable sourcing about this short that isn't primary. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources added from main page of the film. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources added are coverage of DVD release with mention of the short so don't help establish the shorts notability, need articles dedicated to it Indagate (talk) 05:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Megamind, keeping the edit history intact. The article reads as little more than a plot summary and cast list. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 18:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Megamind Fails GNG by itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:36, 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 speedy delete per CSD#G5. --Blablubbs (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fletcher Harper (environmentalist)[edit]

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

non-notable priest/academic. All I can find are a few Q&As and quotes, nothing substantial. PRAXIDICAE💕 18:18, 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 Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:05, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James White (theologian)[edit]

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

Unable to find SIGCOV in reliable sources during a BEFORE search. Huge amounts of blog content, especially on Patheos blogs, but nothing significant in actual RS, other than mentions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Religion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arizona and Minnesota. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Non-notable and the only sources come from blogs/the church itself. ArdynOfTheAncients (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a rationale for speedy deletion. Jclemens (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep James White is a theologian who was written multiple books and is a well known apologist, when I am home I may try to find more sources for the article. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I found multiple sources that talk about James White and added them to the article. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 12:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism: A History of Conflict Between Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism from the Early Church to Our Modern Time is published by WestBow, a self publishing outfit.[1] WHY PROTESTANT BIBLES ARE SMALLER: A Defense of the Protestant Old Testament Canon is another independently published book from a self publishing outfit.[2] The Critique of Religion and Religion’s Critique: On Dialectical Religiology has a single sentence mention. This site is not independent, since he's a teacher there. Lastly you added this, which is sourced to a media ministry that serves Christ by explaining and defending the Catholic faith.
  
  We need significant coverage, independent of the article subject, in reliable sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:07, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  This recently added source is a self published source, and is by someone who was debating White. Not independent, doesn't establish notability. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:20, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This reference on a broad catholic site here should not be dismissed as it is independent critical analysis, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Christianity Atlantic306 (talk) 23:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Ridiculous nomination which hasn't followed WP:BEFORE. Obviously, one must search carefully because it is a common name, but GS cites are very high for this field: 68, 59, 41, 36, 25, etc. St Anselm (talk) 23:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some coverage in news articles: [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. St Anselm (talk) 23:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing those sources, it's appreciated. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete. If notable this can be recreated from reliable sourcing but there is clear consensus this isn't salvageable so putting it in draft would be a bad start. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GONN[edit]

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

All of the sources are just the band's own material or other primary sources. The hall of fame into which they were inducted is not a notable entity. Searching for "Gonn" + various members or "Gonn" + "Blackout of Gretely" turned up nothing whatsoever on GNews, GBooks, World Radio History, or Newspapers.com. This article is so overblown in making the band seem way more active than it is that if I'm in the wrong about their notability, WP:TNT would be required. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Iowa. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there's a lot of sound here, but it doesn't really say much at all. I can't find any independent sources referring to any of this - the song crops up frequently, but there's no discussion or analysis surrounding it. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 18:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - besides the Iowa R&R HOF, which isn't notable but I have no reason to believe unreliable, there's significant coverage in a foreign language in this book, and coverage in the following books from the Internet Archive: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. [16] seems to indicate the band had some substantial influence, plus additional coverage [17]. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My browser hangs when I try to load those. Could you please add those to the article? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I agree with TPH that the article is overblown, and needs trimming to what meets WP:V and is of encyclopedic value. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:49, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nom: The notability of a subject is not advanced through blogs. Rather a large amount of content for blogs likely means the article is currently sourced through sites in the "External links". The first source I checked (google.de/books/edition/Garage_rock) splashed that I have reached the end of the viewing. When notability is questioned there is a misconception that splashing a lot of sources like "significant coverage in a foreign language" satisfies sourcing requirement. I see this all the time. WP:BURDEN states: All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an WP:inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. We could tag the article and every line, fill the article up with tags, then start deleting unsourced material, if that is deemed a better direction --- or --- someone with more interest could jump in a perform a HEY. The other option is to delete this mess and maybe someone later may find sources to advance notability and put them in the article so the information can be verified as also not being original research copyright issues, or plagiarism. How about this; "Lenny Kaye told Craig Moore in person at a Patti Smith Group concert that "Blackout of Gretely" would have been included on the original Nuggets#1: Original Artyfacts From The First Psychedelic Era 1965-1968 double LP in 1972 except that it was too long." This looks suspiciously like unsourced quoting being reworded and only supported by "Rex Garrett's comments, liner notes, Gonn with the Wind". Mr. Garrett's possibly having directly heard the conversation between Lenny Kaye and Craig Moore does not mean it is applicable to be a reliable source. Although the talk page is missing the template it should be noted that the article in BLP related (a lot of names are used in the article and some are likely still living) which means we should err on the side of requiring the proper sourcing on the article and not a talk page or an AFD discussion to be filed away by time. -- Otr500 (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to draft per 78.26’s comment. While I’m unable to check their archive links atm, but they should be enough for notability. But of course having an article in this sorry state in the mainspace isn’t ideal, so it should get turned into a draft until its problems are solved MRN2electricboogaloo (talk) 19:14, 5 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Bond films on television[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Trivia, lot of references to IMDb which is unreliable Indagate (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, and Entertainment. Indagate (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clear trivia that fails WP:NOTTVTROPES. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom and TPH. Absolutely trivia, full of original research and sourced with IMDb. See: WP:IMDB/BLP, Wikipedia:UGC, and WP:IMDB-EL. -- Otr500 (talk) 14:17, 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 speedy delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Telecommunications in Saint Pierre and Miquelon[edit]

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

Prod and redirect to Telecommunications in France both declined. This is an extremely short list containing too little info to bother with a merge. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:02, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and France. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:02, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Unnecessary article as we already have Telecommunications In Paris. ArdynOfTheAncients (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is telecommunications in Paris related to SPM, other than being in the same country? Maybe this information should be included in the main SPM article, or in the Telecoms in France article, under a section for non-metropolitan France? Bigaln2 (talk) 01:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree this had to be speedily deleted. CharlesWain (talk) 18:01, 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 delete. – Joe (talk) 07:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

World Money Fair[edit]

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

Unsourced stub, Google search reveals nothing in regard to this specific Fair. The page should be deleted. NotReallySoroka (talk) 03:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NotReallySoroka (talk) 03:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've found several sources about a World Money Fair, mostly from specialized news sites (eg.: [18] [19]). There appears to be a large amount of news items about new coins and what-not related to the fair (very little about the fair itself), so hard to say if it should have its own article or if it should redirect somewhere else. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 01:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Coin buying, selling, and trading is a big deal worldwide. This organization and American Numismatic Association seems to have an alliance (as do likely all other numismatic type organizations) but there is very few reliable and independent sources there and it swings into promotionalism. A problem is that it typically sits in a specialty corner and not generally world news. -- Otr500 (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom. I can not find the sources required to advance notability. One would think it "should be out there" but that is not a card for passing notability when questioned. The organizations website in the "External links" section, 1)- is not a reference, 2) does not add anything to notability. -- Otr500 (talk) 19:56, 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. ✗plicit 14:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flags of cities of the United States[edit]

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

Category-masquerading-as-an-article. Fails WP:NOTGALLERY. Save a few exceptions, most of these flags are not even important enough to get mentioned on the page of their respective city. Thus, there is no reasonable ground on which to expect the presence of significant coverage from which to write encyclopedic prose for this list topic, either, on top of the NOT issue. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:12, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While there's a slightly more coverage than US County Flags (e.g. American City Flags by Purcell et al.), it still shares the same fundamental issues of failing WP:NLIST and WP:NOTGALLERY. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of city flags in North America. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 18:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How would moving the category-masquerading-as-an-article to another page with the exact same issues address the problem? The deletion rationale here applies just as much to that other page, I'll probably do a new group nom later today... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:49, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will do this group nom because these categories-masquerading-as-articles should have been image gallery pages on Commons a decade ago. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 00:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:LISTCRUFT, it is a non-free gallery of images of flags, and it is actually unnecessary.
Nuke em ASAP SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 05:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way too much detail, way too many blank listsings, way too many minor places. If the flag is notable we can put up information about it on the article on the city, we do not need such a long and uncontrolled list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom and JPL. -- Otr500 (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article could be transformed into a redirect to city flags of the United States by state or region. The pages then explain the meanings of the city flags. An example would be: A user goes to this page, chooses "Flags of cities in Alaska" then scrolls to Seward's flag, which contains both the flag and meaning(s) of the city's flag. The user is also able to see meanings and other information for other flags in the region/state. Flags without meanings are left on the Commons page. Flagvisioner (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or, and much simpler, users simply go to the article about the city, and if there is some encyclopedic information about the flag of the city, it gets included in the article about the city (where one would expect it to be, to begin with). No need for WP:NOTGALLERY violations or lists which are so large as to take decades scrolling through them (hence defeating any practical purpose they might have). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nomination and JPL. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:18, 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 speedy delete. CSD G5, created by sockpuppet of Mostly shoaib (likely the article subject) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shoaib Rahman[edit]

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

57 references, and yet it looks as if he isn't actually notable. No GNews hits about him (just posts by him)[20], and some 58 regular GHits[21] are both very low for a current English-language writer, filmmaker and entrepreneur. The sources in the article are in many cases self published, or generic databases, or of dubious independence. Something like this doesn't seem to mention Rahman, or Fadew. Something like this is a worthless source. this is self published by Rahman. This is of very dubious reliability and independence. This is self written. In general, I have trouble here finding the few actual reliable, independent, indepth sources we require to accept biographies. Fram (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Journalism, Literature, Atheism, Bangladesh, and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete salt and nuke from orbit. Non notable vanity spam. Absolutely filled to the brim with garbage sourcing. PRAXIDICAE💕 21:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's blatantly obvious this is vanity spam. Most every single source is simply a product listing or something the subject has created himself. I would be surprised if non-COI editors found this article notable and meeting GNG. If anyone is confused, however, I'm more than happy to assess sourcing one-by-one. --Kbabej (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No significant coverage, fails WP:GNG. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 01:32, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Swimming clubs in Kent[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. Also this is not a notable topic for a list VViking_TalkEdits 13:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Lists, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTYELLOW. Just a collection of urls, nothing notable at all here. Ajf773 (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NLIST. LibStar (talk) 01:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per the above comments. I learnt to swim in Dartford incidentally, but I wouldn't regard my personal history as more Wiki-valid than anyone else's. RobinCarmody (talk) 02:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NLIST. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note I have nominated a similar list of swimming clubs in London for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swimming clubs in London. AusLondonder (talk) 07:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. No objection to Category:Swimming clubs in Kent, if and when there will be sufficient notable clubs with articles. gidonb (talk) 02:19, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Allvue Systems[edit]

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

Disputed draftification, albeit with some work. Had this been left as a draft it might have been improved after further recommendations. WP:ADMASQ, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, fails WP:NCORP. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Companies, Computing, and United States of America. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was in the middle of bringing this here, but Timtrent beat me to it! Pure ADMASQ, sources are just press release regurgitations and the like, and a search finds only more of the same. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing If only the editors involved in creating material like this listened during the AFC review process AfD would not be troubled so often with inappropriate unilateral moves. That one may do a thing does not mean one should. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:05, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't realise the process is it's kept in drafts as edits are done, I've moved it back now, would you be able to link me to the page that explains how you get reviews done in the draftspace? Squaumau (talk) 14:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we should interpret that as a request by Squaumau to Draftify the article.

To further your knowledge, Squaumau, I suggest you go to WP:TEAHOUSE, where you may ask all the questions you wish, or as an alternative to WP:AFCHD. Pick one or the other, but not both, please. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Timtrent, thanks for the links - I think I am requesting to draftify. I'll make sure do it the proper way going forward Squaumau (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete pending a review of the sources (which I might or might not do). On its face, there are notability and tone concerns. The article is written from the corporation's viewpoint, and does not report on what third parties have said, but that is the basis of corporate notability. The article is blatantly promotional, and its author has been asked about conflict of interest, and has not yet had time to answer. The article was moved into draft space by a reviewer, but moved back to article space by the author, which is permitted, but does not indicate collaboration. The author then attempted to move the article back to draft space after it was nominated for deletion. That is gaming the system, but that is a conduct issue, and AFD is a content forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Robert, sorry about moving it to draft, I was unaware that this had to be done through someone else, I've nominated the piece through someone to be draftified. I am not an employee of the company, just have worked in the same area and thought to write an article about what I know. If it could be moved back to draft, I can work on this to improve my article creation skills , i based a lot of the tone on other live software company articles like this one - Bluebeam Software, Inc., but I obviously need to dig deeper and ask for guidance through the channels that another user pointed out above. Thanks for the help on how to make these better :) Squaumau (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom. In total agreement with DoubleGrazing and Robert McClenon. - Hatchens (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. WP:ADMASQ. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 09:39, 5 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Madhuja Mukherjee[edit]

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

Blatant advert with inline links to various things created by the subject. WP:BOMBARD. Three paragraphs and a couple of tables do not warrant 30 references. Disputed draftification. WP:ADMASQ, fails WP:NPROF and WP:NCREATIVE. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Education, and India. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possibly via G5 depending on how Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Khorang shakes out. Bad faith creation for sure. Star Mississippi 14:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete or Draftify with Protection at this time, pending further review - It is clear from the conduct of the author(s) of the article that they are more interested in having an article accepted than in discussing whether an article should be accepted. There are too many references, which is an obvious attempt to overwhelm the review process, but too many of them are to her own work or are otherwise not independent and reliable. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I pared down the references by creating a Works section and removing reprints and excess citations, and then added a few more citations, including from the WP Library about her work as an inter-media artist. She is a professor and has edited several books, but I have only so far found one review for one of the books. There are also a few reviews related to her work in film. Beccaynr (talk) 04:07, 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 Becky G discography#Albums. Can be restored if the album becomes notable. Sandstein 05:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Esquemas[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:NALBUMS. Sources are self promotion by artist and passing mentions. Hasn't released yet - WP:TOOSOON. Move to draft space to incubate was undone. Should be a draft for now and this article redirected to the discography page of the artist. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. The sources could be better but the coverage can only increase (especially having a single that has reached number 15 on the Billboard Hot 100 on it). It's only a few weeks until its release. I say if it doesn't achieve much after its release, redirect it then. Ss112 00:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - Keep, or merge to Becky G as a useful search term. --Jax 0677 (talk) 10:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate in draftspace – Appears to lack notability at this point in time; all initial search results on Google News exclusively cover the album's announcement. As it will more than likely receive more coverage following its release; preserving the current page's content is the best solution. Sean Stephens (talk) 11:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Becky G discography for now. Still fails WP:FUTUREALBUM per nom. A WP:BEFORE shows only announcements about the album, no news regarding its track listing. SBKSPP (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate in draftspace, per Sean Stephens, also see WP:FUTUREALBUMS. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Disregarding the "keep" vote that has no reasoning. For now, consensus is divided between draftifying the article or redirecting it to the artist's discography page. Since the album is slated to be released in 2 weeks, I'll give this discussion another round on whether the album meets WP:FUTUREALBUM or not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NALBUMS, potentially WP:TOOSOON. Eligible under WP:DRAFTIFY but I think rewriting from scratch when and if it becomes notable is the better approach. There will be something to say, then 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - If and when the album becomes notable, it's easy enough to undo a redirect and add the sourcing needed to establish it as a standalone article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:52, 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. Clear consensus the content isnt to be kept but no clear consensus on a redirect. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Pearce[edit]

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

Article mentions his claim to fame as being that he umpired three test matches and nothing else, and Googling ' "Terry Pearce" umpire' (just googling the name comes up with other people) mostly links to mirror sites of the article. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 09:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 09:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing can be found on this guy, then redirect to List of Test cricket umpires, per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. I'll drop a note on the talkpage of a few editors who may (or may not) be able to locate local sources. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message. I'm away from home for a few days and don't have access to my library. Not sure whether Who's Who in New Zealand would have covered him (if yes, that's a pretty sure sign that GNG is met). I've had a look what I could find online and it's documented in my sandbox; it's not much at all. From about 1933, there is a Trevor Pearce who was reasonably prominent in Putāruru in the South Waikato but I could not determine that we are talking about the same person. I suspect that it's a different person because there is mention of service in WW2 and our Pearce does not show up in the list of soldiers held by the Auckland War Memorial Museum. Sorry that I can't be of more help. Schwede 66 19:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taken a look and apart from a workplace accident and mention of him being appointed to umpire a Plunket Shiled match in 1952, I can't find anything useful. NealeWellington (talk) 01:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, due to failing WP:GNG. Redirect is not suitable, as other non-notable Terry Pearce's are mentioned at Hampstead Scientific Society#Hampstead Observatory, 2016 World Masters Athletics Championships Men#M60 2000 metres steeplechase, Australia at the 1992 Paralympic Games for Persons with Mental Handicap#Futsal, and 2015 Bracknell Forest Borough Council election. BilledMammal (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and New Zealand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a decent stub now. Sammyrice (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree; this stub tells us almost nothing about him. Anyway, what matters is passing GNG/BASIC, which the sources do not. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought that being a Test match umpire confers notability. Then, provided that the article has his full name, birth and death details, and the important details of his career, as with this one now, that constitutes an acceptable stub, and should be retained because it provides valuable information for anyone seeking it. Sammyrice (talk) 23:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't. See WP:WHYN (and other relevant policies and guidelines); only adequate sources can confer notability. Even if the cricket SNG offered a robust presumption of notability (it doesn't), significant coverage in reliable sources would still be required. Further, we could provide the same basic information about almost everyone on the planet; what we have here is a directory (or database) entry, nothing more. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG/BASIC, per my comment above, due to lack of any significant coverage. We have three all-inclusive database sources that do not contribute to establishing notability (i.e. cricinfo and cricketarchive profiles/listings, plus a scorecard), and a solitary book source (Neely & Payne) that I do not have access to; even if this contained significant coverage rather than a passing mention (which I doubt, given the lack of content being reference from it), it would still not be enough to pass GNG/BASIC. Due to the existence of other (possibly more notable) people of the same name, a redirect seems inappropriate as readers would be unlikely to be looking for this one; however, a redirect of Terry Pearce (umpire) may be appropriate. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find more than passing mentions or stats of the games he was part of under Terry or Trevor. While the book may have some more depth, I don't think it will be enough on its own unless another source is found. Happy to reassess if others find more sources.— NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 14:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC. Additional sources to establish notability could not be found. NiklausGerard (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Test cricket umpires Doesn't look to be enough for a GNG pass in this situation. Obviously he was a test cricket umpire in the 50s, we have a list of test cricket umpires where he is included, so redirect to that list per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is apparent that this person is no more notable than any of the other people named Terry Pearce who are mentioned across WP, and probably almost every other Terry Pearce who is not. A redlink or disambiguation page is preferable when there is nothing to suggest readers would be looking for this particular Terry Pearce. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there are other Terry Pearce's or those with very similar names, I'd support this being turned into a disambiguation page, with a link for this person to his listing at the List of Test Umpires page. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sammyrice. As he says, this is now a decent WP:STUB which should be kept in compliance with WP:PRESERVE, a key component of the site's editing policy. GNG is only a guideline. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 11:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:23, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Having weighed this up, we are talking about a Test umpire here who umpired in one of New Zealand's most historically significant matches. If he had only umpired at domestic level, I'd veer toward a redirect, but as he is an international umpire that elevants his notability. StickyWicket (talk) 08:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your rationale is a bare assertion of notability with zero basis in policies or guidelines. If his role in that match was significant (possibly making him notable) there would be coverage – where is it? _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I think by now you probably know my feelings toward policies and guidelines! StickyWicket (talk) 12:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Test cricket umpires as suggested by Lugnuts. Doesn't look like there's enough for GNG here. This assumes, of course, that the list article is intended to be exhaustive rather than a list of notable examples. If the latter, Delete. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:21, 6 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 speedy delete. CSD G5, sockpuppet of User:Mostly shoaib Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Children and Atheism[edit]

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

Lacks notability. Reviews come from not independent[22] or unreliable sources (a 2020 article on user-published "Medium.com" which discusses a 2022 book?[23]). Nothing on Google News, barely anything on Google in general[24]. Fram (talk) 08:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Atheism. Fram (talk) 08:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I removed the most egregious of the sources (Inquisitr, GoodReads, and Medium, all of which are not RS per WP:RSP). What's left are a product listing (Google Books); the author's website (Fadew Magazine); a product listing (Open Library); a product listing (Google Play Books); a product listing (BookBub); a product listing (BookBrainz); and, finally, a one-sentence mention in a short article without so much as a byline (European Atheists). Overall, there isn't one actual review to go off. This is pure promotion for a non-notable book. --Kbabej (talk) 00:05, 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. – Joe (talk) 11:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Koenig Institute[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH miserably. Most of the RS hinges on Edward Snowden coming to India to do something here. That's not in-depth of the subject but of them. Also read the language. Campus is 18,000 sqft. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 11:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 11:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 11:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Education. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Contested soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Providing few significant sources of substantial coverage which satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH;

A news article discussing a prolonged controversy

1-Edward Snowden sharpened his hacking skills in Delhi

2-What Was Edward Snowden Doing in India?

A scholarly article, a book passage, or ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization

3-Hero or Traitor Edward Snowden and the NSA Spying Program Main case study page, Author: Laura Winig, Case Number: 2018.0

Publication Date: April 30, 2014, Faculty Lead: Christopher Robichaud, Harvard Kennedy School, Hosted:University of Central Florida

A documentary film exploring the impact of the corporation's facilities or products,

4-Significantly covered in Al Jazeera video news Al Jazeera report. RPSkokie (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please describe 'how' the given sources meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Simply listing sources and claiming that they meet CORPDEPTH doesn't have a lot of value. Will be helpful if you can specifically highlight which part of the sources meet CORPDEPTH. TOI is not even counted as a full WP:RS so that's out. Foreignpolicy.com source doesn't have in depth discussion or analysis of Koenig institute. Just a bunch of quotes from spokespersons. Please recall that for CORPDEPTH we need independent analysis, discussion and commentary. Al Jazeera is a generic report that they seem to have filed after this case. No traces of independent discussion of Koenig. In your Harvard source, Koening is mentioned only twice. That's passing mention at best, far away from significant coverage, let alone CORPDEPTH. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just noted that the description of example of substantial coverage is broken or missing important parts. Right descriptions are A news article discussing a prolonged controversy regarding a corporate merger. And similarly, A documentary film exploring environmental impact of the corporation's facilities or products Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It would take a lot of substantial, in depth coverage to make a run-of-a-mill IT training facility notable and this institute doesn't have it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 08:37, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mutuke Maternity Clinic[edit]

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

No evidence of notability for this very small hospital. Fram (talk) 08:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, Medicine, and Nigeria. Fram (talk) 08:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability, as would be expected for a 4-bed facility. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Two things caught my attention - four beds and founded in 2008 (lacking historical significance). For an hospital, those are pointers of not being noteworthy. HandsomeBoy (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCORP 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — fails the general notability guidelines for organizations. Reading Beans ^{Talk to the Beans?} 17:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No hits from gnews or gbooks. Apart from the listing in hospital directories, there's actually no WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:NCORP. Jamiebuba (talk) 07:46, 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 speedy delete (G11) by Jimfbleak. Non-admin closure. --MuZemike 11:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valencia Rush[edit]

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

Not notable yet. Apart from the one local article in the St Louis American, there seems to be little to nothing substantial about her. The Rare Radar "interview"[25] looks to be self-provided, Gnews gives nothing more[26]. Fram (talk) 07:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Missouri. Fram (talk) 07:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy Comment the article was deleted by Jimfbleak as unambiguous self-promotion. Elemimele (talk) 10:07, 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 delete. – Joe (talk) 11:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ilia Kherodinashvili[edit]

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

I can't verify the lofty claims ("author of the concept of changing the world"?) or find evidence that he is notable, not with the article title and not with the Georgian version "ილია ხეროდინაშვილის" either. Fram (talk) 07:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, and Georgia (country). Fram (talk) 07:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article needs to be vastly toned down, it is full of extravagant claims, but that's not relevant to the bigger point, which is that Kherodinashvili seems to have absolutely zero WP:SIGCOV. Google Scholar primarily finds old Soviet patents.

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique Munné[edit]

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

I PRODded this with this rationale: Fails WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG. Google hits are wikipedia mirrors, no results in my academic library. Brief namechecks in Spanish-language sources. es-wiki article exists but is nearly an orphan and has no inline references.

It was deprodded with the rationale "much longer Spanish article appears to have multiple sources". Appears, sure. But almost all of that list of sources is copied from item #4 on that list. (Find it here: [27]) It's clear that he existed and was an artist, but these aren't secondary sources we can write an article from.

Also, it's worth noting that the Spanish article was created by a user who has since been banned for creating poorly referenced articles and, worse, for randomly adding references to articles, where the reference has nothing to do with the text it's footnoting. (Diff: [28]. From the discussion: Lo cierto es que las ediciones de este usuario, sea adición de texto o supuesta referenciación, no son para nada fiables. Todo lo contrario. Reitero: todo lo contrario.) asilvering (talk) 04:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Artists, Visual arts, and Argentina. asilvering (talk) 04:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally inadequate sourcing. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per above Oaktree b (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia in any langauge is not a reliable source. The above explantion is exactly why we should not blindly keep any article that has a Wikipedia article in another language.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Grnrchst (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A WP:BEFORE search turns up a couple of name-checks that mention another artist who learned stain glass techniques from him. That is not enough to put him over the GNG or NARTIST bars. Netherzone (talk) 15:26, 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. Sandstein 07:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Pilbeam[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASIC/WP:GNG. The two sources in the article appear to be biographies put out by her employers. An online search for sources that cover her turns up no significant coverage by independent reliable sources, so I move that this article be deleted as being written about a non-notable subject. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Journalism, Russia, Switzerland, and England. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator, the first sources provided are Not Reliable. --VViking_TalkEdits 13:59, 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 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!} 04:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kool Out Entertainment[edit]

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

Company doesn't appear to be notable. Couldn't find significant coverage. PepperBeast (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and South Africa. PepperBeast (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Companies. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:51, 23 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!} 02:50, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Xclusivzik (talk) 18:23, 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 delete. Sandstein 07:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jive filter[edit]

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

The article has stood unsourced, without any references to any reliable sources for about 17 years now. A before search only brought up a minor mention in "Philosophical Perspectives on Computer-Mediated Communication" and another in Black Futures (Wortham and Drew, 2021) that cites Wikipedia. A general search on the concept of "novelty filters" and a few variations on the search terms to filter out non-relevant results didn't result in any more reliable coverage. A previous AfD resulted in Keep, but no sources were provided since then, and the rationale behind the Keep votes seem quite weak; the result seemingly based only on the vote count. The subject does not pass WP:GNG. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:03, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One hit in Google news about a white columnist using the filter when writing for a black dating site. I vaguely remember these filters being on Google translate at one point, encheferising the text so it read like the Swedish Chef. No sources found. Delete. Oaktree b (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I hate to have to vote to delete this as I find the Swedish Chef encheferiser extremely funny (and link it on my userpage), but the sources just aren't there. I have this listed on my list of articles to expand, but there's been no expansion because I just couldn't find any sources. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and the giant head that pops out of the side is creepy man! Lol wikicoding is on point on your userpage, well done. Oaktree b (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I could take credit for the giant Jimbo Wales head, but that is completely stolen from User:Susmuffin! Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability nor coverage in any reliable sources whatsoever.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:54, 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 List of flag bearers for Portugal at the Olympics. Sandstein 07:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

António de Menezes[edit]

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

We recently went away with WP:NOLY. Olympic athletes must now meet WP:GNG. I did a check, and I could not find any references that count toward notability. I would normally propose redirecting, but I am not sure which page we should redirect to. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Portugal. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment note he was also the flag bearer at the 1920 games for Portugal. I'll have a look later for more on this guy. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no sources that come even close to passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Searching for his name plus "esgrima" (Portugese for fencing) brings back some hits, such as this, and coupled with the fact he was a three-time Olympian, referee director at the Olympics AND the Portuguese flag-bearer too, that should equate to some presumption of notability. Worst case, redirect to the List of flag bearers for Portugal at the Olympics to WP:PRESERVE the info as an alt. to deletion. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As he competed at five events across three Olympics there is no clear target for redirect, and he fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT #5 due to lack of significant coverage. BilledMammal (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of flag bearers for Portugal at the Olympics per Lugnuts. Alvaldi (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of flag bearers for Portugal at the Olympics per Lugnuts and Alvaldi. That is an absolutely "clear target for redirect" and, even if NOLY has gone, we still have WP:PRESERVE as a key component of editing policy. Indiscriminate use of the delete option is inexcusable. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 09:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet GNG. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:34, 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 Sedgley#Primary schools. Sandstein 07:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cotwall End Primary School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable primary school that fails WP:NSCHOOL. Kept at 2006 AfD with arguments such as "notability is not a policy. VERIFIABILITY is policy" and "Just because it is a primary school is of course not a reason to delete it". AusLondonder (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and England. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment NSCHOOL has been gutted, it now just directs to WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Jacona (talk) 13:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It redirects to a section which states "All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both." AusLondonder (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.First, if I'm understanding the somewhat confusing sequence of building demolition and several nursery schools, there is not currently a primary school here, and the statistic in the lead dates back to 2007. There are not enough RS to support a historical article. Second, unfortunately, most of the article seems to be based on original research, without benefit of secondary sources. Fails both GNG and NORG because there's no there, there. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sedgley#Primary schools where it is covered. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. This present article seems to indicate there is only a nursery school, but I found the 2019 Ofsted report on the nursery and primary school. Thus, I agree the redirect to the Sedgley article is appropriate, where it should be updated beyond the current 1990 status. Also, note the sourcing in the entire Sedgley Education section needs improvement, as a single citation for a single school is not only pathetic, it fails WP:V. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:25, 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 delete. Sandstein 07:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

India–Albania Friendship Association[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG, I could find no sources. The sources provided are from http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/ which is a primary source. LibStar (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, India, and Albania. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only one reference available on Google books that too a very casual reference- here [[29]] and nothing much can be found on any reputed sources. RS6784 (talk) 11:16, 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.