< April 07	April 09 >

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!} 23:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Service Bureau[edit]

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

This is WP:SYNTHESIS and a grab-bag of links most of which don't even point to Youth Services organizations. PepperBeast (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, random synthesis of vaguely related ideas. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Lists, Canada, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia (U.S. state), Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Wisconsin. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing of value here, just a directory of places. Ajf773 (talk) 10:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It appears to be a term used by mostly-unrelated different entities.`Kablammo (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this isn't actually a real entity. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTH. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. TimothyStellar (talk) 09:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTDIR, WP:SYNTH. Jacona (talk) 12:01, 15 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!} 23:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Martyr's Memorial C-Division League[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:19, 10 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!} 23:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Martyr's Memorial C-Division League[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any evidence of notability for this season Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:10, 15 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 Andy Hunter (DJ)#Discography. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Life (Andy Hunter album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, only one valid source. WP:NALBUM's criteria #4 states "The recording has won or been nominated for a major music award", and the album won a GMA Dove Award, but this does not improve notability, since WP:NALBUM states: "Specific to recordings, a recording may be notable if it meets at least one of these criteria" and the article only meets one. — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 21:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 21:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Currently undecided because evidence ([1]) indicates that the album won two trophies at the 37th GMA Dove Awards, which is a fairly noteworthy achievement for Christian musicians. However, robust sources on that year's ceremony and this album's victory are dead links or never existed. If anyone can find something reliable from old offline hard-copy sources and the like, this article might be keep-able, but I am unable to find anything useful thus far. I can change my vote as necessary, but the simplest solution might just be to Redirect to the musician's article, which is standard procedure for questionably notable albums. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I haven't robustly looked for sources, but the wayback archive shows the album was nominated for one award (packaging) which it didn't win. I have no particular reason to doubt the album won the instrumental award, but this archived site does not cover this category (which I confirmed exists.) Anyway, at the very least the verifiable portions of the article (which would be the tracklist, record label, and playing time as self-referenced) should be merged to Andy Hunter (DJ) as a significant artistic milestone to that artist's output, per WP:PRESERVE. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Andy Hunter (DJ)#Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. A WP:BEFORE shows only a review and winning 2 awards at the Dove Awards. SBKSPP (talk) 09:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Andy Hunter (DJ)#Discography. I already made an undecided comment above, but after the ensuing discussion my vote is now to redirect. The musician's article already mentions that this album won the Dove awards and that is sufficient. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:23, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Summit Structures[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. They are a small company who make sheds. One of their structures was involved in a minor news item in 2009, and this gets a brief uncited mention on the Dallas Cowboys article. That is their only claim to notability that I can see. Edwardx (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 1 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!} 22:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Ox RFC[edit]

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

Briefly made the news for being banned from national championships and subsequent reputation rehabilitation, but nothing to indicate they're notable. Appears to be defunct, their website is dead and I can't find any other trace (note, North Star Blue Ox are a women's AFL club). Not mentioned on Minnesota_Rugby_Football_Union and nothing to merge, so not a viable ATD. Star Mississippi 21:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 21:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 21:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 21:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, some brief passing mentions, but nothing to suggest a WP:GNG pass. Haven't played in any notable tournaments or competitions so nothing to suggest it passes any rugby union related guidelines either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kablammo (talk) 13:09, 9 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 21:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dhusor Borno[edit]

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

Note: I'm not advocating deletion, I would be fine with draft space incubation, but the creator is not willing to wait for a neutral, independent review so we have no choice but AfD. While it's not clear whether it meets NFILM at the moment, I believe there's a chance sourcing could be found, but it is not suitable to remain in mainspace currently. Star Mississippi 20:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 20:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 20:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy @Bonadea and DMySon: as CSD/drafters. Star Mississippi 20:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no awards/recognition, and I'm not seeing any NFSOURCES.-KH-1 (talk) 01:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can this article be approved under WikiProject India, WikiProject Tripura, WikiProject Film, rating it as C-Class on the project's quality scale respectively.@Star Mississippi Ninjakiller07 (talk) 09:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While projects are free to use their own scale, there is no indication this is a C class article and it has to be kept in order to be rated. Please spend a little more time learning how Wikipedia works and what is needed in an article before worrying about rating Star Mississippi 13:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article does not speak for itself and does not explain why this film is notable. There is nothing in this article that addresses either film notability or general notability.
- This article was moved to draft space once and moved back to article space by the originator, so it doesn't need to go back into draft space. If sources are found, a new version can be written using the sources.
- I have not done a copyright check, but it reads like a blurb.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:12, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, The short film not yet passes WP:NFILM. References do not satisfy WP:SIGCOV. DMySon (talk) 04:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the requirements of NFILM / GNG. No point in draftying a non-notable subject when new sources unlikely to emerge after the AfD -- Ab207 (talk) 06:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of notability, and is entirely promotional in style. Nothing there to draftify, really. --bonadea contributions talk 09:36, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam supported by fake news black-hat SEO spam sites. I have blocked the creator. MER-C 15:23, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability, and is very promotional. Gabe114 (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Content present is non-notable, fails WP:GNG. TimothyStellar (talk) 09:04, 13 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 Pacific-Union Club. What little content there was has been merged into the proposed target article and this will now become a redirect. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Union Club Punch[edit]

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

User:Th78blue requested a nomination at Wikipedia:Teahouse#How do I nominate an article for deletion?. They described it as "this old stub that I really do not feel passes as notable". As the article only cites primary sources, there is no indication that WP:GNG is met. casualdejekyll 19:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. casualdejekyll 19:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to Pacific Union Club, nothing wrong with having this as a subsection in that article, might help the notability there. Oaktree b (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Agree, this is fine information to merge into Pacific-Union Club, then redirect there. Dreamyshade (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Pacific-Union_Club. Kpddg ^(talk) 14:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pacific-Union_Club. It doesn't matter if a redirect is left or not due to the similar search terms Jacona (talk) 12:16, 15 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 21:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William Lozito[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

2019 no consensus, but I am unable to find independent reliable source coverage to confirm he meets GNG. There are name checks, but it doesn't speak to his expertise. His research isn't well cited enough to be notable via that route and his company (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strategic Name Development) was deleted, so nowhere to merge. Star Mississippi 19:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find anything approaching independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources when I nominated this in 2019, and the situation is no better today. Edwardx (talk) 20:18, 8 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 21:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pathik Pravasan[edit]

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

I don't think this meets WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. It has been reviewed by several online blogs, but I was unable to find any reviews or coverage in independent and reliable sources. The author does not have a Wikipedia article, so there is not a good redirect target. DanCherek (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no significant coverage of this book, and it does not pass WP:BOOKCRIT. Kpddg ^(talk) 14:10, 10 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 21:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of banks in New Hampshire that at one time issued currency[edit]

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

Declined PROD; I'll repeat the same reasoning: WP:NOTDIR, and the one "reference" appears to be a self-published website (that is dead). UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial list. NavjotSR (talk) 06:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely non notable topic and fails WP:NOTDIR. Ajf773 (talk) 10:43, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOTDIR. Gabe114 (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pages 20-21 of this book seem relevant. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is a WP:SELFPUB source. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:52, 13 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 21:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Olasunkanmi Tegbe[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable entrepreneur and “managing consulting expert” who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. The sources used in the article are what is described as fake referencing some of the sources do not even discuss nor concern the subject of the article. A before search shows press releases and primary sources the former is considered unreliable and the latter cannot be used for verification of claims of notability thus is not considered tangible or reliable as they lack independence from the subject of the article. Furthermore, This is a possible WP:ADMASQ. He is also a politician that fails WP:NPOL. Celestina007 (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article sounds like puffery, he's a tax consultant and failed politician it seems. Oaktree b (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom. Subject fails Wikipedia WP:GNG that includes subject-specific notability and NBIO that includes NBASIC and ANYBIO. A withdrawn governorship bid does not even warrant honorable mention concerning NPOL. A person with a job at one of the "Big Four". Although his employer may be notable the subject could certainly benefit from having a page on Wikipedia. After that you get listed at DBpedia with content extracted from Wikipedia. Just a movin on up. -- Otr500 (talk) 23:52, 9 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 21:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shulamite Ezechi[edit]

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

This is the fourth WP:ADMASQ from Kaizenify we have found thus far, the article is on a non notable individual who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them, The awards they supposedly won all appear non notable or unremarkable. Celestina007 (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO, likely UPE. Part of a number of likely UPE articles by the same certain editor. WP:ADMASQ 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom and above. Oaktree b (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not justified as an article; could be either upe or just an honest belief that what is listed in the article is more than trivial PR. DGG ( talk ) 21:49, 8 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 21:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Munira Kudrati[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR as well as WP:SIGCOV. ManaliJain (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ManaliJain (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ManaliJain (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ManaliJain (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ManaliJain (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ManaliJain (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage and has acted only in one show. Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. 223.181.168.143 (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NACTOR / GNG requirements -- Ab207 (talk) 06:09, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 21:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Farmer[edit]

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

This guy's had his finger in several pies, but I couldn't find any reputable sources. All of his roles are small trivial ones on mostly non-notable shows. Zero sourcing in article, zero sourcing found. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One mention in a "where are they now" HGTV hosts article, I don't see much else. If he was the host of a show, I'd expect to find more written about him. Oaktree b (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft Inadequate sourcing to meet notability for WP:Basic or WP: GNG. Has collected a large number of distinct editors over the past 4 years but fails to show how or why. Firsthand sourcing, COI? That being said, with all the minor roles subject has had deletion seems hasty, but the article as written doesn’t meet notability criteria. NiklausGerard (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was able to find some non-trivial coverage about him. 1, 2,3. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 07:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but feel free to remove information that can't be sourced. We have thousands of stubs for actors who have only had minor roles in various projects, and unless we're going to change Wikipedia policy and remove all those I see no reason to single this guy out. He's been the host of a couple notable TV shows, and is a member of 2gether, which is certainly notable (all the other members have articles). Editing rather than removal seems like the proper action here. -R. fiend (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@R. fiend: If we removed the "information that can't be sourced", the article would be blank. Saying that other similar articles exist does nothing for this article's integrity. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have enough information for a short paragraph about who he is and a list of his appearances on film and TV. Not a great article by any means, but very similar to thousands of other articles on minor figures that, as far as I know, are not nominated for deletion. I still see no reason to single this guy out. I initially created this entry 17 years ago as a redirect to 2gether, and I wouldn't oppose a revert to that except that he's done a fair amount of stuff since then, so that no longer seems like the proper course of action. -R. fiend (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NACTOR is the relevant subject specific guideline here. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions The opening says he is in the lead role for a notable television movie and television series on MTV and a host for the Emmy-nominated While You Were Out (TLC), Freestyle (HGTV), and Door Knockers (DIY). He host a show that was nominated for an Emmy, and all but one of these things have the own Wikipedia articles so must be notable productions. Dream Focus 18:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: So because of that, we're allowed to ignore the fact that there isn't a single source on the entire Internet that says a single damn thing about him? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's how it works. He meets the notability requirement for actors so nothing else matters. Dream Focus 18:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So the article gets to be ((unreferenced)) forever? And then editors like me who want to improve the article by removing unsourced content have no choice but to blank the whole thing? Vandals can come along and add whatever the fuck they want because we can just randomly choose to ignore "reliable third party sources" whenever we feel like it? For all I know, Evan Farmer is actually Dave Grohl in a heavy disguise, and he just bought the moon for 99 cents. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:17, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dream Focus, that is not correct. The section for Additional Criteria says that "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included". Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found a couple of sources via Newspapers.com [2], [3], [4], [5] Timur9008 (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've taken a quick stab at sourcing a few things from links provided above, and removing most of the unsourced fluff, leaving in his TV and film appearances and his music career, all of which should be verifiable. More work should be done on it still. -R. fiend (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any more sources in the article than were there previously. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:48, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because that's not a requirement to keep an article. Dream Focus 03:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per sources identified above, WP:NACTOR #1, and the WP:GNG. Per WP:PROD: PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected, this article should NEVER have been prodded. There is not even the beginning of a case for deletion, so not expecting opposition to deletion would be really steep. Kudos to R. fiend for detecting the problem and to Timur9008 and GoldenAgeFan1 for finding excellent sources. gidonb (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Timur9008: could you please add those sources to the article? Few things bug me more than tons of people saying "Keep, I found sources" and none of them doing anything to fix the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Sorry, I didn't reply quickly, I just got back from work. Timur9008 (talk) 22:02, 14 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 14:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs in the NHL video game soundtracks[edit]

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

"List of songs in the NHL video game soundtracks" is not a notable concept. Music is not considered to be an important part of the NHL series, and there is no reliable source discussing the entire series' music in a significant or extensive manner. This list of licensed songs is also filled with original research and WP:GAMECRUFT content. OceanHok (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. OceanHok (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. OceanHok (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of notability. Gabe114 (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Not Notable, Gamecruft, Some sections fail NPOV, Unsourced Claims.PerryPerryD Talk To Me 14:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete. There is absolutely no way this narrow, poorly sourced list qualifies for any of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Why? I Ask (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can be covered in NHL (video game series), not much worth keeping here. There is some coverage of the soundtrack in its entirety, such as this in-depth article from The Athletic or some listicles ([6][7]), though probably not enough to warrant a standalone list. The actual entries could be added into some individual game articles, since they are covered individually by RS (e.g., NHL 19,NHL 11, NHL 07) Yeeno (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is better for fandom or the individual articles Rlink2 (talk) 21:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - So, a few months ago, I spotted this list and likewise thought "Wow, what a silly article, there's no way that this list meets GNG." But then I started hunting for sources, and there is a surprising amount of coverage related to the NHL video game soundtracks across the series. See e.g., [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. Now, I'm not going to shed one tear if this article is deleted as I really struggle to understand why people care about these soundtracks. But, per WP:IDONTLIKEIT, the fact that something seems silly or trivial is not a valid grounds for deletion. I don't like it either, but it doesn't make sense (at least to me) to say that this topic doesn't meet the minimum requirements of GNG given the coverage that seems to exist.DocFreeman24 (talk) 01:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But the majority of these sources really are just ranking the soundtracks. I would not consider these to be significant coverage. OceanHok (talk) 04:59, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are not sources of Notability, these are just top 10 lists, these are not notable sources. This doesnt change the severe gamecruft of this article. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 14:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lacking significant coverage to pass WP:LISTN for a standalone list. Flibirigit (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks Notability, no reliable sources present. TimothyStellar (talk) 09:06, 13 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 14:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshark Solar Car Team[edit]

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

Non-notable university team. Reywas92^Talk 13:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 13:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:54, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to being a notable group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could not find significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a few articles:

Gusfriend (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is good coverage of the World Solar Challenge but I don't think it's significant coverage specifically about this team. The first link is decent, but I don't think this kind of short piece about one of the prizes available means we need articles on individual university teams. Reywas92^Talk 13:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG; absolutely no claim to significance is made in the article. Mentions in sources appear to be passing or WP:ROUTINE in scope. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 13:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 14:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Christmas[edit]

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

Article subject requests deletion. See VRT Ticket 2022040710005871. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 12:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. If the subject has WP:BLP concerns about some of the information in the article, then we can certainly discuss and address those — but a writer who was nominated for the Stephen Leacock Memorial Medal for Humour, a notable award that passes WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE, simply cannot be deemed off limits as an article topic. If her name is in that list at all, then we must be allowed to have an article about her, and there can be no "every other nominee in the history of the award is notable except for this one, because reasons" carveouts. Again, if she has concerns about the accuracy or relevance of some of the biographical information, those can certainly be addressed — but a shortlisted nominee for a notable literary award is, by definition, a person about whom we have to have something.
There also isn't a lack of SIGCOV; there's just been a lack of Wikipedians actually using her coverage to support the article's content, but she gets literally hundreds of hits in ProQuest. I've replaced all the article's sourcing (some of which was deadlinked anyway) with better stuff, and removed all the private biographical stuff (like the names of her parents and former spouses) that I couldn't find better sourcing for and might well have been the root of her issue. Bearcat (talk) 13:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ANYBIO says "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times". She hasn't won it, and has only been nominated once, so I don't think that is enough to establish her notability. Ascendingrisingharmonising (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Shortlisted nominations for high-level awards that curate shortlists of finalists most certainly are sufficient basis for a Wikipedia article. They always have been, and the test has never actually required multiple renominations for an award of that type — multiple renominations might be necessary in the case of something like the Nobel Prize, where anybody can be "nominated" at will but the committee doesn't release any special shortlist of finalists before announcing the selected winner, but they're certainly not and never have been necessary in the case of an award that releases a shortlist of finalists between the "every eligible submission gets considered" and "announcement of the winner" phases of the process. Nobody would ever argue, for example, that an Oscar nominee is non-notable just because he was only nominated once and didn't win — if he can be properly sourced as a shortlisted Oscar nominee at all, then he's notable for being shortlisted. Bearcat (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat If that is the case, perhaps the text on WP:ANYBIO should be updated to reflect that, unless it is covered by a different policy? FWIW I'm not arguing that the subject is not notable, and I'm not trying to be difficult. I am quite new to being active on Wikipedia and still learning the ropes - I just clicked on the WP links in your post and tried to follow the logic from there. It seems to me that any nominee of an Oscar award is likely to have lots of other reporting covering them, so the notability argument would never realistically come down to "they were nominated for an Oscar". Jane Christmas seems to have been covered by several newspapers so I don't think the argument in this case needs to come down to the nomination. But conceivably if she hadn't been covered by any reliable sources (beyond being named as being on the prize shortlist), maybe her books had only been reviewed on minor blogs, her indie publisher didn't know how to get her any decent coverage and she was media-shy, then to a noob like me reading the WP:ANYBIO policy and not knowing about the other policy or convention that you described, I would feel that the nomination wouldn't suffice. Ascendingrisingharmonising (talk) 09:36, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, In the context of not very notable plus her request, I'd respect the reasons to delete. CT55555 (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as a "not very notable" nominee of an inherently notable literary award. Every single person whose name appears in that award's nominees or winners table must be either a blue link or a potential future blue link, and there cannot be any special "except this one" exceptions to that. Bearcat (talk) 13:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I may have cast my vote based on what I wish policy was, rather than what policy is. I've scored it out. Count me as an ~~abstain~~ and I'll watch and see if anyone persuades me to jump back into this one. CT55555 (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Updating to Keep based on the conversations that have happened here. CT55555 (talk) 09:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment how can we see the ticket - better understand the reason for the request? CT55555 (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Comment You could post a request at the noticeboard asking that another of the VRT volunteer team members to verify the substance of the request in the ticket. Mention the ticket number if you do that. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I assume good faith and believe you. I'm just trying to understand if there is a safety or privacy issue. I have sympathy for her request, and am suggesting that more information might persuade anyone on the fence. CT55555 (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with "trust but verify," to quote a former U.S. president. Alas, I cannot elaborate further than passing along the article subject's request. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep First few hits are an article in the Toronto Star, next is a review in the Hamilton Spectator of her book. She's been nominated for the Leacock award, so is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The author absolutely meets notability guidelines, having published a number of books with major publishers and being a finalist for a major award. Finally, the author's website even has a section titled 8 Things About Me That You Won’t Find on Wikipedia. If we deleted the article we'd cause trouble for the author, who'd have to rewrite her website. (Note: That previous line's a joke. Seriously, we don't delete articles about notable subjects merely b/c the subject wants the article deleted.)--SouthernNights (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As much as I would like to acquiesce to the request at hand, the encyclopedia isn’t meant to be partial. Information for better or worse about a subject deemed notable will be included. The cases where it is handpicked are problematic and corrupts the integrity of Wikipedia. She meets WP:GNG. NiklausGerard (talk) 04:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi All, I'm the subject of the page under consideration for deletion. I've read the threads so far and while I appreciate the effort to keep me on Wikipedia (obviously, it's up to you guys) I wonder whether there isn't too much biographical litter on Wikipedia, and whether it somehow clutters and degrades the reputation and purpose of Wikipedia -- that pretty much every Tom, Dick, and Jane can have a page on Wikipedia. Maybe I'm wrong and have not understood WP's ethos. I do appreciate Bearcat for removing the names of my parents and former spouses. Thanks. And if my page is opposed for deletion, perhaps someone could update it further: I've been a finalist TWICE for the Leacock Medal (for And Then There Were Nuns, and for Open House: A Life in Thirty-two Moves). What further prompted my request to have my page deleted is the somewhat inconsistent criteria of WP. For instance, I have tried to add my name to WP's list of Writers from Hamilton, Ontario, only to have it constantly removed. Why? I lived and worked in Hamilton for 25 years; most of my books reference my time in Hamilton, and yet I'm not included on that list. I can tell you that there are people on that list who were not born in Hamilton (so that's obviously not a criteria) or who lived in Hamilton for fewer years than I did. Finally, may I add that there are a gazillion WP pages and not equal number of editors to update them or to fine-tune them. I salute your considerable voluntary efforts, and I know public users like me appreciate it very much. Cheers. 119.198.185.99 (talk) 05:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can request an edit to your own page by following these instructions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Request_edit/Instructions#:~:text=To%20request%20an%20edit%20to,section%2C%20below%20the%20new%20heading.

As your connections to Hamilton are verifiable, I've updated the article to reflect them. I would guess the issue that you were facing was that the article did not have a verifiable source in it about your connections to Hamilton, but it does now. If now see if I can find sources about the award nominations. CT55555 (talk) 09:36, 13 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!} 05:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roger E. Billings[edit]

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

Page has many unsubstantiated claims about this person, written in a mostly promotional way. Additionally, I have researched several of the major authors of this article, and an exceptional number of them seem to be sockpuppet accounts created solely to edit this article, with little other edits other than this article. Some examples of these users include FireWriter, Fishmr, Hoorah83, and SweetYPeach. These users also seem to very strongly defendant of Billings. For example, Firewriter has, on several occasions, went above and beyond to an abnormal level to defend Billing's actions on user talk pages. Additionally, it seems like some of these usernames have relations to "teachers" on Acellus. For example, Firewriter has a strong relation to FireAngel, a "instructional material" creator on Acellus. This Twitter thread I have stumbled on shows the video with the strongly related username. https://twitter.com/karaokecomputer/status/1296065385381236737 The person who goes by FireAngel is Pajet Monet, who is closely associated with Roger Billings' companies, activities and podcasts. Additionally, I have found little to no evidence of many of the companies that Billings is said to have created with success, and claims have changed multiple times. For example, a section where they claimed association with Bill Gates later changed to just simply having their computer on their desk (which I see little evidence of). I believe this article serves little purpose other to unnecessarily inflate the ego and reputation of Roger Billings, and should be deleted. andritolion (talk) 08:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. andritolion (talk) 08:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are verk weak and a google searc comes up with noting of any substance. If there is significalt sockpuppet activity here salting would seem to be indicated.TheLongTone (talk) 12:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 14:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nene derby[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability. Yet another hyped up rivalry between two insignificant football teams. TheLongTone (talk) 12:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this is the third time this article has been AfD'd... the last discussion was a unanimous delete. So, DELETE AND SALT.TheLongTone (talk) 12:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and England. Shellwood (talk) 12:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The AFD discussion of the 2015 article was discussing a quite different article. It was only 2 sentences long, for starters. Uncle G (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG: [14] [15] [16] (and a BBC article which looked good in the search but not when I clicked it) which is significantly more important about any value judgements about the significance of clubs. SportingFlyer T·C 19:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SF - needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 19:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SF and GS. Two significant clubs in an area where league football is few and far between. An interesting and valid topic that needs to be developed. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 09:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Comments This is a known derby in football, I don't get the nomination, two insignificant football teams?? Northampton Town and Peterborough United are league clubs with a large fan base. That statement there is terrible for the nomination. It's clear by one user box on TheLongTone page stating "This user couldn't care less about football." That he should avoid football related articles then, if you don't care, why are you nominating this article. This really is a bad-faith nomination from that perspective, I condone this behaviour. I don't know why it was deleted in 2016, that shouldn't of happened then. The article certainly needs improving and not deleting. Govvy (talk) 12:27, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per SF's comment and GNG. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:34, 11 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. An argument has been made that the sourcing is sufficient to pass WP:GNG, but the overall consensus disagrees with that since the coverage is routine news coverage related to elections that Savarkar lost. It is also pointed out that being a family member of someone notable, being an unsuccessful candidate for office, or leading a political movement are insufficient grounds for notability as well. Since the consensus here is well founded in the guidelines, I am closing this discussion accordingly. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Himani Savarkar[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL, Lost elections. Family members of politicians are not notable. Venkat TL (talk) 08:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 08:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 08:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 08:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hindu Mahasabha, as appropriate. I was the page creator and I think it marginally meats WP:GNG in terms of coverage in RS. But I don't think it will go any further. It can be easily covered in a paragraph in the parent page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - since it meets WP:GNG. WP:NPOL is for other politicians who may not be independently notable in terms of coverage. I agree with Vanamonde93 below, that Merge would be prolematic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Without having examined the coverage in tremendous detail, I'm somewhat opposed to a merge. I believe that if members of a widely studied organization are marginally notable, we're better served by a permastub than a merge; otherwise we risk cluttering the page about the organization with tangentially relevant material. A paragraph of encyclopedic content about Himani Savarkar is likely undue weight at Hindu Mahasabha, but might be worth keeping elsewhere. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@above, What exactly are you suggesting to merge? I am not seeing anything notable that can merit a standalone section, let alone a stub article. If you look into the family tree of any Hindu Mahasabha election candidates, you will find that almost all of them will be related to someone or the other. Its all in the family, Dynasty politics, as they accuse the others. Venkat TL (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The NDTV and Indian Express sources are decidedly borderline, but they aren't nothing. My point is that if this person's not notable, I think we should delete outright; more than a sentence of coverage at the parent article would be undue in my opinion. And your last sentence is unnecessary, VenkatTL. Not a forum, and all that. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for now. Sourcing is there for WP:GNG in my opinion, but per the arguments and result at Articles for deletion/Athar Aamir Khan, apparently this kind of coverage by Indian media is suspect, not significant and falls under WP:NOTNEWS. I'll may be revisit this once I've made up my mind on whether that result was the consensus ascertained by the quality of the arguments or of users who cared enough to participate. Hemantha (talk) 09:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that some campaign coverage exists is not in and of itself an immediate GNG pass for a non-winning electoral candidate — every candidate in every election everywhere can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, so we would have to keep an article about everybody who ever ran in any election and lost if that were how it worked. Rather, to get a non-winning candidate into Wikipedia you need to show that either (a) she already had some other claim of preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten her into Wikipedia anyway, or (b) she can credibly claim that her candidacy was somehow of much greater and more enduring significance than the norm for unelected candidates, in some way that would pass the will people still need this article to exist ten years from now test. As written, however, this article isn't really showing either of those things. I'm not an expert in Indian politics by any means, so it's within the realm of possibility that somebody could do a better job of demonstrating that she's notable enough — but as written, this isn't really enough. What might make a difference is writing a lot more about her role with Abhinav Bharat: did she do anything significant or noteworthy in the job to make the article more than just "Himani Savarkar is a person who has a job, so here's an advertorialized puff piece on her prior background"? Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 11:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Really nothing much here. Two lost elections, leadership of a fringe organisatiom, more famous relatives. Nwhyte (talk) 16:25, 17 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. Sandstein 21:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Goldmines Telefilms[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has been created yet again despite still not meeting WP:GNG. Seems to be a COI. ––FormalDude talk 10:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Entertainment, Companies, and India. ––FormalDude talk 10:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as the creator, I acknowledge this isn't the best article. However, I think the sourcing and content is more developed and different enough from previous versions that it meets GNG (see previous discussion on talk page from the PROD). After Pushpa, significant attention has been drawn to Goldmines for there to be enough articles focusing on the company from reliable sources (albeit mostly involving interviews). As for COI, well, I really doubt an article made as the result of COI would have any mention of corruption accusations against the subject. MSG17 (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Old version of article not avaliable in current page history, so archived link: https://ghostarchive.org/archive/VFwZ7

The article has changed, for the better. The article has been cleaned up, and it looks like good reliable sources have been added (like ones from the Economic Times and New York State Bar Association). Rlink2 (talk) 13:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourcing passes the GNG. I also would support restoring a separate page for the TV channel. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:17, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:17, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company, so the applicable guideline is WP:NCORP, which specifically says that These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals.

From the refs in this version - Scroll (31 Jan 2022), Firstpost (8 Feb 2022), IE (8 Feb 2022) are long interviews of the chairman, Manish Shah. They mention very little about the company. The next 3 refs are on corruption investigation at Sony, where again, Manish Shah is discussed briefly and the company is only mentioned as part of his employment status. Of the rest, Indiantelevision.com (whose about page says - Apart from conceiving and executing promotional campaigns targeted at the Media, Marketing & Television Trade online, it also offers similar services offline making clear its reliability) is the parent of TellyChakkar, which even WP:ICTFSOURCES holds unreliable. Journalismguide seems to be nothing more than a blog. Refs 10-12 by Filmfare, BH and IE about Shehzada/Aryan cover some gossip-like issue and are significantly made up of quotes. IE does not even mention the company's name.

Given how majority (9/12) of references are from late-Jan, early Feb 2022 when their movie was released, I cannot see the coverage as being independent or not marketing-driven. Hemantha (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking at the current version of the article and going into the sources. I think that, while they are interviews, they do go rather in-depth on the company's model and success. Admittedly I couldn't find the best sourcing for some things, and yes there is a lot of mentions rather than major coverage, but I'll look at other sources and see what other people have to say. MSG17 (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are Primary sources which cannot be used to substantiate notability but also fail the WP:ORGIND section of NCORP as not providing "Independent Content". HighKing⁺⁺ 16:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, strong indication of WP:COI/WP:UPI. References to till date not yet meeting WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 06:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Hemantha above, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing the notability of the company as per NCORP guidelines. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG does not apply here! This is a company so NCORP applies and Hemantha has shown it doesn’t pass its standards. SK2242 (talk) 06:27, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP 117.242.214.54 (talk) 11:27, 15 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. Redirection is up to editors. Sandstein 21:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ashwath Sundarasen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NENTERTAINER. While he had a main role on The Tribe (1999 TV series) I don't think that role by itself provides enough notability. A WP:BEFORE search did not bring up anything else significant enough to show he passes WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 10:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Suonii180 (talk) 10:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and New Zealand. Shellwood (talk) 13:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to improve notability found - everything I found goes back to his Tribe role. NealeWellington (talk) 09:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Tribe (1999 TV series). WP:NACTOR requires significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" (emphasis added), and Sundarasen does not meet that standard since, as the article notes, he was a "one-time" actor noted only for his appearance in The Tribe. He does not appear to meet WP:BASIC/the GNG either: my search for coverage found a few passing mentions but nothing more. In cases where an actor is known only for a role in a single program, a redirect to that program's article is often the optimal outcome: it's cheap, and it serves as a useful alternative to deletion, preserving the history and ensuring that readers reach content that is at least somewhat relevant. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NENTERTAINER.117.242.214.54 (talk) 11:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Kimomo[edit]

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

The article made unambiguous claims and is written like advertisement, possibly in violation of WP:SOAPBOX. The article appears to be part of a series of promotional articles. Deppty (talk) 11:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Deppty (talk) 11:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment how notable are the Made in Rwanda awards? Oaktree b (talk) 01:59, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, article is written like advertisement, I don’t see any reliable coverage. Deppty (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC) Your nomination is considered your "vote". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That an article is written like an advert is an argument for copyediting not deletion. I've seen many many articles with fq mre egregious bubbles o' guff in them than this one.TheLongTone (talk) 12:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we lack good significant coverage. That is needed to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:44, 11 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 2021 Minor League Cricket season#Squads. Where it is now covered. Sandstein 21:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Minor League Cricket season squads[edit]

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

Violates WP:NOTSTATS, as we don't need squad lists for every team in this minor tournament. For cricket articles, we tend to only have separate squad list articles for ICC international events (ICC World Cup, ICC Men's T20 World Cup and women's equivalents). No evidence this list meets WP:NLIST or WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The tournament doesn't even have T20 status. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lugnuts: You say this tournament doesn't have T20 status. How is that true? Every single source states this tournament as a "T20 tournament". For example, here, here, and here. Perhaps even here, here, or here? In fact, USA Cricket itself actualizes the tournament as a "T20 league", as shown here. Any proof against the fact that it does in fact have T20 status? There are no statements from ICC Cricket to prove otherwise. --WellThisIs TheReaper ^Grim 00:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's "T20" in name only, but the matches are certainly not Twenty20 in status. See this for more. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Weak keep WP:NOTSTATS, you say? It states that in the case of lengthy numbers of statistics that the statistics should be split into another article. This is the exact definition of that. The squads section in 2021 Minor League Cricket season in itself was incredibly lengthy and at times, hard to understand, as seen in this diff. This is why I created the article in the first place. I should also think this follows WP:LSC, WP:UCS, and goes with WP:NOT in these circumstances. --WellThisIs TheReaper ^Grim 00:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need complete squad lists for a minor tournament like this, especially when most of the people aren't notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302: So, current squads listed in team articles such as this here should suffice? --WellThisIs TheReaper ^Grim 16:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Fade258 (talk) 08:58, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, violates WP:NOTSTATS, plus players in this tournament aren't notable for playing in this tournament, so a list of players from this tournament isn't necessary. A table of leading run scorers/wicket takers from the tournament on the main page should suffice, but a list like this for a non-notable tournament without official T20 status. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:59, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Lugnuts. The Official Cricket list shows that the competition is minor without official status. I believe local leagues in Britain play T20 tournaments but there's no way they can be considered official – or notable. The article also fails NOTSTATS. I agree with Rugbyfan22 that there should be a summary of the tournament in the league's article but anything beyond that is excessive. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 09:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if the tournament did have top-level T20 status, I'm unconvinced that article such as this about domestic tournaments are necessary at all (for example, all (literally all) of the details at 2019 Pakistan Super League squads are repeated at articles such as Lahore Qalandars in 2019 and there are squad lists - without the details - at 2019 Pakistan Super League. I honestly don't understand why we need this repetition - beyond the desire to create yet more list articles of dubious value; I'm not even sure we need them for international tournaments such as World Cups). If the team's season is notable and sources can be found, write articles about them. I doubt that's the case here if I'm honest. If for some reason the article is kept, the flags, colours, table width issues and redundant key items will all need dealing with. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Squad lists should only appear on team or main tournament articles, with the exception of the World Cup (ODI/T20) and the Champions Trophy. StickyWicket (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2021 Minor League Cricket season: Any relevant details can be added to the page. Perhaps in collapsed form. Gusfriend (talk) 08:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gusfriend, already done. --WellThisIs TheReaper ^Grim 01:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Someone did a lot of work here, and it appears this has now been merged into 2021 Minor League Cricket season#Squads. I'm taken aback by the quality and detail of the material. Although it is merely symbolic at this point, I recommend Merge' in recognition of the fait accompli. Jacona (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Jacona. Merging has already been done, unless you are talking about merging the exact squad lists from the article into here. --WellThisIs TheReaper ^Grim 14:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My intent is merely to thank and shout out those who have done the work! I think it's very good. Jacona (talk) 19:56, 15 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 Monk characters. ✗plicit 11:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Disher[edit]

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

Supporting character from a TV show, the article is a pure plot summary with primary references. Previously PRODed. User:BD2412 deprodded with a comment that a merge and redirec to List of Monk characters would be better. Then this was redirected by an anon, but restored due 'no merge done'. Well, I don't believe there is anything to merge, given it's a plot summary referenced to the TV series and nothing else. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. I am fine with a WP:SOFTDELETE style redirect (preserving history), but I don't think anything more is needed here. It's just soap opera WP:FANCRUFT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Monk characters - The current sourcing in the article is all just the pieces of fiction themselves, and doing searches did not turn up anything outside of plot summaries and brief mentions. I don't personally think a merge would be appropriate due to the lack of secondary sources, and the fact that the primary information such as the actor is already included at the list already, but a Redirect would preserve the editing history in case someone deemed it useful in filling out information on the character on the main character list. Rorshacma (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is fine. I agree with everything Rorshacma has said. BD2412 T 17:21, 8 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 Monk characters. ✗plicit 11:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Teeger[edit]

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

A super WP:FANCRUFTy article, with no reception/analysis of the character, just a lengthy plot summary and a ton of WP:OR trivia (ex. "Compared to Sharona, Natalie has driven at least six different cars in the course of the series. How she can afford to switch cars so frequently, given her very low salary, is never explained", followed by a detailed description of her cars...). The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar, just some mentions on a plot summary here and there, mostly in the numerous Monk-universe guide book (the series was clearly quite popular at some point, but that popularity did not translate into any WP:SIGCOV-level study of this supporting character). A redirect to List of Monk characters should be more than sufficient. PS. Previously PRODed. User:BD2412 deprodded with a comment that a merge and redirec to List of Monk characters would be better. Then this was redirected by an anon, but restored due 'no merge done'. Well, I don't believe there is anything to merge, given it's a plot summary referenced to the TV series and nothing else. I am fine with WP:SOFTDELETE redirect preserving the history. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to the list of characters of the TV series, no evidence of any notability. Fancruft in extremis!TheLongTone (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect with no prejudice against expanding in the future if reliable, secondary sources are used to show enough notability to justify its own article. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 14:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Redirect per above. Rlink2 (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enforce redirect per Piotrus' previous events. It's not his job to do the merge; anyone can do that. Jclemens (talk) 05:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Danso Gordon[edit]

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

Actor has been working a long time, but his CV is a just a long litany of bit parts. Cannot find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 12:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, the notability test for actors is not just "a list of roles is present" — the article has to be supported by reliable sources that establish the significance of at least some of his performances, such as by verifying that he won or was nominated for major acting awards (Oscar, Emmy, Canadian Screen Award, etc.) or by analyzing the roles in enough depth to count toward WP:GNG (as opposed to just glancingly namechecking his existence in a cast list). But the only footnote here just tangentially verifies that the character he played in a TV movie was based on a real person by verifying the existence of that person while failing to say anything whatsoever about Danso Gordon's portrayal of him, which is not what it takes. And even on a ProQuest search for older sourcing that might not have Googled, I just can't find anything better. Bearcat (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On form this is rubbish, we need something more than just a listing of roles. The sourcing is rubbish to, IMDb is not reliable and the subjects own website is plain out. I am not even figuring out how the article about a crime fits in, but pretty much all articles on crimes are not useble in any way to add towards GNG because of not news and routine concerns. There is a certain type of coverage of crime that rises above that, but the one source here does not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I figured out how the crime fits in, and this is a case of coatracking that has no relevance to Gordon. As best I can tell the link is to a news report related to a killing, and the new report pre-dates the work on the killing that Gordon performed in by 2 years. I would be shocked if that source even names Gordon, but if it does it would be a passing mention, it in no way adds to Gordon's notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inadequate sourcing to meet notability for WP: GNG. IMDB is unreliable and not independent, same as the personal website. Seems a bit like a resume. NiklausGerard (talk) 06:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources present are not reliable, fails WP:GNG. TimothyStellar (talk) 09:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Archie Comics characters. ✗plicit 11:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jaguar (Archie Comics)[edit]

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

Pure plot summary with a smattering of info on publication history. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Listed references are pretty low quality, and even the best contains no analysis, just plot summary. The worst include a blog from 2010 about a possible "planned new appearance". Sigh. This is low quality WP:FANCRUFT. I recommend redirecting the entry to List of Archie Comics characters per WP:SOFTDELETE. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Archie Comics characters. There is maybe a sentence of referenced content that can be merged describing the superhero, but other than that it is mostly fancruft and fails WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge detail on creators, first appearance, and confirmed reboots to List of Archie Comics characters. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

County Road T (Saguache County, Colorado)[edit]

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

Quite simply, this fails WP:GNG. County roads are rarely notable, and we don't keep them unless they meet GNG, which this won't. Imzadi 1979 → 05:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Imzadi 1979 → 05:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Imzadi 1979 → 05:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The importance of this road depends on the notability of its eastern terminus, Crestone, Colorado. Although it fails the standard test, more is lost by deleting it than by keeping it; the utility of the encyclopedia as an information resource is diminished. User:Fred Bauder Talk 06:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly does not meet GNG or NGEO. If its notability rests on its connection to the city, then this information can simply be covered in the city article. Sounder Bruce 07:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing GNG and NGEO. Fred Bauder's argument does not carry any weight because of WP:INHERIT. It is also wholly unsourced, the only reference is to the directions to some music festival. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't actually true any more. Damnit! I found sources for a road that is a whole stretch of nothing. Uncle G (talk) 13:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- An entire paragraph, and most of the content just added, is not about the road. Rather it is about a subdivision that just happens to be along it. That's the same as Fred Bauder's argument as stated by Trainsandotherthings. Sorry, still fails GNG because you don't have the significant coverage part of "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". Imzadi 1979 → 17:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that your paragraph counter is broken. Uncle G (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article currently has five paragraphs. The first is a single sentence; so is the second.The fourth has two sentences, and the fifth has one. The third is most of the word count, and it's about a subdivision and not about the road, so it doesn't/shouldn't count for GNG purposes. Iff I were to edit this article, I'd merge the first and second together with the fourth and delete the entire third paragraph as a tangent. Imzadi 1979 → 20:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG fail, despite the attempt to disguise this by adding irrelevant content not about the road itself. (t · c) buidhe 03:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Children of Tsunami: No More Tears[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Documentary that appears to fail WP:NFILM. Nothing in a BEFORE convinced me that this is notable. Previous AfD was no consensus in 2015. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is no evidence that it addresses the requirements of WP:NFILM. Dan arndt (talk) 07:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This production appears to be popular with viewers and has attracted some commentary online, but the kind of serious coverage from reliable sources that we need for a full article is lacking. Popularity is not notability. I think that deletion is the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maven Research[edit]

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

non-notable company - believe it or not, not every org or company nasa does business with is notable or even noteworthy and this doesn't appear to be an exception. CUPIDICAE💕 01:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, California, and New Hampshire. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This mainspace article was created just minutes after Draft:Maven Research was moved to draftspace. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No further discussion has taken place since within the first 2 days of the afd being initiated, 3 weeks ago, thus reaching a consensus seems unlikely. The weight of opinion seems to be more in favour of keeping. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trooper Clerks[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable fan film. Appears to fail WP: NFILM. Previous nomination resulted in redirect/merge. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not so sure about the non notable. This PhD thesis has a decent-sized paragraph on the film, and there are a number of short mentions in the Google books hits. Unfortunately, I cannot see what's about the film in the essay by Jenkins and the PhD thesis by McDaniel. Can anyone else? Daranios (talk) 11:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It looks like the name refers to two things: a live action parody trailer and the animated film based on said trailer. Most of what I'm finding so far looks to be more about the LA trailer, so if the article is kept it should be about both the trailer and the animation. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Found it: In addition to the mentioned PhD thesis, there is a short paragraph discussig the film here on p. 468-469/here on p. 169. Together with short mentions like here and here, and with the award it got, I think this film is notable after all. Like ReaderofthePack suggested, I think the trailer and animated films should all be treated here collectively. Daranios (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think the award is notable, making the film non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 22:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: Did you mean notable as used on Wikipedia or notable as in an important award? Anyway, I think in general if a film get's a major award, that in itself makes it notable, but if it does not, that does not make it non-notable. Rather, we get back to the basic criterion of "is talked about in secondary sources", right? Which I think is the case here, just enough to fullfill WP:WHYN. The fact that it got a not-so-major(?) award in my view is just an additional point towards notability. Daranios (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Foam (organization)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Article is full of primary sources, I could not find third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 02:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Organizations, and Belgium. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe these could establish notability?:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05pn3t4

https://news.asu.edu/20191003-sun-devil-athletics-launches-legacy-brick-program

https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2014/jun/16/diy-labs-exciting-alternative-university-science-research Rlink2 (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any secondary sources on this organization. Above are a passing mention in the BBC article and the ASU article, the Guardian article is written by a a scientific adviser for FoAM Kernow, but not about Foam. Description as "de facto new-media think tank" doesn't make sense. Neither does "In 2001, FoAM became an independent, distributed entity with cells in Brussels and Amsterdam." Fails WP:GNG. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources cited in the article aren't independent, and I agree with WAU that the ones mentioned above don't provide enough significant coverage to contribute toward notability. Searching is difficult since "foam" is such a common word, but my queries did not identify enough sourcing to meet WP:NORG. There's a bit of coverage here, but it is of uncertain independence (most of the content seems to come from an interview with the group's founder) and, in any event, can't push the organization over the notability threshold on its own. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:44, 15 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 Munster Reds Twenty20 players. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Sadique[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCRIC. Has played just one game in 2017 Inter-Provincial Trophy. This competition is not deemed notable as per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cricket/Official_cricket#Men's_Competitions_with_First-class/List_A/T20_status_that_we_don't_deem_notable. LibStar (talk) 03:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, Pakistan, and Ireland. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2017 Inter-Provincial Trophy per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Munster Reds Twenty20 players Obviously has played a few T20 games for Munster Reds, but these are no longer notable under updated cricket guidelines, and I'm not seeing enough for a GNG pass. Personally I prefer this redirect to the one Lugnuts has suggested. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Munster Reds Twenty20 players - yes, this would seem the best redirect for now. If he plays for other sides we can come up with a sensible alternative. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Munster Reds Twenty20 players. StickyWicket (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Munster Reds Twenty20 players. We've done this for players of other teams that used to meet WP:NCRIC until we brought in WP:OFFICIALCRICKET, which was a tighter guideline. Redirect is sensible as an alternative to deletion. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

McKinnon Airpark[edit]

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

Couldn't prod since one had been removed before under the mistaken impression "We have a low inclusion bar for train stations, probably also for small airports". This isn't an airport with facilities for public access or regular flights, it's some rich person's private property with a strip of clear field on which their small private planes can land. No significant coverage; see also essay Wikipedia:WikiProject_Airports/Notability#Private_airports_tend_not_to_be_notable_on_their_own Reywas92^Talk 02:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 02:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 02:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some rich person's airstrip isn't worth inclusion unless it meets GNG, which this clearly does not. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:50, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing found to satisfy WP:GEOFEAT or WP:GNG. The airfield gets incidental mention in local news media for a 2017 crash there, but nothing substantial about the facility. • Gene93k (talk) 04:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to meet notability guidelines. Even the local newspapers have few usable results, mostly revolving around an annual Kiwanis Club event. Sounder Bruce 04:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to admit I also question whether every train stop in the middle of no where is notable, but that is another issue for another time. This is more akin to most roads not being notable, but most roads have far more use than this private airstip gets.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable. Private airstrips are not and should not be treated like regular airports. Like what is noted on the notability guidelines on airports, private airstrips have higher bar on notability than other airports. SunDawn talk 07:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Pacific 4451[edit]

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

This is an unremarkable SD9 that fails GNG by a mile. It is sourced exclusively to self-published railfan sites and one museum which at one point owned the locomotive. Much of this article is just a duplication of Southern Pacific 4450 which I have also nominated for deletion. "They were favorites of railfans and usually worked together" does not confer notability. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This and the 4451 could be a brief mention in the main article about the locomotive type themselves, nothing notable about these two. Leaning delete. Oaktree b (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Pacific 4450[edit]

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

This is literally just a random SD9 that isn't remarkable in any way. Fails GNG by a mile, with what isn't straight up original research sourced only to one dude's self published railfan site and a single museum which once owned the locomotive. This isn't even a preserved locomotive. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It very much seems to be a locomotive that had a normal life as a locomotive, which is good but also not notable. TartarTorte 13:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Saddens me as a railfan, but this and the 4450 could be a brief mention in the main article about the locomotive type themselves, nothing notable about these two. Leaning delete. Oaktree b (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree with you on that front. While there are wikis specifically for trains, none have anything close to the viewership, credibility, or centralization of wikipedia. I wish there were a way to keep non-notable but generally interesting articles in maybe a different way. TartarTorte 19:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Maguire[edit]

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

Suburban mayor fails WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 01:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Minnesota. Shellwood (talk) 01:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOL and no sources beyond passing mentions exist, meaning he also fails WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 04:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; local coverage only. Kablammo (talk) 08:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayors aren't entitled to an automatic presumption of notability just because it's possible to offer technical verification that they exist(ed) as mayors; the notability test for a mayor hinges on the ability to write and source some genuine substance about his political impact: specific things he did, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. Mayors also aren't notable just for being unsuccessful candidates in party primaries for higher office, or for being arrested for drunk driving, so there's just nothing stated here that would establish his notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I can think of few people who are notable for being arrested for drunk driving. We do have a current member of the Michigan State Legislature who clearly is, since he did so many crazy things when arrested, such as trying to claim he would defund the police for pulling him over if they just did not let him go, but since he is a member of the state legislature he is by our current rules already notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mayors of places that are suburbs to bigger cities are rarely notable, and our sourcing here does not show that Maguire is one of those rare exceptions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mayor of Eagan, Minnesota. It is possible for a well-sourced article to be written as Bearcat describes. There is no obvious redirect target, such as a list of mayors from Eagan. --Enos733 (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. In the sense of "not delete". As has been pointed out, not even the nominator wants this article deleted; instead, the discussion is about whether this should be a redirect, a disambiguation page or an overview article about the several genocides in Ukraine. That is a content dispute that needs resolving on the article talk page, not at AfD. Sandstein 21:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine genocide[edit]

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

This term is being thrown-around, but it is just political rhetoric at this point. This dab should be returned to the prior redirect to Holodomor, a true genocide. MB 01:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. MB 01:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree and some commentary. I do agree with the nominator, that we should avoid incorrectly labelling things a genocide, or implying the war is a genocide, without that being a verifiable statement. I searched WP:MoS before commenting and the most relevant policy I could find was WP:NPOVTITLE which directs to guide article titles neutrally. Is WP:CRIM relevant here, as to call it a genocide is to call it a crime....I'm not sure. I think the crime guidance here tends to assume crimes done by civilians. But I also wonder if this is a AfD discussion, you're not proposing to delete, are you, you are proposing to change a redirect. I feel this is an important issue, and might warrant more eyes on it than just the AfD viewers. Suggesting something is a genocide is a big deal and we need to be very careful about that. CT55555 (talk) 01:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am suggesting restoring the prior redirect. Redirecting is a common outcome at AFD; I thought about just reverting to restore the redirect but instead brought it here for discussion. MB 02:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least for Holodomor and Bucha massacre, the latter of which has been referred to as "genocide" by several sources.

1. [Lyudmyla Denisova, the Ukrainian Parliament's Human Rights Commissioner] said Ukraine had evidence of "genocide of Ukrainian people" and of military crimes, adding that rape was "the new weapon" of Russian forces."^[1]

2. [Kyiv mayor Vitali] Klitschko tells German daily Bild that "what happened in Bucha and other suburbs of Kyiv can only be described as genocide."^[2]

3. "We will do everything possible to ensure that those who committed these crimes do not go unpunished and can appear before the International Criminal Court to respond to these alleged crimes against humanity, war crimes, and why not say it — genocide," [Spanish prime minister Pedro] Sanchez continued.^[3]

4. Attacks on civilians by Russian forces in the Ukrainian town of Bucha do not "look far short of genocide", [UK] Prime Minister Boris Johnson has said.^[4]

5. Polish president: 'Hard to deny' genocide took place in Ukraine^[5]

6. (Dissenting view) Ukraine: As Russia faces ‘genocide’ charge, experts urge caution^[6]

There's several more sources already discussing the war crimes during the Russian invasion of Ukraine as possible genocide, which brings the association beyond WP:OR. Whether or not it actually will be prosecuted as such internationally remains to be seen, but the term is already in the public discourse to refer to Russia's actions in Ukraine. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:50, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need a high bar for this and the bar should be higher than some politicians saying. Even your #4 is clearly saying almost. CT55555 (talk) 13:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with CT55555, the above are all "political rhetoric" by parties that don't have a NPOV. The existence of the dab is an endorsement in WP's voice of this view that greatly "waters-down" the meaning of the term. MB 15:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it's an endorsement of the view. It's a reflection of the current discourse. The purpose of the DAB is to navigate users to the right space, and if there are sources referring to Russian actions in Ukraine as genocide, then it's reasonable to assume that users will be searching for the relevant articles as such. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be deleted, as it is too ambiguous a term. If it is kept, redirect to the Holodomor article. The same goes for the Ukrainian genocide redirect, which I re-targeted here for consistency. —-QueenofBithynia (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

If the article is deleted I have a grim feeling someone should keep a copy of the text. Also, propose a disambiguation on "Ukranian Genocides" to be targeted by the original typo-redirects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.230.177.165 (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep of course. Assuming only one of these topics existed, this would be easily kept at RfD as a plausible search term. The same standard should therefore be applied here. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Elli No one is suggesting this be deleted. Do you mean keep this dab or restore the original redirect? That is the real question. MB 23:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the disambiguation. And there is at least one person here suggesting this be deleted. For the record, the action for proposing what you want to do would've been to restore the redirect, and have those who want a disambiguation page created open a discussion at WP:RFD. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Elli, Sorry, but for the record, I have seen cases in the past where people have said using RFD to effectively delete a "content" page was the wrong venue; RFD is not for content deletion even though the result of an RFD can be content creation (a dab). MB 00:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, you're right about the venue, I misremembered what the policy and current best practices were. Regardless, I support keeping the disambiguation page as-is. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The Ukrainian parliament today just recognized it as genocide and also appealed to the international community to recognize it. I have already added the reactions of statesmen, I think we can already conclude that many states recognize this as an act of genocide. Uliana245 (talk 20:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is currently extremely biased, but a page regarding allegations is definitely notable. X-Editor (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are more specific subjects to be included, and there is a need to cover the subject on a broader scale. The deportation of the Crimean Tatars is an example of a Ukraine genocide. Rafael Lemkin actually wrote that the famine was only part of a four-pronged extended campaign which constituted “perhaps the classic example of Soviet genocide,” a “long-term policy of liquidation of non-Russian peoples by the removal of select parts,” and “only the logical successor of such Tsarist crimes,” and he names specific acts from at least 1920 to 1949.[17] In his essay and follow-up interview, Putin himself drew a connection between his own attack and Russian-empire and Soviet crimes when he called Ukrainians an “anti-Russia project” that was conceived in the “Middle Ages” and created by Lenin. —Michael Z. 19:52, 15 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.