< December 09	December 11 >

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

The result was delete. The WP:SYNTH arguments are compelling and have remained unrebutted: it is not clear why two separate companies and their products ought to be treated in the same article. This does not prevent recreation as separate articles. Sandstein 10:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CEM and SSM chips[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Different enough that it's not a G4, but disruptively re-created and nothing to indicate concerns raised in the discussion have been satisfied. Suggest SALT if this closes the same way. Star Mississippi 19:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That should that be list of Engineering-related deletion discussions, these are electronic hardware not software. Rob Kam (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Keep - I kept out of the last AfD as I felt the page was appropriate, but not in the form it was in; a list of components. For those who don't know, both the CEM and SSM chips were the foundations to electronic music and to its sound, all through the 80s. In fact, in the 2010s they were re-created by companies like Music Tribe and Alfa-APAR, and are now used in modern synthesizers like the Oberheim OB-X8 and others. Definitely worthy of an article describing their genesis and influence on modern music over the past 40 years, but not a list of components. Happy to add to it if it survives this AfD - Alison ^talk 19:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to provide reliable sources to back this up please? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am, indeed, and a whole bunch of the WP:RS is in books and articles dating back to the 70s and 80s. There are papers written about them, plus dozens of publication, books etc. What I don't have much of, unfortunately, is time to apply to this, especially if it all gets flushed down the drain anyways- Alison ^talk 00:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alison if it closes as delete, I'm happy to draftify it for you or any established editor. (Also, love seeing your name on my watchlist again.) Star Mississippi 00:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) I'm a little sad about this AfD, as it's one of those niche but critical subjects that often gets overlooked. It needs to be related, but in layperson's terms. How many people know that Van Halen's "Jump" is played on an Oberheim OB-Xa, which is absolutely stuffed to the gills with CEM chips. The Oberheim article mentions this. So folks don't know that that particular *sound* is entirely down to the work that Doug Curtis did, and Tom Oberheim leveraged. These ICs brought low-volume, high-dollar niche synthesizers into the realms of being affordable by musicians. That was almost entirely down to being able to put a VCO / VCA / VCF series of modules into simple chips. It was revolutionary! Ironically, these were ultimately killed off by the Yamaha DX-7 and later Korg and Roland ROMplers, but funny enough - they're back, and FM and ROMplers kinda aren't :) - Alison ^talk 00:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A big chunk of the history of these ICs and how they influenced instruments is laid out in this book, for example - Alison ^talk 00:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The list of components and what synths they are used in was an invaluable reference for me; having that information scattered across dozens of individual synth pages was not a viable substitute for my use case. What's the essential difference between a list of a couple dozen synth ICs and a list of literally hundreds of GPU chipsets like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_graphics_processing_units ? Kaleja (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like the last version of this page, there is no demonstration of notability, no sources, and no obvious potential for this to become a truly encyclopedic article. Popcornfud (talk) 08:09, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While it is true that the current state of the article needs serious work, the sources Alison provided above does show notability. The article meets WP:GNG. I'm obviously not able to view the previous version of the article so I can't comment on that, but on the strict question of "it is notable" the answer seems to be "yes". - Aoidh (talk) 13:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article confuses two distinct separate brands together. --19:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob Kam (talk • contribs)
Keep without prejudice to splitting. I don't see the problem here. The previous article was a list of these chips and was rightly deleted per WP:NOTDIR, the new article is a prose description of the topic. It needs better sourcing, but I have no reason to doubt the sources that Alison provided. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons listed by Alison, with a possible split or move to something like "Analog synthesiser ICs". PaulT2022 (talk) 10:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't find sources for them and I'm unsure why the two companies are listed together, I don't see any relation between them in the sourcing given here. Oaktree b (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redrafted

I have gone and created two draft articles to cover SSM and CEM, and their products, Draft:Sound Semiconductor Inc and Draft:OnChip Systems. --Rob Kam (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CEM chips or SSM chips or even Music synthesizer ICs may be notable, but the sources don't support that the grouping of CEM and SSM meets WP:GNG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:55, 18 December 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!} 20:53, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeannie Elias[edit]

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

Doesn't demonstrate any notability. Fails WP:GNG. OceanHok (talk) 18:41, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Film, Television, and Video games. OceanHok (talk) 18:41, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Voice roles in Dennis the Menace, Leapfrog Adventures, a guest shot on McGuyver in the 80s are the highlights. Most of films or TV shows she was don't score higher than 50% or so on Rotten Tomatoes. None of which is notable. Far off from GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Note that I removed five pages of credits as unsourced shortly before this nomination, that earlier version can be seen here. Looks like Elias probably doesn't meet the "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows" of WP:NACTOR, with even IMDB's "known for" section listing only minor roles. Belbury (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, actresses are not automatically notable just because the article contains (contained, in this case) a list of roles nominally verified by an IMDb profile — the notability of an actress hinges on the amount of reliable source coverage that can be shown about her acting, such as profiles of her, reviews of her roles which single her performance out for dedicated attention, properly sourced verification that she won or was nominated for a major national acting award, and on and so forth. It's not "has had roles", in other words — every actor has always had roles, because that's the job description — it's "gets over WP:GNG on substantive coverage about her and her roles. But that is and was absent here. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think the subject meets the second limb of WP:NACTOR—that is, she has worked prolifically as a voice actress. There are lots of hits at newspapers.com. I don't know if they will make out WP:GNG, but the SNG appears to be made out, and only one need be met. I will try and get some articles from newspapers.com clipped. Dflaw4 (talk) 11:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've now requested a selection of articles from newspapers.com to be clipped. I should have them within the next few hours. Thanks, Dflaw4 (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting but I see no new content added to the article that could establish SNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Currently the roles are IMO extremely minor for WP:NACTOR, the article is a poorly sourced WP:BLP and my search mainly found trivial mentions, therefore IMO WP:GNG and WP:NBASIC are probably failed. However, @Dflaw4: has stated there might be a list of plausible sources identified at resources exchange. Dflaw4, were you able to access the sources? You stated that I should have them within the next few hours, at the time I'm writing this two days has passed, could you still access the clippings at resources exchange? If so, could you please link those here and ping me so that I can have a look if it is possible? Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 02:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless significance or significance coverage can be shown by {u|Dflaw4)) search. My search did not show any results meeting the required standard. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 08:51, 17 December 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 Childfree Russia with the option of merging sourceable content. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Lisovskii[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG: coverage is never of Lisovskii himself, but rather interviews or addresses him as a spokesperson for Childfree Russia. I think that the assembled sources do establish the notability of that organization, but editors working on the page have ignored my suggestion to convert this article into an article about the group. I was unable to find any better coverage in Russian online, searching through Bing, Google, and Yandex/Dzen. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Russia. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just published a separate page about Childfree Russia as you suggested GeryLud (talk) 12:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Lisovskii is the only public figure and an opposing to current Kremlin regime activist who is developing childfree movement in Russia and forced Russian legislators even to adopt a new law which forbids to spread "childfree propaganda". There is also a problem, that many good sources are coming from a banned Lenta.ru news website, which is one of the biggest in Russia and in terms of critics of Lisovskii it is kind of reliable (but not about Russian-Ukraine war of course). Also, as s possible resolution, I've created a separate page Childfree Russia. Maybe the both pages could be united. --GeryLud (talk) 12:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of significant coverage about Lisovskii outside the context of Childfree Russia, I think that merge to Childfree Russia is appropriate. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with related pages. There is no page about him on Russian wiki. He is mentioned, though, in the article ru:Чайлдфри (i.e. "Childfree"), but there is a looped link to the English Edward Lisovskii page in question, which is not okay. The cited news links there include his media, but don't mention his name directly. And if it does somewhere, it'd be a WP:WI1E case for now. --Suitskvarts (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have updated a page Childfree Russian with new links and details. --GeryLud (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Isn't notable at all, lots of people who are activists or create companies aren't notable, this one is no exception.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 05:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable as the founder of quite big social and ideological movements. Taking into consideration the fact, that any movement in Russia is usually suppressed, that is kind of risky activity. As an activist in exile Lisovskii seems to be notable. New sources were added by me to the article too. 2A00:1370:819C:17E7:405E:2FDB:3166:2251 (talk) 12:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
N.b., the aforementioned sources added by this IP were in the article at the time of the AfD nomination. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep quite possible the person meets anybio per pioneering in social movement and oppression in authoritarian country . 多少战场龙 (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a rather creative interpretation of WP:ANYBIO. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:44, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to the article about the foundation, I don't see notable coverage about him as an individual. Oaktree b (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added new facts and sources to the article, namely how Kremlin forced Lisovskii to praise Russian occupation of Crimea; Lisovskii's online communities had 1 million users before being blocked in 2013-2014; and that he and his team consult over 7000 Russian women on childfree and getting pregnant decision. 178.217.44.176 (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I consider, that the person got general notability per sources analyses and achievements. 178.217.44.176 (talk) 13:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, there have been no edits since this was nominated for AfD on November 19th. IPs insistent claims that they have provided new material are crossing over into disruption, particularly considering that when you look at the article's edit history, the only source added by IP edits is this one, which doesn't even mention Lisovskii. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill that was me. I registered an account. sorry for that. the browser did not save my changes. I again put them into the article. now successfully. Дядя Пётр (talk) 13:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for following up, although I think that the cited sources suffer from the same problem as the prior sources: they cover Lisovskii only in the context of his capacity as a spokesperson and founder of Childfree Russia--for as long as that remains his only claim to fame, his biography should be merged to the organization's article. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Childfree. Notability is largely WP:INHERITED from the organisation. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, in light of new content added to the article yesterday.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a spokesperson it seems like he's only notable because of the organization. Maybe any additional information about him can be added there? BuySomeApples (talk) 07:17, 12 December 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 (with a small dose of WP:SNOW). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler Alert: The Hero Dies[edit]

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

It appears that this article for this book was solely created because a movie based on it was recently released. All the information (two sentences) present in this article can be found on the author's page. Babar Suhail (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Babar Suhail (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable per below. Babar Suhail, did you follow WP:BEFORE?

See WP:ARTN as well. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Obviously notable with lots of room for expansion. pburka (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. On a related note, I placed a ((Sources exist)) tag on the article. Steel1943 (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the refs Erik provided. There are six reviews which are WP:RS, The Desert Sun, Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, Entertainment Weekly, The Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide, and Boston Herald are credible newspapers or magazines, with Kirkus and Entertainment Weekly being listed RS on WP:RSP, Publishers Weekly is also a reliable magazine IMO with about us and submission policies; Gay and Lesbian Review Worldwide per 1, 2, is likely WP:RS (some of the content on its website are marked as blogs, but this seems to be a full reliable review from the magazine). These appear to be WP:SIGCOV, though the Kirkus and Publishers Weekly reviews at one quite long paragraph lean on the shorter side and are borderline SIGCOV. Therefore, these refs count towards WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK criteria 1. WP:NBOOK criteria 3, The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement, might be met as Spoiler Alert (film), an easily notable film, is based on this book. VickKiang (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and I am improving the article now using these sources. BuySomeApples (talk) 07:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Depending on when this nomination closes, I might nominate this article for DYK. BuySomeApples (talk) 08:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Thank you for your WP:HEY. VickKiang (talk) 08:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above Jaguarnik (talk) 04:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The article has improved with a reception section and the sources look like enough to me. Archrogue (talk) 22:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:35, 17 December 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. (non-admin closure) ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 11:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Slim[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The topic, about an alleged popular cocktail made from gin and DDT (yes, I'm talking about that DDT), seems to fail WP:GNG, both in regard to in-depth coverage and in regard to reliability of sources. It basically relies on a claim made in one source (the 2001 book The Dedalus Book of Absinthe), which was re-reported in a couple other places. That source was not even focused on this topic – it was focused on absinthe, which is not an ingredient of this alleged cocktail. We don't know for sure that this source was reliable. We don't know for sure that the cocktail that is the subject of the article ever really existed. Probably it didn't, both because DDT is not very soluble and also because people don't generally entertain themselves by drinking insecticide. Maybe the myth originated from a fellow named George Alexander Campbell, who promoted DDT usage in the early 1970s (per some discussion at http://microkhan.com/2010/06/09/the-myth-of-the-mickey-slim/). Maybe not, but the drink is probably a made-up story that got repeated sporadically because it sounded interesting, not because it was a real phenomenon. It is sometimes said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and such evidence is lacking. The evidence that this drink existed is pretty thin, and there really doesn't seem to be enough in-depth information about it out there to say anything about it with confidence. It has been more than 16 years since the previous delection nomination discussion, and maybe the consensus on what is considered adequate quality of sourcing and depth of coverage has changed since then. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, History, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 04:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have many articles about hoaxes/falsehoods. Editing the article to make it clear that it's likely it was never actually made/consumed would be fine but there are too many references in newspapers and books to claim it doesn't meet WP:GNG:

From google books: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], this one is particularly interesting since the only part available says it disproves the mickey slim as ever existing but it came out this year so I can't find an easy online source, although it's somewhat based on a blog: [8].

Skynxnex (talk) 04:53, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the explanation with sources above, I can't access most of them from my location. Will assume good faith. Oaktree b (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While it's a weird thing to consume, some of Skynxnex's sources do show enough significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. - Aoidh (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to the sources found by Skynxnex. Sounds like a tasty beverage :) MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This discussion has been relisted 3 times and I still see no consensus. Maybe, after a suitable period of time, a second AFD could be held to break the logjam between those advocating Keep and those who believe the page should become a Redirect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ghoultown[edit]

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

Not covered by reliable sources. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 11:47, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 12:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jdcooper (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as well as the AllMusic staff written bio and Dread Central album review already in the article there is also this and this. Overall there is enough coverage for a close pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per user above me --FMSky (talk) 04:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I also found this Garuda3 (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A lot of evidence of notability per Google search.Puvasoca (talk) 12:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. This is extremely weak coverage and wholly not enough to be "kept". AllMusic should only be used for reviews. Blabbermouth is questionable as a source per WP:RSN discussions but even in this case, it's a reposted interview (primary source). The Fort Worth Weekly is a local alt weekly, not proving wider notability. Dread Central has no hallmarks of a reliable source and Auxillary is a passing mention. Doesn't look good. Redirect to Lyle Blackburn as the group's independently notable founder to preserve what can be preserved, but the coverage of the band itself is clearly lacking. czar 17:23, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blabbermouth is considered reliable per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources though --FMSky (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source designations are not incontrovertible. That list says Blabbermouth was last discussed in 2013—nearly a decade ago. There have been more recent discussions at WP:RSN. In the case of this specific article, it is clearly quoting an outside interview at length. That doesn't make the primary source any less of a primary source unless a journalist is reliably adding analysis atop it. We wouldn't cite an interview from any source as indicative of a subject's notability as what matters is the secondary source's analytic consideration of what makes the topic noteworthy. czar 19:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider Redirect option which wasn't previously mentioned in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lyle Blackburn because the subject does not pass WP:N. The AllMusic biography is pretty short and the RSN discussion noted by Czar suggests the source does not contribute to notability. I thought I'd also mention that I don't quite see how it was determined that Tom Demalon is a staff writer. I don't see a page listing the staff of the website and when I search the person's name I get a biography for him, which refers to Demalon as a musical artist with music credits and briefly mentions that he has written for MTV. The Dread Central source is written by "Mr. Dark", which seems less reliable than a source written by a WP:CONTRIBUTOR considering we don't even know the author's name. Saying that a subject has notability per Google is an example of the argument to avoid WP:GHITS. The Blabbermouth source is an WP:INTERVIEW and the Fort Worth Weekly source is both a local alt weekly as well as largely being made up of quoted/interview material. The Auxillary source is clearly a WP:TRIVIALMENTION. The Missoula Independent source found by Garuda3 appears to be the best source available, but I would expect to see a couple more sources of similar quality to demonstrate notability. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:30, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources AllMusic staff written biographies are reliable sources and used in thousands of articles including featured articles, the RSN discussion linked shows that many comments support it's reliability with some dissensions and there is no consensus that only reviews can be used. Dread Central is a reliable source as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources and used in thousands of articles so the dismissal of these sources is against established consensus imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The linked, recent RSN discussion consensus supersedes the music WikiProject's decade-old list. czar 05:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think a redirect would benefit our readers. Having two discographies on one page would confuse matters. There is ample content here for an individual article. Garuda3 (talk) 22:14, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand what the issue is here with a redirect. Lyle_Blackburn#Ghoultown already includes the Ghoultown discography, and redirects are commonly used on Wikipedia so I'm not sure why it would cause any confusion. TipsyElephant (talk) 11:22, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lyle Blackburn. Doesn't pass GNG. I didn't find anything on the internet.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 07:34, 17 December 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!} 20:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jin Yuquan[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, should be redirected to their more notable relative Jin Youzhi. The sole accessible source cited (in a prior revision of the article) is this People's Daily article, which is primarily about Yuquan's brother Jin Yuzhang. No significant coverage of Yuquan appears to exist, having searched Google Scholar and the general internet in both English and Chinese (with the aid of translation software). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Royalty and nobility, and China. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also did not find any significant coverage. It would be worthwhile for a native reader to check if they can find any significant coverage. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 08:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Avilich (talk) 02:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Jim Denney (ski jumper born 1983)[edit]

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

Non-notable olympian. Has a passing mention here (if the same person) but no significant coverage found. Avilich (talk) 21:29, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Olympics. Avilich (talk) 21:29, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes GNG with multiple pieces of SIGCOV, see the following: Denny gets gold, not green from the Leader Telegram; 'To be like a bird for just a little bit' from The Miami Herald; Sky high no longer from the Star Tribune; and Following Dad's lead from the Leader-Telegram. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources mentioned above constitute significant coverage. At least a dozen solid paragraphs all up covering this individual. Meets the general notability guideline easily as the sources are reliable. Just because it's a one line stub (and I personally think editors should try to expand to a solid paragraph before publishing) does not mean its ripe for deletion MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:51, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Avilich I have now included two examples of significant coverage which demonstrate a meeting of the general notability guideline - hoping you please will consider an early close. Cheers MaxnaCarta (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Stein[edit]

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

Non-notable olympian, only available coverage consists of passing mentions. Avilich (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Olympics. Avilich (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hall of Fame inductees strike me as particularly notable and I have added it to the article accordingly. Nice find @BeanieFan11!

Jasap (talk) 07:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You probs have some sort of rebuttal in the chamber ready to go for this but KEEP, all olympians are notable. Americanfreedom (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A bit of a weaker case than Brian Welch, but IMO there is still enough to get Stein over the notability bar: Stein got jump on competition from the Wisconsin State Journal; Olympics are only a few jumps away from The Capital Times; and Middletown jumper on the rise from The La Crosse Tribune; plus lesser coverage here, here and here; and this mentions he was inducted into the American Ski Jumping Hall of Fame. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for obvious reasons. Hall of fame induction is enough to satisfy WP:ANYBIO Bruxton (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What I find of issue here is that no significant coverage is presented on the "Hall of Fame" for Kurt Stein, so it does not appear to be an automatic acceptance due to inclusion. It does not appear to list why Kurt was inducted? Looking at the nomination criteria it is: • Athletes who have achieved outstanding ski jumping careers. • Athletes who have represented the United States in international competitions. • Contributions to the sport of ski jumping that have been significant and enduring. • Contributions that have resulted in significant influence on the perpetuation and preservation of the sport of ski jumping on a regional, national and/or international level. • Contributions to the sport of ski jumping that are historically important and have had a significant impact nationally. • Judgement of the Selection Committee It appears if any of the criteria are met they can meet this hall of fame standard which would not always meet the criteria for notability on wiki. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 09:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying that he should not be considered notable – even though he has multiple pieces of SIGCOV – because those sources do not discuss his hall of fame induction? That doesn't make any sense. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Welch (ski jumper)[edit]

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

Non notable olympian Avilich (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Olympics. Avilich (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes GNG, see the following articles: For ski jumper Brian Welch, it's a leap of faith from the Sun Journal; A leap back into ski jumping from the Portland Press Herald; Skier is jumping for joy from the previous; Maine's Welch on U.S. team from The Bangor Daily News; Scarborough ski jumper revels in Olympic scene from the Morning Sentinel; Welch enjoys an Olympic view from the Portland Press Herald; Teenagers soars over, not down, the slopes from the previous; and Welch stops at Harris Hill – on his way to the Olympics from The Brattleboro Reformer. Clearly is notable with "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Olympian with non-trivial RS. Bruxton (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NBIO, thanks to the sources found by BeanieFan11. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:11, 17 December 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, withdrawn by nominator with no other delete opinions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xia Suntong[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. One of over a 100 co-authors on the Draft History of Qing. There are limited auction results for the artist: https://www.mutualart.com/Artist/Xia-Suntong/F873E5274457B2F8/AuctionResults, but I could not find other English references showing significance. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bearing in mind WP:CONTN, this is a sad case of WP:BIAS, given the plethora of Chinese-language sources on this Qing scholar, e.g. [9], [10], [11]. Baike Baidu has a brief outline too for an easy starter. A quick look at the nominator's talk page doesn't exactly inspire confidence: he comes across as an inexperienced and trigger-happy deletionist who just takes a glance at page one of Google and calls it a day. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 21:32, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the 100 co-authors were not all of equal standing, and according to this study Xia contributed the most! [12] KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 21:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would also be good information to add to the page Draft_History_of_Qing. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome to do it yourself. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 22:19, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not undertake personal attacks. You are right that the article does not determine notability; however, this being a English wiki and all the sources you have provided are not English, how about translating the relevant sections and putting them into references for the article? At the moment the only reference in the article is a book with no page number or translation provided of the relevant section. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not obligated to do so, although I would if you had just proposed that instead of nominating the page for deletion. The 'personal attacks' are warranted insofar as they pertain to your troubling pattern of nominating a whole slew of articles for deletion to varying success. Your comments about 'this being a English (sic) wiki' once again demonstrate WP:BIAS. Xia is without a doubt notable, nuff said! KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 22:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note you removed the tags today, which shows another editor also was concerned about this page since April 2020: "This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: One source is just a book and doesn't cite page or author. (April 2020)

The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. (April 2020)

This article relies largely or entirely on a single source. (April 2020)"

You also removed the one reference that this article relied on and then replaced it with another. Did the previous reference not reference Xia Suntong, and was placed in error? KeepItGoingForward (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was not placed in error. I just thought this new source was better and more succinct (although the previous source does contain a detailed commentary on his writings which can be reintroduced later.) You would know if you read the source for yourself—and if you haven't, because you can't access it, you shouldn't assume bad faith. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 23:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should do something more productive instead of randomly trying to delete articles of things or people you know nothing about. Just my honest opinion. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 23:41, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you apply WP:NONENG, so that myself and others can read the relevant portion of the reference? KeepItGoingForward (talk) 06:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and China. Shellwood (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm seeing plenty of sources about the subject[13][14][15][16][17], with more available on Google Books and Google Scholar. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 04:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see number eight has an English one sentence summary. There appears to be evidence to keep the article, is it possible to apply WP:NONENG to the other references? KeepItGoingForward (talk) 06:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you requesting that I translate the titles/abstracts of some of the sources to demonstrate that they're about Xia Suntong? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping for the relevant part to show Xia Suntong's notability and ideally that could be transferred into the article. It seems to be a serious shame for the article to be such a short stub for a notable person. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources provided by Granger are solely covering the subject and meet WP:GNG. Generally for non-English sources, Google Translate provides a good enough translation to evaluate if the coverage is significant. Jumpytoo Talk 21:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Based on the discussion so far, I believe that the AFD can be closed as notability has been shown. I would suggest for improving the articles quality that the references quoted in this AFD be transferred to the article and WP:NONENG applied to the references.KeepItGoingForward (talk) 22:41, 11 December 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 withdrawn. BD2412 T 16:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John A. Bell[edit]

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

I can find nothing of significance about this subject other than that they coached a relatively minor college football team to two losing seasons in 1959 and 1960. I see nothing at WP:NCOLLATH that supports notability here. BD2412 T 20:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 20:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Arkansas. Shellwood (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call Mississippi Valley State, a Division I school that has produced a few of the greatest football players in history, a "relatively minor team." BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Searching for sources~~... BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Ugh... his common name makes it so hard to search... I don't have time to do an in-depth search now – I'll finish my search tomorrow. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are three sources in the article already that are more than enough to pass WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mississippi Valley State is an NCAA Division I school. Head football coaches and athletic directors of NCAA Division I schools are generally considered notable. We've already found a few sources covering Bell's stint there, during which his 1959 team won a conference title, despite an overall losing record. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've searched as well and can't find much. The only item found that could be considered SIGCOV is this one. If we had a date, we could search for coverage around his date of death. Cbl62 (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was the athletic director as well: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/114433480/head-coach-and-athletic-director-john/ PK-WIKI (talk) 03:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing, on the basis that research reveals that the subject went on to become a leading expert on civil rights and school desegregation. BD2412 T 04:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If an editor wants to work with this master list to try to create acceptable smaller lists, contact me and I can restore it and move it into Draft space. As it is right now though , there is no support to Keep this list, as is, in the main space of the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of dystopian music, TV programs, and games[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not TV Tropes, which is how the article is currently formatted. I have no opposition to a List of dystopian television shows or List of dystopian video games for navigational purposes, however. But that information can be better drawn from the respective categories, and this page would not have a redirect target, so I don't see a need for this page as it stands. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, Music, Television, Video games, and Lists. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This is a crazy wide scope. Even with just one of the mediums, it would probably be too broad. But three separate ones, each extremely broad themselves? Way too much. Sergecross73 msg me 20:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Split into multiple lists, per Why? I Ask, and only after that is done should this page be deleted. — The Anome (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with split. I am not aware of any policy which would support a conglomerate list like this absent RS'es discussing these three sub-elements as one. Jclemens (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I may make a split later tonight. However, I don't see a use for List of dystopian music when there are no others music-related lists like that. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:TNT. Almost entirely unreferenced, WP:OR cruft. It may be viable for individual well-referenced lists, but those can be created separately without bothering to use any content from this unencyclopedic list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:INDISCRIMINATE per Sergecross73, and much of it unsourced WP:OR. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete way to broad.--65.92.162.81 (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I am open to creating a focussed list instead of one with such a "crazy wide scope" as Sergecross73 has stated above. Bruxton (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lists of dystopian works: Separate lists of List of dystopian television, music, and video games can conceivably be created at a later date and then added to the main list of the lists. It would be preferable to redirect this, and retain the page history so that the creators of such separated lists can use the content of this page as a starting point, if they so desire. silvia (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 13:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Technically, lankpopsiclesilviaASHs4's solution of splitting makes sense. But would the split list meet WP:LISTN? Do the current lists, ex. List of dystopian comics, List of dystopian films or List of dystopian literature do? I have my doubts. Poor WP:V for the article discussed here is a major problem too. Who calls most of those works dystopian? WP:OR red flag arises. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Effectively unsourced. Violates WP:DUE and WP:OR due to excessive mentions of trivia not backed by secondary sources. Avilich (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete indiscriminate, not a logical article at all. Dronebogus (talk) 14:01, 17 December 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 10:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Woodall Peak[edit]

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

Not Notable. It's just a small peak made by rock. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 17:29, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Antarctica and Islands. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 17:29, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:38, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks sources establishing that WP:GEOLAND is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:18, 17 December 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!} 18:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gabi Ben-Dor[edit]

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

As the subject of the article I ask to remove it because unfortunately, the page has become a political arena against me, and I don't want Wikipedia to be a platform for that. Waysdays (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see anything we can use for GNG, he isn't covered in Gnews. Might be more coverage in Gscholar with an impact factor calculation. Oaktree b (talk) 00:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does the "Mower Professorial Chair of Shock Wave Studies" qualify as a named chair for the purposes of WP:NPROF? Curbon7 (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:17, 17 December 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Serpent (band)[edit]

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

This band's common name makes searching tough, but searching in conjunction with member names or album titles leads to few useful results. I can find no significant and reliable coverage of their career or professional album reviews, and they are only visible in typical retail listings and basic directories like Metal Archives. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Sweden. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and change the entry at Serpent to link to Piotr Wawrzeniuk as the only member with an article. Nothing significant found. There's very little here that isn't already in the Piotr Wawrzeniuk article. No need to keep this title as a redirect as the disambiguation page can direct readers to the Wawrzeniuk article. --Michig (talk) 15:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and change link at serpent as per Michig. I couldn't find sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete change the entry of Serpant to Piotr Wawrzeniuk as per Michig.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:39, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep /nomination withdrawn. Clearly my search was broken. We don't need to prolong this. Star Mississippi 17:24, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Wilson (baseball)[edit]

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

Short MLB career. DePRODded by @Penale52: but that editor's search results don't align with mine and while I don't have full newspapers.com access, what I do have access to identifies nothing in depth for this athlete. I don't think his MiLB MVP is enough for ANYBIO, so bringing this here for discussion. Courtesy @Jacona: as original PRODder. Star Mississippi 14:13, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Baseball, California, and New York. Star Mississippi 14:13, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Get full Newspapers.com access. It's free through the Wikipedia Library. Then you'll see that these include in-depth coverage. [18][19][20] – Muboshgu (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG with the sources now in the article. I made a clip of them so they are viewable without an account. Newspapers.com is a great source for sourcing these pre-internet American athletes and I highly recommend getting a free account through the Wikipedia Library. Alvaldi (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient sources to establish notability. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:14, 10 December 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. Star Mississippi 16:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

National Ballet Academy and Trust of India[edit]

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

I don't think this is notable enough and passes WP:GNG. Lack of references and Fails WP:SIGCOV. I put this for afd for other's opinion. Tictictoc (talk) 10:55, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Organizations, and India. Tictictoc (talk) 10:55, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: Seems topic is notable but lack of references it meets Soft Delete. Enclaim (talk) 07:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:04, 10 December 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 Gavin McInnes#Censored.TV and Get Off My Lawn launch. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Censored.TV[edit]

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

Removed all the self sourced content about shows. Have left what little viable information is used and it fails WP:N with what remains. The best source is Salon, which is an entire article based on a single social media post by Milo without any additional reporting by Salon. Add in creation by now blocked UPE for bonus points. Slywriter (talk) 14:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Websites. Slywriter (talk) 14:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gavin_McInnes#Censored.TV_and_Get_Off_My_Lawn_launch, where all the important information about the channel aready resides. Black Kite (talk) 14:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Black Kite, it's a viable target and what I could find doesn't warrant a standalone article. - Aoidh (talk) 15:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
‘’’Redirect to Gavin_McInnes. Not enough coverage at this time to warrant a stand-alone article. Hirolovesswords (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect’’’ to Gavin_McInnes#Censored.TV_and_Get_Off_My_Lawn_launch. We can cover it adequately in his article, as above, not enough yet to spin it off into its own article. Doug Weller talk 15:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gavin_McInnes#Censored.TV_and_Get_Off_My_Lawn_launch, per all of the above. Sal2100 (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gavin_McInnes#Censored.TV_and_Get_Off_My_Lawn_launch per all above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 16:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Damola Ayegbayo[edit]

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

Stellar artist but no significant coverage or independent coverage. Interviews, profiles, influencer profiles and clickbait references in the first 9 refs. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 11:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:48, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing found for this fellow. I'm sure he's nice enough, but I don't see sources we can use here. Oaktree b (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not finding reliable sources for this artist. Existing citations are mostly promotional press releases, interviews, and user populated sites. Fails WP:Artist WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Oaktree b The Guardian (Nigeria) is a notable platform and this source was written from NPOV and is independent and reliable coverage see [21] And this source also highlighted shows he is among the Top historical artist in Nigeria see [22] And this also shows he is among influential young Nigeria that has made incredible impacts in his fields see [23] Bernice2019 (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those are fine, but are too brief. They only mention the individual in a few sentences, we'd prefer an extensive story about the singer. Oaktree b (talk) 20:22, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reply:Oaktree b kindly See this[24]Bernice2019 (talk) 11:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is a better source. We need more like that. Oaktree b (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Confirming the sources mentioned are ok shows he is notable. All the souces mentioned about him are more than 9 - 15 lines that alone ought to be enough to establish his notability and he holds the largest painting and visual artworks of an individual in Nigeria and also the youngest largest arts holder in Nigeria with over 1500 artworks and all this are well established in the sources not to forget he also has a book written about him by a notable proficient writer Abayomi Mighty and also his artworks been used as a book cover by a notable publisher in USA HarperCollins Bernice2019 (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not significant coverage. scope_creep^Talk 06:24, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is written from NPOV and is independent of the subjects and the sources is reliable kindly see [25] and also he was listed among the top 5 artist that has made an historical impacts in Nigeria see [26].Bernice2019 (talk) 07:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Due to WP:NOTPROMOTION. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:21, 17 December 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 16:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Wallan Wahl[edit]

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

I couldn't find sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Could be redirected to Therion (band) as that seems to be the more prominent of the bands he was in, and he is mentioned briefly in the main text. Suonii180 (talk) 11:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Sweden. Suonii180 (talk) 11:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He could possibly be redirected to Therion (band), but that group has existed since the 1980s and he was only with them for about one year, with little impact and few mentions in their history. His other bands are non-notable and it appears that he was only with any of them for short spells too. He appears to be a journeyman hanging around the edges of the Swedish metal scene, filling in whenever someone needed temp help, but he is only visible in a few credits here and there. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:33, 10 December 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!} 09:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kartiki Gonsalves[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Refs are two interviews. G4'd. Added to coincide with the release of "The Elephant Whisperers" which was drafted. No independent coverage. scope_creep^Talk 10:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Photography, and India. — hako9 (talk) 10:24, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Much better shot of Draft:The Elephant Whisperers getting approved than this, since her notability is fully derived from her documentary. — hako9 (talk) 10:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - outside the single film, no claim to significance. No in-depth coverage of her from independent, reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:45, 17 December 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!} 09:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bageshwori Dutt Chataut[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable losing political candidate, failing WP:NPOL. With regards to WP:GNG, a WP:BEFORE search in both English and Nepali returned only a couple of sources that mention his name without WP:SIGCOV (such as [27]). De-PRODed last year with a couple of sources added (AGF as they are offline), but they also seem to be relatively passing mentions. Curbon7 (talk) 08:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Nepal. Curbon7 (talk) 08:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't pass WP:NPOL and I couldn't find sufficient sources for WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 11:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Being a government official as Director General, he passes WP:ANYBIO. Tictictoc (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The director general of immigration is not a position which falls under the blanket of WP:NPOL#1, as it is not a cabinet-level position. Per List of government agencies of Nepal, the Department of Immigration is one of many minor departments in the Nepali government, falling under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Home Affairs. WP:POLOUTCOMES states that "Sub-cabinet officials (assistant secretary, commissioner, etc.) are usually considered notable, especially if they have had otherwise notable careers"; I would posit that this subject, with a seemingly unremarkable career, does not fall into that category. Curbon7 (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As of this he is runner up for the election which means he don't served as Member of Legislature so he fails WP:NPOL. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 14:02, 14 December 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!} 09:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yvonne Bajela[edit]

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

Businessperson doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO - lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:53, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References are profiles and intervies. 4 Forbes refs, 2 by contributor, 1 is a profile, 1 is Forbes under 30 which are Non-RS. 2 is an interview, primary, one is a routine annoucement of being employed, one is a company ref, 1 is a another profile, and the last one is waste of time. Most either primary as interviews, Non-rs forbes refs or profiles written the Bajela. No really significant coverage outside the business. There is a Guardian article but is the business. Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 08:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have nothing to add to Scope creep's explanation of why the currently-cited sources aren't adequate, and my search didn't succeed in finding any others that would move the needle in terms of the WP:GNG. Too soon, perhaps. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:30, 17 December 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. Sourcing has not been identified Star Mississippi 15:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Al Mashhad News[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Soft deleted at AfD in September, then restored. Notability stills looks highly doubtful to me - plenty of launch PR but no real in depth coverage in RIS. Mccapra (talk) 07:14, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Arab Emirates. Mccapra (talk) 07:14, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The previously-soft-deleted version was undeleted "to better the article" but the references are those considered in the previous AfD. It was then moved to draft with the comment "Likely COI, resubmit through AfC" but then just moved back. Repeating my delete rationale from the previous discussion: An article based on announcement coverage for a new start-up "which comes to light before the end year" and featuring uncited claims to notability. (The same new editing account has also created a similar Draft:Al Mashhad Channel on the same venture.) The referenced coverage fails WP:CORPDEPTH; I am not seeing evidence that this particular "Al Mashhad" venture meets WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 08:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The the page has huge credibility and notability in the non English speaking space with a plethora of Arabic sources and English sources. If the only criteria is only English sources we will miss out on a lot of credible non English entities , regional businesses and articles. The page is immensely notable in Arabic and English with credible sources in Arabic and English . It is a notable entity in the non English and Arabic speaking world as well as English (Yubabaogino (talk) 07:32, 5 December 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Can you link to some examples of the plethora of reliable Arabic sources please? Mccapra (talk) 08:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:14, 10 December 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

George Bingham Rollins[edit]

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

Several of his relatives are notable, but I don't think this fellow is. There's a bunch of passing mentions to him owning a painting by George Caleb Bingham, but none of them that I've seen rise to significant coverage. https://www.google.com/books/edition/B%C4%93ta_Th%C4%93ta_P%C4%AB/1tbx9mDsrAoC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22george+bingham+rollins%22&pg=PA398&printsec=frontcover We've got this short obit here published by an organization he was part of], but not much more. His death via falling into a well gained a bit of coverage at the time because his family was so prominent, but WP:NOTINHERITED applies and I don't think he meets WP:GNG on his own. Hog Farm _Talk 06:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Missouri. Hog Farm _Talk 06:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He fails to meet WP:GNG. I am aware the following carries no weight but… I am knowledgeable about sources on the Rollins family and don’t know of any that cover him in depth. He is admittedly locally important, but did not rise to the prominence necessary to garner significant coverage as defined by Wikipedia imo. If a full biography is ever published, we can consider recreation then. Grey Wanderer (talk) 14:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is all I find and it's a passing mention [28]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, couldn't find sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:50, 17 December 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 06:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finger Family[edit]

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

Previously PRODed by Fram deprodded by article creator, but this is an extremely minor song from a minor YouTube video. It is completely unsourced except for a link to a non-RS wiki, I didn't find more refs per WP:BEFORE. Therefore, WP:GNG and WP:NSONG are obviously failed. VickKiang (talk) 05:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 05:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A non-notable nursery rhyme. A WP:BEFORE shows only this and this. The rest of the results, even in Books, show only its lyrics. SBKSPP (talk) 04:47, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is about what I find [29], but I don't know if it's the same nursery rhyme. If not, I'd just !delete. Oaktree b (talk) 23:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: Good find, it is about this song but it might not be WP:SIGCOV. Only the first section appear to have independent direct in-depth information, the second section is just a interview (which might sometimes be usable, interviews can occasionally be generously speaking non-primary and fully independent IMO, but in this case is just routine information about the founder in general, views, and comments, instead of giving any critical analysis about the song). So IMO the paragraphs from the interview should be excluded.

Of the first section, only four of its paragraphs actually cover the song, which has some analysis but also refers to routine statistics (e.g., 3 million views), and one paragraph just quotes Rhoade's opinion, To Rhoades, its success is both hilarious and inexplicable. “My favorite part of this experience is lording the views over my two teenage nephews, who are both video-game streamers on YouTube,” she says. “I’m the YouTube queen of my family again!” So IMO it's (generously) debatably SIGCOV, and in any case IMHO one ref is insufficient for GNG/NSONG, but thanks for the find and appreciate your work. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 00:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable nursery rhyme. Its only somewhat relevant from a Childs YouTube channel.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 06:21, 15 December 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!} 09:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shrinkhala Devi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Lacks reliable sources for the article's claims. The topic is confusing (right now). Topic is subject to inclusion in Wikipedia but in its current state it is not ready for mainspace. Not in accordance with WP:WORLDVIEW. Draft article exists which is no better, Draft:Shrinkhala Devi. Previous deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shrinkhala Devi ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 05:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Mythology, Religion, Hinduism, and India. ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 05:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article was originally tagged as a CSD G4 and so I looked at the deleted version. The versions are not identical but they are equally incoherent so I'm not sure if the differences can be considered substantial. I haven't looked at the Draft version. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can’t make any sense of it. What is it/was it? Is it still standing? As it is, I don’t think the article provides any useful information. KJP1 (talk) 07:25, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this word salad. The draft can be worked on until it’s ready for mainspace. Mccapra (talk) 07:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kamalika Basu:- Do not delete [seems to mean: Keep] I think Shrinkhala Devi article must not be deleted . I have added many informations from books, websites and scholars. Please do not remove it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamalika Basu (talk • contribs) 12:24, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't understand what this structure is, delete. I don't find any sources about it. Oaktree b (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete — I have added many sources related this article. This has been edited as the encyclopedic style. I wish it may not be deleted. Kamalika Basu (talk) 06:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is original research and as I said in the previous AfD, I can't find reliable sources. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 00:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All websites are reliable. Ayantik Basu (talk) 04:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unclear if the article is intended to be about one shrine site or the goddess, as text is a jumble. Also, unclear how the images connect to the article. David notMD (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep for now — I note that this appears to be shrine number 3 in the list of 18 Astadasha Maha Shakti Peethas, but if so someone should fill in the rest of that row on that page, adding an image of the shrine and making the test "Shrinkala" a wikilink. DavidLeeLambert (talk) 18:32, 16 December 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. BLP and sourcing concerns Star Mississippi 15:36, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rewards for Justice Terror List[edit]

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

I PROD'd this list because I was concerned about the lack of sourcing. There are many individuals named on this list as having a bounty on their heads and we don't have articles on that individual on Wikipedia that could be used as some sort of verification (and I realize that Wikipedia can not be used as a source but the articles would have citations on it that could be used on this list). This seems like a potential BLP nightmare to be identifying individuals by name as terrorists without any referencing to a source or having any other information on them on the project but the fact that they are wanted terrorists. There is a DOS website listed as the source of information for this "Terror List" but I didn't have much success navigating it to find confirmation for some of these people. I think there should be direct citations or this list should be deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As noted, a potential BLP nightmare, and would be rather pointless even if sourced, since it would then be a duplication of an existing database elsewhere which is both authoritative and kept up to date. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. Please do not delete this article. I do agree that this Wikipedia page needs more sources and I understand from a third-party perspective that this page on Wikipedia could make one uneasy and you make judgements based off everyone's saftey and best interest. The following individuals mentioned on this list have been previously involved in events that have result in mass causalities that have endangered the lives of many. sanctioned by the The United States Treasury for acts of terrorism from the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGT) associated to Qods Force, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, ISIS and so forth who have prior history to attacking United States critical infrastructures such as 911. Komorijuno (talk) 05:29, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reduce and repurpose I would suggest to reduce the list to the most pertinent individuals and add more coverage on "State Dept website" itself. Geysirhead (talk) 10:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback, I will add more coverage from the US Department of State for Rewards For Justice Terror List. I'd like to make a chart for this similar to FBI's Most Wanted and dividing them into subcategories in accordance to the Rewards For Justice webpage. There's not many websites that have a full list of Specially Designed Global Terrorists (SDGT). Komorijuno (talk) 14:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Liz how are you? I hope all is well. I just added sources for the first person on Rewards For Justice Terror List. If you have free time, will you take a look and provide feedback? Thanks! Komorijuno (talk) 14:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems unsourced, most of the people on the list have articles, but we'd need sources after each listing to confirm. Oaktree b (talk) 00:21, 12 December 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 03:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2009 FIBA Africa Under-16 Championship for Women squads[edit]

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

Fails WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. All non notable entries and not covered in third party sources. Also nominating:

2015 FIBA Africa Under-16 Championship for Women squads
2013 FIBA Africa Under-16 Championship for Women squads
2011 FIBA Africa Under-16 Championship for Women squads
2012 FIBA Africa Under-18 Championship for Women squads
2014 FIBA Africa Under-18 Championship for Women squads

LibStar (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible delete all - fails WP:GNG and WP:LISTPEOPLE. The latter accepts that articles can be created if those included meet Wikipedia notability standards, which is not the case here. Also, non-notable people can be included if their inclusion is supported by reliable sources - WP:RS states Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy., which is not the case here. FIBA organises the event so clearly is not an independent source. Article is essentially a mirror of content from FIBA so WP:NOTMIRROR applies. Since this article holds sensitive details for people not in the public eye, I strongly request deletion per WP:NPF; exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources and also WP:DOB; With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, many people regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. Please, please consider these points and delete this article from Wikipedia. Thank you. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Lists of people, Basketball, and Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:04, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Under-16 = children. For child safety and privacy reasons, we shouldn't be re-publishing lists of non-notable teenagers, nor creating redlinks out of their names as though to suggest each of those children is individually notable. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:08, 10 December 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. Sourcing is insufficient for this to exist in mainspae, but the subject could be notable.. It's unclear whether someone wants to actively work on the draft but I have reverted the redirect so Draft:Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Shaheed Benazirabad will continue to exist vs. being deleted as G6. If no one ultimately wants to pursue that, it can be handled via G13 Star Mississippi 15:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Shaheed Benazirabad[edit]

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

Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Shaheed Benazirabad

There is nothing in this article that attests to general notability. An article should speak for itself, and this article does not. There is already a draft, because the originator may be trying to overwhelm the system. This article can be deleted, and the draft can be kept. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fraternities and sororities, Schools, and Pakistan. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:05, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of reliable news sources that confirm its existence as an educational board running under Government of Sindh:

Article written poorly shouldn't be the reason for its deletion. Insight 3 (talk) 10:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Existence is not enough. The article must meet the WP:NCORP guidelines which none of sources show. For example, Meeting about students’ scholarships tomorrow does not mention BISE. The 2nd and 5th sources above are about Farooq much more so than BISE and others do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. S0091 (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in my view, the multiplicity of independent sources compensates the lack of in-depth coverage in individual reports. Also, the source Meeting about students’ scholarships tomorrow does mention the BISE.

There are also some Urdu news sources to consider:

Daily Jang

Nawai Waqt

As a non-commercial government institution, this educational board has coverage in the mainstream national newspapers, so it passes WP:NONPROFIT. Insight 3 (talk) 10:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Insight 3 I wonder if for some reason I am not getting the full articles from Dawn? For 'Meeting about students scholarships tomorrow', the body I see is only one sentence, "All chairmen of intermediate and matric boards of the province, including Hyderabad, Mirpurkhas, Shaheed Benazirabad, Sukkur and Larkana have been asked to attend the meeting with the concerning data from the students.", followed by Published in Dawn, April 20th, 2022. However, there's no indication there is more. S0091 (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:37, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Educational boards are notable entities in Pakistan. Draft article is better than this and should be merged in it. Muneebll (talk) 13:02, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sourcing consists of passing mentions in very short articles, mostly about other Boards. Fails significant coverage guideline of WP:GNG. Without other, more substantial sourcing, it's a case of WP:TOOSOON. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone wants to continue to work on this article in Draft space, contact me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Yesenia Alvarado[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a G4 but same issues at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diana Yesenia Alvarado remain and editors keep moving it out of draft space because there's always a class project. History of that article is at the deleted (G13, mostly) Draft:Diana Yesenia Alvarado. No evidence she's a notable artist. Star Mississippi 04:31, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and California. Star Mississippi 04:31, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy heads up to instructor @AlmaLopezGDA, @LiAnna (Wiki Ed) who worked with them last time and @User:Ian (Wiki Ed) who appears to be supporting the class this time. Thoughts on how this can meet the goals of the class without necessarily being moved before it's ready, should consensus remain? Star Mississippi 04:34, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - There does seem to be a problem with reviewing of the Chicana Latina Art and Artists student submissions. Deb (talk) 11:00, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's being repeatedly recreated, it should be protected to prevent the problem. Deb (talk) 11:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ARTIST. Source for biographical information is an interview. I can't find any reliable sources to turn this article into something that passes. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already been deleted at AFD so Soft Deletion not an option. Also, the last AFD resulted in draftification so I don't know if that is a possibility again.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps the students, I'm not at all against it. It looks like the last one was a G13 before it could be of use to this semester. Any thoughts on that aspect @LiAnna (Wiki Ed) & @Ian (Wiki Ed)? Star Mississippi 15:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi I never really thought about it, but it would be nice if there was some way to surface when students assign themselves G4-eligible articles, or when a prior draft was deleted as a G13. Where does that info in the pink box for previously-deleted articles come from? The logs for that page? Let me talk to Sage (Wiki Ed) about what might be possible (if/when time permits for him to work on something like that). Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This was deleted last year, and the recreation still lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Does not pass GNG nor NARTIST standards for inclusion. Non-notable per WP criteria. Netherzone (talk) 15:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The class for which this was written is over. No imput from instructor. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:54, 13 December 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!} 23:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism and pop and rock music[edit]

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

The article is called "Judaism and pop and rock music". Judaism is widely understood as the religion of the Jewish people. Despite this, the article has no actual information on the attitudes of Judaism the religion to pop and rock music, or really anything about the history of Jewish (pop/rock) music. It is also quite selective- it only includes ethnically Jewish artists (and here it explicitly excludes Israeli Jewish artists, despite claiming to include ethnically Jewish artists) and excludes people who have converted to Judaism and *should* be considered Jewish. The artists there are also predominantly Jews from the USA or Britain, with only a few from other places (for example, Serge and Charlotte Gainsbourg). I also don't understand the point of including pop and rock music together- Judaism and pop music, or Judaism and rock music could have worked, but why together? Ultimately, my argument is that this article is unhelpful to readers and is an example of WP:ARBITRARYCAT, part of WP:DEL#REASON. I think perhaps making a list article about "List of Jewish pop artists" or "List of Jewish rock artists" can be helpful, but I don't see any such precedent (no article called "List of American rock arists" or "List of French pop artists" exists). Jaguarnik (talk) 03:38, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Judaism. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article purports to be about "Judaism" and pop and rock music, yet most of it is devoted to a list of "pop, rock and hip-hop artists, singers and musicians of Jewish ethnicity", including many people who do not necessarily follow the religion of Judaism, yet with "people who converted to Judaism" specifically being excluded from the list. The actual influence of Judaism, the religion, as opposed to individuals of Jewish ethnicity, on rock and pop music, is hardly addressed within this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Precedent does exist, in the form of List of Christian bands and artists by genre and its sub-lists, but there is a genre known as Christian rock (and maybe others - I'm no expert and haven't checked the sources). But that is no reason to keep this article. Sources would be needed to show that the music created by the artists was influenced by Judaism, rather than that they happen to be Jewish. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently there is such a thing as Jewish rock but it's in much the same vein as Christian rock; i.e. it's rock influenced by religious values. But the artists listed in Judaism and pop and rock music article are simply artists who happen to be ethnically Jewish with no mention on how Judaism influenced them. What I meant by precedent is that there are no lists as far as I know listing pop/rock artists by ethnicity; my apologies for not being clear.Jaguarnik (talk) 18:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lean Keep. I think the topic meets notability criteria. I would probably rename to List of Jewish Pop and Rock Musicians or something like that, as this is more of a list with a brief introductory paragraph as opposed to an article per se. I think Judaism in the title is misleading as this is an article about Jewishness qua ethnos, not Judaism qua religion. 2600:4040:90C5:8000:B11F:818B:48F1:A0FD (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a bad idea, however, I'm not sure that a list of specifically Jewish pop and rock musicians is necessary in the first place, as it's extremely specific. What is the purpose in combining two seperate genres of music?Jaguarnik (talk) 01:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think something like this warrants its own article outside of one in a list format or even a category. It doesn't really explain the associations Judaism has with the two genres of music but rather Jewish musicians in notable bands. Waddles 🗩 🖉 17:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jaguarnik. Also, the criteria is unclear, verifiability is an issue, an article like this can't ever be fully comprehensive, and really? JSFarman (talk) 20:51, 12 December 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 03:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guru Nanak Mission High School[edit]

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

A non notable school that fails notability for organisations/schools/ It also lacks significant coverage in reliable sources.

All the coverage I could find was from database entries for schools/education, or passing coverage where the sources were covering the school's founder. But these sources are not reliable either. —usernamekiran (talk) 03:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, India, and Maharashtra. —usernamekiran (talk) 03:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources and the school has been in publications because it is a charity school, but these sources are not on the internet. It was recently written about in a newspaper called Patrika, which highlighted the fact that this school was set up for the poor and the needy.

In terms of the school not be notable, what constitutes a notable school? There are many listings for schools on Wikipedia that are standard private schools that are set up for profit. The Guru Nanak Mission High School was set up purely by a group of people with the objective of bringing education to those that would otherwise be denied it.

Furthermore, this is a Sikh school, and I am concerned that it has been earmarked for deletion for that reason. TheBiographersScribe (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is admittedly a new article on Wikipedia, which is why there are no notable students or much history. This detail still needs to be added. Some of the details are missing because the school is currently in the process of preparing its new website, which will enable reliable links to be created. TheBiographersScribe (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As an example, why is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campion_School,_Mumbai allowed. It is a non-notable private school with fewer students. The Guru Nanak Mission HIgh school had 2000 students in the year before Covid. TheBiographersScribe (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Guru Nanak Mission High School is managed by the Punjabi Sabha that provides charitable doctors, dentists, a sikh temple, and a school. All of which are funded by a charity that has outreach projects. It excels academically and in sports. TheBiographersScribe (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podar_International_School is another example of a private school that is not notable, but given that it is fee-paying, there are numerous sources on the internet about it. The Guru Nanak Mission High school provides an education for children that would otherwise not be able to afford an education - sadly that means that there are not many links available on the internet.

Perhaps it would be an idea for someone in Mumbai that is associated with Wikipedia to visit the school and see what they have achieved, their background and their purpose. TheBiographersScribe (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of a private school that is also not notable - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Mary_School,_Mumbai. Is it fair that these articles remain given that they have been up for longer and had more time to find links and to add information to the page? The Guru Nanak Mission High School has been selected for deletion after virtually no time. TheBiographersScribe (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guruvani: Teachers can transform lives - Hindustan Times is an article written in the Hindustan Times that has the principal of the GNMHS, Rajani Bhatti. TheBiographersScribe (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[30]https://www.hindustantimes.com/teachers-day-gratitude-pours-in-for-teachers-mentors/story-sTyOdp7BqK1XonuVAFispO.html TheBiographersScribe (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - simply not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are based on some events and not completely talking about the school. Apart from HT, all others are not reliable links. Lordofhunter (talk) 06:58, 16 December 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 03:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Rocco[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 02:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and American football. Joeykai (talk) 02:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Was WP:BEFORE conducted? Like most starting QBs for Division I FBS/Power 5 programs, Rocco got tons of SIGCOV. E.g., Daily Press part 1/ Daily Press part 2, Progress Index part 1/Progress Indexpart 2, The Washington Post, NBC Sports, Sports Illustrated, The Philadelphia Inquirer, Washington Examiner, Washington Times, Roanoke Times, Greene County Record, Charlottesville, Fox News/AP, Fox Sports, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Daily News Leader, Daily News Leader, [31], [32]. Cbl62 (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep clear pass of WP:GNG, please add sources to article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62 passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:53, 17 December 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 03:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barcelona's Multiverse[edit]

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

Self-promotion of the author's photography book (who created the article himself). Furthermore, minimal independent coverage, none of which is significant. Sgubaldo (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Photography. Sgubaldo (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Jaguarnik (talk) 05:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found no evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Please ping me if good sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:55, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I can't find sources either. Archrogue (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:54, 17 December 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clark Davis (wrestler)[edit]

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

Wrestler who doesn't meet GNG and NSPORT Avilich (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Wrestling. Avilich (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly is notable - a seven-time national champ who was given full-page feature stories in major papers. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BeanieFan and the nominator coming across as not very knowledgeable. Geschichte (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has won several medals at notable competitions, see categories the article is in. Simeon (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep with an invitation to the nominator to withdraw before this becomes a WP:SNOW close due to their clear lack of a WP:BEFORE check of any kind. Covered in Vancouver Sun, Montreal Gazette, The StarPhoenix, etc. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 23:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep the article is a stub, which is sad, but notability is a separate issue and Geschichte's sources have that covered.LM2000 (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Frank Anchor 16:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ministry of Sports and Youth (Qatar)[edit]

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

Promotional article. If anyone is keen to overhaul it, draftifying could be an appropriate alternative to deletion. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:56, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A government ministry is inherently notable. I don’t really see how the article is promotional, or anything about it that would warrant draftification. Mccapra (talk) 04:28, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Mccapra. Which policy states that ministries are inherently notable please? I couldn't find anything in WP:NORG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt you’ll find many (any?) examples of government ministries being deleted at AfD, so perhaps it’s more of a consensus/common outcome rather than a firm policy. Mccapra (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. However, it doesn't seem to be covered in WP:OUTCOMES? MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a government ministry. There are many articles about ministries like this: Ministry of Sports.--Efimar61 (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, and Qatar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Government ministries are indeed inherently notable. See WP:NGO. It would be utterly ridiculous if the head of the ministry was notable per WP:POLITICIAN but the ministry itself was not. This is pure common sense. The deletion rationale is invalid in any case. The quality of the article is irrelevant. AfD is about notability of the topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is no listing on outcomes, but it is a bit of common sense that a cabinet-level ministry is notable. Curbon7 (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with nominator that article reeks of promo and not quite sure I would concur with the idea of each and every cabinet-level ministry being inherently notable (hello Ministry of Finance (Nevis Island)?). Nevertheless, as above, current content is not relevant here and given the 2022 World Cup, there's more than enough grounds for the notability of this ministry. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:32, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Government ministries are notable and always keep at Articles for deletion. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 14:13, 14 December 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 03:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2014–15 Gibraltar Second Division[edit]

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

Lacks independent and significant coverage, not notable Avilich (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:46, 10 December 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 Władysław Leon Sapieha. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:43, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elżbieta Konstancja Potulicka[edit]

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

Borderline A7 and PROD eligible, but royalty et al are complex so bringing here for discussion. While I don't read Polish, I can't find anything relevant on her to even assert notability. No article in PL Wiki for assistance either. Star Mississippi 02:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, and Poland. Star Mississippi 02:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete zero sources found, all I see are wikipedia mirrors. Oaktree b (talk) 03:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being noble isn’t being notable, and we’re not a genealogical directory. Mccapra (talk) 08:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found some brief mention of her mortgage arrangements in the book Przegla̜d polski. (1904). Poland: W Księgarni spółki wydawniczej polskiej (by searching for her birth name in google books). But not significant coverage despite searching widely. CT55555(talk) 02:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 December 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Władysław Leon Sapieha. She is mentioned there. Reasonable WP:ATD. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - Per Piotrus, ----> Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap -
GizzyCatBella🍁 04:55, 11 December 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!} 00:53, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2021 FIBA U16 Women's African Championship squads[edit]

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

Declined prod. A list full of non notable players failing WP:NLIST and not covered in independent sources. LibStar (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. This article is not a 'Stand-alone' list, but a list of players with their information such as height, weight, date of birth, club, jersey number, etc. 2. Please see this section Wikipedia:Notability#Notability guidelines do not usually apply to content within articles or lists
The players as an individual contained in this article may not be notable, but the groups containing these players are notable.
3. Merging into the main article may be an alternative. Regpath (talk) 04:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

also fails WP:GNG, where is the coverage of these squads in third party sources? LibStar (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Lists of people, Basketball, Algeria, and Egypt. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:LISTPEOPLE. The latter accepts that articles can be created if those included meet Wikipedia notability standards, which is not the case here. Also, non-notable people can be included if their inclusion is supported by reliable sources - WP:RS states Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy., which is not the case here. FIBA organises the event so clearly is not an independent source. Article is essentially a mirror of content from FIBA so WP:NOTMIRROR applies. Since this article holds sensitive details for people not in the public eye (not to mention they are all minors too), I strongly request deletion per WP:NPF; exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources and also WP:DOB; With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, many people regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. Please, please consider these points and delete this article from Wikipedia. Thank you. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for child protection and data privacy reasons, as U16 = children, and Wikipedia should not be re-publishing lists of non-notable children without any reliable secondary sources whatsoever conferring notability. Agree with comments made by Spiderone, and no, we should not be merging these lists into another article. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:51, 13 December 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 WP:SNOW delete. BD2412 T 22:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg (book)[edit]

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

Non-notable self-published hit job, horrible sourcing and total WP:FRINGE violation Orange Mike | Talk 00:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Orangemike beat me to it while I was reading the sources provided. WP:NBOOK and WP:TNT both apply. Even if this book were shown to be notable, we'd be better off starting from a blank page than having this version of the article in the history. VQuakr (talk) 01:25, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG/WP:BK. Absolutely awful. Woodroar (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An utterly non-encyclopaedic mess, on a non-notable subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:28, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was concerned before it was noted that it was self published. That just seals the deal that this fails GNG as a topic while the article as is fails V, NPOV and BLP. Slywriter (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find exactly zero RS reviewing this book, therefore fails NBOOK. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only book this guy has, and not even available on Kindle. Twopower332.1938 (talk) 02:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and I'm concerned about other edits made recently by the editor who created this article. Discussion appears to be underway in two sections at the NPOV noticeboard. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 03:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I’m surprised that this was reviewed and passed at NPP. Mccapra (talk) 04:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NBOOK and lacks any WP:RS Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 05:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for critical view and listing the problems with the article. You are welcome to help and to sort (out) the sources, so I can take something for the future. Geysirhead (talk) 07:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The main source this article brelies upon is from thefifthestate.com.au, a site that appears maybe reliable. However the source cited is from it's Spinifex section, a submissions based opinion section and so not reliable. None of the other cited sources appear to show notability, and I can't find any better online. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't actually a book, but a self-published compilation of opinion articles and blog entries, along with overabuse of fair use by strip-mining the book subject's social media presences to attempt to 'gotcha!' a teenager. NBOOK, GNG fails easily, and this needs to be TNT'ed. Nate • (chatter) 20:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely non-notable. Partofthemachine (talk) 02:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously. Completely non-notable and non-neutral. Non-RS and non-SIGCOV references does not make WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK passed. P.S. A previous version reviewed by a NPP stated F. William Engdahl deliveres a scrupulous and well-documented analysis of “grass roots” decarbonization movement published in New Eastern Outlook, and cites Morningstar's book, which tries to expose the "bluff" of climate correctness and The role of Greta's mother, Malena Ernman, is regarded as suspicious- unfortunately, I'm afraid that I couldn't understand how this passed WP:NPP and was marked as reviewed without any tags. VickKiang (talk) 09:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like everyone else is saying, fails WP:NBOOK. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For all the reasons above. Time to invoke WP:SNOW PianoDan (talk) 00:04, 16 December 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!} 00:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Tan[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cycling/Notability KeepItGoingForward (talk) 00:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I will agree on this one, quick stub I made back when standards were different. Seacactus 13 (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cycling, and Singapore. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:13, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find any evidence of significant coverage Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:16, 10 December 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!} 00:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Mason[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. The only reference on the article is a permanent dead link. Googling...there's not much to be found, however. Sarrail (talk) 00:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the sources I found was routine coverage or promotional. Roost^T_C(please ping me when replying) 05:04, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance and United States of America. AllyD (talk) 07:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one article from 2008 about a lady with her name for living their life in an iron lung, this isn't her. Oaktree b (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject doesn't seem notable. Fails WP:BIO. ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 10:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage. Brief mention of works in a dance magazine but not significant. MaxnaCarta (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- There are older articles on the subject, but it looks like the company website is gone. Here are some older articles:
- https://bostonphoenix.com/boston/events/perform/documents/03858624.asp
- https://www.dancemagazine.com/on-the-rise-snappy-dance-theater/

-Classicfilms (talk) 17:43, 11 December 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.