< July 12	July 14 >

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. TigerShark (talk) 01:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Single Ladies (Nollywood series)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG There's some less-than-independent coverage cited in the article, and I was unable to find any more-substantial coverage. The previous redirect at this title, which existed for about 4 years, was to an unrelated American TV show, so that's not a suitable alternative to deletion. Incidentally, I'm not sure if "Nollywood" is applicable to Nigerian television productions, I had thought it was primarily for film, and thus Single Ladies (Nigerian TV series) would perhaps be a more appropriate title if kept. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, and Nigeria. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG, only the first source is reliable but just a passing mention. A WP:Before brought out this but not enough as other sources are ‘wack’. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 11:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep -- I added two additional references. matt91486 (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If kept, I do agree with the rename. matt91486 (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The two new references, [3] and [4], both read like press releases to me. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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. However, if someone would like the history to determine whether something is worth merging, just ask. Star Mississippi 01:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rakkasan Tea Company[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Refs are routine business coverage, typically of a startup. Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SIRS scope_creep^Talk 19:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete or Merge to Brandon Friedman, as the coverage seems to very much overlap and is more about that person than about this business. valereee (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I contributed this article, so I'll go to bat for it. Only two of the references are about a "startup." The company is 5 years old and established in Dallas, so not really a startup anymore. In the time since it has been profiled in newspapers from the Dallas Morning News to the New York Times. One of the references is about a new product launch, nearly 5 years after the company's founding. Another reference is about quintupling sales over some years. I originally included references that made the article more about the business and less about the founders (like tea industry award nominations), but valereee deleted those as puffery. I'll leave it there. Nmd1978 (talk) 23:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Last point, I didn't think of this til after the fact. valereee seemed happy to edit this article (as anyone can see in the history) until I challenged her on the Brandon Friedman article. At that point she returned to this article, 16 days after her initial edits, and recommend it for deletion. That made me feel like she's non-neutral and vindictive. If the article was worthy of deletion, why was she editing sections of it more than two weeks ago? It seems really weird. Nmd1978 (talk) 02:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

She removed a large section of WP:PUFF, promotional content, designed to promte the company. Promotion is explicitly banned per the Wikipedia Terms of Use. It was me that sent the article for deletion as its crock. scope_creep^Talk 04:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nmd1978, please take any accusations of wrongdoing on my part to WP:ANI. Here they're simply WP:personal attacks. valereee (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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. Consensus that the subject is notable per WP:PERP and also WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fred Krahe[edit]

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

Fails WP:PERP Heyallkatehere (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Heyallkatehere (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strong keep. Krahe is one of the more famous corrupt police officers in Australian history, and the article peculiarly undersells his notability. There are pages and pages of relevant Google Books hits. The peak of his notoriety was in the 1970s (and early 1980s as things were uncovered) so a general Google search turns up lower quality stuff than I'd have expected, but any book on organised crime in Sydney in the late twentieth century, or on the numerous notable cases he was a key figure in, quite a few books dealing with organised crime in Queensland, as well as anything on corrupt police inevitably features Krahe in a significant way. He passes both #1 and #2 of WP:PERP by an an absolute mile: he's a key suspect in the murder of at least three Wikipedia-notable people, all of which have multiple books about their killings, and he's received three decades of sustained coverage. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Australia has never been known to have corrupt police officers and I think this one deserves his own article because how notable this case was since the 1970s. He also passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 04:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep It does not matter whether or not Australia has no significant record of police corruption. The subject, on the basis of evidence alone, is distinctly notable and of encyclopaedic interest. Try as one might, one certainly cannot see a reason for which the article should be deleted. -The Gnome (talk) 13:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AC polarity inversion[edit]

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

A very confusing article that is entirely unsourced, this appears to be largely original research/synthesis. This started out at the title Phase inversion as a dictionary definition of what phase inversion is, which was then expanded with what appears to have been a load of original research. Chunks of this article don't make sense, e.g. the claim A polarity inversion is neither a time shift nor a phase shift, but simply a swap of plus and minus is wrong in at least a significant number of cases, for a sine wave a swap of sign, 180 degree phase shift and a time delay of 1/2 cycle are all the same thing, and this claim directly contradicts the only sourced version of the article [5] , which claims that this is the Introduction of a phase difference of 180°. The phrase "AC polarity inversion" itself appears to have been invented by the wikipedia editor who moved the page, it does not appear in google scholar, all the google hits appear to be wikipedia mirrors, and it does not appear in google books. I don't see how Phase inversion applied to electronics is a distinct topic from phase inversion applied to other areas of physics, they appear to be the same thing. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 18:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominating on behalf of IP 192.76.8.85 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Technology. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete The article contains numerous factual errors, and indeed frequently contradicts itself. If the incorrect/unsourced information were removed, there'd be effectively nothing left. There might be enough material specifically about 180° phase shifts to be worth having an article about them, but starting from scratch would probably be preferable to starting from here. I also can't find anything on the subject of "AC polarity inversion" in the reference provided (that doesn't mean it isn't there, just that I can't find it – the reference is a website that consists of hundreds of individual small pages, and links to the website as a whole rather than any single page). --ais523 03:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ais523 The article started off as a clone of https://web.archive.org/web/20130313104528/http://www.atis.org/glossary/definition.aspx?id=2853. The reason you can't find "AC polarity inversion" in the source is because it doesn't exist in the source, "AC polarity inversion" seems to be something that wikipedians have created by adding their own original reasearch and examples to the definition of "phase inversion" until the actual topic it started out as became unrecognisable. Even if reverted back to the properly sourced version I don't think this is a suitable topic for a standalone article - the content here is just a WP:DICDEF, and the concept of phase inversion is already fully explained in Phase (waves) 192.76.8.85 (talk) 05:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, per the IP and because "phase inversion" also fails WP:GNG. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shaqdi[edit]

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

Quite possibly WP:TOOSOON, aside from the Clash article, there is virtually no in depth coverage of this artist. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Sweden, and England. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete I've been unable to unearth anything that satisfies SIGCOV Draken Bowser (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 14:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

European Center for Leadership Development[edit]

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

Little to no significant independent coverage. Promotional and written by SPA that appears to be run by Alexandre Havard. I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

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

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

– Ploni (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Literature, and France. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete There are passing mentions (1, 2), but none meets GNG. Article's NPOV is poor, though not the worst (to need a CSD G11), but it fails GNG so should be deleted, I agree with the nom in electing this to AfD. VickKiang (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kavaia Rawaqa[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - I found these sources which show he is notable in Fiji: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. In addition, he was named 2019 Fiji Footballer of the Year and is mentioned in countless match reports. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: following the references, and the fact that he has 21 caps for his national team. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per sources which show notability. Giant Snowman 13:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: Meets notability requirements Proton Dental (talk) 01:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suraj Subba[edit]

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

Violation of BLP. No significant coverage DavidEfraim (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Nepal. DavidEfraim (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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!} 23:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Waisake Tabucava[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 01:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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. TigerShark (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

National Health Insurance Act of 2005[edit]

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

Non notable bill that has constantly died in committee. Gabe114 (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. Gabe114 (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there an article that talks about the history of health care legislation in general that the first paragraph could be included in? I agree that it's silly to have a table where the only result is "died in committee". Chadlupkes (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We have the article History of health care reform in the United States, which, on a quick reading, does not seem to mention this bill, at least in its 2005 version. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge into John Dingell perhaps? A quick search brings up passing references in NPR and The Nation but the focus is more about him than the bill itself. Considering he was the only one sponsoring the bill most years, it seems appropriate. Phil Bridger has a good point, it could be mentioned in History of health care reform in the United States as well. I spent a couple minutes making the "legislative history" table in the article, but I don't oppose deleting the table/article. 〈 Forbes₇₂ | Talk 〉 01:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bill Nicholls (Vanuatuan footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - I found sources which show he is notable in Vanuatu and the Pacific: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Article needs improvement, not deletion, Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 00:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per sources found which demonstrate notability. Giant Snowman 13:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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!} 23:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Samson Obed[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 01:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete does not meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Selwyn Vatu[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 01:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Roger Waiwai[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no SIGCOV found. I did find some passing mentions under 'Warren Waiwai' which appears to be the more frequently used name but it's nothing to justify keeping this stub. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 01:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jonathan Spokeyjack[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 01:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yonas Fesehaye[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Africa. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 01:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As a Child I Loved You[edit]

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

The sources given in this article are deficient in establishing notability. A preliminary discussion on this was held for three weeks with three editors including myself participating. Proposal to retain this public domain prayer on WikiSource can be discussed below. Thank you! Pbritti (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Spirituality. Pbritti (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. There is no information in this article beyond the text of the obscure prayer. (I've never heard of it in my 50 years.) There is no compelling reason for us to maintain an English-language encyclopedia article on it. Wikisource is a perfect idea for this. Elizium23 (talk) 21:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh hey welcome back, Elizium23! I had been worried! ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. I'm concerned about verifiability as well as notability.--Jahaza (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete -- possibly transwikify to Wiki-source. We have nothing here but a poem by a Pope. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 01:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Railway Age. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Short Line Railroad of the Year[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable awards. Sources are primarily the awarding organization or the railroads themselves; I can't find any substantial independent coverage. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Companies, and Transportation. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect both to Railway Age. Neither are notable, but are at least plausible search terms. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge content to Railway Age. The verifiable content ought to be kept. NemesisAT (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Governorpet[edit]

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

Governorpet

Governorpet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Governorpet, Vijayawada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Identical unsourced articles on the same place. Already twice moved to draft space, but moved back to article space by originator with and without disambiguation. One of these articles should be draftified again, but another unilateral move to draft space would be move-warring, and the other one (the one with the unnecessary disambiguation) should be deleted. The originator should be warned, but AFD is a content forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete both, optionally draftify Governorpet ~~the older one (Governorpet, Vijayawada, by about an hour)~~ edit: That was a bit arbitrary of me. I agree, the DAB isn't needed. Although populated places are generally notable, we needs sources to verify this, as well as whether the place is legally recognized. Failing that, this should not be in mainspace. ASUKITE 20:31, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment article creator has changed the content of Governorpet, Vijayawada to describe another neighbourhood, Suryaraopet, and twice tried to move the article to Suryaraopet, Vijayawada in the middle of this deletion discussion. Not sure if it needs to be listed in a separate AFD: I'm inclined to think not. Storchy (talk) 09:11, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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. WP:SNOW. In defense of the nominator, this is what the article looked like when they nommed it. WP:HEY credit to Vinegarymass911. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Md. Shah Newaz Chowdhury[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and there's next to no content in the article. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 22:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete due to no claim of notability. CT55555 (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How is being a member of parliament not a claim of notability? Phil Bridger (talk) 08:32, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per the first point of WP:NPOL, members of national parliament are presumed notable.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 02:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per Vinegarymass911. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 09:32, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Student Organization of Nairobi University[edit]

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

This article hasn't been expanded significantly and remains unsourced since 2014. I prodded it in 2021 and nothing improved. Not much here is even useful for the University of Nairobi article. I did my due diligence and could not find reliable secondary sources that cover the subject significantly to establish WP:GNG nor WP:NCORP.

If someone else can prove me wrong, I welcome it. But, at this point, I do not believe this subject merits inclusion in Wikipedia.

Thank you for assuming good faith with this nomination. Missvain (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Kenya. Missvain (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: nothing more than trivial coverage found on the Internet, and even though the article lists a few notable former members, notability is not inherited. BilletsMauves (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: unable to find significant coverage even in Kenyan sources. Notability is not inherited from the University or notable members. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Li Huai Min[edit]

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

An apparent autobiography on a non-notable amateur footballer, football fan and former youth player for Balestier. The cited FourFourTwo article confirms that he played in the Balestier academy but not the first team. Whilst this article is more than a passing mention, it is not enough for a Wikipedia article on its own per WP:NBASIC and WP:GNG. Google News has no hits, DDG has only user-generated content and ProQuest had no relevant hits. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: I could not find any significant coverage of him. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 14:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Not meeting notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 06:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mahmudul Hasan Faisal[edit]

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

An un-encyclopedic biography. Notability is entirely derived from holding the Guinness record for rolling a basketball between his hands. We do not have enough to write a biography worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia. Bruxton (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This person has Notability because this person has Bangladeshi Wikipedia. Link: https://bn.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A6%AE%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B9%E0%A6%AE%E0%A7%81%E0%A6%A6%E0%A7%81%E0%A6%B2_%E0%A6%B9%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B8%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%A8_%E0%A6%AB%E0%A6%AF%E0%A6%BC%E0%A6%B8%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B2 NDigital (talk) 08:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - This person has Notability because this person has Bangladeshi Wikipedia. Link: https://bn.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A6%AE%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B9%E0%A6%AE%E0%A7%81%E0%A6%A6%E0%A7%81%E0%A6%B2_%E0%A6%B9%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B8%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%A8_%E0%A6%AB%E0%A6%AF%E0%A6%BC%E0%A6%B8%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B2

Wikipedia is user-generated so is neither a reliable source nor evidence of notability. Anybody can create an article on anyone. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete sources don't show significant coverage about him, only some routine coverage about GWR achieved. Setting GWRs doesn't automatically make someone notable, they need to pass WP:GNG, which this person doesn't seem to do. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW ~Anachronist (talk) 04:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sexy Vegan[edit]

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

Subject of article is a non-notable YouTuber. Any coverage is from one legal incident, and other sources are gossip pages/tabloids or blogs. The article itself is a mess of BLP violations and gossip as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete non-notable youtuber with trivial coverage in mostly gossip rags and otherwise non-rs. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that it should be deleted, but please note that yesterday it did have numerous notable sources, including from The New York Times, New York Daily News, several local newspapers and others. A user who is a self-proclaimed fan of the article subject went through and removed all of these sources, and then added a bunch of unsourced content. The article has been subject to a great deal of random editing that has made it unreliable, mostly from people who appear to be either the article subject himself, or fans of his who find his criminal conviction offensive. PetSematary182 (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm aware of the past sources, I looked at those too and I just don't see the necessary coverage. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You would probably be best to simply remove the article altogether, then. The article itself has become a mess and while I was able to find some other sources to back it up, I personally don't want to be involved in some edit war with a bunch of fans of this person, and I don't expect that anybody else would want to be involved with that, either. Where he is mostly just notable for his appearance on a talk show and his criminal conviction, there might be a way to merge the article as a smaller subsection, but otherwise it has just become too much of a mess and is not really reliable. PetSematary182 (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thats what this page is about. An AFD is a formal discussion regarding the candidacy of an article to be deleted. As an aside, if you don't want to be involved in an edit war, don't get involved in an edit war. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair point, but I didn't want the article messed up by somebody who had a conflict of interest. There were at least two unconfirmed members (at one point about a day ago, one of them chopped a huge section out and just wrote the word "sexy" with no context in the article, and as the original creator of the article, I was notified about it and tried to fix it. I was not aware at the time that Sexy Vegan was that much of a contentious figure, or that he had these fans. I probably should have treaded more lightly, which is my own fault for getting involed. PetSematary182 (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If this is deleted, you can work on this in your sandbox, or as a Draft, then have it looked at by editors that review new articles as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, Crime, Internet, and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 18:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete As much as I loathe dirty topics like this, I spent a good bit of time trying to make this article work with sources provided by others and what I could find. At some point, @ScottishFinnishRadish: swept through an deleted a large swath of what was in the article and I couldn't really argue with any of it. There just isn't enough coverage of the subject, and what coverage that does exist is tainted by the extremity of the stories, which make media outlets all the more eager to report on it without proper sources. Ultimately this person is only 'notable' for their Dr. Phil appearance and the charges leveled against them, not the actual convictions. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are probably right. At this point, due to the contentious and sensational nature of the article subject, it might be best to just delete it; if better coverage comes up, a new version could always be reinstated, but until then, this whole thing is not really worth keeping. I do thank you for you efforts to keep this article neutral, though. Considering the controversial nature of it, you did an excellent job. PetSematary182 (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, I'm with GabberFlasted on this. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, the sourcing is all either passing mentions, like Sexy Vegan, running as an independent, will not be topping any polls, although he would have a distinct advantage on a crowded debate stage since his name is tattooed on his face. from a NYT opinion piece on the 739 candidates you've never heard of, or listicles and other unreliable sources. Her tale was tame in comparison to the teen whose mother wanted her to get into exotic dancing, or the young woman who believed she was pregnant with baby Jesus despite not being pregnant at all, or an unhinged personality who called himself simply “Sexy Vegan.” is the only mention from the Yahoo News/Fatherly source, Newsweek clickbait like the source used in this article is why it's not considered reliable at RSP anymore. I cleaned out a bunch of unsourced or unreliably sourced cruft, and I'm still digging through, but it doesn't seem worth saving. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverages in reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Per above. Patachonica (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Woof, what a mess. Del per WP:BLP1E and insufficient coverage in secondary sources. Jip Orlando (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete The New York Times coverage is literally a passing mention. There is limited coverage in reliable sources for his bizarre criminal conviction, and plenty of coverage in sensationalist unreliable sources. Acting strange on Dr. Phil is not a claim to notability. Cullen328 (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
everyone on Dr. Phil is strange PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment, as a self-declared WP:IDONTLIKETHIS I won't be voting. But it does look like User:Kristin carlicci has been paid to get this article deleted. I suggest people look at the article and its sources before this editor started 'working' on it. SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As much as I hate basically helping a paid editor, I still don't think he's notable, so there's not really much of a win here. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's disturbing. In any case, I still think the article should be deleted because there are a lot of sockpuppets making edits on it, and the manpower needed to maintain a neutral POV would be futile in that situation, but if I never had any personal opinion on this person before, I do now. Paying people money to have them purposely raise a big stink on Wikipedia and get articles deleted is a sneaky, underhanded and vain thing to do. I'm staying away from anything to do with this weirdo for now, because I don't want to be caught up in this mess right now. PetSematary182 (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had the same suspicions myself. Don't want to really give someone their way when they're paying for edits, but at the end of the day I think the person's notability is trivial. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Appearing on Dr. Phil is not a sufficient claim to notabillity. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 01:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AKS Stages[edit]

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

A page written by a COI editor with only primary sources. I couldn't find any in-depth secondary sources to ascertain whether it is notable. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 17:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 17:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - insufficient coverage to meet applicable notability guideline, this also appears to be advertising written in Wikivoice by a clever paid editor (they are getting more sophisticated at this) to avoid CSD Criteria 11. MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - No statement of notability, probable undeclared paid editing. Deb (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: Does not meet notability requirements Proton Dental (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2021 Top Scorers in Men's Artistic Gymnastics[edit]

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

This appears to be a compiled list, failing WP:NLIST. The FIG does not keep this on their website either. Also, majority of this article appears to be WP:OR, for ex. In some countries, such Japan & China, there are many male gymnasts with great results but haven't participated in international competitions because of the limit per country. Therefore, it is needed to include the scores from domestic tournaments, namely national championships and domestic cups, to make comparison about a gymnast's ability.. Who, what, why comes to mind first? Finally, large parts are not referenced. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Arbitrary statistical compilations are WP:NOT suitable for an encyclopedia. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete agree with above. Fats40boy11 (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as WP:TRIVIA, not least because the FIG themselves don't store this information (and so it probably fails WP:OR too). Joseph2302 (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 01:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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. Lack of independent coverage (not just his own memoir essay or straight Q&A interviews) to establish notability. No prejudice against creating a redirect, but there was not enough discussion of that alternative to establish any consensus for a specific target. RL0919 (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stoo Cambridge[edit]

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

There's a lack of claim to notability here. The subject has been employed by some game design companies but lacks much coverage. I can't find anything 3rd party, only an interview.

Judging by the name of the creator, it's quite possibly self-promotion. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, Computing, and United Kingdom. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete only self-promotional external links, no references at all. Searches get a lot of false hits for me, due to the last name. W Nowicki (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment There are possible redirect targets: Sensible Software (the subject of this article is not mentioned there) and Cannon Fodder (video game) (Stoo Cambridge is mentioned in the infobox and cited in the development section). If my memory serves me right, Stoo was one of the Cannon Fodder characters (named after Sensible Software members) - maybe I could find some review with such mention, which would be a ideal source supporting a redirect. Pavlor (talk) 08:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Super duper old article with no assertion of notability. Just one of those that fell through the cracks and hadn't been noticed until now. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, could arguably be PRODed, but I suppose there might be unreliable refs that are worthy of discussion, but IMO this is definitely not meeting GNG, all of these are promotional links, and I wasn't able to find any RS counting towards GNG or WP: Notability (biography). VickKiang (talk) 05:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep I think he's notable, there's a few old Amiga magazines and histories that mention him, for example The Story of Commodore Amiga in Pixels. Also there's a six-page feature about him in Retro Gamer magazine from 2019, you'll need a Pressreader account to read it. Piecesofuk (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These are some really interesting sources and I commend you for digging them up! I'm open to changing my mind but at first glance, I'm not sure if The Story of Commodore Amiga would count as independent coverage as it appears to be based around interviews with the subject. Is the Retro Gamer piece along similar lines? I'm not able to view it at present. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
it's an interview, a timeline of his works and various images of his in-game graphics Piecesofuk (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bass Ledge[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

PROD had to be refused because this was nominated earlier, but you know, people responding to nominations need to do WP:BEFORE too, and this should never have gotten through the first nom. Anyway, "Ledge" is a dead giveaway that this is some underwater shallow spot, which examination of charts shows is the case. Ledges are a dime a dozen and unless there are a lot of shipwrecks there, they lack notability. Mangoe (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Massachusetts, and Islands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete No basis for an article here. Reywas92^Talk 18:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete an unsourced article on an underwater spot. It is really time that Wikipedia made a way to nominate any unsourced article for proposed deletion, and only allow it to be removed if at least one source is added.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Does not meet notability requirements Proton Dental (talk) 13:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2021 All-Japan Student Artistic Gymnastics Championships[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGYMNAST, WP:NSEASONS, and WP:GNG. Also half the article is written in another language. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Japan. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete this is simply a results listing of mainly non notable competitors. LibStar (talk) 05:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete agree with above comment, just list of non notable people. Fails WP:NLIST and WP:NCRIC. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 01:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2022 Japanese National High School Gymnastics Selection Tournament[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGYMNAST, WP:NSEASONS, and WP:GNG. Also half the article is written in another language. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Japan. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and none of the competing gymnasts have their own standalone article (please correct me if I am wrong). Also the fact that half of it is in a different language is a bit strange, but that is something that would be able to be fixed should the article be kept. Fats40boy11 (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete every competitor is non notable. LibStar (talk) 11:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 01:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shunpei Fujimaki[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGYMNAST. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Japan. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, not enough sources covering him.Fulmard (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Does not meet notability requirements Proton Dental (talk) 00:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of gymnasts at the 2021 All-Japan Artistic Gymnastics Championships[edit]

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

Fails WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Japan. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NLIST. The article is really is just a sports results listing. LibStar (talk) 06:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Article fails WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. Fats40boy11 (talk) 19:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Susan Ruth Kamunya[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR, only trivial coverage. No substantial coverage in reliable sources

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Kenya, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

:Keep. Because: WP:ACTOR would require her to have a role in a notable film, etc. Notability of films WP:NF needs the usual stuff, significant coverage in independent and reliable sources. So is Father of Nations notable? I think so, based on:

Does she play a major role in it? I think so, based on:

I think therefore she meets WP:ACTOR CT55555 (talk) 18:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment WP:NACTOR requires Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Beccaynr (talk) 00:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Eeek. You're correct. She does fail WP:ACTOR. Probably not notable, but I'll pause before striking my vote in case I made any other errors.... CT55555 (talk) 00:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON, per WP:NACTOR, and I have not found significant coverage in independent and reliable sources to support WP:BASIC. Airdie Today says "Father of Nations is her first speaking role, she has done background work, as well as theatre projects" but without further detail. The Sarnia Observer describes the film as "her on-screen debut" and says "Kamunya graduated from Bert Church High School where she dabbled in theatre projects." Both of these sources are also largely based on her statements, so the independence and secondary support is limited. I am also unsure about the notability of the film, because Airdie Today describes it as an indie film with a "limited theatrical release" and I have not found strong support per WP:NFSOURCES and WP:NFO, e.g. the Calgary Herald and Gauntlet sources are based on an interview with writer-producer-star Nathan Horch and director Aleisha Anderson. Beccaynr (talk) 00:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete (updated comment) due to appearing in only 1 film. CT55555 (talk) 01:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON as per Beccaynr's comments. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2022 All-Japan artistic gymnastics championships – Men's vault[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NGYMNASTICS (any competition with considerable international WP:GNG coverage between at least eight notable athletes) Also nominating:

Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Japan. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete all we don't need individual articles for events with mostly non-notable people. The event article itself is sufficient enough coverage of this event for an encyclopedia, that isn't supposed to be a gymnastics fandom site. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete All articles include people who are not notable. There is no need for all of these gymnastics articles . Fats40boy11 (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete all all articles fail WP:LISTN. LibStar (talk) 01:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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. Star Mississippi 01:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jimmy Jan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, only three sources, and two are his social media pages. Search results brought up articles about the subject from WP:NYPOST and WP:DAILYMAIL, not suitable for Wikipedia. User talk:Malmmf 15:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 June 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep on the basis it does pass WP:GNG. Having done a search of sources:
- The Global Herald - information about his return to the slopes
- Pedestrian TV - covers his search for love which went viral
- WST Post - covers his search for love
- The Independent - covers his search for love
- Men's Health Australia magazine covers his life and injuries
- NZ Herald brief coverage of the incident and search for love
- Perth Now covers search for love
- Newcastle Weekly covers his accident

On this basis, although the article might be a stub its notable enough to keep? He's clearly a viable search time and the story went viral to attract international coverage from British and New Zealand media outlets. Passes WP:GNG. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 22:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. A little patch of light weight fluff/tabloid about what is essentially one event. BLP1E. duffbeerforme (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Claudio Aguirre[edit]

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

I'm not seeing the claim to notability for this banker. I can't find much coverage on him, just a brief bio in Euromoney. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Finance, Europe, and Spain. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete a banker not even close to meeting inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Does not meet notability requirements Proton Dental (talk) 00:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a consensus in the discussion that the subject is notable. However, I would caution anyone contributing to the article to be aware of WP:BLPCRIME's guidance about material that relates to alleged crimes for which there is not yet a conviction. Participants at the BLP Noticeboard may be able to assist with controversial material. RL0919 (talk) 23:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mandla Lamba[edit]

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

ceo of a non-notable company and he himself is not notable as a business person, lacking true in depth coverage. most of the sources are either mill, unreliable or press releases (or press releases masquerading as journalism) PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment/keep I was going to vote delete but it looks like there’s sustained coverage in RS dating back at least a decade on him [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]. My feeling is that he meets WP:GNG, but not for the reasons stated in the article as currently written. Park3r (talk) 08:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per User:Park3r, the reason stated is absolutely huge to let the article stand worth encyclopedic, as per as the reference stated are concern. An@ss_koko^{(speak up)} 13:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep He has numerous media coverage in notable south African newspapers as seen and mentioned by some editors. So, there is an evidence of notability associated with him. Gingie11 (talk) 15:36, 05 July 2022 (UTC) ( Confirmed sockpuppeteer)Reply[reply]
None of the sources are independent - they're all quoting him briefly or interviews/press releases. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you examine the sources I added above, they describe his activities in a negative light, and are new articles from WP:RS. 20:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Park3r (talk • contribs)

~~Draftify (again) and require overhaul~~ based on reliable sources. Is this person notable? Per RS found by Park3r, answer is yes, he meets WP:GNG, but not for the reasons stated in the article as currently written which paints a fairly innocuous picture relying on unreliable sources, omitting negative coverage contained within a couple of those. Need to be wary of COI here. I understand the reflexive keep votes due to GNG being met, but this article is far from complete until material is added, backed by reliable sources, giving due weight to past reporting on (alleged? proven?) fraud and culpable homicide conviction. Since article is fairly new, send it back to draftspace and monitor to ensure it doesn't get moved back out again before the glaring omissions have been addressed. — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 13:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:NOTCLEANUP. If the subject is notable, the article should be kept. Park3r (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:ATD-I: Draftification is a valid alternative to deletion which this article is eligible for, being <90 days old. This will allow time and space for the draft's improvement until it is ready for mainspace. Citing WP:NOTCLEANUP is a flawed argument; it states (emphasis mine) articles should not be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet — but I am not advocating deletion here. I am calling attention to the fact that there is an option for a more nuanced and useful resolution than a knee-jerk keep, and we should avail ourselves of it. This page has been draftified before but got moved back into mainspace prematurely. Now, we can WP:DRAFTIFY via AfD which provides a link back to the discussion here, documenting the issues that need to be addressed before AfC process accepts and promotes the article back. For me, that is a much better alternative than leaving the article in mainspace after having slapped a bunch of cleanup templates on it but leaving no clear, easily-followed trail back to this discussion. — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 03:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - is notable. Mathmo ^Talk 15:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: SOFIXedIT using the sources found by Park3r, because apparently ATD-I isn't very credible. All personal information removed for lack of reliable sourcing, getting verified facts will be difficult given the subject's history of making false claims. Had trouble finding information about outcome for fraud charges; Park3r perhaps you may be able to find something with the benefit of your local knowledge? — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 18:17, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep This is a completely different article than the brief stub nominated for deletion in June. It's no longer a promotional ad for a businessman, I imagine he would actually prefer this article to be deleted now that his frauds and scams are detailed and referenced correctly. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - Notable as a fraudster. When reliable sources start reporting on other reliable sources investigations to expose the subject's skeletons that he may have in the closet, I think not only subject is notable but the newspaper investigations of the subject are notable, too. But could be draftified until reviewed via AfC. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment about editing behaviour - Given that notability is established. There appears to be some sort of subtle edit war going on with this article.I observe that immediately after creation, this article was, reasonably, moved to draft space by the nominator. Only 20 days later, the article was moved back to article space, by a relatively new user, without going through an Articles for creation review. Also, editors are not attempting to achieve a consensus of what this article is about as there is no talk page discussion about reverted edits. At least one user has been blocked due to their editing behaviour in relation to this article. There now appears to be a revert war developing between the page mover, who appears to be protecting the article from changes, and an anonymous editor who has challenged this. Consequently, I suggest this article be redraftified and have move protection applied until the article goes through an AfC review. If and when the article is retained in, or moved back to, article space then Extended confirmed protection should be applied. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Thanks for your observations. My involvement in this article is thus: I stumbled across it here at AfD and noted the disparity between the article at that time and the reliable sources that had been turned up. As you can see above, I did not consider it ready for mainspace. However, there did not seem to be any appetite for draftification, so I decided to bite the bullet and do a rewrite so that the article would be worthy of a keep outcome. After submitting my 12:05, 16 July 2022‎ UTC edit, I was startled to see it nestled in between undo edits by Gingie11. Rather than acting in the heat of the moment, I chose to go off for a meal break and do some other things (that was the original plan anyway). By the time I returned, Gingie11 had already been blocked for disruptive editing after edit warring with patrollers, so I picked up the pieces and continued working. I was preparing to submit this changeset when "Show preview" and "Show changes" started giving strange output; this coincided with Lamini's three undos. I was not aware at the time that they were the "page mover" and simply followed the example of patrollers before me to revert what seemed like simple vandalism at the time, then posted the relevant uw template to user's talkpage. I have no intention of edit warring and would be willing to work on reaching consensus on legitimate issues; would also welcome assistance from experienced editors to scrutinize with regard to WP:BLPCRIME. However, seeing that Gingie11 seems to prefer the whitewashed version of the article, one wonders if this could be a case of Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. At this point I would oppose draftification — what would be the point of putting this through AfC now? The subject has been established to be notable and the article is now properly supported by reliable sources. If there are legitimate content disputes, there is no impediment to sorting that out in mainspace. As for page protection, admins should do what they feel is necessary; I'll just note that any protection higher than pending changes would be an inconvenience for me, but it's not a big deal, the rewriting is pretty much done and others can take care of the maintenance. — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 02:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - To address Cameron Dewe's concerns re: consensus, the other users have been invited to the talkpage. — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 15:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - FWIW, everyone who was reverting to the old version was a sockpuppet, and I've blocked the lot. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Perhaps not notable as a businessperson, but definitely notable as a fraudster. Edwardx (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mqota (talk • contribs) 21:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC) — Mqota (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]
WP:JUSTAVOTE? SHB2000 (talk) 08:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 Star Mississippi 01:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ali Jihami[edit]

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

Refbombed promotional piece. Not convinced that there's enough here to meet WP:NBIO. Majority of the refs are about the brand ambassadors for Ghandour, where Ali is not specifically mentioned. KH-1 (talk) 12:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - I am the creator of this article and my contribution was based on the below facts that make the entity pass several criteria(though it needs to pass just one) of Wikipedia:Notability (people):

1. The person has made a widely recognized contribution to the growth of Ghandour Cosmetics Limited, serving for 20years and more.https://ameyawdebrah.com/20-years-of-ali-jihamis-as-ghandour-cosmeticss-marketing-and-sales-manager/
2. A recipient of a national award in Ghana.https://www.myjoyonline.com/national-fmcg-summit-and-awards-2022-check-out-the-full-list-of-winners/
3. From KH-1's comment, Mr Ali was mentioned in most of the sources as responsible for the signings as stated clearly in https://thenet.ng/omotola-becomes-brand-ambassador-for-ghanaian-cosmetic-company/ and https://www.ghanacelebrities.com/2011/03/15/miss-ghana-stephanie-is-face-of-bo-16/
4. The entity is notable and has received significant coverage in multiple publications from credible media houses like:
    i) The Guardian - https://guardian.ng/slide/ali-jihami-reflects-on-life-growing-up-in-lebanon/
    ii) New Telegraph - https://www.newtelegraphng.com/ali-jihami-i-am-fun-loving-optimistic/
    iii) Ameyaw Debrah - https://ameyawdebrah.com/20-years-of-ali-jihamis-as-ghandour-cosmeticss-marketing-and-sales-manager/
     iv) Vanguard - https://www.vanguardngr.com/2022/03/my-near-death-experience-%E2%80%95ali-jihami/
     v) ModernGhana - https://www.modernghana.com/nollywood/26645/omotola-marks-birthday-with-an-international-mouth.html

--Geezygee (talk) 13:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 12:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Ghana, and Lebanon. Shellwood (talk) 12:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment There's a lot to unpack here but I'll try to cover as much as possible. The "National FMCG Summit and Awards" is a marketing industry award, where Ali won in the category of "Beauty & Personal Care". My view is that this is not notable by Wikipedia's standards, and it's a stretch to claim that it as a "well-known and significant award or honor" (ANYBIO #1). The sources listed as either A) not independent of the subject or B) not significant coverage. Here's a sample: ref 1 has the format of a press release (Ali's contact details are at the bottom), ref 2 was written by the subject. If you go through the rest of the sources you'll notice that none of the them discuss Ali's work in any serious or in-depth manner. These are essentially puff pieces, i.e. about his background/growing up in Lebanon [17][18], to one story about how he is apparently "Fun Loving, Optimistic"[19]. These sources do not count towards NBIO.-KH-1 (talk) 03:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment How many criteria must the entity pass to warrant an article? Just one!

Let's not forget the fact that aside from the concern raised by KH-1, there are other vital pieces of stuff like his significant coverage in multiple publications. With the concerns raised, I do not think having the contact details and social media handles of a person in a publication make it invalid. I contribute to https://profileability.com/, and we add contact details to every publication. Also, I did not come across Ali Jihami as a writer for any media house; we can consider two things here, it is either the writer coincidentally share same name as the entity, or the writer of the publication contacted Ali Jihami directed for the information. Geezygee (talk) 08:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote keep - Sources prove article passes WP:GNG Jibodi (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - Ali Jihami has played a very significant role in marketing management in Ghana and really contributed to the growth of Ghandour Cosmetics Limited as sources clearly state. AlHaq GH (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note that the above user has few edits outside of this Afd.-KH-1 (talk) 10:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – 333 -blue at 14:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete agree with the source analysis explained above. Oaktree b (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete ROTM marketing manager who has some sector awards and no real independent in depth coverage. Mccapra (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Not enough independent coverage to meet GNG. With people like this who spend a lot on promotion, extra care is neded to ensure sources' intellectual independence. Ovinus (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - I made some facts on WP:GNG above, kindly check all details and make your off-wiki research before you vote delete. Thanks Geezygee (talk) 08:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~Keep~~ - This entity passes WP:GNG, notable sources from credible media houses in his region. See more here Jibodi (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've already voted.-KH-1 (talk) 00:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deundra Hundon[edit]

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

An American doula, teacher, activist and birth worker, Hundon is simply not notable. Coverage is incidental, passing or interview in local/specialist media - notability is simply not demonstrated in any way, but particularly not as a small business owner or local activist/educator. Fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete agree with nom, I see five hits in GNews, mostly just mentioning her in passing. 15:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Agree with nominator, doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG and I'm not finding anything to contradict that assessment. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 12:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Coverage is incidental, passing or interview in local/specialist media - notability is simply not demonstrated in any way, but particularly not as a small business owner or local activist/educator." Hundon was mentioned in the NYT and SF Chronicle. How is she not notable? Did you read the sources? BayABoy (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you do a google search? BayABoy (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes...

Hoodline: photo and passing mention, focus is on husband
Ms Magazine: in photo and caption, not mentioned in article
San Francisco Chronicle: in photo and caption, not mentioned in article/op-ed
San Francisco Chronicle: in photo and caption, not mentioned in article
Motherly: included in Q&A/interview
Arizona Informant: Passing mention at best "Marcus Orelias, of Chandler, attended the event with his mother Deundra Fenley, of Phoenix, and a friend, Patricia Butts, of Maricopa."
San Francisco Chronicle: passing mention at best "Her mom, Deundra Hundon, served as her doula."
New York Times: Quoted speaking at a rally
Mama Glow: Interview/profile

The Mama Glow interview is the closest to substantial coverage, but it's from a lifestyle company's blog. The San Francisco Chronicle and New York Times mentions are just that, mentions. I generally lean toward presumptions of notability, but in this case, I don't think there's enough there there to make the case. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 12:12, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree, most of what's listed is fluff coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alfons Maniura[edit]

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

Maniura was a soldier who seems to have had the highest rank of sargeant. The article has no sources. I was able to find some name drops in my search for sources but no substantial sources. There really is no actualy claim to notability. Not every seargeant nor every participant in the various events, even collectively, he was involved in rises to the level of notability. I really see no substantial sources and nothing even approaching a claim to notabiliuty. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Agree with nom, I find nothing substantial, only name drops/lists of names. Oaktree b (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - honestly probably could have been suggested as a Speedy Delete, the author didn't even try to put one source! Mathmo ^Talk 15:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Poland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. I think the reason for the article is that he was founder of Naprzód Lipiny, not that he was an army sergeant! Neither the nominator nor either of the contributors above seems to have considered this, focusing only on his military career. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- That is another unsourced article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Indeed. But that does not invalidate my point that the deletion nomination was based on a false premise. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no news coverage. Samanthany (talk) 01:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 06:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 to delete. There are three editors who said keep. One who feels that it is a "very weak keep" on the basis that a single award may provide notability but acknowledges that policy may not support that and that sources are lacking. The other two editors merely agreed with the first, with no more detailed rationale. In contrast, there is significant policy based argument, and consensus from the editors favouring delete. TigerShark (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elf Life[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I sent this to AFD in January, and it was closed as "soft delete" due to a lack of participation. It was then taken to WP:REFUND by user @Gormongous:, who argued that the comic winning a Web Cartoonist's Choice Award, and that it was gathered in print collections, were enough for it to be notable. The user further claimed Secondary sources on Elf Life are difficult to find, given the regrettable tendency of creator Eric Gustafson to paywall, abandon, or delete his work once he grew frustrated with or tired of it, but it was a major artistic presence on Keenspot until its abrupt hiatus in late 2004, enjoying crossovers and references from other significant comics on the site like Avalon and Clan of the Cats.

I do not feel this is a valid argument, and does not address the lack of WP:RS. As of right now, the only sources in the article are Wayback links to the comic itself, or the WCCA's website. I found absolutely no results on Google News, Newspapers.com, Google Books, or ProQuest, and the comic name turns up <30 hits on regular Google. Winning the WCCA is not a sign of webcomic notability in and of itself if no further sources exist; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack (webcomic) (3rd nomination) as but one example. If there are indeed sources hiding somewhere, then Gormongous or any other editors arguing to keep must prove that reliable third-party sources exist. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Webcomics. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete The current article has no significant secondary sources – I agree that the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards are not significant because it does not provide much information about the comic – and I could not find any. HenryCrun15 (talk) 03:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak keep. Can we discuss more how winning Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards is not enough? As a rule of thumb, winning a notable award IMHO makes something pass WP:GNG. Do ping me if you reply here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Applegeeks (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabrina Online (2nd nomination) are the first two AFDs I found where winning WCCA was not enough to save the article. I hardly see how the WCCA is a "major" award if it only existed for seven years. The utter lack of secondary sources should absolutely be weighed more greatly. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are right that most did not consider this notable, but frankly, I see only one good argument against and one for regarding this award in the second AfD. Overall, I don't think we established a consensus this award is not notable (also the closer disagreed). Back then the award did not have its own article, it does now, so this further invalidates the old consensu. While I often agree with you, this time I'll dissent and stay by my week keep, as I think thea award has been shown to be notable (per sources cited in the article it has now), which by extrapolation means that it confers some notability to its winners, IMHO. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete – I have to agree with Ten Pound Hammer and HenryCrun that just a single award is not enough to establish notability. The entire rest of the article is currently original research, citing only the primary sources. There doesn't seem to be any reliable third-party sources to base an actual article around here. @Piotrus: I simply don't believe that one or two awards give us much to work with when it comes to writing an encyclopedic article. I consider each award a single secondary source no different from a magazine article, personally. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Maplestrip While I am often on the deletionist side of discussions, I to believe that winning a recognized (notable) award makes something notable. That's my interpretation of GNG's concept of significance/importance. The Award was mentioned in NYT: [20]. It's not invisible. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Piotrus: I don't want to judge this based on the WCCA; if it were an Eisner I would feel the same. Specifically, I don't believe that an award listing on its own counts as "significant coverage," as it does not "[address the topic] in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." Moreover, I would note that GNG speaks of "sources." It doesn't speak of a singular source being enough. GNG says nothing about the significance/importance of the subject itself, and awards aren't mentioned in the guideline at all. A single award organization, no matter how prestigious, is to me not sufficient. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat)
Indeed, rules support your version, but they are also inconsistent in application - we often accept an award as significant in some other context, including WP:NBIO. In either case, I agree more sources would be needed, hence my week keep, which, frankly, is a very weak one. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Piotrus: I would personally be concerned if a BLP had only a single secondary citation (to an award). I would argue that it is impossible to write an article conforming to BLP policies if there are no reliable sources about them. Of course, usually, anyone who wins a suitable award will be written about by other sources too, so I'm sure this doesn't come up too often. Webcomics journalism is sadly quite niche. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is, and it's a fact this comic has not garnered much attention from more mainstream media, not too mention academia. If it goes, it goes, no big loss, but I do think it is valuable to discuss the case of such awards. At minimum, it will make 10PH's case stronger next time someone asks why this award is not sufficient, as I did. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Piotrus: Do you think we should move this conversation somewhere else (such as WT:NBIO), or at least link/archive this discussion somewhere relevant? I expect this deletion will be closed, the article will be deleted, and our conversation will never be read again. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Maplestrip The odds are this was discuss somewhere before, but yes, a discussion, maybe at WP:GNG, about what awards/prizes confer notability, might be useful indeed. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There were a couple of discussions related to notability of the award, but not about whether winning one gets you an automatic WP:GNG pass. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO as Piotrus has said, major award. Lightburst (talk) 13:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So sources mean nothing now? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, what proof is there that the WCCA is a "major" award? As I pointed out, several other webcomics that won WCCAs have still been deleted because of the sources not being there. And there are no sources here. Did you find any I missed? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - per Lightburst. Mathmo ^Talk 15:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So sources mean nothing now? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
TPH, you don't need to ask the same question multiple times to multiple editors. You know that. Star Mississippi 18:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Since WP:ANYBIO has been brought up several times above, I just want to point out that it rather explicitly states "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included", emphasis mine. Even if the WCCA is determined to be a notable award, winning it is not an automatic guarantee that an article is justified. And the fact that there is no significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources about the comic included in the current article, none has been presented in this AFD by any of the Keep arguments, and that I could not find any myself upon searching means that this is one of the cases where it is not. Rorshacma (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per what has been said above. I've heard of it, and I know that's not the test of notability, but I think it is notable and can be improved. Andrevan@ 22:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Improved with what? The 18 hits this gets on Google? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:54, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Changing my !vote to Delete because I can't find anything in any databases or searches. Andrevan@ 23:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: The general notability guideline (GNG) is coverage in multiple substantial reliable independent sources. The Web Cartoonist Choice Awards are not substantial coverage; the web pages associated with the awards do not go into detail about the comic, its publication history, its contents and storylines, etc. They only state the name of the comic, the author, and that it won the award in question. So the WCCA can't help a webcomic meet the general notability requirements. And overall I don't think GNG is met; apart from the WCCA, I only found brief coverage on ComixTalk - again not substantial. Separate from the general notability guideline is the line in "Notability (web)" which says, "web-specific content may be notable [if] the website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization". However, I would not call the WCCA "well-known". As such, I recommend deletion unless more independent sources can be found, or unless a case can be made that the WCCA is "well-known". HenryCrun15 (talk) 05:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To minimize confusion, I will note that you had already !voted above, Henry. Going into more detail is good of course :) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 Coldplay discography#Extended plays. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Acoustic (Coldplay EP)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I would like to nominate this article for deletion because as with most Coldplay EPs, Acoustic is not a very notable release: Its details can be boiled down to a text on their discography page, it has not appeared on any country's national music chart, it has not been certified gold or higher in at least one country and it has not won or been nominated for a major music award. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 00:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 00:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - I really don't think these all should have been bundled like this. Outside of all being Coldplay releases, they're all pretty unconnected to one another, and a brief skim of them made it look like they all had varying sourcing situations that probably should have separate discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 14:18, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These were all promotional/limited releases to further market their respective album eras and I personally think they don't warrant a separated page. I know I should not be anecdotal, but if you ask the average Coldplay fan (me included), they will say only Prospekt's March (which charted in numerous countries) and Kaleidoscope (which is Grammy-nominated) are notable. Some might mention Safety and The Blue Room due to their historical nature as pre-Parachutes content as well. But the rest can easily be described in the discography page like I mentioned or merged into album and tour pages. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 18:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And you could very well be right on the point of notability. Maybe they're not notable. It just feels like it should like it should be five different discussions to get there. If people start doing their due diligence and reviewing the sources present, and there's any back and forth, it's going to get messy fast. Alternatively, on the front end, it seems to be scaring away participants as well. Sergecross73 msg me 14:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very well then, I'll be removing the other EPs and nominating them separately. This will be the Acoustic nomination. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 11:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak Keep - I don't like Coldplay but hey come on... it is Coldplay! Mathmo ^Talk 15:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a huge fan of Coldplay myself, I can assure you the only people who would ever care about this EP are completist collectors. It fails WP:NALBUM big time. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 16:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I'm no Coldplay fan myself, but the best I could find is this. I guess it doesn't help with having a title that brings back tons of false-positive results when searching! Probably best to redirect to Coldplay discography#Extended plays per WP:ATD. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah all the false positives does make it tricky Mathmo ^Talk 18:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect and merge to Coldplay discography#Extended plays. I tried and tried to find something, anything, written about this EP, but there's quite literally nothing. The only useful information is the tracklist and that's already on plenty of music websites and Coldplay fansites. Wes sideman (talk) 10:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 13:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amer Awadh Al Rawas[edit]

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

Non-notable entrepreneur. Fails WP:GNG. Amon Stutzman (talk) 09:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Oman. Shellwood (talk) 12:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: it's difficult for me to assess the reliability of Omani sources I'm not familiar with, but I can assess the significance of the coverage here; unable to find any significant coverage in independent sources. Most mentions are trivial or clearly non-independent. No significant coverage in sources in article or elsewhere that I can find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganesha811 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Riley Brett[edit]

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

Brett was basically a back up and relief driver, there is no indication that he passes notability guidelines, and I was not able to find sources on him that would meet GNG. I found this [21] but just because someone somewhere included someone in their website does not mean they were notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Oklahoma. Shellwood (talk) 12:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, appears to pass GNG, see [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] and [28]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - is clearly notable (great work by BeanieFan11!). Mathmo ^Talk 15:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Four times champion as a mechanic [29], also had significant success as a driver, although he never was able to win the 500. The sources provided by BeanieFan11 demonstrate significant coverage, passes WP:GNG. Jacona (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ogbogu Okonji[edit]

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

As a Nigerian particularly from Delta State, I know this musician is known by people especially from the Anioma and some Igbos, but as far as Wikipedia is concerned, I don't see how he passes WP:GNG or even WP:SINGER as a WP:Before produces close to nothing meaningful. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 11:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 11:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Holden All-Australian[edit]

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

An unofficial, hardly used term = a total lack of notability. No better sources found, just some passing mentions. Fram (talk) 11:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Transportation, and Australia. Fram (talk) 11:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - the lone cited source doesn't even support the usage in the article. The words "Holden All Australian" don't even appear in that order. PianoDan (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 01:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Non notable term. Cabrils (talk) 03:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Iraq international footballers born outside Iraq[edit]

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

As with List of Bahrain international footballers born outside Bahrain (AfD), I fail to see how this list meets our inclusion criteria. Fails WP:LISTN due to lack of coverage on these individuals as a group or set and also violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Could be merged perhaps but I fail to see why this information is important as Wikipedia is not supposed to be an exhaustive collection of stats. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Football, and Iraq. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of literally all verifiable information that exists Dronebogus (talk) 12:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - per recent AFD consensus. Giant Snowman 19:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, I see nothing to suggest that these individuals are especially notable for being born outside their home country, or that they share some collective notability in any way. As noted above, wikipedia isn't just a collection of anything that is a fact - it has to be particularly noteworthy. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Fails WP:LISTN like the Bahrain article. LibStar (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete fails WP:LISTN and WP:GNG, same as how the Bahrain one did. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per reasons given above. Fats40boy11 (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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. Deleted: another paid production by User:Annabananaxii Drmies (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NFTStudio24[edit]

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

Fails to meet notability criteria.

Mostly sourced to press releases, blog posts, and articles which were written by the company owner, no useful content would be left after removing that content.

I'm fairly sure it's at least in part being edited by people associated with the company, for example the recent edit by an anonymous IP who added links to tweets "recommending" the platform, someone who refers to themselves as a "team member" who reverted those tweets being removed as spam by a bot, and the initial versions which read even more like an advert. The same new editors are also trying to add links to it from other articles such as Digital Art which are then reverted. JaggedHamster (talk) 09:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you so much for reply.

According to Wiki rules for new accounts, I am trying add useful link exciting articles.

For NFTStudio24, I am the team member of the team and try improve content and information and add source full links.

Your guideline is very important for us and I will always try to corporate with you.

Thank you Kyle154 (talk) 09:20, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately as you are associated with NFTStudio24 you shouldn't edit the article related to them, please read WP:COI — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaggedHamster (talk • contribs) 09:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

but we don't want to buy the service. thats why edited by own self Kyle154 (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Below text was added by User:Kyle154 at the same time as I was creating this page:

We are trying to solve this issue and more source full links in this article kindly give acceptance to edit it.

*Comment They have permission to edit it, we're seeing if it's worthy of inclusion here. Oaktree b (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 July 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:20, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Finance, Websites, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Yet another crypto/NFT related article. Agree with nom, no mentions in notable sources, the COI is bothersome and the sources provided aren't helping the situation. Oaktree b (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for reply, we would like to add the authorized twitters, is it allow ? Kyle154 (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

twitter is not a reliable source. Oaktree b (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Only sources are the typical mix of paid placement interviews and press releases that always accompany such promotional articles. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. - MrOllie (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok , I got your point. Thanks alot for your prompt response. Kyle154 (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment:. I'm here connected to none for creation of this Article here and thank you MrOllie to letting me know about the Paid editing in Wikipedia. I don't know who's this Kyle154 who is claiming to be the Team member. You should block this 8 hours old Account and the IP which is continiously harming the Article. Thank You TheWandererBihari (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, not notable enough, not enough sources covering this site.Fulmard (talk) 18:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fulmard , Thank you so much for guide us. I understand your point that the notable coving site is not enough and I am working on more source and its take time and as you say that no enough source but they are source.

please corporate with me, I am trying to improve my writing and collect data. Kyle154 (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear Sir, can we add the staff details along with the notable awards? Kyle154 (talk) 05:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This isn't linkedIn, and we're looking for articles about the company in quality sources like the New York Times or other prominent media. A staff list isn't really appropriate in Wikipedia, regardless of the status of the deletion discussion. Oaktree b (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 Saros (astronomy). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lunar Saros 163[edit]

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

Too early：The most recent lunar eclipse of the cycle will not be visible until 300 years later, so there is no need to create a page that points to the solar saros now. Ｑ₂₈ (talk) 09:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as a copy of data from a single source with no other evidence of notability. All of the entries are after the year 2370. Praemonitus (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Saros (astronomy). Definitely WP:TOOSOON. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 18:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Puerto Cultura[edit]

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

Insufficient evidence of notability from independent reliable sources — The Anome (talk) 08:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Argentina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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. Redirects have been ~~pointed to Lists of Marvel Comics characters~~ deleted. TigerShark (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Marvel Comics demons[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows. Suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)), suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)), accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username))

AfDs for this article:

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

Wall of fancruft with no actual sources whatsoever. Dronebogus (talk) 09:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. WP:FANCRUFT, listcruft variety. No evidence this meets WP:LISTN. Previous AfD ended at no consensus due to argumentsts that it contains blue-linked entities, but I am not sure what policy that argument is based on. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Something dream focus made up that doesn’t actually exist, I presume. Dronebogus (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Aside from the reasons already brought up in the above discussions, there also seems to be quite a bit of WP:OR here, as there are a number of characters/sections/etc. that are listed here with no actual reliable sources supporting why they would all be grouped together. The number of blue links is also not a very good argument for Keeping as many of them were just circular links that led right back to this page (I think I removed all of those at this point). Even among the remaining ones, many of them are just links to other lists of Marvel characters or links to articles where they are not the main topic and barely mentioned. There are a few of the typical click-bait "TOP TEN STRONGEST MARVEL DEMONS" type "articles" out there, which I'm sure someone will bring up as evidence that this passes WP:LISTN, but I will preemptively argue that they do not, as they merely cover a small handful of these characters with a couple sentences of entirely in-universe plot information. Rorshacma (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep I have removed the original research problems and mentions of any demon which didn't have their own article or significant mention in another article. This navigational list is more useful than Category:Marvel Comics demons since it allows for additional information to be found, helping readers find what they might be interested in reading. Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates and WP:LISTPURP are relevant here. Dream Focus 16:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dream Focus I can somewhat see how this made sense for the list of fictional deities, which is a big concept. But this is b/c I also believe we can have an article for fictional deity, a concept. Whereas I have trouble finding Marvel Comic demon a notable concept. More to a point, what's the rationale for us even having the category Category:Marvel Comics demons? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can’t just make a list of any random crap and say it’s “navigational”. The other day I was looking for the name of an anime girl with a headband, that doesn’t mean I want or need a Wikipedia list of anime girls by headwear. Dronebogus (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you sure? You could try to be WP:BOLD and make the page ;-) Mathmo ^Talk 18:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - the majority of the characters listed have little connection to one another. Grouping them together serves no purpose that I can see. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete- huge sprawling wall of fancruft. This content would be more at home on Wikia or on a fan page somewhere, but on this encyclopedia it is poorly sourced and excessively crufty, with lots of original research and little to no navigational value. Reyk _YO! 21:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. No significant sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - Let this page stay. I don't know where else on this website we should list the information on the demons. To the person closing this discussion if the outcome is delete, I ask that you transfer all the demon redirects to this page to each of the List of Marvel Comics characters pages so that they would be mentioned there. --Rtkat3 (talk) 03:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Are Demons really characters though? — SirDot (talk) 12:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Begging for mercy is not a keep rationale. We don’t need to list “information on the demons” here at all, it’s not sufficiently notable. Dronebogus (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - To recap, I am asking the closer to to transfer the demon redirects to this page to the respectful List of Marvel Comics characters pages in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. Chthon and Set already have redirects there. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - The list is being filled in (as well as references where appropriate), demonstrating the connections of many of the demonic characters to one another within Marvel continuity. Feels like a nice corollary to List of deities in Marvel Comics, and could be a useful resource for academic research into the mythology of Marvel. -- stoshmaster (talk) 23:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are still no reliable independent sources talking about this topic; your points are either inapplicable to this encyclopedia (why do we care how filled in it is or how a bunch of comic book demons are connected?) or WP:ILIKEIT/WP:ITSUSEFUL. Dronebogus (talk) 00:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per the arguments of Dream Focus and Stoshmaster, if topic can be improved then it does not need to be deleted. BOZ (talk) 23:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There has been no serious improvement, your point is inapplicable. Dronebogus (talk) 00:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Of note is that some mild edit warring has occurred with the article on 4 July 2022 (UTC), with 12,915 bytes of data being added and removed. As of this post, the 12,915 bytes of contested data is present in the article (diff, permanent link).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment having reviewed the additional material, I will say the article is better presented than it was when I first !voted. However, I still feel the majority of the characters are unrelated aside from the weak connection of sharing the label "demon." Marvel's demonic mythology was never consistently developed between different comic series, and this list is synthesis until the academic research Stoshmaster mentions is actually performed. If we retain this list as a useful resource for that potential research, we risk a citogenesis problem. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed. Dronebogus (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I tend to agree that the list is a bit broad, and that a number of entries are not demons per se but instead have some connection with demonic power. For instance, are the various Ghost Riders or Nightcrawler really demons?? Maybe if the list were culled to solely being "actual" demons, it might be more useful? (Someone with more knowledge than me would need to make those decisions.) -- stoshmaster (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Circa 2009, Ghost Rider was revealed to be an angel. I don't know if that's still the case. Argento Surfer (talk) 11:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Extremely crufty; this information belongs in FANDOM rather than Wikipedia. Fails WP:LISTN. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep the list fulfills the purposes of information and navigation WP:LISTN. Really that is the point of any list on WP. Lightburst (talk) 00:32, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That doesn’t answer the core question of whether a “marvel comics demon” is even a notable concept. This isn’t a ballot, find a source. Dronebogus (talk) 01:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - The list adds a lot of extra context. Mathmo ^Talk 15:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - That really is not a valid reason for keeping as it does not address any of the concerns brought up in the AFD, namely that there is not any significant coverage in reliable sources to even establish that "Marvel Comics Demons" are even a notable concept, let alone to support any of the information. There really has been no improvement to this article since its nomination - the article may have been reorganized to look prettier, but is still entirely just plot information cited directly to issues of comics, if even that. AFD is not a vote, and arguments that could basically be boiled down to WP:ITSUSEFUL style arguments should not be considered when deciding consensus. Rorshacma (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've read those concerns, and they do not make a convincing case for deletion. Mathmo ^Talk 18:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, they are just policy based. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete As Dronebogus (talk · contribs) has repeatedly commented, none of the Keep votes have provided reliable sources proving that the topic meets WP:GNG, or that this is even a coherent topic. They are mostly WP:ITSUSEFUL or similar arguments. I, too, believe that the topic fails GNG based on my search results. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - fails to meet LISTN or GNG. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - There are no sources to meet GNG about the topic as a whole. There's nothing to make it suitable as a stand alone list. There are probably 100 other Marvel character lists, so this provides no encyclopedic navigational benefit. TTN (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG because it doesn't have enough sources. Jontesta (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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. TigerShark (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gina Cunningham[edit]

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

Sourced with pr, failed find any organic coverage. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Amon Stutzman (talk) 00:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete oozing with slick words, no notable sources found. Oaktree b (talk) 01:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and Massachusetts. Shellwood (talk) 08:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - there is local coverage on Cunningham and here are the top three I could find: coverage of her,^[1] her art,^[2]^[3] and her restaurant.^[4] I don't find anything that is coverage beyond Miami. DaffodilOcean (talk) 10:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

^ Ackerman, Elise (June 6, 1996). "Insult to Injury". Miami New Times.
^ Roth, Minhae Shim (February 10, 2017). "Miami Artist Takes a Stand for Immigrants in For All Boat People". Miami New Times. Retrieved 2022-07-05.
^ Uszerowicz, Monica (February 17, 2017). "Emergency Protest-Performance Honors Standing Rock's Water Protectors and Miami's Displaced "Boat People"". www.vice.com. Retrieved 2022-07-05.
^ Kohen, Helen L. (1995-02-13). "Haiti's mini-mecca on South Beach". The Miami Herald. pp. [1], [2]. Retrieved 2022-07-05.

Keep – Overall, the subject meets WP:BASIC. WP:BASIC has no stipulations that source coverage needs to be non-local. Here's another source, although it does not provide significant coverage. That said, this !vote is a bit on the "weak keep" side, because the article is salvageable, but it presently reads like a resume and press release, and is a bit essay like. Also, WP:BEFORE searches are not turning up much else to qualify notability other than the sources presented in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Some interesting bits and bobs, but I tended to find the most interesting stuff is the not sourced stuff. While a (Personal attack removed) person floating paper boats on the Ganges is great copy, it's not the stuff of notability which, beyond the OR and PR, is hard to establish here. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Alexandermcnabb: Topic notability on Wikipedia is not based upon what you personally find interesting. It is based upon Notability guidelines. See also: WP:NNC, where it states, "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete fails WP:Artist. I cannot find any reliable sources on this artist. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment – @WomenArtistUpdates: Please see WP:SOURCETYPES; all of the sources presented above are reliable, secondary sources. See below for more information:

Miami New Times – a newspaper published in Miami, Florida, United States, and distributed every Thursday.
Vice (magazine) – a Canadian-American magazine focused on lifestyle, arts, culture, and news/politics.
Miami Herald – an American daily newspaper owned by the McClatchy Company. Founded in 1903, it is the fifth largest newspaper in Florida.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete of the four sources listed above (two articles from Miami New Times, one article from Vice, and one article from Miami Herald) only two are about her artistic practice, and they are both about the same art show. This is just not enough sources to write an article about an artist's career. Elspea756 (talk) 00:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 Move content to List of BBC studios to be converted to set index page. Redirect from BBC studio to set index page.. TigerShark (talk) 03:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BBC Studio[edit]

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

All of these are partial title matches or not a match. There's none of these that could conceivably be correctly (or likely to be incorrectly) referred to as just "BBC Studio". (t · c) buidhe 05:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Disambiguations, and United Kingdom. (t · c) buidhe 05:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Agree, suspect functionality. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree about the articles currently listed (especially if that's all that's there), but maybe we could expand the disambiguation page considerably to actually help people work out which "BBC Studio" it is they are looking for. The articles I would actually consider adding might include pages of both current and historical BBC studios like:

There is arguably a lot of confusion about this and it might be nice to help readers find what they need, given that the term "BBC studio" continues to be used a lot informally, and most of the official names can be hard to keep straight unless you live in one of the areas or work in the industry. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with Cielquiparle, converting this to a set index (possibly at a title like List of BBC studios) seems like the most helpful way to go. If this is deleted though it should be redirected to BBC Studios, if it isn't it needs a link and/or hatnote there. Thryduulf (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to BBC Studios and have a separate set index page (I had to look that up) such as "List of BBC studios" (lower case "s") to explain what all the different BBC studios are, which could be pointed to from "BBC Studios" as a hatnote. (Happy to work on the set index page if needed.) Cielquiparle (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wouldn't object to that outcome, although it is my second choice after this title leading to the set index. Thryduulf (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting. What do you think about "BBC Studio" (capitalised) vs. "BBC studio" (small 's')? Or does it nor really matter? Cielquiparle (talk) 06:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BBC studio (lowercase) should definitely lead to the set index imo. Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Cielquiparle's set index idea. This page had been a redirect to BBC Studios when it was created, but the target page was renamed to BBC Studioworks, with another topic being renamed to BBC Studios. Although the current disambiguation page was only created last week, the title has been ambiguous for a long time now. --Joshua Issac (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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. TigerShark (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Timeline of the 2022 Conservative Party leadership election (UK)[edit]

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

Redundant (WP:CFORK) to 2022 Conservative Party leadership election (UK), Chris Pincher scandal and 2022 United Kingdom government crisis. It's not clear what's gained by presenting the same information again in excessive detail (WP:NOTNEWS) and in WP:Proseline format. Sandstein 08:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. Sandstein 08:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Does seem to be a duplication of 2022_United_Kingdom_government_crisis#List_of_departures. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete A timeline of resignations is not the same as of the election. Keep it in the main article. Reywas92^Talk 14:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete duplicates existing content, and no added benefit to this article. The events up until 7 July duplicate 2022 United Kingdom government crisis, and most of the rest of it duplicates 2022 Conservative Party leadership election (UK). It's not a timeline of the election, as it has many things not directly related to the election itself. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: The same information is also included at 2022 in the United Kingdom, where a huge list of departures were added last week, and this article was an attempt to rehome some of that information. It is based on Timeline of the 2007 Labour Party leadership election (UK), where a similar thing appears to have been done. I won't lose any sleep if this is deleted though, which looks likely at this point. This is Paul (talk) 18:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Duplication of information and very little of that is about the election itself. Dhruv edits (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete As per above, i.e. Duplicate of information. Edl-irishboy (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge – Sandstein please note that there is some useful information here about the reasons members of the government gave for resigning which is not all duplicated elsewhere, so that should be checked through and merged to the best place and not simply deleted without checking. Moonraker (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think these few tidbits are worth the effort, but feel free to do so; the article can then be redirected. Sandstein 15:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also thought of merging this but to a different article. There are some years in British politics articles (see for example 2021 in United Kingdom politics and government), with the page for 2022 yet to be created. With your permission I’d like to submit a request to move the page to 2022 in United Kingdom politics and government then expand it with other UK political events, taking some information from 2022 in the United Kingdom and trimming that page a little as it is currently 250K long and becoming cumbersome to edit. This is Paul (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you want to create 2022 in United Kingdom politics and government, you should create it from scratch. What such an article would contain about this election would be at a much higher level of generality than what the deleted article contained; it would also be in prose rather than a timeline. Sandstein 12:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The articles I'm thinking of, like this one, are timelines rather than prose, hence my request, but I'm happy to do it from scratch. I'll copy the text from here into a draft then look at trimming some of it, especially the list of departures, which is incomplete and could be summarised. I'll also add other politics events throughout the year, such as by-elections, cabinet reshuffles, events relating to devolved government, etc. This is Paul (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

must not deletion

Merge/Redirect to 2022 Conservative Party leadership election (UK) where there is a timeline. This is Paul (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per author request. ✗plicit 12:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mankirat Aulakh[edit]

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

Doesn't meet the notability requirements (WP:MUSICBIO). Refs are self generated or unreliable. --Bears (talk) 08:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Bears (talk) 08:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Punjab. --Bears (talk) 08:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Self-published sources do not help in establishing notability of a subject.-- Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 Self Delete. I requested it for speedy delete as i realized that local politicians doesn't meet WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. DIVINE 14:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)Reply[reply]

Khel Raj Pandey[edit]

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

Non-notable local politician. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Nepal. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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!} 05:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abiels Ledge[edit]

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

Every nautical chart before the 1930s expansion of the Cape Cod Canal shows this as an extreme shallow, almost always marked by a buoy. I am unable to verify whether it presently projects from the water, but being a good place to catch fish is not going to cut it for notability, and as a physical feature it doesn't satisfy WP:GEOLAND. Mangoe (talk) 05:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Massachusetts, and Islands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete No reason a "small barren rock" should have an article. These could be PRODed. Reywas92^Talk 14:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Fifteen results on Newspapers.com, all are passing mentions of the buoy located near that rock being used as a navigational waypoint for yacht races. jp×g 21:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DeleteDoes not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 01:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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!} 05:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BAE Tungurahua[edit]

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

Fails WP:V. The only source is an incomplete citation to a book that doesn't seem to exist. Searching finds no other confirmation; suspected hoax created by a WP:SPA whose only edits were to create this article an add a few links to it. MB 04:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Ecuador. MB 04:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - The book in question DOES seem to exist, see Worldcat: [30], however it appears to be part of a series on the provinces of Ecuador, so this story, even if true, would seem to be a minor episode rather than any kind of focus. No other references that I can find, so agree that it fails WP:V, even if it isn't a hoax. PianoDan (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. The (now deleted) description of the boow which is the sole ref a @excellent' in the ref (lord have mercy) sets bells ringing. As does the complete absence of anything about the ship, rather than the name. If it existed their would surely be something online: I find a modern tugboat and a 1920s torpedo boat. Failing a reliable source such as Jane's, off with its head.TheLongTone (talk) 13:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, Not meets GNG. Jawad Haqbeen (talk) 01:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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. PRODded, but literally no one is contesting this after three relists. If someone identifies sourcing, happy to provide the history down the line. Star Mississippi 02:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Imperfect Sculpture[edit]

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

Honestly trying to see if anyone else has better luck with a WP:BEFORE search with English-language name or the Chinese one. Even the Baidu Baike article that used to be linked on this page cited more news articles on a lawsuit related to this series than reviews. I found one (1) review through Google Scholar under the Chinese name that refused to load, so I can't determine if it's WP:SIGCOV or reliable. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 07:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and China. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 07:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist one more time. Already PROD'd, can't use Soft Deletion. There needs to be more participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

'Comment: Films and Chinese is well outside my area, but from outside: does it matter if the available references are mostly about a lawsuit caused by the series? A series can possibly be notable for causing a big argument about who owned rights, as much as for what the critics thought of it?? Elemimele (talk) 05:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Elemimele: a lack of references about the subject itself means the subject fails criteria for a standalone article. If secondary sources nigh exclusively talk about an event associated with the subject, only the event (and not the subject) qualifies for an article on [the English-language] Wikipedia. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 Florida Parental Rights in Education Act. Star Mississippi 02:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't Say Gay[edit]

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

Are there examples of this being used other than in reference to the Florida law? I have not seen use that would call for disambiguation. JamesG5 (talk) 04:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EDIT NOTE, I intended to PROD this, I hit the AfD button by mistake & am not sure how to undo it. JamesG5 (talk) 04:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep At the very least, this should be a redirect. [31], [32], [33], [34]. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed, but those links make my point, all the coverage is about the Florida law. No need for a disambig. JamesG5 (talk) 11:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Florida's law has received the most coverage, but evidence does exist of other "Don't Say Gay laws" being passed in other GOP states. Since the term could refer to BOTH Florida's law and other laws similar to Florida's law (which is documented in Anti-LGBT curriculum laws in the United States), I would keep it as a disambiguation unless or until "the Don't Say Gay bill" is THE name for Florida's law and Florida's law only. InvadingInvader (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
https://www.npr.org/2022/04/10/1091543359/15-states-dont-say-gay-anti-transgender-bills InvadingInvader (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Sexuality and gender, and United States of America. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect as it was before. The page was changed from a redirect to a dab page the day before the nomination. SWinxy (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Should we include a disambiguation template at the head of the Parental Rights Act's article? That might be a solid middle ground. InvadingInvader (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Sounds a-OK. Something like "Don't Say Gay" redirects here. For similar anti-LGBT legislation in US education, see Anti-LGBT curriculum laws in the United States. I don't mince words. SWinxy (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Done. InvadingInvader (talk) 00:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Whoah woah woah. The discussion has not ended, and the page should be kept as-is. SWinxy (talk) 00:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  This is very normal during AfD discussions. Editors are always encouraged to improve articles during an ongoing AfD discussion (see WP:AFDFORMAT; WP:HEY for an interesting improvement that is sometimes mentioned during these discussions). – The Grid (talk) 13:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Florida Parental Rights in Education Act and add a hatnote at the article pointing to Anti-LGBT curriculum laws in the United States. The Florida law is the clear primary topic for the term both in terms of usage (obvious) and long-term significance (speculative, but no evidence to the contrary). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect per Firefangledfeathers. Florida's legislation is the primary topic for this phrase (as a quick search shows), and any ambiguity can be resolved with the hatnote suggested above. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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. Policy based rationales show a rough consensus to delete Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:58, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

D-Agree[edit]

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

This subject may not meet general notability guidelines; I can't find significant coverage in independent reliable sources in English, but perhaps others can help determine if there is such coverage in other languages. The article was PRODed in September 2021 and then moved to draft in October 2021 where a different version still exists at Draft:D-Agree. Somehow a duplicate article was moved here in June 2022 and then most of its history was struck as WP:COPYVIO. There is a paragraph about the subject in Issue-based information system, which looks appropriate to me, but I doubt there is sufficient notability for this separate article, which also, by the way, was created by connected contributors. Biogeographist (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree with delete, I don't think this meets GNG. Caleb Stanford (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Biogeographist You don't think that UN report is reliable source? Could you please read p. 23.

https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/d8files/knowledge-products/Regional-Partners-Forum-Outcome-Report-20220318.pdf Jawad Haqbeen (talk) 04:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is reliable but just a paragraph, not significant coverage by WP:GNG standard, so not relevant to the deletion discussion, but may be useful as a source in another article. Biogeographist (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment

a) Please see if this citation helps in any way Which also seems academically independent of present researcher contributor.

"Ito, T., Suzuki, S., Yamaguchi, N., Nishida, T., Hiraishi, K., & Yoshino, K. (2020). D-Agree: Crowd Discussion Support System Based on Automated Facilitation Agent. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 34(09), 13614-13615. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v34i09.7094"

b) A goodfaith researcher's contribution in his own area of knowledge generally need not be considered serious breach of COI. Being unable to accommodate Phd level researchers just because enough independent coverage does not exist is structural problem of Wikipedia. IMHO as long as any researcher contributor is not promoting pseudo–science we give encyclopedic space (by merging if necessary) at least in related article until draft gets developed.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 06:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The reference is not independent of the developers as required by WP:GNG evaluation of sources for notability, so not not relevant to the deletion discussion. Biogeographist (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Biogeographist Even without that, 2 UN agencies reports and 2 Japanese news sources exists would those be ok to maintain article as stub?

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 02:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, the UN stuff is just a mention, and the Japanese sources are an interview and press releases, not significant coverage. Biogeographist (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Biogeographist

You mean bellow is just a mention and is not significant?

"Afghanistan: D-Agree - An AI-based solution to support participatory urban planning In 2019, the Nagoya Institute of Technology and Kyoto University, in partnership with the Kabul Municipality, developed an Artificial Intelligence (AI) powered platform, called D-Agree, to support information-centric participation in urban planning and provide support for stakeholders to reach consensus. D-Agree, is a largescale online debate support platform based on AI facilitation, where its AI-based tool extracts the discussion structure based on IBIS (issues, ideas, pros, and cons) from the human opinions posted on the D-Agree platform, as well as data collected from other social media. From September 2019 until the fall of Kabul in August 2021, D-Agree was used on behalf of Kabul Municipality to moderate 306 Kabul city-related planning discussions. In these discussions, more than 15,000 citizens participated in planning activities hosted by D-Agree and generated more than 71,000 opinions (catalogued into IBIS) regarding urban-related thematic areas. Despite the Taliban take-over, D-Agree will continue to play an important role in facilitating urban planning and infrastructure-related consultations. The next steps are to expend the platform to promote communicative planning in other cities, including Kandahar and Herat, which have officially expressed their intention to collaborate. D-Agree will also be used in collaboration with more municipal governments in Japan and Indonesia."

This is a case study presented at Second Regional Partners Forum 2022 hosted jointly by two UN agencies (ESCAP and UN-Habitat).

And reported by following links.

1. https://www.urbanagendaplatform.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/UN%20Regional%20Commissions_NUA%20survey%20responses_2021.pdf

2. https://www.un.org/ecosoc/sites/www.un.org.ecosoc/files/files/en/2022doc/UNECE-QR-report.pdf

3.https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/d8files/knowledge-products/Regional-Partners-Forum-Outcome-Report-20220318.pdf

If yes, then no argument, please proceed accordingly.

Thanks. Jawad Haqbeen (talk) 09:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Biogeographist And please understand this is a digital platform developed by Japanese, and if you are looking for significant coverage then go to Japanese media world.

Her I post some references which already published about D-Agree in Japanese media.

1. https://reseed.resemom.jp/article/2022/05/17/3919.html

2. https://www.kknews.co.jp/news/20220218yt06

3. https://robotstart.info/2021/06/03/ai-opinion-intensive-d-agree.html

4. https://www.excite.co.jp/news/article/Atpress_312932/

5. https://techable.jp/archives/158997

6. https://mag.osdn.jp/pr/22/06/07/093001

7. https://www.sanspo.com/pressrelease/atpress/GVJIX4WNSRNIZMYKVRRMTYGSZA/

8. https://aismiley.co.jp/ai_news/ai-supports-discussion-and-consensus-building/

9. https://ict-enews.net/2022/02/21agreebit/

10. https://nagoyastartupnews.jp/d-agree-kasugai-city/

11. https://www.newsweekjapan.jp/press-release/2022/06/aid-agreeedtech2022.php

12. https://it.impress.co.jp/articles/-/21575

13. https://airobot-news.net/2022/02/18/agreebit/

14. https://japan.zdnet.com/release/30575336/

15. https://digitalist-web.jp/trends/news-products/xaL4Z

16. https://www.sentankyo.jp/articles/2fd6846d-84b4-4a97-8839-879cf1f9ed1f

17. https://sotokoto-online.jp/sustainability/12013

18. https://www.sankeibiz.jp/business/news/220217/prl2202171002020-n1.htm

19. https://www.ai-japan.go.jp/menu/covid-19-top/online-meeting/

20. https://www.mapion.co.jp/news/release/ap310225-all/

21. https://port.creww.me/startup/93583

22. https://www.zaikei.co.jp/releases/1687357/

23. https://newspicks.com/news/7070176/

24. https://newspicks.com/news/7158226

25. https://solver-story.com/solution/2855/ Jawad Haqbeen (talk) 09:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A list of links does not necessarily indicate significant coverage; someone has to evaluate the links, which I invite someone else to do since I don't read Japanese and it would be a lot of work to translate and evaluate all of those. As I said above, the Japanese sources that I reviewed that were cited in the article were an interview and press releases, neither of which are considered independent sources. And multiple sources can publish essentially the same press release. The sources need to meet all the relevant criteria in WP:GNG. Biogeographist (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Biogeographist True. If possible please invite someone who know Japanese to do so.

Also, please find link bellow, a video recently published by Nikkan Kogyo Shimbun showing D-Agree in action.

https://www.nikkan.co.jp/articles/view/641340?fbclid=IwAR1lIn75v7XDCrX-Sr2JUGEkGWdFaupUdD_8isZk1vAKYDED4EaH-lJbU9k Jawad Haqbeen (talk) 02:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Biogeographist Please find another link bellow, which showing D-Agree in action in Kabul city.

The video published by Kabul Municipal Government official Youtube channel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUyAmUxMCIg&t=1s Jawad Haqbeen (talk) 02:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Biogeographist @Oaktree b @PamD

Through above entire discussion, I am still not clear enough, why an entire paragraph in UN report is not substantial enough for a stub. Have you missed reading of entire paragraph or you find any other difficulty with that paragraph?

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 12:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A paragraph in a sixty-something-page report does not make a subject notable. Biogeographist (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- Encyclopedic review update: Co incidentally Draft:D-Agree had come under my observation on 22nd June when I was searching some thing for Dyk, just till today's review I thought article being too technical for me I requested another technical Dyk participant for review notability chances for the draft and they expressed that not their area of work that made me think the topic much more difficult (That happened because main contributing author is technical). But when I re reviewed just now it my self on main contributor's request topic for encyclopedic purposes is not much technical needs just breif rewriting.

I have segregated Municipal corporation reports and Municipal semi advertorials in external link section being primary sources. May be those can be deleted if necessary.

There is at least one research paper in a journal, reports by 2 United Nations agencies and 1–1 independent news paper reports in 2 Japanese news papers namely The Asahi Shimbun, CNET make the topic encyclopedic point of view notable and very much suitable as stub article.

I will not recommend AfC draftification since usually AfCs will not pass a stub article.

If at all users are not comfortable and wish to delete then userify it in main contributor's user space. I will help them for achieving comfortable stub status. It might take take me a week or so to complete the task looking at other tasks in my hand.

Thanks Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 11:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleteor Merge to Draft:D-Agree if there is non-overlapping content. Not ready for mainspace in current malformed state. PamD 11:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 02:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete The list of sources given above is all press-releases or passing mentions. I only find one conference paper in Jstage [35], so this isn't a widely discussed item in Japanese circles either. Oaktree b (talk) 04:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Full results of the search here: [36] Oaktree b (talk) 04:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Oaktree b Beside that there are many Peer review sources (journals =3+; international conferences =8+) exists which widely discussed D-Agree and Collagree platforms (the first version of D-Agree), foundations, development, and applications.

Please see bellow:

(1) In GROUP DECISION AND NEGOTIATION Journal (Springer, Impact Factor: 2.9), which widely discussed D-Agree

(2) In IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems Journal (IF: 0.6) which discussed the first version of D-Agree, called Collagree

(3) an international conference reported D-Agree;

(4) an international conference reported D-Agree.

(5) an international conference reported collagree, firs version of D-Agree; (6)an international conference reported D-Agree development feature; (7) an international conference reported D-Agree development feature; (8)an international conference reported collagree, firs version of D-Agree; (9) an international conference reported collagree, firs version of D-Agree;

(10) In Journal of architecture and planning (Transactions of AIJ), reported collagree, firs version of D-Agree

(11) an international conference reported collagree, firs version of D-Agree;

References:

1.https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10726-021-09765-8;

2.https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/transinf/E101.D/4/E101.D_2016IIP0013/_pdf/-char/ja

3. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=8893866&casa_token=EnTaMrZMEOwAAAAA:hciC4upbnj4SGd0YiQQINrxX-dJuGsf-0MnnhzX0OMmupF0fyrxGChddoGMayihqMYzANNrJUisf&tag=1

4. https://aiforgood2019.github.io/papers/IJCAI19-AI4SG_paper_1.pdf

5. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jsd/3/1/3_1_61/_pdf

6. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/pjsai/JSAI2019/0/JSAI2019_2F1E302/_pdf/-char/ja

7. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=8950662&casa_token=vnOY94cgNs8AAAAA:vqE1zKEPvE_NRaXVh5iNJlBHTuCqmW-aXgov5IEz7UNxfi99szS7L_e1HPU-ucQNF4dbYuE8zs0G

8. https://www.computer.org/csdl/proceedings-article/ica/2018/08460069/13xI8A6FLUy

9. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jsd/3/1/3_1_61/_pdf

10. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/aija/82/742/82_3169/_pdf/-char/ja

11. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8015299

Would those be ok to maintain article as stub and say subject is not widely discussed? I don't think so. Jawad Haqbeen (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't comment on the sources, especially number 10, as the article is in Japanese. It would be best if you can update the article with the relevant information in each one listed above. I have no interest in doing so. Oaktree b (talk) 12:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The academic papers aren't independent, so they don't indicate notability. They aren't widely cited either. Jawad Haqbeen is a co-author of some of them, by the way. Biogeographist (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Biogeographist First, I (Jawad Haqbeen) am not a co-author of sources (n=11) mentioned above. Second, what is your definition from widely cited? One of collagree related paper got more than 80 citation. I invite you to see Google Scholar for full citation: [37] Jawad Haqbeen (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That paper has a higher citation count than the rest, but Google Scholar includes self-citations by the same authors, so you have to subtract those. Anyway, the the fact that the papers aren't independent is most relevant to the notability issue. Biogeographist (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BiogeographistThen, I don't want to get into an argument with you anymore, please follow the rules. Jawad Haqbeen (talk) 06:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Biogeographist As my last Comment : More than 30 computer and social science researchers has been involved in foundations, development, and application of D-Agree and collagree for a period of 10 years and you still calling that it doesn't indicate notability.

For instance, see the author list of paper bellow which published in a good journal, how many author involved? Yes, it is ten author but still don't indicated notability.

[38] Jawad Haqbeen (talk) 07:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is nothing in WP:GNG that says that the number of co-authors of a non-independent academic paper is a measure of notability on Wikipedia. As part of their jobs, academics are expected to publish about the work they have done. In general, there are countless academic papers about work that is not suitable to be the subject of stand-alone articles on Wikipedia; the work's non-notability by Wikipedia's standards does not mean that the work is not good or did not require considerable effort. Such an academic paper may in fact be valuable as a reference in another article but is not useful for determining notability here because of the publication's non-independent nature. Biogeographist (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings @Biogeographist Please do not take otherwise, personally it is okay for me if suitable content gets merged in some article still, as of now, I wish to continue experimenting through some discussion processes since end of the day @Jawad Haqbeen and their institution research in " 'crowd sourcing dependent', software platform for public utility."

In brief I wish this discussion remains open for another week and half or so.

Thanks

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 07:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted break[edit]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reconsider in the light of the many new sources presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draftify: the article isn't ready for main space. Sentences like "D-Agree supports large-scale online human to human discourse with a focus to facilitate stakeholder's information-centric participation to reach consensus about urban planning and development decisions" suggest that a lot of re-writing is necessary. That sort of morass of buzzwords needs translation into straightforward English appropriate for an encyclopaedia. I would recommend proper draftification rather than moving to any individual's user-space because if the subject proves to be notable, I think collaborative authorship is more likely to create a good article than individual efforts. Elemimele (talk) 06:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: I reviewed available sources policies and inputs and updated the article again on 2022 July, 12 th and 13th. I wanted to refer discussion @ one more forum but I realized policies do not allow so until this discussion is closed, so I am adding my comment here itself.

- After reading policy details I had feeling, it would have been better to have placed a notability tag and article talk page discussion and followed WP:BEFORE process before this AfD. That would have given sufficient opportunity to update the article as stub properly and avoid confusion and miss–perception on part of various editors and Wikipedia:Follow the leader effect.

- WP:ATD states ".. If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. .." WP:ATD-E states ".. If an article on a notable topic severely fails in sourcing ( say the verifiability or neutral point of view policies), it may be reduced to a stub .."

- WP:SIGCOV states ".. Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

According to User:Biogeographist U.N. reports are reliable enough, but while considering WP:GNG he seems missing on statement of purpose mentioned in above given in WP:SIGCOV expects only as much content which would not necessitate original research to write a (stub) article. Is User:Biogeographist setting of higher bar of inclusion than what is necessary?

- Similarly there were few Japanese news sources which were press release dependent, but news article by Japan's 4th largest news media The Asahi Shimbun seems very much independent and not a press release.
- What remains in the article is which specific municipal corporations the software platform is implemented in. Though websites of respective Municipal corporations in Japan and Afghanistan are primary but reliable enough sources for verification that really software had been implemented there, then why we are insisting upon setting a higher bar of inclusion than what is necessary?
- Last but not least software detail needed in the article is what is software back end and what is user interface like. For that any research paper not written by institutions own professors/ researchers need to suffice. Whether we really need to setting a higher bar of inclusion than what is necessary?
- Last but not least, Expectations of User:Elemimele seems to calls in some copy edit of the stub and not necessarily a draftification. While updating the article I became more sure that article is not likely to get any more content than platform the software works and names of municipal corporations so sending it to draft is not likely to increase content in any exponential manner. The draft AfC process and users their too usually put higher bar of inclusion than what is necessary for just a stub article. I believe that it is fit as a stub article, if not then merge in some article, IMHO but not much point in sending to draft at present stage.

I hope this comment may help other users to take a re–look into the article D-Agree.

Thanks and warm regards Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 08:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stub class is not a consolation prize for a non-notable subject. And judging from the current state of the deletion discussion, it appears that sending the article to AfD was the right decision. I don't see any "confusion and misperception" here. Biogeographist (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 03:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Matt Crane[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR… one notable role on Another World, and that is it. Bgsu98 (talk) 03:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Television. Bgsu98 (talk) 03:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete It is time for Wikipedia to stop using IMDb as a source, let alone the only source on articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. NACTOR requires "significant roles" in "multiple" programs, so Crane doesn't pass that threshold even assuming the Another World role is "significant". Searching for GNG-qualifying sources is difficult because he has such a common name, but what I found isn't quite enough to establish notability, in my view. There are a few articles available at Newspapers.com, but they appear to be either too brief to count as sigcov or too interview-ish to count as independent sources. I don't think a redirect would be helpful since he's played a number of roles, although I wouldn't oppose one. Glad to reconsider if someone can find sources I've missed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Extraordinary Writ, the Another World role was a regular, long-term role; but he simply had very little beyond that, and certainly nothing coming close to significant or notable. Bgsu98 (talk) 00:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 01:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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. The keep votes are not convincing while those requesting delete are providing clear policy based reasons. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2022 All-Japan Artistic Gymnastics Championships Qualification[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and the event fails WP:NSPORTS. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Japan. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Definitely not for deletion. But more citations should be added. The article is qualified for notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.190.111.42 (talk) 07:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NLIST, the article itself is just links to loads of random, mostly non-notable events. We don't have qualifying articles for the national championships of sports in any other country, because they don't pass WP:GNG generally, and this is no exception. Also, seems like WP:FANCRUFT to me, as the topic is too niche. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep The article is not a stand-alone list, so it doesn't need to meet WP:NLIST standards. For WP:GNG, it meets Significant coverage with both the article & the sources describe the qualification criterion directly and in detail; Reliable sources as the information is taken from Japan Gymnastics Association, the one that organized the events, & Seiko Sportslink, a popular sport website in Japan; secondary source & independent of the subject as Seiko Sportslink belongs to Seiko Corporation & isn't affiliated with gymnastics organizations in Japan. NguyenDuyAnh1995 (talk) 09:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All the sources listed are results tables- they show the event happened, but are not significant coverage about the event. Significant coverage would be prose in e.g. newspapers/websites about the qualification event. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material, as stated at WP:GNG with no mention of "prose". The source cited the criterion, as it is in criterion topic, & the detailed results, another topic, of each event are in another link. All are directly & in detailed to the topics each of them is related to. NguyenDuyAnh1995 (talk) 10:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  
  I can add the events that were served as the qualifications in references. But the website is in maintenance & will be available in a week or two. NguyenDuyAnh1995 (talk) 10:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - And lists of events/results is not significant coverage, and so none of the current sources in the article are significant coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. No notable events within the article. Also, are some of the accounts in this discussion linked because the IP account looks suspicious with this being it’s only edit. Fats40boy11 (talk) 08:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be clear, I’m not implying anything malicious by that. It just looks very suspicious, that’s all. Fats40boy11 (talk) 08:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG and WP is not a mirror of source material. Results listings are not significant coverage; and the JGA are not an independent source. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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!} 01:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of video game collector and limited editions[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The reason this should be deleted is because there is a lot of outdated stuff and none of them have any ref sources to them and its unlikely considering majority of the games dont have sources due to them being 30 or 20 years old. So I don't see any reason why we should keep this article. NakhlaMan (talk) 01:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 July 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOG. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It's very common for games to receive special editions like this. The article is already due for a size split, yet concurrently is missing a hundreds upon hundreds of entries. Sergecross73 msg me 10:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, overly broad and unencyclopedic list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per all above. -Vipz (talk) 15:31, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Reviews for games always include information about the things included with their various editions. A notable aspect to mention in the articles for the games. Sometimes they go into greater detail about these things but never that much to write about. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of computer and video game collector and limited editions (fourth nomination) shows this article was nominated for the 4th time over 15 years ago. Dream Focus 02:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per notcatalog, indiscriminate. It's not a defining feature of games to have a special edition, nor are the special editions of games notable on their own, so it also does not meet WP:LSC. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - I'm surprised that this article has existed for so long, since as already noted it is such an obvious violation of WP:NOTCATALOG. And on strictly practical issues, I can't imagine why anyone would go to an article like this to access this information rather than to the article for the relevant game.--Martin IIIa (talk) 23:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. Wikipedia just isn't meant for this kind of database style original research. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Very broad and unencyclopedic. I think it violates WP:NOTCATALOGUE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and given that it's common for video games to have collector/limited editions, and an uncertain selection criteria, IMO it should be deleted. VickKiang (talk) 04:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete even with the exclusion of re-releases and limiting to editions with extra materials or content, WP:LISTCRITERIA are much too broad. Collector and limited editions are promotional tools for the publisher, and items of value for collectors, this matters to a very narrow audience and not encyclopedic — whether or not a game has such special editions matters little for their notablility, fame, or other significance (e.g. technical or artistic merit). Special editions on their own are not independently notable. Fails WP:NLIST, scope is so broad that it is unlikely to be discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources other than as passing mentions, WP:SIGCOV not likely outside of actual directories or databases dedicated to this subject. — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 13:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Violation of WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Potentially missing a fair few video games and is already sizeable. Very broad and, in my opinion, should be deleted. Fats40boy11 (talk) 13:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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. TigerShark (talk) 02:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

False Mirrors[edit]

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

Article is completely unsourced and Google search turned up no mentions. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 00:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and Russia. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 00:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. The Russian article about this book has been deemed to be of "good article" quality. I took a look at the sources in the Russian version, and while I don't speak Russian, running a few of them through machine translation shows there's quite enough there to build an article – since this is a Russian topic, we shouldn't assume the sources will be in English. We have a list of ambitious reviews and essays in Russian magazines (an example), as well as references to printed sources I can't access. /Julle (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This begs the question: if we can't find any sources in English, does it meet notability for English WP? We're discussing this same issue on another AfD of mine for Don't Leave.... Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coverage does not have to be in English for something to be notable per WP:NOENG. English sources are preferred, but not required. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, notability guidelines differ depending on the language's Wikipedia. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We have very clear guidelines on how we treat sources in other languages than English in Wikipedia:Verifiability: all other things alike, we prefer to refer to sources in English, if they are of equal quality. But we don't require English sources, and AfD discussions don't require us to have them.

We can't build an international encyclopedia only using sources in English. Most of the world is primarily, often only, described in other languages. Part of the magic of Wikipedia is that we can use those sources and make the information available in – for example – English. /Julle (talk) 22:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We can still come to other conclusions, of course; the fact that an article exists in one language doesn't mean that the subject meets the requirements of English Wikipedia. But having glanced at the sources of Russian Wikipedia, I'm confident this one does. /Julle (talk) 22:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To give another example, the main page is currently (through Today's Featured Picture) linking to Church of St. Peter and St. Paul, Vilnius, which is exclusively supported by sources in Lithuanian. But it's still something we want to put on the main page and point our readers to. /Julle (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to author's article? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to author. What we have here is entirely plot summary, maintenance-tagged for over a decade, so redirecting is a sensible solution. If someone wants to come by and build a full article or even a better-sourced stub later, they can do that. Honestly, I'm not excited about this solution either, since as far as I can tell this book has never been translated into English, so "False Mirrors" is a false title - no book exists by this author under this name. (There is no entry for it in the British Library or the Library of Congress. LoC does have the Russian title though: [39]). So I wouldn't argue against delete either. -- asilvering (talk) 02:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: With some help, I've now added basic reception and publication history pieces from the Russian article, addressing the comments above. /Julle (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep -- the redirect arguments seem to be largely saying "This article is currently bad" not "this topic isn't notable." AfD is not an appropriate place to litigate article improvement needs. matt91486 (talk) 05:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. If the Russian version is a GA, then this is notable. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And so we come to this issue again: is notability universal? This book has never been translated into English. Let's say I pick an American author who's never been translated into Russian and create Russian WP articles for all of his work. How soon do you think they would get redirected? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, notability is universal.

We decide where we want to draw the line for notability and that might differ slightly from other language versions, of course, but the availability in English is not a factor. English Wikipedia is an encyclopedia about the entire world, written in English.

I think you severely underestimate the amount of articles in other Wikipedias about literature that isn't translated into the language of the local Wikipedia. To take an example from my native language, w:sv:For the Time Being isn't just one of many articles about works of literature not translated into Swedish, but also given FA status. /Julle (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your answer. I asked this in a previous AfD and nobody said anything. Next question: how well known is this piece in Sweden? I'm curious why someone would create an article for Swedish WP. (And yes, I know most Swedes are bilingual in English...which explains a lot.) Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 all over the place as to a redirect but there does seem to be a consensus that there is insufficient significant coverage to warrant an article. I take it some sources were added late, such as a marriage to a more notable person, but that seems to not help his case, as notability isn't inherited, or married into. A for a redirect, there isn't a clear target, nor clear consensus, so that is a discussion that must be held elsewhere. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:52, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ryan Shutte[edit]

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

PRODded with reason "Fails WP:BIO", deprodded with reason "passes WP:CRIN", which is not an official policy/guideline. 0xDeadbeef 08:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and New Zealand. 0xDeadbeef 08:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are some mentions of him in The NZ Herald, Hampshire chronicle and the Daily Telegraph (the UK ones are definitely him - he played for those teams in those seasons per CricketArchive). I think we'd need way more access to news archives to show one way or the other whether there's all that much other coverage of Shutte - there might be some wider coverage of him playing for Hamilton in the Hawke Cup, for example. At least he doesn't have a super-common name I suppose.

In the circumstances I think I tend towards suggesting a partial merge (adding a note) and redirect to List of Northern Districts representative cricketers, particularly as there is the prospect of more coverage so WP:ATD, with its usual points about preserving sources, history, attribution and so on, applies. Obviously if more can be found I'd consider a suggestion to keep the article, but I would need notifying if anything changes. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw the Telegraph source - it says something about him playing in Scotland (I think), so maybe there's more about him. If not, then redirect to the List of Northern Districts representative cricketers page per WP:ATD, etc. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. @Sammyrice: anything in NZ cricket circles about this guy? StickyWicket (talk) 22:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. The extra coverage regarding his marriage puts him above WP:MILL. St Anselm (talk) 03:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. not sure what you meant, but here's an assessment table. 0xDeadbeef 04:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I misunderstood WP:SIGCOV 0xDeadbeef 14:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:0xDeadbeef
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/player/38606.html		? I'm not sure if this counts as reliable.		? Unknown
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/sport/new-look-northern-districts-daryl-tuffey-easing-his-way-back/4ANCT476EJWOBI57644BINGOU4/			Only a mention.	✘ No
https://archive.nzc.nz/Players/45/45532/Hawke_Cup_Matches.html	?			✘ No
https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/5637047.shutte-stars-as-ventnor-retain-title/		No page author.		✘ No
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/qa-joelle-king-world-no-5-squash-player/TJZC4U56KWPRAECRG7WORWXKBQ/			Only a mention.	✘ No
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-sports/5062422/Time-is-on-my-side-says-squash-star-Joelle-King			Passing mention.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Delete. I don't fully agree with 0xDeadbeef's source assessment table (see following), but I agree that the article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSCRIT #5.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:BilledMammal
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/player/38606.html			Statistics-only database	✘ No
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/sport/new-look-northern-districts-daryl-tuffey-easing-his-way-back/4ANCT476EJWOBI57644BINGOU4/			Only a mention.	✘ No
https://archive.nzc.nz/Players/45/45532/Hawke_Cup_Matches.html	?	?	List of matches Ryan Shuttle played in	✘ No
https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/5637047.shutte-stars-as-ventnor-retain-title/			Routine game coverage; WP:SPORTSCRIT #4 requires "reports beyond routine game coverage.".	✘ No
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/qa-joelle-king-world-no-5-squash-player/TJZC4U56KWPRAECRG7WORWXKBQ/	Only mention is a quote from his partner		Only a mention.	✘ No
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-sports/5062422/Time-is-on-my-side-says-squash-star-Joelle-King			Passing mention.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

BilledMammal (talk) 05:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per WP:BASIC, multiple independent sources can be combined in lieu of one source to show significant coverage. This moving getting towards on that level of coverage and might suggest weakly keeping rather than firm deleting. Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In addition to the routine match coverage, all we have on him is: Also to receive the converted Northern Districts baggy cap for his first first-class appearance for the Association is Ryan Shutte. All-rounder Shutte a medium pace, left-hand bat plays in Hamilton having moved to New Zealand from South Africa 18 months ago. and King's 28-year-old fiance, Ryan Shutte, was on the cusp of selection for the Northern Districts cricket team but has put his career on the backburner to become her official manager.

That isn't even close to WP:BASIC, and in any case WP:SPORTSCRIT #5 still applies. BilledMammal (talk) 05:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I got myself a bit garbled with the typing. I meant to write "this is moving towards getting onto that level...", not that it's there yet. Wrt BASIC - that's a bold move to suggest that it's lower in the hierarchy than an SNG. Part of the problem with all of this mess is that there are guidelines which contradict each other. Here's one case. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to List of Northern Districts representative cricketers Played a handful of games in NZ and had some successes in non-notable cricket elsewhere. There's clearly coverage on this guy, but at the moment probably not enough for a GNG pass. Redirect here is a suitable WP:ATD unless our NZ cricket editors can dig up more. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete or redirect. I agree with BilledMammal's source assessment above. Not nearly enough coverage to meet GNG or BASIC. JoelleJay (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I oppose a redirect here, as there are multiple valid targets that the reader might be searching for - they might be searching for him in relation to his cricket performance, or they might be searching for him in relation to his more notable wife. Choosing one risks confusing the reader, and as such per WP:R#DELETE #1 we should not have a redirect - the search function is more effective. BilledMammal (talk) 06:19, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How on earth does a redirect make it "unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine"? We can add a note to his entry at the ND cricketers list (as we've done many, many times before) which links to his wife. Dead easy. In fact, I'll go and do it now. I'll note that WP:R#KEEP 1, 2, 3 (because there'll be a link) and 5 all clearly apply. Not even close. Redirects are cheap. Cheaper and more efficient than deleting the article. Honestly, what on earth are we doing having to waste time and energy here - it's either a very weak keep or an obvious redirect. Given that there are sources about him, albeit sketchy ones, that move towards adequate sourcing we shouldn't even be thinking about deletion in the circumstances. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The relevant aspect is whether it will make it unreasonably difficult for the reader to find what they are searching for. See also WP:R#ASTONISH; a reader wanting to read about Ryan Shutte, husband of Joelle King, will be astonished to find themselves at a list of cricket players; it is both the wrong location, and a note is insufficient to make it clear to the reader why they have arrived at this list. BilledMammal (talk) 07:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lots of people have multiple interesting things about them. To define him as the husband of someone else rather than for the thing that makes him notable would be odd. I would think someone arriving at the list at point S would probably look in the list for the chap. And then they can read the note that makes everything clear and they can go, "oh, that's interesting, he played cricket as well. I never knew that". Which is sort of the point of an encyclopaedia Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

rather than for the thing that makes him notable would be odd - he's not notable. And they could read the note, but that requires them to both be aware how Wikipedia notes work, and if they think they are in the wrong location they are unlikely to search for it in the first place - it doesn't meet the requirements of WP:R#ASTONISH, as it is not clear why the reader arrived there, nor is it necessarily the right place for them to arrive. BilledMammal (talk) 09:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notable enough to receive passing mentions in the New Zealand Herald and The Daily Telegraph. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see anything representing consensus in this AFD right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Just about meets WP:SIGCOV with the expansion. StickyWicket (talk) 13:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- AssociateAffiliate, First of all not sure what is going on with the names, but would you mind to explain why it meets SIGCOV? Do you disagree with the assessment tables? 0xDeadbeef 13:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Well, you realize they contradict each other, right? If I were to cherry pick, I would get two greens. St Anselm (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  They sure do. But that is because of my previous misunderstanding of WP:SIGCOV. I have had a draft declined for failing SIGCOV so you shouldn't trust me on my assessment of that. I fully agree with BilledMammal's table now. 0xDeadbeef 14:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - The source assessment table by BilledMammal is helpful. I found no other suitable sources. Please ping me if good sources are found. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Just!. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just Stupid![edit]

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

Non-notable, couldn't find RS and doesn't meet GNG. The BILBY Award linked is IMO too minor to be "major". See also 1 in a related AfD. VickKiang (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Just!. Just as with the last AfD, this isn't really notable enough on its own to justify an individual article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge the one cited part to Just!; or redirect there. I found nothing to suggest this should be a standalone article. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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. Discussion on whether to redirect or keep can continue editorially. Star Mississippi 02:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wish You Were Here (book)[edit]

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

Not sure this book is meeting Wikipedia:Notability. The article reads like a WP:Advert and seem to have been written by the book's author himself. The "Critical reception" is just a collection of blurbs used to promote the book, and the reference for this section is the "Praise" section on the editor's website. Gates of Ale (talk) 00:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Death of Theresa Allore. Definitely written by the author. Some coverage here: [40], but I'm not sure how independent that is. I turned up several articles written by Allore himself and an excerpt of the book, but not independent reviews. Considering how much non-independent coverage I have found, that is a surprise to me, so maybe there's something lurking...? But it looks like the non-promo content of this article would be better covered on the article on her death anyway. -- asilvering (talk) 01:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Keep The Montreal Gazette published an excerpt from the book [41] and a review in Pop Sugar [42], and a Deadline article [43] confirming Netflix has bought the rights to the book, I think it's at least GNG. There is also a book by Jody Picoult with the same title, as the above sources showed. This crime thing book is discussed by the CBC here [44]. Oaktree b (talk) 02:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hate the web. The Montreal Gazette article is the excerpt from the crime book [45] and an article in the Calgary Herald [46] seeming to be the best. It's discussed on a few true crime blogs, but I think the CBC and the Calgary paper are good enough, the Montreal paper really only helps prove GNG as it just reprints part of the book. Globe and Mail has an article here [47] and coverage in French in La Presse [48]. I think that's enough. Oaktree b (talk) 02:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Oaktree b Thanks for turning up the Herald article. fyi, the Gazette piece is an advertisement; publishers of non-fiction books often have sections printed in newspapers and magazines to drum up interest in their books. -- asilvering (talk) 03:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Archer Rock[edit]

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

Non-notable rock that isn't visible on Google Maps; fals WP:GEOLAND. There isn't any available info online beyond location. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak Keep: Seems notable. Was the site of a shipwreck https://www.wickedlocal.com/story/marblehead-reporter/2022/04/05/treasures-deep-marblehead-museum-ray-bates-jr-diver/7264037001/. Is listed as a navigational aid in the 1903 book: United States Coast Pilot: Atlantic Coast. Part I-VIII. U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey. It's mentioned here Stinemetz, Morgan. "SOMETIMES TECHNOLOGY JUST GETS IN THE WAY." Sarasota Herald Tribune, 23 Jan. 1999, p. 3E. Gale General OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A74060035/ITOF?u=wikipedia&sid=ebsco&xid=e17b3914. Accessed 12 July 2022. Also a Comment: I see you've nominated many similar rocks just minutes apart. Can you please reassure us that you're doing the full range of searched recommended in WP:BEFORE before nominating them? i.e. did you catch these sources and decide it still wasn't notable? CT55555 (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom. An unidentified 1600s(?) victim and surmised (and also unidentified) shipwreck mentioned in a Marblehead Reporter article and a passing mention in a Sarasota Herald Tribune article are not substantial sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
delete Yet another landmark falsely entered from nautical charts, all of which show it as an underwater promontory ten feet under at mean low water, with a buoy to keep any other deep draft vessel from running into it. Look, you can complain about the rate at which these are being nominated all you want, but given that every one of these NA island articles I've looked at so far has problems not just with notability but with the most basic facts, WP:BEFORE on them isn't so much about looking for references as it "requires" the expectation of a reference confirming the first sentence. And I don't think running aground there is enough to grant notability. Mangoe (talk) 05:31, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Massachusetts, and Islands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Make an article about the shipwreck then, the rock's not notable. Reywas92^Talk 14:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete not even close to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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!} 01:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Allen Rock (Dukes County, Massachusetts)[edit]

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

Small rock not visible on Google Maps that fails to meet notability criteria per WP:GEOLAND. There are no sources online beyond basic location information. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 00:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Massachusetts, and Islands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete I'm prodding these, no need to discuss such small junk. Reywas92^Talk 14:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Article fails to meet the relevant notability guideline. Per WP:GEO this is not a feature with sufficient coverage providing information beyond statistics and proof of existence. Appropriate sources include this book, with only brief, trivial coverage demonstrating the aforementioned. MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete I was unable to find significant sources counting towards GNG other than databases. Per the Geographic guideline, Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river. I don't think that there's much here beyond basic stats. VickKiang (talk) 08:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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!} 01:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alleghany Rock[edit]

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

Fails to meet notability criteria per WP:GEOLAND. There are no sources online beyond basic location information, and no references on this page. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 00:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Massachusetts, and Islands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Unclear why the creator thought a small barren rock needed an article. These could be PRODed. Reywas92^Talk 14:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
delete Yet another underwater obstruction of no note. Mangoe (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Article fails to meet the relevant notability guideline. Per WP:GEO this is not a feature with sufficient coverage providing information beyond statistics and proof of existence. MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete this small baren rock is not even close to being notable. Wikipedia is not meant to be a comprehensive guide to navitagion, let alone to a comprehensive guide to navigation just in Massachusetts.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Of some 273 "matches" on Newspapers.com, none of them seem to indicate an actual "Alleghany Rock": they are all stuff like "Allegheny" and "Rock Island" being two adjacent clauses in a sentence, or a rock concert scheduled in Alleghany, or something similar to that. I do not see a whole lot of evidence that this is a thing that really exists. jp×g 22:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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.