< July 16	July 18 >

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 04:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Almost Ready Records[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Record store in Brooklyn, also apparently a label. No notability for either. Previously tagged, PRODed in 2016, nothing much has changed in notability since then. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Google search finds no reliable sources about it, and only a few sites at all, mainly vinyl websites and social media. Definitely fails WP:GNG. JML1148 (talk) 08:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Accepted at AfC on the basis of the following significant coverage: [1], [2], [3] ~Kvng (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, and those sources do not constitute "significant coverage", two don't pass WP:RS and the other isn't an especially notable column in Vice. Overall article is WP:SOAP. Acous mana 09:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the sources Kvng listed. Only Brooklyn Magazine is reliable and gives significant coverage to the subject: 50 Third and 3rd has disclaimers in their T&C that implies no editorial review of articles (i.e., it's blog-quality material), and the Vice story covers the founder of the label, not the label itself. —C.Fred (talk) 11:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Snoopy Presents: To Mom (and Dad), With Love[edit]

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

Non-notable film, does not meet WP:NF, lacking significant coverage by independent sources BOVINEBOY2008 21:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is a first independent RS here, so we will see if someone finds a second. [4]. matt91486 (talk) 07:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources found: A quick search yielded more sources:
  - From Bleeding Cool: https://bleedingcool.com/tv/snoopy-presents-to-mom-and-dad-with-love-apple-tv-shares-trailer/
  - An award nomination reported by the Hollywood Reporter: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/2022-humanitas-awards-abbott-elementary-pachinko-1235170802/
  - The same nomination was also reported by Animation Magazine: https://www.animationmagazine.net/events/humanitas-prize-nominates-animated-projects-with-purpose/
  - Alo, an Emmy nomination reported by Variety: https://variety.com/2022/tv/awards/awards-hq-june-27-2022-emmys-newsletter-1235304677/
Keep based on the existence of additional sources found. Thank you Al83tito (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there is enough coverage identified in this discussion to enable a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per additional identified sources. matt91486 (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Monson Mavunkal[edit]

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

Brought up at BLP Noticeboards,[5] an attack page where many of the citations do not directly verify what he is accused of. Several of the sources seem to be tabloids. Further there have been no convictions to satisfy WP:BLPCRIME or WP:CRIMINAL. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and India. Shellwood (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:BLPCRIME - allegations and chargs, but nothing about convictions, not a public figure. Ravensfire (talk) 15:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kendriya Vidyalaya, Sector-47, Chandigarh[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, secondary school of no note. Has a decommissioned MIG-21 in its grounds because a former pupil became Air Chief. That sole fact does not make it any more notable than any other school in the 'List of Kendriya Vidyalayas' which I would all happily nominate for deletion, as it happens... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and India. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, which I believe has been the usual outcome in previous AfDs on schools in this network. Mccapra (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 23:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Sulyman Al Fakki Al Shazly[edit]

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

I'm not finding anything to substantiate the notability of this author and journalist in a WP:BEFORE search, nor does the current sourcing meet WP:GNG, WP:JOURNALIST or WP:NAUTHOR. I'm bringing it here for feedback from the community, as I'm wondering if there may be variations on his name that I'm not aware of. Netherzone (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Journalism. Netherzone (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I’ve found and added three refs in about ten minutes. I haven’t searched further but there’s enough already to convince me he’s notable. Mccapra (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 00:45, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Balagasay[edit]

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

Contested draftification. Fails WP:NBASKET and WP:GNG. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 20:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, and Philippines. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 20:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reference #1 actually is a WP:GNG coverage from an WP:RS. Clearly WP:BEFORE was not done. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - GNG requires multiple sources of significant coverage which aren't in the article and have not been presented here . The only source I could find was the one already in the article and it basically just says he was a suprise draft pick and has no more indepth coverage on him. Alvaldi (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - He is a NCAA champion, and a PBA first-round pick. But even if I added sources on that, he would still be a stub. So, if it's keep, I can add those sources, but if it's delete, hopefully this can be recreated again when he has become more relevant in the Philippine basketball scene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D-Flo27 (talk • contribs) 07:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as an WP:ATD. The only GNG-approved source I could locate is the spin.ph reference in the article and cited above. GNG "generally expects," but does not explicitly require, multiple sources. ~~That said, as an active player and former first round pick in the PBA, coverage on this person may improve in the coming months/years.~~Frank Anchor 13:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to keep as it does not fail WP:GNG per the text quoted from GNG above. Notable as a PBA player and former first round pick Frank Anchor 01:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG per Howard the Duck's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Bandele Olayinka[edit]

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

BLP stub with only one source. I’ve looked for others but all I see is wiki mirrors, databases and gossip pieces. I don’t see any in depth coverage of her or info about awards etc. so notability seems doubtful. Mccapra (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Nigeria. Mccapra (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — per sources found.

City, People (24 August 2020). "Veteran Actress, IYA GBONKAN, Talks About the Story of Her Life". City People Magazine. Retrieved 8 July 2022.
Anjan Chatterjee; Eileen Cardilo, eds. (12 November 2021). Brain, Beauty, and Art: Essays Bringing Neuroaesthetics Into Focus. Oxford University Press. p. 52. ISBN 9780197513620.
Harrow, K. W. (2013). "Nollywood and Its Masks: Fela, Osuofia in London, and Butler's Assujetissement". Trash: African Cinema from Below. Indiana University Press. pp. 237–265. JSTOR j.ctt16gzh88.15. ((cite book)): |journal= ignored (help)
Olukomaiya, Funmilola (28 February 2020). "10 Nollywood Villains You Must Know". P.M. News. Retrieved 8 July 2022.

WP:THREE?. Best, R E A D I N G ^{Talk to the Beans?} 15:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Reading Beans. Also find mentions like "With top names like Wale Akorede (Okunnu) RasaqOlayiwola (Ojopagogo) Peter Ijagbemi, Iya Gbonkan, Sisi Quadri among others storming Ibadan," (https://www.vanguardngr.com/2022/04/adebukola-steps-into-big-league-with-omo-iya-loje/) --Soman (talk) 12:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I have not renamed as that's a question that can be handled subsequently, but consensus is clear Star Mississippi 02:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Trutkoff Trumbauer[edit]

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

Have searched in vain for better sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Edwardx (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Science fiction and fantasy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn`t cover WP:NCOPR and deserves to be removed - *Delete --Bigneeerman (talk) 06:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bigneeerman. NCORP is not the correct notability criteria to look at. Like @CT55555 pointed out, NCORP is for organizations and companies. The correct criteria are GNG and AUTHOR, which @Edwardx already listed above. --Kbabej (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I don't understand the delete vote above, an author should not need to pass WP:NCORP as she is not an organisation or a company. I've improved the article, more than doubled it. That said, I could not find any significant coverage. I added some biographical information and one short book review. I guess children's books don't attract long reviews. I'm hoping others find more. It seems she has created a large body of work, non-independent review say over-200 books, but I did not find that stated in independent reliable sources. CT55555 (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sourcing just isn't there. The "Dog Days Reading" source is a one-sentence mention without a byline; the entire sentence is: "Fantasy fans who dig dragons can can enjoy the latest fun in A Practical Guide to Dragon Riding (Wizards/Mirrorstone $12.95)" That was the only hit on newspapers.com, and the rest of my searches couldn't find anything resembling sigcov. --Kbabej (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Also I think delete is the unavoidable conclusion here. I searched for sources, added some in, but none are significant. I'll reverse my decision quickly if anyone can find significant sources, so please say if you do. CT55555 (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Lisa Trumbauer. Seems very notable; 33,713 library holdings is a serious notability indicator. I found a detailed Cengage entry [6] which in turn lists some "independent reviews". Not sure why we want to delete as many articles as possible. 65.92.160.108 (talk) 08:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meets WP:NAUTHOR point 4 based on significant library holdings and some reviews given below:

Booklist, September 1, 2003, Carolyn Phelan, review of Why We Need Child Care Workers and Why We Need Construction Workers, p. 126.

School Library Journal, December, 1999, Kristina Aaronson, review of Click It! Computer Fun: Math, p. 129; February, 2000, Yapha Nussbaum Mason, review of Click It!: Computer Fun Halloween, p. 115; July, 2000, Yapha Nussbaum Mason, review of Cool Sites: Homework Help for Kids on the Net, p. 123; July, 2002, Eldon Younce, review of The Life Cycle of a Chicken, p. 112; June, 2003, John Peters, review of Exploring Animal Rights and Animal Welfare, p. 92. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.160.108 (talk) 08:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Now I see that she is better known without her middle name, easy to argue to keep. Academic reviews of her more science based children's books follows. I wonder if she uses her middle name for the dungeons and dragons themed stuff and the shorter version for the more science stuff:

Mesires, Maria. Science and Children, vol. 45, no. 5, 2008, pp. 68–68. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43174832. Accessed 19 Jul. 2022.
Reynolds, Ann. The American Biology Teacher, vol. 65, no. 8, 2003, pp. 637–637. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/4451579. Accessed 19 Jul. 2022.
Fredericks, Anthony. Science and Children, vol. 41, no. 1, 2003, pp. 65–65. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43172076. Accessed 19 Jul. 2022. CT55555 (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per findings by IP user 65.92.160.108 and per new input from CT55555. BOZ (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to reviews to meet WP:NAUTHOR as listed above. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the arguments above. /Julle (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States). czar 20:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bradford C. Freeman[edit]

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

Freeman was a soldier in the U.S. Army during World War II. He was assigned to E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States). However, he never acquired sufficient rank or received sufficient awards to qualify for WP:SOLDIER. His only claim to fame is his assignment to E Company; that falls under WP:INHERITED. Freeman happens to be reported to be the last person assigned to E Company to die. Dying does not make one famous; Freeman fails WP:NOTABILITY. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 19:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Mississippi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete the Band of Brothers (miniseries) effect here. He personally did nothing notable, but then Ambrose wrote his book, they made the miniseries and suddenly it was like Easy Company won WWII. The repeated stories that have followed mean that every minor member of Easy Company has some coverage. All the sources provided just cover his death and that he was the last surviving member of Easy Company. It can be argued that amounts to SIGCOV satisfying WP:BASIC but I can't support this position that has developed that a few news reports of some old person dying establishes notability that they never had while alive. Mztourist (talk) 03:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Weak) Merge to E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) based on how the coverage is limited to him being the last member alive. All told, this appears to be an edge case, but personally it has a certain je ne sais quoi which makes a dedicated article not feel quite proper. If I were to motivate this by policy, I guess the argument goes something along the lines of "being/dying as the last member of Easy Company seems like WP:BIO1E, and the coverage as a living member of Easy Company doesn't appear to rise to level of independent notability". But that's post hoc rationalization on my part. Ljleppan (talk) 07:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge as proposed above. No notable decorations and nothing aside from being a member of a unit someone wrote about and dying last. I'm sure others will quibble, but I'm not a fan of the 'last surviving/dying' thing counting as notability. Intothat darkness 13:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Weak) Merge to E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) as there appears to be no real independent notability. Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. czar 20:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chalchihuites mine[edit]

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

Non notable mineral deposit. Only source is from the company itself. From searching, I was able to find references to exploratory drilling in the company's SEC filings [7], [8] but any development of a mine is years out and I don't see any significant coverage in reliable sources. There's an (unrelated?) silver mine in the Chalchihuites area (First Majestic's Del Toro Silver mine [9], formerly Oremex's Chalchihuites silver project [10]), so the name isn't terribly specific anyway. 〈 Forbes₇₂ | Talk 〉 19:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Bill Engvall#Discography. czar 20:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aged and Confused[edit]

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

Current sources are just retailers or primary sources. AllMusic entry is blank. No sources found on GNews, Newspapers.com, or GBooks. Redirect contested because "permastub" apparently isn't a reason. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bill Engvall#Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. A WP:BEFORE shows a handful of mentions in various magazines. SBKSPP (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bill Engvall#Discography ,fails WP:NALBUM.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pat Sajak#Career. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Sajak Weekend[edit]

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

Found a couple sources dating from when the show began, but they just all covered the novelty of it. There seemed to be little to no coverage of the show during its run or after the fact (outside a couple "how rich is Pat Sajak?" listicles), suggesting a violation of WP:SUSTAINED and therefore, of WP:GNG. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pat_Sajak#Career, which mentions this topic by name. In general, if a title makes for a useful search term/phrase, redirecting it as an alternative to deletion before coming to AfD will save us all time. (not watching, please ((ping))) czar 20:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 19:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daniele Donato[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable reality television contestant; competed on, but did not win, Big Brother. Bgsu98 (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Television. Bgsu98 (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the coverage is not at the level we would need to show that a reality show contestant was notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notailbity guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)*[reply]
Keep Meets notability guidelines. I suggest expanding the article with new information. Ugla'a (talk) 13:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you suggest some new information with suitable independant sources? -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG could not find sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 19:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie McGee[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Won a season of Big Brother in 2000, followed by a few bit acting parts; is winning one reality series two decades ago sufficient to establish notability? Bgsu98 (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Television. Bgsu98 (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the reality show appearance and bit acting credits are not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 01:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 20:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Daniel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Won a season of Big Brother in 2004 and nothing since then; is winning one reality series two decades ago sufficient to establish notability? Bgsu98 (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bgsu98 (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable reality television show contestant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 01:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 20:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Food trucks in Tampa, Florida[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a place to list anything that happens to be popular in a random city. Food trucks didn't originate the Tampa that this is an arbitrary article. I'm sure every major city has had a couple of local news stories about how food trucks are becoming popular, but that doesn't make it encyclopedic. This could be reduced to a paragraph that is inserted in the economy section of Tampa. ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources don't treat "Food trucks in Tampa" as a notable topic - it's just a bunch of local articles that mention food trucks. The first sentence is ridiculous: "Food trucks have become a popular phenomenon in Tampa and St. Petersburg, Florida" They're popular virtually everywhere. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing to see here; move along. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we have no sources that treat the subject as one that can be given a reliable sourced article that says something actually substnatial about the topic per se. No demonstration that there is anything unique to food trucks in this area that would justify an encyclopedic article on this sub-set of food trucks.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we should have WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES for just such a list, Nothing notable. Oaktree b (talk) 02:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 01:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 14:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren-Marie Haywood[edit]

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

Not finding independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. 8 pageviews in 30 days for a BLP is not encouraging either. Edwardx (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:Artist. Promotional and I cannot find reliable coverage of this artist. Created by a single topic editor. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable artist, hits on her name but not related to her. Appears to be a vanity spam article here. Oaktree b (talk) 01:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: D. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deacon (comics)[edit]

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

Topic fails WP:GNG. There appear to be no noteworthy reliable sources discussing the character in a real world context. TTN (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. TTN (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to be a very minor fictional character - according to a Marvel wiki, he only appeared in a small number of issues, and I cannot find any substantial coverage on the character in reliable, secondary sources. Note that this character is completely unrelated to Deacon Frost, a somewhat more notable character, who is usually the result of searching for any information on a Marvel character with the name of "Deacon". I see that a WP:PROD was declined a couple years back with the suggestion of a merge, but I disagree with this - the character is very minor, there is no actual sourced material here outside of primary-sourced plot summaries, and the various Marvel character lists should not just be a dumping ground for completely non-notable characters about which there has never been any kind of reliably sourced discussion. Rorshacma (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: D per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 03:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per BOZ. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - Per the comments above, not sufficiently notable for a standalone article. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When incoming links from templates are removed, this article only has 6 incoming links from non-list articles. Of those, Orb (comics) Scarecrow (Marvel Comics), and Madcap (comics) actually use the same sentence for the name-drop: [the article subject] is later one of the villains considered by Blackout and the Deacon to help them assassinate the Ghost Rider. Blackout (Lilin) has a name drop in a list. Ghost Rider has a line entry for Deacon under Enemies, but nothing else. Only Caretaker (comics) provides any context for Deacon, and it's still pretty unsubstantial. The character seems to be completely non-noteworthy even in the Ghost Rider fiction, let alone in the Marvel Universe. I see no reason to retain any information about him. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or redirect per BOZ. Striving for compromise, and agree that this is otherwise short of what we need for WP:GNG. Can leave it to editors to summarize what is worth WP:PRESERVEing. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - near as I can tell, the character appeared in about five issues of one Ghost Rider series, and a couple of other spots - nine appearances in total. That's ... not a lot. Combined with a lack of secondary sources, I can't see this sticking around. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge/Redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: D per BOZ. Poor article with OR, and doesn't meet GNG (I don't have access to the magazines, but as far as I can tell they are plot summaries, which are insufficient to count towards SIGCOV). But I suppose as there's a fine merging target, WP:PRESERVE probably apply, but we would have to be cautious in that, as the article's OR and very descriptive, so unencyclopedic prose needs to be summarised and cleaned up. Redirect is also to me a fair option. VickKiang (talk) 06:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: D in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE like @BOZ: had pitched. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Creepy Crawlies[edit]

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

Article about a documentary television film, not reliably sourced as passing either WP:NFILM or WP:TVSHOW. As always, films don't get an automatic notability freebie just because they exist, and must show some properly sourced evidence of significance (notable film or television awards, critical analysis, etc.) -- but the only claim of notability on offer here is that it existed, the only "source" is its IMDb entry, and the article has been flagged for lacking sourcing since 2008 without ever having any new sourcing added to bolster notability. Bearcat (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources found. Only hits on spiders in general. Oaktree b (talk) 01:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. albeit weakly Star Mississippi 01:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Children of Jerusalem[edit]

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

Article about a film series, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFILM. As always, films are not automatically notable just because it's possible to verify that they exist -- they must show some reliably sourced evidence of significance, such as notable film awards and/or critical analysis by professional film critics.
But the only notability claim on offer here is that it exists, the article is so poorly formatted that four of the seven films in the series only have an "empty section" tag and another one consists only of an offsite link to the studio's own website, and other than one piece of "where are the kids now?" in a newspaper two decades after the end of the series (which isn't enough coverage all by itself) this is otherwise referenced entirely to IMDb and the studio rather than third-party coverage in GNG-worthy sources -- and even on a ProQuest search for older coverage that wouldn't google, all I'm getting is event calendar listings and accidental text matches for unrelated topics.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this from having to have a lot more than just one hit of media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A possible contemporary ref from CM: Canadian Review of Materials?[11] - I am not sure where that stands regarding WP:RS Artw (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Found a short NYTimes review in a round up article, together with the Forward piece I believe that it just scrapes by. Artw (talk) 15:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Borderline, but I think it just passes by GNG. One long paragraph is needed to meet GNG, and The NY Times coverage is an RS and just long enough. The Forward is, per WP, a progressive socialist newspaper, but I feel it's definitely an RS for films, and the coverage is very extensive! So there are two RS that are significant and indepedent, so GNG is met, albeit barely. VickKiang (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per above Andrevan@ 21:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Musk family. This appears to be the rough consensus to solve to the competing issues around notability. History is there if anything that isn't already present is worth including. Star Mississippi 02:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Errol Musk[edit]

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

Appears to violate WP:NOTINHERETED as there is no significant coverage that is not directly in the context of his relationship to Elon Musk. I would suggest a merge, but there isn't any non-trivial content that's not already included at Elon Musk. ––FormalDude talk 16:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and South Africa. ––FormalDude talk 16:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created the article. It is about a notable subject who has appeared in the news and in books over a period of years and about whom there is plenty independent and significant coverage in reliable sources. The nominator has mentioned the very relevant essay WP:NOTINHERITED which I quote: Inherent notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it exists, even if zero independent reliable sources have ever taken notice of the subject. which seems clearly to mean that nothing or nobody should have an article, just because of their relationship with someone, sources are needed. Of course, I agree. And the most important part of that esay, in my opinion is this: Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG..

So. for for example, Prince Charles is only famous because his mother was Queen Elizabeth. Does it mean he should have no article? Princess Diana was only notable because she married Charles. Should we delete her article too? No. Of course, not, because despite them only being notable based on marriage and birth, they meet WP:GNG in their own right. That is what this essay calls for, just the normal thing, meeting WP:GNG. So, does Errol Musk meet WP:GNG? Are there multiple, independent, reliable sources that have significant coverage? Yes. There are cited in the article. But for the avoidance of doubt, here are some:

https://www.scmp.com/magazines/style/celebrity/article/3181794/meet-elon-musks-controversial-father-errol-tesla-ceo (about the subject)
https://buffalonews.com/business/local/exploring-the-otherworldly-ambitions-of-elon-musk/article_2fc57479-93eb-5016-b724-016b48a4f4f3.html (significant coverage, being 8 mentiones)
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/elon-errol-musk-children-stepdaughter-b2123744.html (about the subject)
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/reports/a40621623/errol-musk-fathered-child-with-stepdaughter/ (about the subject)
https://web.archive.org/web/20150703011435/https://www.forbes.com/sites/kerryadolan/2015/07/02/how-to-raise-a-billionaire-an-interview-with-elon-musks-father-errol-musk/ (about the subject, an interview, so in my opinion good for notability, less good for verifiability)
There is also significant coverage in various books over the years, I can't hyperlink to them, but a search in google books shows them.

In summary, the essay above just calls for meeting WP:GNG. I had some concerns about this article in the context of criminal allegations about the subject and you'll see conversation with @Kj cheetham and another editor on the talk page, who I pinged for a second opinion. But I have no doubts that he meets WP:GNG and I think the nominator is mistaken in their understanding of WP:NOTINHERETED. From a technical points of view, WP:NOTINHERETED is an essay, an opinion piece (and a very agreeable one) but WP:GNG is an actual guideline, and outranks it anyway. Meeting WP:GNG is the gold standard for notability and I think the article is aligned with both essay and guideline. CT55555 (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He gets news coverage on his own so passes the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 17:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INVALIDBIO, WP:BLP and WP:NOT policy, including concerns over the tabloid-style, sensationalized sources and nonindependent content supporting this article, e.g. Meet Elon Musk’s controversial father, Errol: the Tesla CEO called his South African dad ‘evil’ and denied rumours of family wealth fuelled by an emerald mine – but are they ready to reconcile? (SCMP, 2022); Exploring the otherworldly ambitions of Elon Musk (Buffalo News, 2014, "said Errol Musk, Elon’s 68-year-old father, in a rare interview"; this article is focused on Elon, biographical information about Errol is brief and Elon-focused), Elon Musk’s father reveals he has had a second child with his own stepdaughter - report (The Independent, 2022, churnalism from the non-RS tabloid The Sun; The Cosmopolitan article linked above is the same); How To Raise A Billionaire: An Interview With Elon Musk's Father, Errol Musk (Forbes, 2014, an interview about Elon); book sources also appear to be focused on Elon and insufficient to support WP:GNG/WP:BASIC notability for Errol based on the limited content about his career in the article. Beccaynr (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, per WP:N, A topic is presumed to merit an article if: 1. It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right; and 2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. (emphasis added). WP:BLP policy includes Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources [...] Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Beccaynr (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not include any "claims". Everything is cited in reliable sources and the recent news is very well documented in news media from all around the world. CT55555 (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There appear to be a lot of 'claims' in the sensationalist reports - the churnalism from The Telegraph is another example, in addition to sources that explictly state they rely on the deprecated non-RS The Sun (i.e. The Independent, Cosmopolitan). The recent news is tabloid and tabloid-style sensationalism, churned in multiple outlets. Beccaynr (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of the specific piece of information being volunteered by him in an interview, and that being reported by a lot of sources (just search for his name at Google News), I think it's strange to think of this as a "claim". I also think we cannot just assume that the first news source to report something is the only one who fact-checked it. I might feel less confident if this wealthy individual has disputed it or if there was some content being disputed by anyone, anywhere. CT55555 (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the article content is focused on a scandal related to him and low-profile living people, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTSCANDAL, which is what I attempted to link to above in the first WP:NOT policy link. The recent sources are also filled with claims about various people based on interviews with other people, which makes Wikipedia a primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. SCMP even uses the term 'rumours' in its headline. Beccaynr (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTSCANDAL is policy and steers us away from gossip. I quote Scandal mongering, promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping. That policy is entirly about accuracy, not about judgement. Everything is cited and verifiable. How we individually perceive contents to reflect on him, our point of view, must be set side. CT55555 (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "or" helps interpret the policy as beyond the gossip and rumors in the sources and includes the scandal described in the article, despite the subject admitting to it. Per WP:V, specifically WP:ONUS, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and this is a scandalous, trivial detail about his personal life, that is disproportionately prominent in the article. With this content removed, there does not appear to be much beyond his relationship with his notable son to support his own notability, which appears to be within the WP:INVALIDBIO guideline and supports deletion. Beccaynr (talk) 22:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The weight of the detail, in my opinion, is equivalent to the news it got. What is or is not a "scandal" is a point of view and we should avoid that. I sense we are not going to persuade each other. That's OK.

I think every point we're disagreeing on leads me back to the simple fact of the subject being being notable as per WP:GNG so I'll try to make that my last reply to you here. CT55555 (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources seem to support referring to this disproportionately-covered detail of his personal life as a 'scandal' because it is tabloid fodder, and other news outlets are churning the tabloid content in a sensationalized manner, and an otherwise generally reliable source such as SCMP refers to him as "controversial" while also printing 'rumours' and what Elon says about him. WP:GNG is not enough to support WP:N, which is why I added the additional comment after my first comment. There appear to be significant source-supported, policy-backed concerns with this article that support deletion, and nothing specifically identified beyond the sensationalized coverage to support notability independent from his son. Beccaynr (talk) 22:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To briefly respond to these points:
- WP:INVALIDBIO really says the same as WP:NOTINHERITED - people related to others need sources in the same way. I quote That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A) The part in brackets is key. I hope I addressed that above.
- Regarding WP:NOT the only part that I think could conceivably apply here is the bit about being PROMO or publishing thoughts, I think this article does neither. But I welcome any edits if flaws are identified.
- WP:BLP I think this is BLP compliant.
- Both WP:SCMP and The Independent are highlighted green WP:RSPSS as reliable sources. The Cosmopolitan is yellow, it requires a case-by-case analysis. There is also reporting from other reliable sources such as The Telegraph. I've used no depreciated sources. The Independent and The Sun are owned by different corporations, I see no reason to assume The Independent is unable to do it's own reporting or fact checking, it's an established journalistic organization.
- That some books are more about his son doesn't means they don't contain significant coverage of him. Quoting WP:SIGCOV Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. CT55555 (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not think we have enough sourcing that is actually about him, as opposed to just incidental mentions in relation to his son, to justify having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Considering WP:ATD and notwithstanding my keep vote, which I standby, a redirect to Musk family seems like the most dramatic outcome that anyone should be considering. CT55555 (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having received news articles/separate coverage about himself, I believe passes notability guidelines. CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm a bit on the fence with this one, but if the outcome is delete, there should still be a redirect for this name put in place. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Having thought about this a bit longer, redirect is the best way forward. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Musk family. Notability is WP:INHERITED and the individual can be adequately covered as a section within the family's article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Due to the WP:NOT policy concerns outlined above, I oppose a redirect without first deleting this article. There appears to be sufficient reason to delete the article history due to the tabloid-style, sensationalist sources, and also the poorly-sourced WP:BLPCRIME content [12] that previously appeared in the article. Beccaynr (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The crime thing (which I deleted before moving from draft, to be cautious) is a quote that appears widely online in reliable sources, so I think needs to not be included as per the guideline, but it's not the sort of thing that warranted hiding previous version. But if you disagree, that can be done now and doesn't require deleting a whole article or it's entire history. CT55555 (talk) 14:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Musk family. Not much coverage as of now for notability, but i think the eventuality would be to redirect it. MrHerii (talk) 05:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Musk family. He is not independently notable enough to meet the GNG and NOT tests (particularly NOTGOSSIP). Even if one were to consider that he did meet those conditions, there is in any case not enough independently notable information about him to pass WP:PAGEDECIDE. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thanks to edits by User:La_lopi his career section is now expanded and includes his election in 1972 to Pretoria City Council. I hope this alleviates the concerns that people raised about over reliance on tabloid or sensationalist only content, and I think it must further remove any WP:BLP1E concerns. CT55555 (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The addition of a minor detail from Elon Musk Left a South Africa That Was Rife With Misinformation and White Privilege (New York Times, May 2022, includes quotes and information from Errol Musk) does not seem to help avoid reasons to delete this article and then create a redirect. The sensationalist and tabloid sources do not support his notability, and there does not appear to be sufficient independent and reliable support for WP:GNG/WP:BASIC notability to support this article at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This deplorable person passes GNG sadly.★Trekker (talk) 00:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect seems the rational course. I don't see anything here that states is notable. scope_creep^Talk 18:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Musk family. This appears to be a WP:NOTINHERETED situation. Bruxton (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since it's been nominated for deletion, this page has been viewed approximately 10,000 times per day. It has grown by about 30% in length due to edits from 8 editors who have added career and family information, and it is now a C class article. News about the subject have appeared I think multiple times every day with outlets in Europe, Asia, and the Americas all discussing his rather dislikable behaviour. So while he is a rather dislikable man, about 60,000 wikipedia users have learned about him since the 17th of this month. CT55555 (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The class doesn't really matter for this discussion (though it's barely C class in my opinion), neither does the number of hits I don't think. It all comes down to the sourcing. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elon Musk averages 70k+ per day. I wish I could see that Errol Musk was notable. I see an unremarkable person and I struggle to see anything notable bout him. Bruxton (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that that the intent of the rating system was for it to be conducted by an independent editor, not by the page's creator and main contributor. Certainly self-rating can't be used as justification for keeping the page. I applaud your efforts to find reliably sourced facts, but they don't change the truth that the only notable thing about the subject is his family. Rosbif73 (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The rating given by me was that suggested by the automatic rater tool, which was recommended to me, I think by @Kj cheetham. I think the rating is non controversial. I think it's normal for reasonably experienced editors to rate articles as per suggested ratings. If anyone thinks the C rating is incorrect, of course, they can change it. CT55555 (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 7596[edit]

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

Fails WP:NASTRO, no coverage aside from trivial mentions or comprehensive databases. ComplexRational (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. ComplexRational (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Apart from a few discovery details,[13] I could find no in-depth studies of this lenticular galaxy. Praemonitus (talk) 19:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 01:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't think this meets GNG. Jawad Haqbeen (talk) 02:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The galaxy was discovered after 1850, making this a non notable object Speed doesn't always mean quality. (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:58, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Machines[edit]

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

Article about a documentary film series, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFILM. As always, films are not given an automatic notability freebie just because they exist, and must show some reliably sourced evidence of significance -- but the only notability claim even being attempted here is that this exists, and the referencing is entirely to promotional content on either Amazon.com or the self-published website of its own production studio rather than WP:GNG-worthy third party media coverage about it. It's also been flagged for notability concerns since 2013 without ever having any new secondary sources added. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two Lumps[edit]

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

Only secondary sources are interviews, both of which seem to have come from WP:SPS. No better sources found in a WP:BEFORE. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[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?)} 14:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – a ComixTalk interview and an interview in a website I've never heard of is indeed not enough. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 18:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The comic is widely known as "anti-Garfield". jfeise (talk) 12:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jfeise: I'm not finding any new sources through that name. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jfeise Please provide sources for this assertion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I could not find any substantial secondary sources. The two secondary sources in the articles are not reliable as they are just interviews presenting the creators words verbatim. HenryCrun15 (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here indicates this meets WP:NMEDIA/WP:NBOOK/WP:GNG. No awards, a few reviews/mentions in niche media. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 11:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harjit Kaur Talwandi[edit]

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

Non-notable politician; not elected, therefore not covered by WP:NPOL. Sources cited provide only the briefest of passing mentions, and a search finds nothing better, therefore fails WP:GNG also. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Women, and India. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She is one of the most prominent woman politicians in Punjab. She is one the most active politicians in Punjab.She belongs from the Talwandi family.Her father was Jagdev Singh Talwandi, who has remained the President of Shiromani Akali Dal twice.Jagdev Singh Talwandi was elected thrice to the Vidhan Sabha, 1 time to Lok Sabha and 1 time to Rajya Sabha.Currently his children are taking his legacy forward.Harjit Kaur Talwandi is the President of women's wing of one of the most renowned Political Parties in Punjab.Before being elected as the president of the Women's wing, she has served at various positions in Shiromani Akali Dal Party. Smt. Harjit kaur Talwandi is a well recognised face in Punjab. LudhianaUser (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Femke (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Divya S. Iyer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable, junior level IAS Officer. There are over 600 District Collector rank officers in India. You will find single-event mention of almost every IAS officer in WP:RS. Also see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Athar Aamir Khan (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tina Dabi User4edits (talk) 14:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Medicine, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the sources in the article support WP:BASIC notability for this IAS officer, medical doctor, and author. Beccaynr (talk) 15:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources seem independent and reliable. Onmyway22 talk 14:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to meet WP:GNG, more than just due to being an IAS officer. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:39, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney Chase[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Wasn't notable 10 years ago, and my searches suggest she still isn't. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, United States of America, and New York. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a few roles as a child is not enough for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough WP:SIGCOV to show notability. KylieTastic (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Aijaz Asad[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mohammad Aijaz Asad

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

Non notable, junior IAS officer. Peers have been deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharanya Ari and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Athar Aamir Khan (2nd nomination) User4edits (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As shown in the examples, all bureaucrats are not notable. Only the top level, chief secretary. No major work or award either. Venkat TL (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines agree with Venkat Proton Dental (talk) 01:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also see I want to add an article about myself. by the user who created the page, and whose contributions have been largely only to the Mohammad Aijaz Asad. 14:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Delete per nom junior IAS officer fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. ✗plicit 23:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

International Short Film Festival Cine a la Calle[edit]

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

Dubious notability, no references (fails WP:V). PROD declined two years ago as "there are sources on es wiki". I am not sure they are reliable or in-depth, even with machine translation their coverage looks borderline. I'd redirect this if not improved but I am not sure where. Let's discuss. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Events, and Colombia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it need more sources, but looks okay for a short film festival. --95.117.31.251 (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn’t meet GNG, couldn’t find any reliable, independent refs upon a search on Google, News, and Books. VickKiang (talk) 23:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: the first and third sources on the Spanish Wikipedia article are reliable and independent, as is this source about the 2020 edition [14] and this one about the 2021 edition [15]. It's probably never going to be much more than a stub but I think it just about passes notability guidelines. Richard3120 (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dharia[edit]

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

Nothing here in the description or the references suggests the subject qualifies as notable per WP:GNG, no subject-specific guideline qualifies her automatically. A loose necktie (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Romania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — random performer, no evidence of meeting WP:NMUSIC. — Biruitorul ^Talk 06:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NMUSIC says a singer may be notable if they had a single or album on any country's national music chart. Now the subject was listed in Billboard India, Radiomonitor Turkey and Airplay 100 Romania. Is this not sufficient for notability? Shubjt (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources found, only hits on variants of her name. We would need chart listings to show she's charted as discussed. Oaktree b (talk) 02:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: I don't get what you mean by no sources found? There are inline citations in the article. Shubjt (talk) 10:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I looked on the internet and could find no sources of my own to verify notability, in English anyway. Might be some in Turkish or Romanian, neither of which I can read. Oaktree b (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teach 2 Learn[edit]

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

Unable to find significant independent coverage about this student-run organization, except in some local news sources. Seems like a wonderful initiative but does not appear to meet WP:ORG. – Ploni (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, United States of America, and Texas. Ploni (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Little coverage, does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Houseplant care[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Houseplant care

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

After a serious attempt, I've determined that this article really can't be made into anything other than a how-to. It was transwiki'd in 2012 and I think that's sufficient. User:Jonwilliamsl(talk|contribs) 17:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Houseplants Wiki. I agree that this is a how-to and I also can't find what to do with this on Wikipedia, but the content might well be useful on Fandom-hosted wiki, where the content would be freely licensed under compatible CC-BY-SA terms. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moved the relevant sections to Houseplants Wiki page "Houseplant". Some of that page seems to be a fork of an earlier version of this page, but I moved everything else. User:Jonwilliamsl(talk|contribs) 12:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now that it's been transwiki'd I see no reason to keep it on Wikipedia. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too general to be on Wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The WP:NOTABLE elements of houseplant care can be discussed in the main houseplant article. There is already a section for this in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houseplant#Care The void century (talk) 02:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cry in December[edit]

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

Unable to find any independent coverage, reviews, etc., even with what appears to be their new name. – Ploni (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Indonesia. Ploni (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5 by Bbb23. (non-admin closure) ComplexRational (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ashfaque Nabi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:BIO not an elected politician so fails WP:NPOL - several sources PR extreme puff. (creator ~~could also be~~ blocked as sock of Dcmpedia who previously tried to create) KylieTastic (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KylieTastic (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added links to support article Whistleswhite (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, India, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Spiderone the article is supported by several news refrences.

https://hindustanherald.com/ashfaque-nabi-a-true-youth-icon-in-indian-politics/

https://hindi.news18.com/news/nation/ashfaque-nabi-is-full-of-public-interest-along-with-politics-4381800.html

and many others. cc- @KylieTastic Whistleswhite (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@KylieTastic after you find this article notable. remove the deletion notice from the article. Whistleswhite (talk) 13:43, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ashfaque Nabi is a state level politician. office post holder of Delhi Pradesh Congress Committee Whistleswhite (talk) 13:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No he is not an elected politician he is a "General Secretary in Social Media Department" KylieTastic (talk) 13:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@KylieTastic another news reference - https://navbharattimes.indiatimes.com/metro/delhi/delhi-times/delhi-youth-congress-leader-ashfaque-nabi-demands-rahul-gandhi-as-party-president/articleshow/92227268.cms

multiple news reference already cited. remove the deletion notice. Whistleswhite (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@KylieTastic another news reference supporting article - https://thepresswalla.com/politics/ashfaque-nabi-a-politician-from-delhi-well-known-for-his-creative-impactful-social-media-skills/ Whistleswhite (talk) 13:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No another example of self promotion just "published" today. KylieTastic (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@KylieTastic ok. do consider this page. kindly remove the deletion notice. thank you Whistleswhite (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@KylieTastic also this is not promoting, the artilce received coverage from neutral publishers. i;e: Independent sources. Whistleswhite (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no presence in WP:RS, cited only to paid-for spam. Nothing better found in a WP:BEFORE search. Fails WP:NPOL per nom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Spiderone for your information, here is the two WP:RS sources:

1- https://navbharattimes.indiatimes.com/metro/delhi/delhi-times/delhi-youth-congress-leader-ashfaque-nabi-demands-rahul-gandhi-as-party-president/articleshow/92227268.cms

2- https://hindi.news18.com/news/nation/ashfaque-nabi-is-full-of-public-interest-along-with-politics-4381800.html

thank you Whistleswhite (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete this article Whistleswhite (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP 122.161.79.119 (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also clearly the IP related to the creator. KylieTastic (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@KylieTastic kindly remove the deletion notice, provided news reference above. thank you Whistleswhite (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aishwarya Mishra[edit]

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

Moved to draftspace but immediately returned to main; does not appear to pass WP:NATHLETE or WP:GNG. 'Basic' search does not reveal anything in the way of SIGCOV. Eagleash (talk) 12:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not meeting notability guidelines as suggested by the nominator. Hitro talk 17:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing even close to showing a passing of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:NATHLETE and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tetra Financial Group[edit]

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

Fails WP:COMPANY. The sources are either announcements or non-independent. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Utah. Shellwood (talk) 12:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article text describes the firm's market proposition and particularly the announcement of a financial instrument in which it was involved. The references are a mix of listings (some now obsolete) and announcement coverage, falling under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. The company website is no longer operating, their Utah business listing expired in 2018, so the position is unlikely to change in future. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 07:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 00:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 11:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bosera Asset Management[edit]

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

promotional , and non-notable Fails WP:NCORP. DGG ( talk ) 09:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bosera is a major firm in China. In my opinion there is significant coverage of Bosera in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the firm in english let alone in Chinese. The article definitely requires work to read less promotional and to add more citations, but should be kept. Seigerman (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Norway international footballers born outside Norway[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), List of Iran international footballers born outside Iran (AfD) and List of Syria international footballers born outside Syria (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 and appears to be a non-encyclopaedic cross-categorisation. In other words, where is the evidence of detailed discussion regarding the birthplaces of Norway international footballers? 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. Just because information an be verified by statistics databases doesn't mean that we absolutely need to have an article on it. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Football, and Norway. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:51, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another similar article that fails WP:LISTN. LibStar (talk) 12:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate.--Mvqr (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the reasoning on all the other similar lists that were deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons given above. --Bduke (talk) 09:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with reasons above. Fats40boy11 (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per past AFD consensus. I don't see this as any different. Giant Snowman 18:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 01:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Asian Women's Volleyball Championship[edit]

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

Wholly unsourced. I cannot find any info about plans for this edition of the tournament in asianvolleyball.net/ or anywhere else for that matter like media in volleyball-mad countries (e.g. Philippines and Vietnam itself) including the supposed draw on July 12, 2022. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Vietnam. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article looks to be a copy of the 2021 Asian Women's Volleyball Championship article, which was cancelled. The lead is identical even if the unsourced qualification tables are not. If there is a genuine championship for this in 2023, then at that point an article can be re-created with correct information, but right now this article is somewhere between a copy of an existing article and a possible hoax. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rural Landscaping And Its Tools[edit]

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

A book is a book. There is no indication that this book is notable. References given here are to different versions of the book. A loose necktie (talk) 10:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable book, doesn't satisfy WP:NB. Hughesdarren (talk) 11:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Major copyvio from here --S Philbrick (Talk) 13:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 01:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - references aren't independent, and a Google search doesn't seem to turn up anything else at all. Gazamp (talk) 02:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NB.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is he's well cited enough, and AfD is not cleanup Star Mississippi 01:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Pike[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NPROF. No fellowships to societies (the John Douglas French one is a grant). Gusfriend (talk) 10:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Biology, and Medicine. Gusfriend (talk) 10:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With 30 papers with over 100 cites a clear pass of WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. He has almost 13,000 citations and an h-index of 56 on Scopus. This is indeed a high-citation field, and while he's only around the top 15% of his coauthors by h-index I think that's still going to put him way above the median citation profile of his peers. JoelleJay (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice against a properly recreated article in the future. He may be notable but this is barely represented by this article's sourcing, which couldn't be more meager. I'm willing to change my !vote if the article sees some improvement during the discussion. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 01:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meager sources? There are 13,000 of them. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC).[reply]

The article only cites one. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 01:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's irrelevant for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sourcing within the article needs improvement, but he passes WP:NPROF via citations and h-index. Curbon7 (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meet WP:NPROF due to academic citations. WP:DINC. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a lot of citations and clearly meets WP:NPROF Kazanstyle (talk) 09:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but Delete if nobody can demonstrate that this passes WP:NPROF with independent reliable sources that pass WP:NOTABLE. Having published work does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are. Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study. This notability guideline specifies criteria for judging the notability of an academic through reliable sources for the impact of their work.

I'm not certain that the Turken Award counts as a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level , as per WP:NACADEMIC. I don't mean to be insensitive or discount this person's obvious accomplishments, but Wikipedia has very specific requirements for notability. The void century (talk) 03:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPROF is "explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline". To me this is a clear pass under criteria 1, sub-section a: "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work." The majority of citations are independant. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This individual appears to be right on the knife edge of notability. Despite concerted efforts to stretch the definitions of WP:NACADEMIC to declare this individual notable, I find rough consensus here that she does not quite pass those requirements just yet. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 18:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joanne Roberts[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG, refs here are all to primary sources that lack independence, does not qualify as notable per WP:ACADEMIC, does not hold a named chair nor edit a major academic journal. A loose necktie (talk) 10:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/question. She is the president of Yale-NUS College. WP:NACADEMIC criterion 6 is met if The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.. How do we establish if Yale-NUS College is a "major academic institution"? It has 140 staff teaching about 1,000 students, a 11 year history - to me that seems maybe major? It has a page with no tags, so we appear to consider it notable. Is notable synonymous with major? CT55555 (talk) 12:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The answer to "Is notable synonymous with major?" should be "no". -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject was co-editor of a major journal (meaning one of the four chief editors in this case https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15405982) => Criterium 8 is met

President of Yale-NUS College - which is a major although recent institution => Criterium 6 is met.

Only one criterium is necessary for notability. JamesKH76 (talk) 12:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She was one of four co-editors under a managing editor (David Green)[16]. That is not equivalent to "chief editor", that's just being on an editorial board. Yale-NUS also isn't an independent university, as degrees are conferred by NUS; it seems to function more as an "honors college" within NUS. JoelleJay (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A managing editor plays no academic role, they process the flux of manuscripts and usually work for the publisher. I can confirm that a co-editor in this situation is indeed a co-chief editor. Check the link above where the top editors are named co-editor. The editorial board is another body.

Yale-NUS is a joint venture between two major universities. Seems notable to me. JamesKH76 (talk) 08:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. From the link above: The top two tiers, composed by the managing editor(s) and associate editors or coeditors, are in charge of the referee process and the editorial decision-making. The managing editor is the top tier here. And Yale-NUS operates as an honors college within NUS; presidents of honors colleges (or any other sub-university colleges like "college of engineering") are not notable through C6. JoelleJay (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 14:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per my reasoning above. JoelleJay (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- prior to her position at Yale-NUS, she was a full professor at the University of Calgary. She received a Canada Research Chair where she worked on plea bargains. This field of research was covered in the news, and is now clarified in the article. DaffodilOcean (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Being a Canada Research Chair is a clear pass at criterion 5 of WP:NACADEMIC https://www.canada.ca/en/news/archive/2009/03/government-canada-provides-support-canada-research-chairs-eight-universities-western-canada.html confirms she was one. CT55555 (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject specific notability guideline for this sort of things is quite clear. Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Criteria Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. 5. The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon. CT55555 has proven they are notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 07:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC) I am now unsure do to information presented. Dream Focus 01:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @DaffodilOcean deserves the credit for me getting to my conclusion. CT55555 (talk) 12:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep due to being a Canada Research Chair. Being president of Yale-NUS College and a journal co-editor are not sufficient to me, as per JoelleJay's comments. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete Changing to delete as didn't realise it was more like a grant. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject meets our guidelines for inclusion. Was a full professor at the University of Calgary, president of a college, co-editor of the Canadian Journal of Economics, and an author. Lightburst (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the notes section of WP:ACADEMIC, The criteria above are sometimes summed up as an "Average Professor Test": When judged against the average impact of a researcher in a given field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished?. The Canada Research Chair position is not a named chair appointment from a university, it is a government grant program that funds 2,285 research professorships, so it does not appear to meet WP:NACADEMIC #5, which also states, Criterion 5 can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level, and not for junior faculty members, and her CV says she began this research grant before she obtained a full professorship. Per JoelleJay and #8, she was not the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area, and per #6, a recently-established small branch of a major university that is in the process of closing (Yale and National U. of Singapore Announce End of Prominent Joint Liberal-Arts College, Chronicle of Higher Education, "Yale-NUS College, as it's known, will be merged into a new, interdisciplinary honors college in 2025") does not appear to have support in sources to be considered a major academic institution. I also searched the WP Library, and found a book review for what may be a short book she wrote, in addition to the one book review cited for a different co-edited book; WP:NAUTHOR notability also does not appear supported at this time, and there does not appear to be support for other WP:NACADEMIC criteria, nor WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My answer to a question asking if she is clearly more notable than the average professor, is a clear yes.

Am I misunderstanding something, because the research chair is at a specific university (the Calgary University). I don't think that being government funded detracts from it in any way. With 2,285 research chairs created since 2000, is Canada an outlier in some way? CT55555 (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Roberts received a 5-year grant while she was junior-level faculty; per the Canadian government website, this is a Tier 2 Chair, which are "tenable for five years and renewable once, [and] are for exceptional emerging researchers, acknowledged by their peers as having the potential to lead in their field." The website also states, "Nominees for Tier 2 Chair positions must be emerging scholars." WP:NACADEMIC #5 states, Criterion 5 can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level, and not for junior faculty members, so this grant does not appear to support this criterion, in addition to not being a named chair or distinguished professor position established by the university for tenured full professors. Beccaynr (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to keep asking questions, but I'm trying to reach consensus rather than just say keep and walk away. When it says it cannot be "applied reliably" do you consider that to mean it can never be applied, or does it indicate to you that we need to consider surrounding factors. Because to me it suggests the later and I'm seeing a lot of other things above that alone don't get her past the bar, but combined seem to add up to something. Combined with the definition including the word "exceptional" seems like a keep vote still seems reasonable here. But I say that as a question, inviting critique. CT55555 (talk) 16:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It cannot be applied reliably and therefore cannot be used to establish notability through C5. There are many many grants and academic awards that describe themselves as being reserved for "exceptional" candidates; the reason we restrict our criteria to senior faculty and have very strict guidance on what factors can even partially contribute to NPROF is because there is so much promotionalism within academia. Regardless of all that, though, research grants do not ever count towards C5 so the point is moot. JoelleJay (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the word only to be a key part of interpreting the criterion that says can be applied reliably only, and the additional detail not for junior faculty members a helpful clarification about surrounding factors. The definition of this grant also twice includes the word "emerging", which seems to emphasize the junior-level nature of the Tier 2 grant. Beccaynr (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what Beccaynr said. Government grants do not confer notability, especially not ones reserved for early-career researchers. JoelleJay (talk) 16:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for critique I was convinced about the research chair, but respect the counter arguments. My preference to include makes me want to say that all these almost/half meets of various subject matter notability requirements should add up to a whole, but I think I must vote delete due to the lack of significant independent coverage. This is some sort of a heart-keep, head-delete scenario. So no updated !vote for now, waiting to see what others say first. CT55555 (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She is the President of Yale-NUS College. 6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society. And 6b reads Criterion 6 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has held the post of president or chancellor (or vice-chancellor in countries where this is the top academic post) of a significant accredited college or university, director of a highly regarded, notable academic independent research institute or center (which is not a part of a university), president of a notable national or international scholarly society, etc. Does this college count a "major" academic institution? Dream Focus 17:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dream Focus, because the college does not award degrees itself (rather they are awarded through NUS), and because it operates as an honors college of NUS, it cannot be considered an independent institution, much the same way that engineering colleges within universities are not separate entities for C6. JoelleJay (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NUS already has an Honors College (University Scholars Program), but Yale-NUS represents a distinct entity as the first liberal arts college in Singapore. It does award an NUS degree, but its curriculum and structure is sufficiently different than even the University Scholars Program at NUS. Crcolas (talk) 05:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's an honors college that will be merged into the other honors college in 2025. It's literally listed alongside the colleges of law and music as one of the 16 NUS colleges. Not independent. JoelleJay (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yale-NUS is not an Honors College. That argument is factually wrong. It is a liberal arts college. It has its own budget, governing board, president (not Dean - as for an Honors College), VPs, etc. It has three academic divisions, 14 majors, minors, etc. Its own admissions process. Yes, it is listed along side colleges at NUS, but you will note the website is not an NUS URL. Furthermore, it is tied to Yale in many ways that make it quite distinct from NUS (many seconded faculty from Yale over the years, the Dean of Faculty have mostly been senior faculty from Yale, etc)

You can debate if it is a major academic institution but it is a academic institution of considerable noteworthiness in both North America and SE Asia - note articles in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Inside Higher Ed, etc. when it was founded and when it was announced that it would close. 76.28.109.15 (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it's liberal arts college that offers exclusively honors degrees through NUS (though not through Yale). But per its charter it is still an "autonomous college of NUS", not a separate, independent university (although it is independent of Yale).

From this article in Yale's "Accent Magazine": As expressed in the Yale-NUS charter, Yale-NUS is not an independent institution, but rather a school that exists as an autonomous institution within NUS. As reflected by our student cards, our future degrees, and whom we pay tuition to, Yale-NUS lies within NUS. JoelleJay (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the reasoning of Beccaynr (like CT55555, this is a "heart keep, head delete" situation for me). MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There are a lot of claims of notability that don't quite make it. A tier 1 Canada Research Chair would be enough for me for WP:PROF#C5 (which generally involves a level of professorial recognition a step beyond full professor) but this is tier 2, below full professor and clearly not enough. It's hard to search given the common name, but she appears to have inadequate citation counts and only one edited volume, neither enough for WP:PROF#C1 nor WP:AUTHOR. Yale-NUS is small, new, dubiously independent and imminently defunct, so the claim of WP:PROF#C6 notability is also too weak for me. She is listed as former co-editor of the Canadian Journal of Economics, but for that journal co-editor means being an equal member of the entire editorial board, not the editor-in-chief, so I don't think it passes WP:PROF#C8. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I've been chewing this over. She almost meets a few different notability requirements, and I think more than two halves make a whole. I think it's fair to say that in the context of WP:5P5 and us taking cues from guidance, that a bit of human analysis is ok here and this emotional biological lump of carbon and water thinks that the encyclopedia is better to have her in it. CT55555 (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She's co-editor of a major journal, president of a university (sure a small satellite one but still), was president of the Canadian Women's Economics Network, had a Canada Research Chair (which your average academic does not get) and has thousands of citations to her publications on Google Scholar despite having been in admin positions for several years. This is definitely not an average academic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lijil (talk • contribs) 04:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am really confused. I see that CT55555 struck out his vote. But it appears that he/she may have inadvertently struck the vote by User:Dream Focus. Just saying ... 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. DF did their own strike out before. CT55555 (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the nominator is incorrect. Only ONE of the WP:NACADEMIC criteria has to apply.

Caption text
Criteria from WP:NACADEMIC	Status
The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.	Not done
The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.	Done
The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).	Done
The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.	Maybe
The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.	Done
The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society	Not done
The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.	undetermined
The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area	Done

There's a difference between being a stub and being outright not notable. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lil-unique1, what prestigious award has she won? What highly selective society has she been elected to? What evidence do you have she "might" have had a substantial impact on a number of academic institutions? What is her "named chair" (noting that the "Canada Research Chair Tier II" grant is unambiguously excluded from NPROF as it is neither an academic chair appointment, nor a senior-career professional award). What journal has she been chief editor of (noting that the journal she was one of four co-editors for explicitly outlines its editing hierarchy and her position is definitely not that of a chief editor)? JoelleJay (talk) 00:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I said maybe indicating that I wasn't sure based on what's in the article. Is the Polanyi award not considered notable? She was chair of the Canada Research Society which satisfies the condition at NCACADEMIC, granted she wasn't chief editor of a journal in their subject area she was an editor. Holding a recognised academic position and having all of the above on balance makes her notable per NACADEMIC. Bios only have to meet one set of notability criteria. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 08:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per this discussion and the information in the article, it appears that none of the WP:NACADEMIC criteria apply. For example, the Polanyi award is for young scholars, so it is not the type of major academic award described in C#2 because emerging scholar awards do not confer a high level of academic prestige. The Tier 2 Canada Research Chair has been discussed as the type of grant that if awarded as a Tier 1, could be sufficient, but per the C#5, Tier 2 is not. C#8 only applies for the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area, and as noted above, she was not. In addition, a 2-year term as president of the Canadian Women Economists Network does not appear sufficient per C#3, because elected memberships in minor and non-notable societies are insufficient. Beccaynr (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:GNG, and as shown by Beccaynr, does not meet NACADEMIC either. Also, there appears to be at least one duplicate "keep" !vote above.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - despite some worries about some sourcing in the article - in my view a noted academic by way of publications, chairs, role at Yale-NUS College and CWEN presidency. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Recommend revisiting this in a few months after a deeper search for offline sources can be undertaken. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 18:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Devas Club[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, appears to be purely promotional article, unable to find any news sources mentioning this organization online. Hadal1337 (talk) 09:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's long history and links suggest that it is indeed notable. --Bduke (talk) 09:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being old doesn't make it notable. It's a local youth club, and most local youth clubs aren't notable, this one doesn't look to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A notable historical club founded in 1884 with references. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Bduke. And note that being "unable to find any news sources mentioning this organization online" is odd as one story (which is already linked from the article) turns up immediately on the standard search linked above. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct regarding the one story being on Google. However, one hit on Google from a local news publisher does not make an article notable. Furthermore, a local youth club with 62 reviews on Google is not notable in any sense. Hadal1337 (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. a local youth club with 62 reviews on Google is certainly notable. Besides as its been around nearly 140 years there is probably more coverage which is not on line. Rathfelder (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My local post office has 168 reviews on Google. Google reviews do not imply notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Were you able to find more coverage offline or were you assuming there were more coverage offline? Hadal1337 (talk) 06:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is this WP:SNOWBALL? —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 13:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Considering most of the votes are just saying "old so notable" without demonstrating notable references, no it isn't. It's not a vote. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it is notable based on the sources already in the article, also noting the following two. They both include quotes, but I still consider them sufficiently independent.

Both of those are local news sources, not enough significant coverage in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Battersea and Delete added merge option as per ATD Yes it is old, yes it has been mentioned in some newspapers over the years, but ... there are no sources available which meet our criteria for establishing notability. Newspaper articles based on information from affiliated orgs or announcements are not "sufficiently independent". HighKing⁺⁺ 10:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does not specific coverage by the UK House of Commons confer notability (House of Commons (1904). "The Devas Institute". Parliamentary Papers 1850–1908. Vol. 73. H.M. Stationery Office. pp. 305–308.)? I think the combination of references is enough for WP:GNG and WP:ORG. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jpbowen, Volume 73 of the "Sessional Papers" records the formation of the Devas Institute as a charitable trust and records its constitution. The information is PRIMARY, fails ORGIND. It is also the case that is was common practice for the constitution of charities to be recorded in the sessionary papers in this way as parliament recorded various endowments given to charitable uses (mainly churches, hospitals, orphanages, veteran's homes, etc) as part of the City of London Parochial Charities Act, 1883. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - based on a review of the current sources, and an unsuccessful simple Google search for additional sources. Fails WP:GNG. The most notable thing about the club appears to be the recent coverage it got for its 125 year anniversary. If the club were truly notable, its anniversary coverage would warrant more than a little box on page 15 of the Lambeth Life free publication. I wouldn't be opposed if someone wanted to add a "culture" section to the Battersea article with a Devas Club redirect, and briefly mention the club. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Battersea, its a community assets and therefore a viable search term as shown by google search. Stub yes, but it is notable >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: in assessing the notability, the previous name of "Devas Institute" should also be checked. There are 701 mentions on Google including articles, etc. (e.g., see 130 Years of the Devas Club, p.12, Home Front Legacy 1914-18: Devas Institute, 82, New Road (PRN: 10670), etc.) Looks like enough, IMO. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Good call to point out searching for "Devas Institute". The article "130 years of the Devas Club" was written by "former Devas Club Trustee Tim Gee MBE" who was involved with the club for 44 years so that would mean he wasn't "unaffiliated" to the organization and the source would fails ORGIND for the purposes of establishing notability. The other link is simply a map pointing out that the club is on the site of an air raid shelter, no in-depth information on the *organization*. Fails CORPDEPTH. Neither of those sources are meet NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since the Devas Club/Institute is largely of historical interest and note, I am seeking help from a historian colleague to find more in-depth articles from historical sources (not likely to be online). I hope to have more information on this next week. I believe this book includes coverage, but do not have it to hand: Terry Powley (2014), Getting On With It: A History of London Youth ISBN 978-0957087323. Overall, I believe there is coverage that is not available online. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Viraj Adhav[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage (only some routine and trivial coverage exmple: Filmibeat, Blogspot.com, YouTube ) from independent, reliable sources, hence does not meet WP:GNG , and definitely does not meet WP:NACTOR . PravinGanechari (talk) 09:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PravinGanechari (talk) 09:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Finnell[edit]

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

Cannot find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOLITICIAN. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Edwardx (talk) 09:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:17, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with nom. --Bduke (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayors don't get an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL just because they exist; the notability of a mayor hinges on being able to write and reliably source a substantive article about his political significance: specific things he did in the mayor's chair, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects his mayoralty had on the development of the town, and on and so forth. But there's nothing like that here — and for added bonus, the town has a population of just around 4K according to its article, and the mayors are not directly elected but are selected by annual rotation from within the city council, and that kind of mayor gets even less of a presumption of notability in the absence of sourcing than the elected kind. Bearcat (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 01:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Kazanstyle (talk) 09:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mayors of places with under 5,000 people are almost never notable for being mayor of the place, and nothing here suggests this person would be one of the very extremely rare exceptions to that rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 11:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Substitution failure is not an error[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG.

A reasonably obscure C++ feature. Poorly sourced with primary sources only. No indication of notability found while performing BEFORE. Kleuske (talk) 09:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The topic seems to be discussed in a reasonable number of books about C++: [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] (and more with a Google Books search). It may be more fruitful to search for the abbreviation "SFINAE", which I think is more commonly used than the full phrase "substitution failure is not an error". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by Mx. Granger. The SFINAE article at ccpreference.com is also a reliable source. The topic meets WP:GNG. This language feature is part of what makes template metaprogramming work and as shown above, is a commonly discussed topic in the C++ community. I wouldn't be opposed to moving the article to SFINAE, which is the more commonly used name for it. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 10:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GNG, Mx. Granger has proven notability. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think based on sources provided by @Mx. Grangerthis meets GNG. Jawad Haqbeen (talk) 02:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tarring and feathering in popular culture[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A mostly unreferenced collection of trivia aka list of works that mention Tarring and feathering. Such a list fails WP:LISTN, and the article fails WP:GNG/WP:IPC. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC) PS. Sources cited in prior Afd seem fine for expanding the artcle abou tTarring and feathering but are not obviously connected to the topic of Tarring and feathering in popular culture (ex. [24]). Although it is possible something could be rewritten using [25] and/or [26], the point is that pretty much nothing in the current article is rescuable, and a total rewrite would be needed (so, WP:TNT applies). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Popular culture, and Lists.
Keep per the sources provided at the previous nomination which demonstrate that this topic has indeed been treated in the literature. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Trivial collection of pop culture not suitable for an encyclopedia. If any actual relevant sources are provided, they should be explored in the main article in the context of a proper prose discussion on the topic. If it proves to have too much weight, then the topic can be split out at that time. Nothing in the article looks to be suitable for merging or retention. TTN (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A TV Tropes style list of basically any time the concept of being tarred and feathered was mentioned in pop culture, no matter how minor, with absolutely no reliably sourced content discussing or analyzing the topic. While an actually sourced, prose discussion on the main Tarring and feathering article is very likely possible, this article is certainly not it, and should not be preserved for such an attempt as even the few potentially notable examples have no sourced content discussing them here, and no information outside of "it happened in this thing". Rorshacma (talk) 16:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete textbook example of WP:NOTTVTROPES. No evidence that this is a topic worth listing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is - as noted, there were sources provided at the previous AfD that demonstrated that the topic meets GNG. And as noted then, deletion is not cleanup. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not more than a trivia. GenuineArt (talk) 05:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article needs clean-up, trimming and sourcing, but there are a number of secondary sources available both on individual entries appearing, and appearances in fiction more broadly. Enough so that a non-stubby article could be created, so I don't see the problem with notability. So this article should be improved rather than deleted in accordance with WP:AtD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daranios (talk • contribs) 09:29, July 18, 2022 (UTC)
- And in addition, the Encylopedie des Märchens [encyclopedia of the fairy tale], p. 305-309, has a chapter dedicated to tarring and feathering, focussing mainly on folk tales/fairy tales/droll stories, but also includes the literature and comics we have here. If the notability issue should hinge on the title "popular culture" as opposed to "in fiction", why are leading a deletion discussion here rather than a what's-the-best-name-for-the-topic-discussion? So far for notability. As for WP:TNT, quite obviously not all of the article's content is useless, as some of it (with this being just one example) is discussed in secondary source in would appear in a "good" article or article section on the topic. So the "TNT tipping point argument" does not apply. Daranios (talk) 10:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Theoretically, this could be fixed" is a rather useless observation if nobody actually fixes it. Considering that you made the same argument more than a year ago during the previous AfD and the article still hasn't been fixed—by you or anybody else—it rings rather hollow. I'm all in favour of turning garbage TV Tropes-style lists like this into into proper prose articles about the topic when they are brought to AfD—I have done so myself multiple times in the past, see e.g. WP:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Earth in science fiction (2nd nomination), WP:Articles for deletion/Space stations and habitats in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Supernovae in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Neptune in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Genies in popular culture (2nd nomination), WP:Articles for deletion/Battle of Thermopylae in popular culture, and WP:Articles for deletion/Loch Ness Monster in popular culture (2nd nomination). If you've looked at the sources and think you could write a decent article based on them, then do that. You have talked the talk—will you now walk the walk? I'm sure you mean well, but Piotrus is right: what you are doing is worse than useless, it's actively counterproductive to actually creating a decent article on this topic. TompaDompa (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - @TompaDompa: Nobody's working on it is an argument that should be avoided in a deletion discussion. If we were to delete all imperfect articles, there would be no Wikipedia (though, granted, this one is rather far from perfect). The obligation to improve an improvable article is not on anyone specifically. If it were, shouldn't it be first and foremost on those most distressed with the current state, i.e. the deletion !voters, in case it becomes clear that it is improvable? Your record of constructive work on Wikipedia is beyond question. I would work on this article if I had unlimited time. I like to believe that I am doing constructive work here, too, in the limited time I have, and whenever I am not caught up in deletion discussions. Sometimes on articles nominated for deletion in the past, sometimes on ones nominated now, sometimes somewhere else. Why should I specifically spend my time here and not there? Nominating an article for deletion is easy. Improving an article is quite a bit of work. If I !vote keep again at another deletion discussion, should I improve that, too? Should I abstain from deletion discussions because I am not personally improving all articles nominated for deletion? That doesn't feel right. Daranios (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - Keeping a garbage (not just "imperfect") version of an article like this does not get us any closer to having a decent version of that article—if I were rewriting this to get it up to snuff, I would not keep any of the current content—but deleting the page so we may WP:STARTOVER actually might. If you want there to be a decent article on this topic, you should either be in favour of deleting it and starting over from scratch or rewriting it from scratch without deletion. Arguing that it should be kept because it could theoretically be improved, when that demonstrably hasn't worked, is not constructive. TompaDompa (talk) 15:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        @TompaDompa: You are entitled to that opinion, which I don't share. The existence of this article in no way hinders anyone to create a better version from scratch if they like and don't want to use elements of the existing one. Would it change your opinion for the future if I were to "walk the walk" in this case? Daranios (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        It would demonstrate that you are willing and able to rewrite TV Tropes-style lists to proper prose articles about the topic, which would be a good thing since there is a dearth of editors who do so (the only ones I know of who somewhat regularly do so are Piotrus and myself). I'm not asking you to write a 10,000-word, 100-reference WP:Featured article—when the AfD for Earth in science fiction closed, it looked like this (the rest of the expansion and improvement to WP:Good article status was done by Piotrus later), and when the AfD for Eco-terrorism in fiction was closed it looked like this (I have expanded it slightly since). Removing the garbage and writing a short stub is a major improvement and doesn't take that much work if you have already located the necessary sources. TompaDompa (talk) 15:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        @TompaDompa: I'll do that as time permits. I am curious how much of the current entries will remain. Daranios (talk) 07:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        
        @TompaDompa I do believe User:Uncle G has done nice rescues and rewrites in the past. Just saying. Feel free to point to others. Maybe we can form a proper ARS project :P --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Right. The author of WP:CARGO also being someone who does that makes perfect sense. Still, it would be nice if more editors would do this. TompaDompa (talk) 12:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. When 99% if not 100% of existing content violates OR/MOS:POPCULT/etc., TNT is the solution. Granted, second to the total rewrite. But keeping a list of trivia b/c a related topic might be written from scratch is bad. Most editors who'd like to help won't bother, as they are afraid to delete the existing garbage. We need to provide them with the clean slate. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not have references to establish notability for this topic, let alone meet WP:LISTN / WP:IPC / WP:OR. Would not object to a redirect to Tarring and feathering which is more appropriately constructed. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Excessive pop culture trivia, sources brought up in this discussion & previous AFDs don't demonstrate notability as a standalone topic, the few good sources brought up by nom could be incorporated into the main article for Tarring and feathering, but I don't think anything from this article is worth merging. Waxworker (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arie Widiawan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; WP:SINGER, references are scanty, non-RS and broken - and any scant notability belongs to the band Lingua, not Widiawan. Redirect removed, essentially saving Scope creep a job... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Indonesia. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Osama Said[edit]

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

Non-notable + Unambiguous advertising or promotion. None of the refs are actually about the person in question or reliable. Check first 2 refs for example, it's not about this person, you just see a name in crew list or something, that's all. Things like IMDb and Elcinema are user edited and unreliable. It seems like it's filled with refs like this to make it seem it has lots of refs when in fact it does not have anything useful. Cantthinkausernamenow (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Syria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 11:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rohitash Gaud[edit]

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

Actor doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO - lacks in-depth coverage in non-routine sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Haryana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NACTOR #1 for lead role in Bhabiji Ghar Par Hain! and Lapataganj and significant roles elsewhere. -- GreenC 15:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dhuruva Natchathiram[edit]

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

No reliable sources. Also searched the Indian Express and Kalki archives, but found nothing. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found no evidence of notability. A few matches in the Wikipedia library appear to be about a proposed 2013 production, rather than this. Please ping me if good sources are uncovered. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dalrada[edit]

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

promotional and non-notable DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

South Africa at the 2014 African Youth Games[edit]

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

Violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Majority of this article cannot even be reliably sourced. ––FormalDude talk 05:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Africa, and South Africa. ––FormalDude talk 06:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This nomination, having received few or no comments from any editor with no one opposing deletion, and having never been declined for proposed deletion in the past, is eligible for soft deletion. The closing administrator can treat the nomination as an expired PROD and follow the instructions listed at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Procedure for administrators. ––FormalDude talk 15:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indiscriminate list of names with no prospect of ever having substantial reliably sourced prose. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Levi Avelino[edit]

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

The sources listed here are lacking in credibility-- several do not have named authors, and none seem to be from known reliable independent source that discuss the subject in any kind of depth. There are a great number of claims ("beatmaker", "musician", "composer", "singer", "dancer", "producer") which are not adequately supported by any of the references (esp. given that the subject is only 15). Subject has yet to win any kind of award for any of his work, and does not qualify as notable per any of our SSGs. And if he is notable for his work in Brazil. why is there no article in the Portuguese Wikipedia?? A loose necktie (talk) 06:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Let the AfC decide. I also feels the same as per nom. Onmyway22 talk 06:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's no article at pt:Levi Avelino because it has been delete thrice and salted after AfD at pt:Wikipédia:Páginas para eliminar/Levi Avelino Brito. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 08:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks reliable, independent and significant sources, and the ptwiki history doesn't help at all. No need to let AfC decide when we can do it at AfD. ~Styyx^Talk? 21:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Hazel[edit]

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

Non-notable political candidate; fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sources covering him are mostly just WP:ROUTINE, WP:LOCAL election coverage, with no sources providing WP:SIGCOV that I can find. Curbon7 (talk) 06:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Libertarianism, and Georgia (U.S. state). Curbon7 (talk) 06:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2020–21 United States Senate election in Georgia#Libertarian Party. As I said in my edit summary the first time I redirected this, losing politicians generally fail WP:NPOL and this article is almost entirely based on routine campaign coverage * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they didn't win — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable political office, not just running for one and losing. A candidate needs to either show that he had preexisting notability for other reasons besides unsuccessful candidacies, or that he has a credible claim to his candidacy being a special case of greater and more enduring significance than everybody else's candidacies, but this demonstrates neither of those things. No prejudice against restoration of a redirect from the redlink afterward, but the article should be deleted first since there's no value in retaining it in the edit history. Bearcat (talk) 20:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mostly local campaign coverage, does not meet WP:BASIC. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 04:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and Bearcat. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is not enough to demonstrate notabiluity. Someone who gets less than 0.5% of the vote really needs good sourcing to show notability, and we do not have that here. In fact even people who come close to winning in the type of elections he was in are almost never notable for that, someone getting so few votes not really. The claim that he was crucial to the outcome is not actually supported by most sources on the election in question, most such sources argue other factors were way more important. I have read quite a bit about this election, at least in general analysis, and never seen this person mentioned as a factor at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. It needing more cities in the list with top 100. (non-admin closure) Heraldrist (talk) 05:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities proper by population density[edit]

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

This list is actually very incomplete since August 2017. Above from the topic, the capital city of the Philippines, Manila, is actually on the list. Other cities such as Kotsiubynske in Ukraine is listed. Athens is actually is not on this list, as the capital city of Greece. Heraldrist (talk) 05:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Heraldrist (talk) 05:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sold on the list topic, but is the current deletion rationale that the list is missing info and/or outdated? That seems an argument for updating, not deleting. CMD (talk) 06:00, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This the List of cities by population density, which Bluesatellite moved to List of cities proper by population density on 7 March 2020‎. The move apparently went unchallenged, so now WP has no list of densest cities other than that with the qualifier proper. As CMD pointed out, that the list is out of date is an argument for updating, not deleting it. Worthy of note is that the list of largest cities also shows population density; though the two lists can't be merged, for their inclusion criteria is not the same, the list of densest cities could—and perhaps should!—be updated from the same sources as the list of largest cities. — Guarapiranga ☎ 05:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to note that, while Heraldrist says this list is actually very incomplete since August 2017, many of the sources are dated as recently as 2020, and some even 2022. — Guarapiranga ☎ 05:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 2nd noteworthy observation, and Twinkle should really automatically include this in XfD's, are the redirects to this page, that would be orphaned by its deletion:
— Guarapiranga ☎ 06:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "incomplete" is not a reason to delete an article. You are very welcomed to improve the article and make it complete. Bluesatellite (talk) 05:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it, please. And as for updating, I would recommend to see an additional list on megalopolises (or at least "mega"-"polices" with 1 mil residents). Because French 50'000-something cities seem to be a part of a major "agglomeration" and enjoy its neighbors' infrastructure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.89.66.133 (talk) 08:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, all it needs is some tender love and care and it will become a better article.PrisonerB (talk) 08:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it needs add more cities from the list. Heraldrist (talk) 03:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 18:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kalwant Singh (drug trafficker)[edit]

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

Fails WP:CRIMINAL. Nothing in the article indicates he was some outstanding drug dealer and the seized drug amount is just 120 grams. The referencing largely relies on media circus with no lasting impact. In a bigger picture, Capital_punishment_in_Singapore#Statistics show that each year several people get executed in the country on various charges, including drug trafficking. Brandmeister^talk 15:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Brandmeister^talk 15:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Singapore. – robertsky (talk) 17:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 18:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The case of Kalwant was one of the high profile cases that highlights how, from the POV of the activists and international organizations, the death sentence only affects the drug runners and not the kingpins, and it also receives international media coverage during the final years/months leading up to his death. If it means that every article should be deleted for not having long-lasting effects, does it mean that Shanmugam Murugesu should have been deleted as well? NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 02:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Executions in Singapore are controversial and now more notable as they are not frequent, especially as it was for drug trafficking and not murder. The subject is receiving widespread and international coverage across the globe, including in the United Kingdom and the United States: [27], [28] Inexpiable (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To your own point, the matter of significance is the acts of the state of Singapore. The specifics of any criminal are circumstantial to both the coverage and the media's interest in covering the story. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I beg your pardon, but think about it, the whole world singled out Singapore specifically due to the international law standards which did not include drug trafficking as one of the worst offences (they should have included it actually), and Singapore did not follow it. It was precisely why they have such sensitivity to paid this particular attention to Singapore executing drug traffickers--NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 00:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was getting coverage since 2017.[29] Recent events have also brought international coverage per Kalwant Singh (drug trafficker)#Aftermath. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 07:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anti-death penalty movement in Singapore has been going strong since Nagaenthran. These people are the embodiment of the movement, at least during this period of protests. -Jiaminglimjm (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GreatCaesarsGhost. This amounts to coatracking of advocacy against the death penalty. Stifle (talk) 10:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject seems notable enough thanks to media coverage and the international response to the incident. StartOkayStop (talk) 05:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article is dealing more with the capital punishment debate as well been notable enough for large Marcia coverage. The fact the drugs were in such a small quantity adds to general discourse of the capital punishment debate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizcallers (talk • contribs) 20:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, yes it might need tidying up but there is plenty of coverage here. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ménage à 3 (webcomic)[edit]

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

The sources in the Ménage à 3 are pretty bad, consisting of an interview, a myriad of self-published blogs (one has an obvious pseudonym for the writer, one has a Wordpress domain) or otherwise unreliable-looking sites, and the comic itself. Regarding the comic's creator, her page is cited mostly to her own works, to the sites of non-notable awards she's won, or to articles about works she collaborated on which only mention her in passing. Most of her other works are redlinked.

I was unable to find any better sources in a WP:BEFORE for either the comic or its creator. Most of what I found was again, unreliable sources or superficial mentions. The Joe Shuster award may be more notable than certain other webcomic awards, but it alone is not sufficient for WP:GNG or WP:NWEB in the absence of more substantial sourcing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Comics and animation, and Webcomics. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Comics Alliance is not a self published blog. Artw (talk) 05:50, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but the article needs a substantial rewrite. The Comics Alliance source is reliable and substantial (as discussed by the Wikiproject for Webcomics); the Joe Shuster Award is reliable and meets the criteria in Notability (web) = "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. Ideally, this award itself is also notable and already has a Wikipedia article." To me, this is enough to meet the standard for notability. However, the article is a mess – the statement in the header that it "is consistently rated amongst the top 50 webcomics annually" is in no way true – so if this article is kept I will strip is back to its most basic sourced form. HenryCrun15 (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Ménage à 3 to the page on Gisèle Lagacé. I believe this specific webcomic has gotten so little coverage that it can easily be covered in the article on the creator. Lagacé is also covered (at least in passing) by lots of other publications. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 17:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't realize this was a bundle; don't those usually look different? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 17:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an NWEB pass. There's enough in the available reliable sources (Comics Alliance, Lambiek) for a solid stub, and more could reasonably be added from the marginally reliable sources already used. I agree some trimming/rewriting is needed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as one suggestion has been to redirect one nominated article to another so I want participants here to be clear about their opinions on BOTH articles being deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, my Keep vote is for the Ménage à 3 article. I don't have a well-informed opinion to share about the bio. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Same; I didn't notice that this nomination covered two articles, and I haven't researched the second article. HenryCrun15 (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - You two don't feel like the webcomic article is better served merged into the biography? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not necessarily, especially if the artist herself doesn't meet notability standards. Which sources discuss her more than just in passing? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as I think Joe Shuster Award confers some notability. Borderline, since other cited sources are very niche, and I was not impressed by the (removed) claim that "Ménage à 3 is consistently rated amongst the top 50 webcomics annually" which was based on a 2008 article in ComixTALK which doesn't strike me as very reliable (niche website of unclear RS, analysis seems amateurish). Bottom line, if it didn't win JSA I'd vote delete. Winning the award, however, is a sign of some visibility and significance. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There's plenty of keep votes, but this is probably very borderline. Still, I am, very weakly, going to go with weak keep. There's no hope for this to meet GNG, and the poor article will forever be a start/stub class article (the latter possible if the poorly refed parts are rm). All of the refs, except for Comics Alliance, which has a WP article, are SPS. Even Comics Alliance seems questionable. On one hand, it's notable (I assume so, I haven't checked the WP article on Comics Alliance's sources) enough to have an article, and it won an award. On the other hand, it looks unprofessional to me, and lacks any editorial policies. Also, how is this an RS? It's popular and high-profile, but doesn't have any editorial policies, and its FAQ says If you are a published comic artist, please mail us a short biography with a focus on your career in comics to Lambiek. Also include (links to) some samples of your published comics work. This doesn't seem reliable to me (where's the fact-checking and editorial policies)? So, GNG, or the first criteria of Notability (web) isn't meet. The second website says that the website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. Ideally, this award itself is also notable and already has a Wikipedia article. That's probably the case Joe Shuster Award, which seems notable enough and has some refs. Is it very prominent? Probably not. But I guess it meets the "well-known" mark, and it's indepedent. On this basis, I think it saitsfies the second Notability (web) criteria and I support weak keep, but I also agree with Piotrus that if this didn't win the award, deletion would certainly be a better choice. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 01:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Infographics Show[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. The result of the previous discussion was keep but most arguments boiled down to WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. I will address each of the sources cited both in the article and in that discussion:

Forbes: Published in the "contributors" (/sites) tab, thus unreliable per WP:FORBESCON.
The 961: Lebanese news website with unknown credibility or editorial oversight. The article itself is not thorough coverage of The Infographics Show but merely a piece criticizing it for the contents of one video.
Medium: Medium is a blog hosting service, a self-published source, unreliable per WP:MEDIUM.
Interesting Engineering: Appears to be a decently reliable source, but again, it covers only one video and is mostly trivial.
HiFi Public: Another obscure and sketchy website with no evidence of editorial oversight. Only trivially mentions the channel in a list of other YouTube channels.
Time Out: It's an actual magazine and thus reliable, but again, only mentions The Infographics Show rather briefly in an entire list.
Insider: Once again, a very brief and trivial mention.
Daily Collegian: Ditto. Mentions (or rather, simply name-drops) The Infographics Show literally once. As a student newspaper, it's marginally reliable.
Naibuzz: Another egregiously poor source, which is basically a CelebrityNetWorth page (which is an unreliable source) written in article format.
El Español: A legitimate newspaper, but again, makes a very short and trivial mention of The Infographics Show.
Gizmodo: Ditto. I'm feeling like a broken record.
We Are The Mighty: Yet another obscure website. The article itself is a glorified summary of a video.
Alt News: An apparently legit fact-checking website, but only mentions The Infographics Show at the very end, linking to one of their videos.

It appears editors who voted "keep" in the previous discussion simply put "The Infographics Show" on Google and copy and pasted random links, which is textbook LOTSOFSOURCES and a sloppy way to argue for keeping an article. If these trivial, obscure and sketchy sources is all they could find, one would be hard pressed to find anything better. There seems to be nothing notable about The Infographics Show. DannyC55 (Talk) 23:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would like to see interested editors weighing in here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would agree that as far as notability goes, it's not the strongest article subject one could find. However I would argue that the notability is there. I do agree with a lot of DannyC55's analysis above, but not all of it. The InterestingEngineering site, for example, is not a trivial mention as defined by Wikipedia consensus, and falls squarely into significant coverage. As for sources like wearethemighty.com, believing that a source is obscure does not discount that source from being a reliable source. Time Out mentioning the channel briefly does not discount it as contributing to notability. Per WP:GNG: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The Time Out source meets that criteria. When also taking into consideration some of the sources in the first AfD such as this one, I think it does create enough notability to meet WP:GNG, but just barely. - Aoidh (talk) 01:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree that my assessment of Interesting Engineering and Time Out wasn't ideal; they do count as reliable sources and make non-trivial coverage, so I retract that part of my nomination. DannyC55 (Talk) 01:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think we need to have a discussion on notability and YouTube channels. The Infographics Show has over 11 million followers, that has to count for something. If this was any other media platform this wouldn't even be a topic of discussion. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 10:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. From the sources, listed above, some of the articles are on a single video, not on the YouTube channel. I don't believe that there is enough on the channel itself to warrant a page. SWinxy (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 03:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete mostly per nom. Article is borderline, and for such a popular channel, I was surprised by the niche coverage. Interesting Engineering might be one for GNG, and it has an about us page on editors, with the editor in chief having a magazine. The article is... okay at best. I don't agree with Time Out counting to GNG. Per AfC, it says, References about the subject — at least one lengthy paragraph, preferably more. This has three sentences and one in brackets, and is too short to me, so maybe counts as half? Others, including Alt News, Insider, Gizmodo, and so on, are RS, but only have one sentence, so is trivial. Trecebits is also probably too short to count to GNG. I agree that other refs (Forbes contributors and other niche websites) are not reliable, so I am leaning weak delete. I don't think the YouTuber channel subs count mean much, sure, 11 million is an achievement, but the Notability (company) says that Views, hits, likes, shares have no bearing as establishing whether the coverage is significant. Many thanks, ping me if more refs are found (I couldn't find much else). VickKiang (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 05:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Poe[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Created a bunch of webcomics that don't have their own articles. Won an award which many other AFDs have deemed insufficient. Sources are primary, unreliable, or tangential. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Webcomics, and Ohio. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The first citation is from the Intelligencer Journal, which appears a reliable source, but the citation in this article is broken. I would be keen to see if this article can be found. Between this and the CBR coverage, it is possible that this subject has multiple independent substantial pieces of coverage. However, I can't find the Intelligencer Journal article. HenryCrun15 (talk) 08:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly can't find the Lancaster Online article through the Wayback Machine and Webcite isn't currently working for me. It likely wasn't archived anywhere. I think that per WP:SOURCEACCESS, it still "counts"(?), but that's a weird situation of course. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 17:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral – There are few sources to work with. The CBR and ComixTalk reviews are great, and I found Poe's name listed in this weird Bleeding Cool article. The WCCA win brought me over to neutral. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 17:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Setting aside Web Cartoonists awards status, which I still think are not terrible (but I acknowledge a number of others have dismissed), he didn't win them, his works did. It's a small difference, but WP:INHERITED suggests its important. As I don't see much coverage of him (I think CBR coverage is borderline SIGCOV and also not far from a press release), I am forced to agree he probably doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per nom and Piotrus. Ref 1 can't be opened, ref 2 says is a press release and is barely SIGCOV, plus CBR is marginally reliable to me, either way, it's difficult for that to meet GNG. Ref 3 is a blog, so isn't an RS. The final ref is a is an award, with a borderline notable article (that survived 4 AfDs) citing (mostly trivial, but just with barely notable) mentions, I'm not sure if it's notable for Poe's webcomic, but note this AfD is on Poe, not the webcomic. As notability isn't inherited, and the award doesn't count towards significant coverage for the webcomic creator. Ref 2 and 4 probably has some good info (but aren't significant), but there isn't any related topics to merge to, so I support deletion. VickKiang (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Chris Crosby (comics). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Last Blood (webcomic)[edit]

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

Yet another webcomic from the ancient times. This has been tagged for sources since 2009 with none forthcoming. The current ones are either the comic itself or self-published content, with none better found in a WP:BEFORE. Previous AFD was all the way back in 2008, and consensus has changed on what makes a webcomic noteworthy. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[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?)} 03:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ETA: The previous AFD was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Last Blood, which was kept due to a supposed review in Variety. However, I was unable to find this review anywhere. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chris Crosby – The webcomic is currently covered there with more reliable sources than it is covered here. The Variety article is cited there, as well as this Fleen article. There's indeed not much else. It's probably not even in Crossby's top 3 most famous webcomics, none of which have articles of their own. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 17:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect proposed but to a non-existent article. Any other suggestions?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redirecting to Chris Crosby. No substantial sources. HenryCrun15 (talk) 04:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. SOFTDELETE please (no need to delete the histor). But I concur, GNG is not met, no need to keep this fancruft as a stand-alone article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not possible to redirect to Chris Crosby which is a disambiguation page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, sorry, to Chris Crosby (comics). HenryCrun15 (talk) 04:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Story of Saiunkoku#Plot. However, if someone would like to work on this in draft space in the hopes of attaining notability required for a separate article, I'm happy to provide the text. Star Mississippi 01:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Story of Saiunkoku characters[edit]

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

Per maintenance tags, it's 100% unsourced, in-universe fancruft. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 07:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 07:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Link20XX (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article does not feature any of the 14 reasons for deletion. While it does need more citations (it currently only has one), a lack of sources on the current version of the article is not justification for its deletion; sources only need to exist somewhere - it's our job as editors to add them, not delete the article where they belong instead of adding them. See WP:BEFORE regarding these points, in particular Section C, item 1: "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." None of the points raised is unfixable through normal editing. I am phrasing it a bit differently, but I am basically saying what kbabej described in more detail on your talk page regarding some of your other AfDs. (Incidentally, I disagree about the length of the article being an issue. We're talking about a 22-volume series of books that spawned two multi-season anime adaptations and a spin-off manga. The cast is large and well-developed, and there are many differences to be noted between the different versions of the series. The writing could be tuned up, but our bias here should be toward inclusion [when something is worthy thereof] rather than making articles so short they could be read in milliseconds.) Edited to clarify: the citations that I was referring to include press releases such as [30] and [31], reviews like [32], and of course the books/manga/anime themselves. These are the standard types of materials for references on list-of-characters pages (see List of Naruto characters, List of Cardcaptor Sakura characters, and List of Fruits Basket characters). This discussion has already turned up five citations with quick online searches, and the Japanese article has two that could be ported over as well - all of which an editor could and should have included in the article in the first place rather than jumping to deletion. It's more than a little frustrating to see a non-administrator who had never edited this article first PROD'ing it, then deleting it unilaterally after the PROD was removed, and finally responding to its restoration with an AfD instead of putting in the work to improve it. WP:ONUS assumes that the editor nominating an article for deletion has met their responsibilities under WP:PRESERVE, which include adding citations. However, even before that: WP:BEFORE supercedes WP:ONUS in this case. Per WP:BEFORE, this article should not have been AfD'ed. (I would remove the AfD myself, but I think my role in the earlier PROD/restoration of the article might make me involved as per WP:CLOSEAFD even though I have never edited this article before and only came across the PROD because I was looking up some information about a Saiunkoku character the other day.) Whether or not anyone voting here feels that the article could be condensed and moved into the main Saiunkoku page is irrelevant, because the standard for opening an AfD has not been met. Speaking of, this page was originally part of The Story of Saiunkoku page - SorryNotSorry seems to have created the page by culling material from The Story of Saiunkoku back in 2006, since which time dozens of editors have worked on the article. We're all editors, so we want to tinker, but if you're going to say it should be moved back into The Story of Saiunkoku, please provide a reason for why we should ignore the fact that it was moved to its own page in the first place. Lists of characters pages are common (see Category:Lists of anime and manga characters for more) and exist for a reason. This particular page is neither in unusually bad shape nor unusually short (or long) for the category, and the editor who nominated it for deletion did not attempt to fix the citation issue prior to nomination as they were supposed to. You don't have to think that every single page on Wikipedia ought to be there, but once it is, we need to meet the guidelines in WP:BEFORE prior to considering a deletion.Soraciel (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see why this can't be condensed to a plot summary with mention of the main characters at The Story of Saiunkoku. As for sources I have only found the primary ones used on the official websites: [33], [34] which can be used to help the main article. Unless there are reviews out there for these characters then I don't see why we need a separate list (I wish I can be proven wrong here). The WP:ONUS is on those who want this kept to find the sources needed, I am not even seeing anything over at ja:wiki [35]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I studied the sole Keep suggestion carefully but all I see are lengthy and elaborate arguments invoking policies and guidelines without a specific connection to the article. When all is said and done, we do not have sources supporting independent notability. Let's generously place a Redirect here to The Story of Saiunkoku. -The Gnome (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind explaining further? Specifically, what kind of source are you looking for, or alternatively, which parts of the three pages that you linked are you referring to? I had already linked part of the WP:V page that you linked to the word "supporting" - are you trying to respond to my point?
Also: I explicitly wrote about the article, but it is buried in the middle there - I had linked three potential sources (from a major anime news organization, MTV, and an anime publisher, so, meeting the guidelines you linked), noted that the Saiunkoku novels, anime, and manga all constitute potential sources, and discussed the page's length and history. I cited policies specifically to back up my argument that this article shouldn't have been AfD'd in the first place. Do you have an argument for why it should be? Lack of citations on the page as it is currently written does not constitute a reason to delete the page, only a reason to improve it. That said, though I'm not sure why the earlier sources I listed are being discounted, let me give it another go with a more diverse batch of sources that all meet Wikipedia's guidelines:
- "Great graphic novels for teens.(Recommended readings)," American Library Association, Young adult library services, 2012, Vol.10 (3), p.23
- "ALSC & YALSA 2012 Book Picks," New York: MSI Information Services, School Library Journal, 2012, Vol.58 (3), p.48
- "Ayanasu yume no owari : Saiunkoku monogatari fan book," Yukino, Sai, Tōkyō: Kadokawa Shoten,東京 : 角川書店; 2012
- "Actor, Voice Actor Gabe Khouth Passes Away at 46," Crystalyn Hodgkins, Anime News Network, July 26, 2019 (announcements like this are commonly used to cite voice actors in list of characters-type articles, and Anime News Network has many, many more on Saiunkoku)
- THE STORY OF SAIUNKOKU, VOL 9, Anna Neatrour, MangaBookshelf, Apr. 16, 2013
- Colourcloud Palace (Season One), Allen Moody, T.H.E.M. Anime Reviews, n.d. (post-2020)
- General Feminist-Friendly Anime Recommendations, Anime Feminist, n.d. (post-2017)
- Ep. 87: The Story of Saiunkoku Manga Discussion (with Dee of Josei Next Door), Ashley McDonnell and Dee, Shojo & Tell: A Manga Podcast, July 5, 2022
Those last four are particularly good for quotable phrases about specific characters. A few examples:
- Re: Shoka Hong: "the more ruthless personality behind his smiling exterior. While he’s an amazingly gentle and wonderful father, his past as an assassin gives a bit of an edge to all of his actions in the manga" (from the Manga Bookshelf review)
- Re: Kokujun Sa: "milquetoast" and "neurotic guilt feelings and singular lack of ambition" (both from the T.H.E.M. Anime Review)
- Re: Ryuki Shi: "openly bisexual love interest" (from the Anime Feminist recommendation)
That's just what I turned up with another quick search, so I say again: it's disruptive to AfD something without trying to fix it first, and that sort of AfD should be summarily dismissed. If someone doesn't care enough about the topic to spend a minute Googling it, how can they begin to guess at its notability? Soraciel (talk) 23:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are three potential sources that can be used there if the reviewers focus in on the characters and their development. My guess is that this would be for the main characters rather than listing every character that ever appeared in the series. YouTube is not a reliable source unless the channel is official (see: WP:YOUTUBE-EL), and the other sources you mentioned are inline "Cite your sources in the form of an inline citation after the phrase, sentence, or paragraph in question". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that inline citations would be best - that's what's been done on the other list of characters-style pages. Those pages also cite relevant chapters/episodes and articles like the Anime News Network one about the voice actor, which it sounds like you don't think should be used. Am I reading you right there, or was that an oversight? The voice actors are the one big out-of-universe aspect of the page as it currently stands, so it doesn't seem like you'd argue against citing them. (FWIW, there isn't really an introduction on this page either, and those are pretty standard for list-of-characters pages. Adding one is easy and would address the in-universe critique.)

I've never linked a Youtube video, so thank you for directing me to that page. That link was actually to a video version of a podcast episode - would the podcast itself work? It's unclear to me what y'all's expectations are for notability here. List of Naruto characters, a featured list that I linked above, has entries about minor characters and entries that only cite manga chapters and a voice actor (see Chiyo's entry for an example of both). It doesn't seem like anyone has tried to add such citations to this article.

That said, I agree that whether any given character currently listed on the page should stay is something that could be debated, but that's not what's under debate here. The only question being asked through this process is "do we delete the page?" Had the current editorial debate begun with someone suggesting the removal of a few targeted characters on the talk page, I would never have even gotten involved. It's the jump from never having edited the page to repeatedly attempting to delete it - and even actually deleting it despite not having the administrative authority to do so when the first PROD failed - coupled with the use of dismissive and pejorative terms to describe the article and its editors that I strenuously object to. This isn't neutral.

(Actually, you prompted me to look at the talk page, and the only discussion of specific characters' appropriateness for this page relates to adding Shurei Hong, Seiran Si, and Ryuki Shi to this page in exchange for deleting their old independent pages.)

ETA: Thought that it might be worth linking WP:NNC (specific guideline: "The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists (with the exception of lists that restrict inclusion to notable items or people)"). Soraciel (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your passion, the fact is, even if this article were to pass AfD, it would still require extensive editing to meet current WP standards. As it stands, it is essentially a retelling of the manga, which makes it WP:DERIVATIVE. The whole thing is written from an in-universe perspective, which is a problem per WP:WAF. I shouldn't be able to read the article and feel I have basically read the manga and right now, that's where it is. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 03:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no one has said it doesn't need editing. Rather, it's tagged to prompt us to edit it. That's what tags exist for. The AfD process, on the other hand, is not for articles that need editing - see the sentence "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." in the "Before Nominating" section of the guide to the AfD process.

If a page's bad editing is bothering you, please do fix it! It's just that "fixing it" means searching out and adding citations, revising text - such as by adding an out-of-universe introduction - and otherwise editing the article. You wrote on your talk page that you "look at [your PRODs & AfDs of articles that you haven't edited] as a way of saying, 'OK, WP, time to put up or shut up. Either whip this article into shape or let go of it.'" But, you aren't in charge of other editors! Strong-arm tactics like that force other editors to spend time on articles that you prioritize over articles that we prioritize! That's part of why so many people have reverted your edits and commented on your talk page - you're disrupting other work when you could just do the work you want to see on your own or - if you don't feel you have the relevant expertise - try to get capable editors involved by adding the page to relevant WikiProjects. You can do a lot on Wikipedia, but you are only in control of your own actions.

I mainly do minor grammar fixes (usually so small I don't even bother to log in), but when I do more substantial editing, I focus on articles about Japanese and Asian cultures, prominent women, women's issues, and cultural works by and for women and girls. I'm fluent in Japanese and have access to a lot of good printed sources on these subjects in multiple languages. This page is right up my alley. That doesn't mean that this page is my highest priority. All of those articles I just linked? They need more attention. I don't have a ton of free time, so I prioritize my editing based on my knowledge of the relevant fields and what is topical at any given time. Your judgment of how I should use my time should not supersede mine, but by pushing over and over for a deletion, you've forced me to find time to do basic research on a page that you might find to be a priority, but I do not. Really basic research - Anime News Network is the major English-language news organization, and Funimation is one of the biggest Anglophone publishers. Lists of characters pages often lack citations, in part because most of the citations seem to end up being different chapters or episodes... when characters' text is cited at all, which it often isn't. (Again see the featured list, List of Naruto Characters for examples of what I mean.)

Citation and phrasing standards mean nothing if we simply ignore anything whose page fails them instead of improving it.

And as long as I'm editing my response above, I'll add that the point of WP:Derivative is to guard against plagiarism (which this article is definitely not) by encouraging fair use (Mt. Holyoke College has fairly straightforward chart that I've directed my students to in the past to help them determine whether their research papers contain plagiarism. That's why WP:Derivative is part of a page on copyright, not the notability page. If you're still concerned, be aware that even the lengthiest, most in-universe summary of a character's narrative arc imaginable would still constitute fair use so long as the author's phrasing was not paraphrased, the summary was part of a larger work (a massive encyclopedia, for example), the work was transformative (perhaps by turning a fictional story into a reference work), and the usage would likely lead to little lost income - or possible earned income - by the author (perhaps because it guided readers toward publishers of the anime by linking them on the same page).Soraciel (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Soraciel (talk) 23:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Soraciel (talk) 23:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Soraciel. You have defended your position more than enough. Adding more input wout be over the demarcation for bludgeoning the conversation. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 13:12, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I would also support moving this to a Draft as Soraciel is passionate about the subject. This draft in particular would then need to be submitted for review. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 03:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The topic is not suitable for an encylopedia at this time. The provided sources do not seem like they would improve the article to meet WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The_Story_of_Saiunkoku#Plot or draftify. The list is unreferenced WP:FANCRUFT that fails WP:V, on the other hand, such lists are common and frankly I think we should have a community-wide RfC on notability criteria for lists of characters from various media. A list of characters should be present in the main article (The_Story_of_Saiunkoku does not have one). I cannot recommend a merge due to zero references, but if an attempt to add references would be made, I could reconsider my vote. If no attemp tto actually improve the article is made, I think a redirect, preserving the content for someone who will attempt to reference things, is a fair compromise. For anyone who wants to improve this, I'd suggest starting a referenced list of characters in the artice. The amount of plot summary in the current list is likely too much (WP:DERIVATIVE) anyway. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect - Mostly unreferenced and fails WP:V and WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:PLOTSOURCE no sources are required for plot and character summaries because it is assumed the source is the work itself. These articles are usually created because a series has so many important characters it would be WP:UNDUE to list them all in the main article (in that it takes too much of the article size). I won't give an opinion though because I don't know which characters in this series are important. Regardless if it should be split or not, as others have said the summaries need to be significantly trimmed down. Jumpytoo Talk 08:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that sourcing is insufficient in quality and especially for a BLP Star Mississippi 01:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rania Khalek[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:N, no real coverage of Khalek herself, the article consists largely of places she has worked, which does not notability make per WP:INHERITED, her views on various subjects, and the opinions of her political opponents. There are no in-depth sources allowing us to create anything resembling a biography, in fact the only biographical detail is her birthday sourced to a tweet thanking people for happy birthday wishes. Nableezy 03:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Palestine. Nableezy 03:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree there aren't sources to meet WP:GNG; being quoted in the media, and writing in the media, isn't the same as being subject to GNG coverage. Wikipedia should not be the first independent media to publish a person's biography. Levivich (talk) 03:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - mostly per nom (took screenshot for posterity). Volunteer Marek 04:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 06:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Journalism. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, she was briefly mentioned in a number of sources. But there is no in-depth coverage anywhere. She seems to fail WP:BASIC ("trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability" - that is about her). Also fails WP:CREATIVE. She seems to be "notable" only for making inflammatory comments and posts. For example, "Rania Khalek, frequently hosted as a commentator on Sputnik and RT, the latter identifying her as a contributor" [36] is not in-depth coverage, although that does define her as a Kremlin's propagandist. My very best wishes (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are plenty of sources which mention her, but almost no sources that are about her, or at least nothing that you wouldn't find for any journalist. I think the piece about Ilhan Omar retweeting her might qualify for establishing notability but really only that one, and only barely. Loki (talk) 21:26, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is a notable journalist who has worked with and interviewed numerous important figures such as anti-Putin/anti-Soviet scholar and dissident Boris Kagarlitsky, journalist and editor Robert Wright, scholar and senior fellow at the Quincy Institute Anatol Lieven, journalist/commentator Chris Hedges, etc. She is one of a very few independent journalists to have reported on Syria during the civil war (and who is fluent in Arabic, at that), as well as covering a wide range of other subjects: current events, US and international politics, labour politics, etc. She operates mainly on electronic media, with podcasts that have thousands of viewers, her own blog Dispatches from the Underclass, and with a Twitter account that has a quarter of million followers. She was an associate editor at the Electronic Intifada and co-hosts the podcast Unauthorized Disclosure. Her work has appeared at Al Jazeera, The Nation, Salon, Truthout, FAIR, Vice, AlterNet, etc. These are all prominent mainstream or progressive media outlets. She has been referenced by news outlets such as Democracy Now! and by online political commentators. It's absurd to claim she isn't notable. There are plenty of less notable subjects that have articles in WP, and so they should. Furthermore, the reasons cited in support of her article in the last Article for Deletion (21 March 2019) remain true and, of course, she has produced three more years of work since that discussion, thereby increasing her notability. Pinkville (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- But there don't seem to be any sources that meet WP:BASIC? Levivich (talk) 22:17, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Im sorry, but where does worked with and interviews numerous important figures figure at all in WP:N? This is purely a WP:INHERITED !vote, claiming that by relationship to notable topics one is made notable. No, notability rests on the coverage of the subject, not coverage by the subject of notable topics. The only source I can find that gives any real coverage of Khalek is an interview she gave to Stepfeed, but thats it, and an interview isnt exactly a secondary source to demonstrate notability. Thats the only thing resembling a reliable source that covers Khalek in any depth at all. nableezy - 02:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to provide sources which discuss her rather than sources she may have been associated with. I mean… you could try mentioning those very sources you tried to remove because you didn’t like what they said but then … that gets kind of… “complicated” for you, don’t it? Volunteer Marek 04:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A fundamental problem with this ~~disingenuous~~ AfD is that those people who want to delete are judging her notability solely on the flimsy, negative sources that are currently in the article - and because of this whole ~~wasteful~~ discussion involving edit warring and ~~cynical~~ reinsertions of dubious content that needs at least to be discussed, there has been no time for anyone to actually write the article with content that demonstrates her notability. ~~This exercise so far is a bitter farce.~~ Nableezy, notability by association is actually how notability always works - publication in notable venues establishes the notability of the creator - notability is, by definition, contingent on association. She has collaborated with notable journalists and commentators, that adds to her notability. No one is notable on their own, that's a non sequitur. Also, you're looking for text coverage of Khalek - she operates mostly in non-print media - so you're going to have to listen to podcasts and news reports that reference her or interview her and transcribe that content. This is an ongoing problem in WP, which doesn't adequately draw from non-print sources. Pinkville (talk) 12:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, what? notability by association is actually how notability always works - publication in notable venues establishes the notability? Uh, no, that is exactly not how notability works. What the actual heck, @Pinkville...I think maybe you need to go review notability policy. There is no notability inherent in being published in RS or in interviewing notable people. Notability comes from being discussed in RS. This is WP 101. You may need to do some policy review. Things have evolved around here. valereee (talk) 13:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just say this wasn't my finest moment of writing - I'm well aware of WP's definition of notability, and I was veering off into grappling with the concept itself. You'll note I did make the point "No one is notable on their own" and highlighted the challenge in providing the necessary (in WP:Notability terms) coverage of Khalek that exists almost solely in non-print media. The latter points are precisely within the scope of WP notability policy. Pinkville (talk) 01:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

disingenous - not candid or sincere, dishonest, underhanded and deceitful. And you say that while saying the exact opposite thing that policy says. Notability is not something gained by association, how does an admin not know this? But since youre an admin, I assume you know that WP:NPA and WP:AGF are expectations of all editors, especially admins, and if that is the case maybe reconsider your language.nableezy - 13:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck the offending passages - unless I missed something, in which case let me know. Pinkville (talk) 01:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like you should probably strike your vote too in light of being confused with regard to Wikipedia's notability policy. Or because "# of twitter followers" is not a consideration for WP:NOTABILITY. Also probably should mention that you were asked on twitter to edit this article on behalf of the subject and/or as a favor to your partner. Volunteer Marek 01:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't overdo it. Pinkville (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . Coverage in secondary sources looks good, e.g. dedicated articles in Commentary (magazine) in 2016, Jerusalem Post (blog) in 2014 and 2015, StepFeed (English-language website addressing Arab and Muslim millennials) in 2017, Shadowproof in 2017. Her views are reported by CNN in 2019 (interviewed on Russian state-backed outlets and freedom of information), Washington Post in 2016 (Rania Khalek, 30, a journalist who has written critically of Clinton, said the Democrat poses a more direct threat to the Muslim world than Trump) and 2017 ("'We still don’t know exactly what happened in Syria and who was responsible,' far-left writer and commentator Rania Khalek wrote on Twitter"), Haaretz, Jerusalem Post (controversial journalist and activist), Al Jazeera (Bartlett, Beeley, Fisk and Khalek, for example, repeat the regime’s propaganda almost verbatim), HuffPo (A coterie of left-wing writers and activists, notably journalist Rania Khalek, have joined Gabbard in making this case), Foreign Policy (so-called independent journalists such as Max Blumenthal and Rania Khalek ... have even toured government-controlled regions of Syria to whitewash the scale of the atrocities). I might have missed something, but it seems to me that this suffices to satisfy WP:BASIC, as there's a significant coverage in multiple sources that are independent from the subject and actually often hostile to the subject. Moreover, within the political progressive and left-wing area there are so many citations, interviews, conferences (and cancelled conferences: see this open letter, signed by influential personalities, and see this report) , podcast shows (Unauthorized Disclosure, BreakThroughNews), articles in Electronic Intifada, Al Jazeera, The Nation, The Intercept, Salon, The Greyzone, Truthout, AlterNet, etc., that I suspect she might also pass the threshold of WP:AUTHOR as The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- After filtering out the opinion pieces, the blogs, any that are yellow at RSP, etc., which are the two the provide the most significant coverage? Levivich (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Didnt you call these sources “questionable” just, like, yesterday at the RfC? And pretty much everything starting with Salon and on isn’t reliable. The Nation is just a minuscule blurb. Volunteer Marek 04:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously, am I the only one bothered by the fact that someone can show up to an RfC and be all like “these sources are not reliable!” and then come to AfD and be all like “these reliable sources show she’s notable!” when it’s exactly the same sources? Volunteer Marek 06:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am also bothered, but for the reason that they are unreliable and shouldnt be used, and certainly do not establish notability even if they were reliable. None of them provide any in depth coverage of Khalek. nableezy - 06:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Volunteer Marek. Washington Post, CNN, Jerusalem Post, etc., are perfectly reliable sources. The "problem" with them is that we cannot rely upon them to support the claim that she is pro-Kremlin and pro-Assad: that's not what they say. But they show, together with other sources that belong to her political area, that she's notable.

@Levivich. Here notability results not so much from the depth of coverage in a couple of sources but from the combination of multiple independent sources (as per WP:BASIC) and by the extent and influence of her activities within a given political area (which make her an WP:AUTHOR). If I were two choose my two favourite secondary sources they would probably be the articles in The Conversation and CNN, but I think that an overall assessment of her work as journalist and editor (as made here above by Pinkville) is probably more relevant. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:AUTHOR and tell us which requirement is satisfied. She is not widely cited, she has not created significant new concept, theory, or technique, she has not played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work that has been the subject subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, and finally her work has not (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. So what in WP:AUTHOR is met here? What source discusses her in any depth whatsoever? Assuming you mean Commentary and not Conversation, that piece is opinion, and while Jonathan Marks is certainly a reliable source on some topics, he has no publishing record on the topics of Israel, Palestine, Syria, the modern Middle East, and as such his opinion is not suitable for inclusion as a reliable source. Additionally, it is a publication of the American Jewish Committee, an avowedly pro-Zionist organization, and the idea that the political opponents of an activist are the ones that we should be basing our biography of them on is just absurd. nableezy - 08:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we shouldn't be basing our biography on them, as you say, but they are good enough for determining notability: why not? Someone may be notable for the amount and quality of criticisms they've been subjected to. Re WP:AUTHOR, my answer is "first requirement". She's widely cited, in her area and also elsewhere. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What work of hers has been widely cited? This isnt a place where proof by assertion is a valid argument. nableezy - 14:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, @Nableezy:I had missed your question until now. When I say that she is widely cited, I don't mean that a given work of her is widely cited as such. As it is often the case with journalists, what is cited are her views and her reports, her statements of opinion and statements of fact, usually quoted by attributing them to the author (e.g., "Khalek said") rather than by attributing them to a determinate work of her (e.g., "As the article 'Whatever' by Khalek reported"). It seems to me that being quoted as an author by Washington Post, CNN, Haaretz, HuffPo, etc., suffices to make you a WP:AUTHOR. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well if we are using words in ways other than their meanings then sure. But that isnt what cited means for an author. nableezy - 10:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gitz6666, being called an author by RS is, yes, enough for us to describe someone that way. It is not enough to get them over the hump of notability as an author, which is what WP:AUTHOR is about. valereee (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject is notable WP:BASIC is met. A group of editors can get together to say otherwise, but the subject is much more than WP:BARE. I agree with Pinkville, "It's absurd to claim she isn't notable." Lightburst (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lean keep: Subject potentially meets WP:BASIC based on breadth of coverage - we have multiple independent sources and there is clearly enough information to write an article on Khalek - the case seems similar to that of Max Blumenthal, as Foreign Policy notes: another controversial journalist nevertheless cited by reliable sources such as WaPo to provide balance. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The entirety of the coverage of Khalek in the FP piece is the single sentence Most recently, so-called independent journalists such as Max Blumenthal and Rania Khalek—both of whom have received funds from Assad regime lobby groups—have even toured government-controlled regions of Syria to whitewash the scale of the atrocities. People are just asserting "breadth of coverage" and it simply does not exist. This is not much off from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Collier_(political_activist). There is 0 coverage of Khalek, and people are just blustering as though there is. I hope the closer takes into account that nobody has been able to actually provide this supposedly in depth coverage anywhere. nableezy - 08:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking specifically at the line in WP:BASIC that reads: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. Now the multiple independent sources are definitely there. Khalek is a very widely published journalist. Her views may be a little or even a lot batty, but her media presence is broad. The only question is whether absolutely all of the mentions are too trivial. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting that the previous discussion was a pretty strong keep, and may contain more sources than those currently present this time around. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, the al Bawaba story, though not the best of sources, is entirely about Rania Khalek, and the coverage is certainly non-trivial. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BLPs require the best of sources, but yes that one is not trivial. nableezy - 13:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is a good example of precisely why passing mentions are not usually enough to pass the WP:GNG; it is extremely difficult to write a neutral or comprehensive article about someone when coverage is so sparse. The history of this article is basically editors arguing endlessly over how to interpret brief single-sentence references to the subject with little elaboration in the sources, and the answer is that if that is all we have to go on then we probably shouldn't have an article at all. --Aquillion (talk) 10:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

True. There is actually one source where her views are covered in depth [37], but this is apparently a blog, WP:SPS. My very best wishes (talk) 05:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as detailed biographical sources are lacking.Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 10:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't believe this article meets the level of notability required. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources are not substantial enough for WP:GNG. Mentioning someone passingly is simply not enough for recognition. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 15:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of libraries in Bangladesh. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nayla Begum Memorial Public Library[edit]

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

Non-notable library. Just a regular small library with no particular notability. I cannot find any sources online. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't speak Bangla, so I might have missed it if one of the sources turned out to be unreliable, but I think it meets ~~WP:THREE~~ WP:3REFS so it is fine by me. However, the page should be copy edited. NotReallySoroka (talk) 13:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to reflect the correct essay. Not·Really·Soroka 04:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sources are reliable or reputable. This is just a small personal initiative library. It has zero notability.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 12:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Source one is local online news site that seems far from reliable. Source two is a blog post. Source three is dead and is a local (Sylhet District) news portal. The listing to the government site gives no results. --(unsigned post by User:VinegaryMass911 )

Source 2, the blog post by "citizen journalist" Farhan Haque, is what it is. So what if the library was created at this person's initiative. There are hundreds of articles about libraries in the United States that mention they were originally created at the initiative of one person or another or of a group of women or whomever.

It is included as one of Bangladesh's public libraries in this list of libraries in Bangladesh. If it is not kept as a separate article, which would be okay by me, the topic can be merged/redirected to List of libraries in Bangladesh, where it is mentioned. --Doncram (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I'll say "merge". It is a public library in Bangladesh, reportedly having gotten its registration from a Department of Public Libraries. It can certainly be included in List of libraries in Bangladesh, and it is mentioned there. The current article doesn't have much additional info, but the source #1 and the photograph could be merged into the (otherwise unillustrated, unfootnoted) list-article, improving it. --Doncram (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consider the option of merging or redirecting article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete. I am agree with User:VinegaryMass911's analysis. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seckford Golf Club[edit]

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

Non-notable golf club. I looked for sources online and couldn't find any significant coverage. The article has been refbombed entirely by either primary or otherwise non-contributing to notability sources. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Golf and England. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps redirect to Seckford Hall? Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BLAR to Seckford Hall where the Club is (briefly) mentioned. NotReallySoroka (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I retracted the above opinion because Seckford Hall is another building on the same road, and it makes no sense to redirect one facility to its neighbour.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG. Run-of-the-mill leisure facility for which it appears that the only available sources are directory entries and passing mentions in local media. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage to be found. (comment is by User:MarchOfTheGreyhounds) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC) [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Speedy delete as requested by the author of the article (CSD G7), but in any case it was pretty certainly heading for consensus not to be kept as an article. As for the suggestions of redirecting or adding a mention to another article, any editor is, of course, free to do either or both of those. JBW (talk) 09:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2619[edit]

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

UN Security Council resolutions aren't presumed notable and the evil of navboxes encourages these sorts of creations. I didn't find sources to support general notability and this information should be at UNSMIL, not a standalone article. Redirects are costly. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Libya. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with United Nations Support Mission in Libya: I think it would be beneficial to briefly mention this at the parent page, but I concur that this is an utter WP:GNG fail. Curbon7 (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United Nations Support Mission in Libya. With no independent sources cited, this does not appear to pass WP:GNG. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Despite being the author, agree with all of the above. My vote would be to to delete and not even redirect as it is just a 3 month extension of the mandate in an arbitrary year. Thanks for the feedback. Geopony (talk) 08:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Finance by Ashraf Ali Thanwi[edit]

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

I have a dozen other problems with this article, but the big issue is that I see no evidence that this person's discussions on this subject is notable. Thanwi might be notable. Islamic finance might be notable. We're not talking about a single book by an author but all this guy's writing on finance. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Islam, and India. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Religious dissertation - a religion-based financial thesis. We wouldn't accept an article something like, "Elon Musk's step-by-step guide to making a million dollars". Same thing. — Maile (talk) 22:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This should possibly be submitted to a reliable journal from were we can reference certain ideas on articles such as about Thanwi and Islamic finance. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 05:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 01:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Praneuf (surname)[edit]

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

Content appears to have been invented by the article's creator—I'm unable to find any sources backing up the article's claims about these "nine clans". Speedy deletion (CSD A11) was declined. – Ploni (talk) 01:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and France. Ploni (talk) 01:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The entire content is dubious - literally every single statement in the article is problematic for one reason or another and it would be appropriate to WP:TNT, but also this is the sole use of 'Praneuf' anywhere on Wikipedia.en, so it fails WP:NNAME, which requires at least two articles on surname bearers for a family to merit an article. Agricolae (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced page and I see no indication that it would meet WP:GNG. With no pages of people with the surname, it does not meet MOS:DABNAME for a name list.—Bagumba (talk) 08:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 01:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Olin (TV-program)[edit]

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

While some might presume this passes WP:NTVLOCAL, I see no evidence subject passes GNG which is really the operative thing. All the sources here are from the network which broadcasts it, so they're not independent.Chris Troutman (talk) 01:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Finland, and Sweden. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article establishes that this is a TV-show on Finnish national TV, with independent coverage courtesy of Hufvudstadsbladet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Draken Bowser (talk • contribs) 11:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First of all, "All the sources here are from the network which broadcasts it" is simply wrong, even when the article was taken to AfD. For example the Hufvudstadsbladet article "Daniel Olin – mellan skjutjärn och myspys is a (paywalled) longer article specifically on this program, in the dominating Swedish-speaking newspaper in bilingual Finland, where Swedish is one of the two official languages, and was present as the article was nominated for deletion. Almost all the references to Yle are to support which guests have appeared, and the article shouldn't be discounted because it seems like the majority of the references point to the network. Furthermore, a search in Retriever Mediearkivet gives plenty of hits where the program is described more than in passing, as Finnish media (not least Hufvudstadsbladet) write about it on a regular basis. Most of the Yle references could probably be replaced by e.g. Hufvudstadsbladet, but I don't really see the point except to help pass this AfD. /Julle (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Julle. matt91486 (talk) 05:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:54, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Howie Gordon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable reality show contestant; competed on, but did not win, Big Brother. Bgsu98 (talk) 01:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bgsu98 (talk) 01:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 07:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing clearly is not there to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 05:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie Ausburn[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Won a season of Big Brother in 2005 and nothing since then; is winning one reality series two decades ago sufficient to establish notability? Bgsu98 (talk) 01:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bgsu98 (talk) 01:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to enough sourcing to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. After reading over this entire discussion, I'm not sure that even a redirect is suitable. If any editor chooses to create one, further questions about it can always be taken up at WP:RFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Heat Is On (TV series)[edit]

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

Hoax. This series never existed. There is a similarly named one-off show — Sport Relief: The Heat is On — but that is completely unrelated. The single reference in the article is circular: the article dates from 2005; the reference dates from 2008 and is obviously based on the Wikipedia hoax article. — TREY MATURIN has spoken 00:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a blatant hoax (WP:G3). Not seeing any sources that mention this before the article's creation in 2005. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 01:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy was already declined by EurekaLott. — TREY MATURIN has spoken 01:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That decline was clearly invalid. This is so blatantly a hoax. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, seems like a hoax. Will be longest a hoax article has existed in WP, WP:HOAXLIST. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 08:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and preserve at the hoax museum. 17 years is a new record. It’s staggering that this flew under the radar for that long. Even the Teresa of Jesus, Child hoax (which I successfully AfD’d) circulated for less time and was added in good faith.

Who knows how many other hoaxes slipped through the cracks in or before 2005 and are still waiting to be exposed? 00sClassicGamerFan (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax and preserve at the hoax museum. This is a new record for the longest lasting hoax article, surpassing Ruda Real. We should look for other hoaxes on Wikipedia that lasted for over a decade. 142.161.173.231 (talk) 18:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bobby Davro Delete – ~~not a hoax~~ it does appear to be a hoax, and possibly spread as a result of the WP article. A search for Bobby Davro brought up the following sources (which fail GNG but corroborate with each other that the show existed): Express UK, The Daily Mail...In the 1990s, he switched to BBC, with shows like Public Enemy Number One and talent show, The Heat Is On. And Garston-Entertainment UK He then went on to many Televison appearances and TV shows like On the Box, Sketch Pad, The Heat is on & Run the Risk. He has agents mentioning the show, Tony Denton Promotions, and Laughter UK, Central Fife Times - but nothing that spells N-O-T-A-B-L-E. ~~There are probably mentions of the show in TV listings back in the 90s that can be found in the UK's newspaper archives which may verify that the show existed.~~ I went through newspapers.com with a fine tooth comb using title + Bobby's name + 1990s + BBC and couldn't find anything. Atsme 💬 📧 02:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC) ^{added strikes & underlined text 20:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)}[reply]

The mentions in Express and Daily Mail, both generally unreliable sources, are undoubtedly WP:CITOGENESIS. It isn't surprising that the intern or whoever at the talent agency tasked with writing up the blurb just cribbed from either Wikipedia or those articles. While it was supposedly a BBC show, it does not have a BBC programme ID and can't be found on their websites. There isn't a single mention of the show in any television database or reliable source. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 04:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CITOGENISIS is the mainstay of online news media, with the exception of few, but it's referred to more often as PR wire. I am well aware that the sources I used are not RS for substantiating N or any fact-based news but CONTEXTMATTERS, and we're talking about a failed TV talent contest type of show. The other arguments here relative to it not being listed in the BBC lineup proves nothing. A better way to ascertain whether or not a TV show/series existed, is to look it up in a TV guide in local newspapers that are dated during the time the show presumably aired. I don't have access to a British newspaper archive that published a British TV guide, but if you're dependent only on its absence in a Google search, or in a Wikidata search for online BBC info, then I'm not convinced it didn't exist. REDIRECTs are cheap, and if someone is able to find that listing in a 1990's TV guide, it spares WP the embarrassment of further confirming it is an unreliable source, or that some of its editors failed due diligence. Atsme 💬 📧 10:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC) ^{Update 12:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)} I requested verification from the talent agents listed for Bobby Davro and also contacted TV Guide UK for verification. If any of those sources cannot verify, I'm not certain if deletion in lieu of a redirect is the correct route. We know there are unreliable sources on the internet that mention the show, probably because of the WP stub, and that's why it may be better to go with the redirect to Bobby Devro which does not list that show. Perhaps it would prove helpful to our readers to add a short paragraph mentioning that it was a circular reference or something along that line, and hashtag the redirect, or use an anchor for a disclaimer. Atsme 💬 📧[reply]

Update: As of July 23, 2022 - not one reply from the agents I emailed. There is so much information on the internet that simply cannot be trusted, and that includes pretty much all of it, leaving us little to choose from beyond peer reviewed scientific journals...but even then, we have to be on the look-out. Atsme 💬 📧 11:58, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, time for ((R from possible hoax))? Interesting that his own agents mention the show, and it gave me pause, but The 90s saw Bobby switching channels to the BBC, appearing on television shows such as Public Enemy Number One and the talent show The Heat Is On. (from his agents) seems copied verbatim the old Davro article--see this Wikipedia clone for example. Hopefully he or his agents will respond with conclusive evidence. Ovinus (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It could've been a PR wire that everybody used. Redirects are cheap, and they give us an opportunity to provide our readers with correct information, provided my email requests pan out. There was a reason the admin rejected the speedy nom, and that is what raised a red flag for me. I know little to nothing about British TV, but it's obvious the sources suck out loud. So, what are our options? Some of our readers will see those crappy sources (and don't know they're crappy), and believe them. But then, WP's BLP on Bobby doesn't list that show. If there's a chance the show existed back in the 90s, and a reader did see it, then WP loses credibility, not the crappy sources. It's also possible that it is a hoax that grew from WP & caused this dilemma. If I don't get a response from the 2 sources I contacted, then delete is the obvious way to go but I wouldn't add it to any hoax list until it's confirmed as such, especially if it originated in 2005 as a WP hoax, and remained in circulation for 17 years. Talk about chipping away at our credibility...wow! Atsme 💬 📧 18:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could also tweet at Davro himself; he's apparently quite active on Twitter. But yes, declining the speedy was a good call, and that seems to be common practice for even moderately ambiguous cases. Ovinus (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tried it and got nothing. Many celebs have PR folks and/or agents watching/responding on social media sites for them, so it's rare that the celeb him/herself will actually respond. Atsme 💬 📧 12:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~It's most certainly NOT a hoax, folks. It was schlock TV of the worst sort, but it was actually a thing.~~ It's just not a notable thing. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Except it most certainly is a hoax… the agent’s website is a copy-and-paste of an older version of Davro’s Wikipedia article, which, of course, linked back to the hoax article. Took me 15 seconds and 4 clicks to establish that. — TREY MATURIN has spoken 05:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree at this point in time that this is a hoax. Your research is flawed, and unconvincing to this editor, who happens to be a retired television producer, that it is a complete hoax. Find the British TV guides for that time period - check local newspapers before hanging the "hoax" tag on it. If it were a hoax, it could've been a speedy, and yet, here we are at AfD. Atsme 💬 📧 10:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A search of the BBC Genome Project shows that there was an endurance contest reality series of the same name shown in August and September 2001, long after this alleged 1990–94 series (which does not show up at all). There was also a programme on global warming called Environment: The Heat is On, aired in 1991.

So yes, the article here is certainly a hoax. Case closed. 00sClassicGamerFan (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I have checked the British newspapers available via ProQuest, Newspapers.com, Gale, etc., and there really is nothing. Here's a representative TV guide from 1992—it mentions Davro's role in Public Enemy Number One, but this show is not listed. The same was true in all the many other papers I checked. I tend to be pretty reluctant to label things hoaxes, but it's the only explanation here... Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do think this is a hoax. The original version made all sorts of extravagant claims about winning a BAFTA and "cocaine-fuelled prostitute orgies"—if any of that was true, this show would have attracted boatloads of press coverage, so the fact that there's nothing in any of the contemporaneous sources available via ProQuest, Newspapers.com, or elsewhere on the Internet makes it clear that we're dealing with a hoax. The post-2005 mentions are interesting, but they're all from dubious sources that likely aren't even enough to satisfy WP:V, which is a deal-breaker. (Put another way, there's a reason that we don't trust the Express and the Daily Mail, and it's that they have a reputation for doing things like getting their information off of Wikipedia.) I am of course glad to reconsider if reliable pre-2005 sources can be found, but that seems very unlikely indeed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Note also that an IP on the same range as the one who created this article added more obvious nonsense about The Heat is On here. This article was clearly not a good-faith contribution. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/begrudgingly move to WP:HOAXLIST. Clearly a hoax—albeit an impressively long-lived one—especially when you consider where it does appear in sources. Always either straight from Wikipedia or with so little context that it's clear this article was used. The first edits to the page, as mentioned by Extraordinary Writ, don't help its case. With an old hoax like this one it's going to be forever ingrained in the Internet in some form. Ovinus (talk) 05:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I give up. Delete it with fire anyway. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It happens.... This article is definitely a lesson to how vigilant and skeptical we need to be. I wouldn't have questioned it had I come across it organically. Ovinus (talk) 05:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's possible that The Scotsman may be a quality newspaper but the cited (and only) source is neither reliable nor does it confer notability. The mention of The Heat Is On is the briefest of all fleeting mentions, and being based on an interview with Les Dennis it has nothing to do with this TV series whatsoever and the mention of could even be an error of memory. If a 1994 show existed then there would be a mention of it somewhere on the Internet and in the BBC archives. The only mention of a TV programme of the same name is on IMDB about a 2001 reality show but although there is a full list of cast and production team, there is no description of what the show actually was. So whether or not the article is a hoax, it certainly does not belong in Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is a hoax. Every news mention of the show is copied from Bobby Davro's Wikipedia article. 142.161.173.231 (talk) 02:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, all evidence suggests that this is a hoax, or at the very least everything except the title is a hoax. Even if it is not a hoax, it is extremely obvious this is non-notable. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an obvious hoax. (It's already been added to the list of hoaxes; perhaps that shouldn't have been done until it was actually deleted?) O.N.R. ^(talk) 08:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Suprised it was not seen earlier. scope_creep^Talk 10:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Femke (talk) 06:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SCOUT eh![edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Organisation doesn't seem to meet WP:NORG- lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is well sourced. Of course the sources are from inside Scouting, but they are mostly independent of this organisation. It has been up for deletion twice before and was kept. I see no reason to delete it now. --Bduke (talk) 01:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Scouting, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:25, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments above. --evrik ^(talk) 15:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments above, and comments in previous AfD. -- GreenC 17:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Irwin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Competed on, but did not win, Big Brother and Amazing Race. Nothing notable beyond these appearances. Bgsu98 (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bgsu98 (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 07:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete a failed beauty pageant contestant who did not win the state competition even, who went on to be in a few reality shows. Nothing here shows notability at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 05:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Landin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable reality show contestant; competed on, but did not win, Big Brother. Bgsu98 (talk) 00:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bgsu98 (talk) 00:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and California. Shellwood (talk) 07:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete her collection of extremely minor roles does not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 00:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Natoli[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Australia. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we cannot justify having an article on a sportsperson sourced only to the website of the team they played for. That is not an indepdent source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 01:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC. Cabrils (talk) 03:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Hack (talk) 02:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Veeblefetzer[edit]

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

WP:NOTDICTIONARY MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not dictionary, and I find only uses of the word. These uses aren't infrequent—obviously, people find it funny—but I didn't find anything about the word. The article gives the impression of an original research piece reporting on the prevalence of the word, a piece of the sort that needs to exist in reliable sources first so that Wikipedia can draw on them. Largoplazo (talk) 03:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The editor who removed the PROD tag that had been placed on the article observed that the number of incoming links could suggest the notability of the subject. But those incoming links were coming from a single navigation template at the bottom of those articles, Template:Mad magazine. So it's a case of the tail wagging the dog: presumably, someone added the link to the template because the article existed. Largoplazo (talk) 03:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm aware of this source of incoming links and somehow missed it here. ~Kvng (talk) 13:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete found no sources discussing the word's use in length. As pointed out, all of the inbounds came from it being on the Mad magazine template. This is similar to Cowznofski in that MAD used the term but no one discussed its use in length. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per my PROD, this is OR that fails GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Procedural keep, as all participants are asking merge and there is an existing merge discussion. (non-admin closure) Venkat TL (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Naagin 6[edit]

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

It should be deleted and merged with mother article Naagin (2015 TV series) as no separate articles exists for previous 5 seasons and spinoff season. Pri2000 (talk) 10:30, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Merging discussion is already going on and arictle can not be deleted just because previous seasons don't have article.The Chaos of Stars (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a merge discussion seems appropriate but this not the venue for it. Artw (talk) 15:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: When a discussion is already happening at the show's talk page then there's no need for an AFD. ManaliJain (talk) 07:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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