The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (A10) by Jay. Non-admin closure. --MuZemike 17:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lagging (TV series)[edit]

Lagging (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Lagging (TV series)

After research, it appears that this is not about Lagging (TV series) or Princess Mirror-Belle, but is a (messed-up) copy-paste of So Awkward. The title Princess Mirror-Belle has already been salted due to repeated recreation, and so this seems to have been renamed to game the name. This is probably a candidate for speedy deletion, maybe as A10, but is being nominated for deletion so as to write up the issue. I was originally planning to nominate it for deletion because it has no independent sources, but it has no independent sources because it is a copy-paste. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The author of these articles needs to stop copy-pasting material from unrelated existing articles and instead writing content about the actual topic of the articles. JIP | Talk 00:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/salt/block The user is a timesink who needs to be forced to find something else to do. Nate • (chatter) 00:57, 4 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. If there is an argument for deletion, no prejudice against a speedy re-nomination. Star Mississippi 14:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Frank[edit]

Ted Frank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable lawyer, not meeting Wikipedia:Notability article reads like a WP:Advert 666hopedieslast (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Law, and Washington, D.C.. Shellwood (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I abstain because I haven't kept up with what WP:N is. Have the notability standards changed? I've been profiled by the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg BusinessWeek, Reuters, and a front-page article in USA Today, and many of those have reported on my work or interviewed me in other articles beyond the profiles. I agree the article is poorly written (it leaves out most of my last six years of legal victories, my First Amendment work, the Leif Olson issue, the Stericycle case, the State Street case), but that's the consequence of the weird politics of the article being created years before I was actually notable when people were trying to use my real-life identity to win Wikipedia editing battles with me on trumped-up charges of conflict of interest. (It's not a coincidence that I started doing more notable work when I stopped wasting time trying to edit Wikipedia.) Generally the answer to a poorly written article is WP:SOFIXIT rather than deletion. But maybe we've tightened up notability standards like I argued for a couple of decades ago, so being regularly profiled and quoted and winning court cases doesn't qualify by itself. -- Theodore H. Frank (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Is this nomination an accidental error? The article has been vetted by the community and has "good article" status, and lots of sourcing. If there is promotional language that needs to be cleaned up, that can be fixed. AfD is not clean up. WP:NOTCLEANUP. With all due respect to the new editor who nominated this, I suggest the nom is withdrawn. Netherzone (talk) 03:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - clearly meets WP:GNG. AfD is not clean up. It has Good Article status and perfectly fine sourcing. Netherzone (talk) 16:40, 11 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 Draftify. Star Mississippi 14:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Ben Affleck Nike film[edit]

Untitled Ben Affleck Nike film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject fails WP:NFF and WP:GNG. This should have been a draft. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Diasgree it fails guidelines. Project has received significant coverage and has begun production. Rusted AutoParts 18:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask if people don't agree, don't vote for deletion but rather for dratification, so the info doesn't get needlessly rubbished. Rusted AutoParts 18:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:NFF and WP:GNG. Principal photography has commenced, and the sources cited constitute significant coverage. Nardog (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding here that I'm unconvinced by the merge/draftify !votes below. I'm having a hard time fathoming what about, or according to what policy/guideline/consensus, being "routine" makes the coverage not significant. Nardog (talk) 13:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Sonny Vaccaro Until film is titled; this should be under the name of the subject of the film, not the actor (who's directing and not performing in the film, which adds double confusion to the title). That way RAP's concern is addressed, but the content isn't stuck under the dreaded "untitled bla-bla-blah" title at the same time. Nate • (chatter) 00:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Since when is there consensus that a film needs to have a title in order to have its own article? And he is performing in the film as well as directing it, though I'm at a complete loss as to how it'd be confusing if he wasn't—the director's name is often the most defining or identifying aspect of an upcoming film, and Affleck is pretty well established as a director (his film won Best Picture you know). Nardog (talk) 12:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm just trying to identify an WP:ATD or draftifying an article, and on the surface most loathe anything with 'untitled' in the article. I don't delve into WP:FILM that much but as a film consumer most gravitate to those actually starring in the film rather than directors because outside a few of them, we aren't titling things Craig Gillespie's Cruella. Also, please don't condescend folks; I know Ben's filmography, I just don't think the article should have his name in the title. Also per Bovineboy the coverage is indeed routine and we have time to develop this somewhere before it gets a title/starts production. Nate • (chatter) 18:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion includes a proposal for merger to Sonny Vaccaro, and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to that page on June 27. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from that page. Thanks, Kevin McE (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify The coverage for this project has been very routine, just announcements of names, production details, etc. There is nothing notable about the production itself. The coverage is not significant as demanded by WP:GNG. BOVINEBOY2008 17:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact of the matter is unless you're a Marvel or Star Wars film, the production details will always be "routine", this makes it difficult for basically any upcoming film to be able to be in mainspace. Regardless, the film's production has constantly shown up in the media, Daily Mail even writing up multiple articles about given days on set. Rusted AutoParts 21:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And? Perhaps Wikipedia should only have articles about released movies, not the routine stuff under some stage of production per WP:CRYSTAL. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A film doesn't have to be released to be notable, so I do not agree with this assertion. Rusted AutoParts 21:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify. Until the production commences and gains the necessary coverage to pass NFILM, this just isn't notable enough for an article. What we have now just isn't heavy enough to show that the production is noteworthy. If things fell through at this point in time, there wouldn't be enough coverage to justify an article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am very surprised to see this up for deletion, given the talent involved. Capt. Milokan (talk) 23:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Capt. Milokan: I'll guess you'll have to make a note at WP:NFILM so everyone knows a movie's notability is based upon "the talent involved". Chris Troutman (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Why are you being so snotty? The talent involved is why the film is being reported on as it films. Rusted AutoParts 17:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep, Draftify or Merge? There is no consensus here that this page should be deleted but the desired outcome is under dispute.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft until a title is attached. Lightburst (talk) 03:55, 10 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. Coverage has been shown to exist. Whether it should be moved to Ray Spiller is a discussion that can continue editorially. Star Mississippi 14:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Football Statisticians[edit]

Association of Football Statisticians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

fails WP:GNG, no WP:SIGCOV All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This has an entry of over a page in a print encyclopedia from a reliable publisher, as well as other sources. Do we aspire to cover less than such print encyclopedias? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "Over a page" is disingenuous. It has three paragraphs of coverage. One paragraph of which is that they collect "interesting and informative information", and then mentions examples of some of the facts they have used. That leaves two paragraphs, much of which of the remaining information is now outdated as this encyclopaedia is from 2002. Do you really think this is significant coverage? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There is nothing disingenuous about saying that an encyclopedia entry about the subject of over a page has over a page. That it consists of three long paragraphs rather than ten short ones is neither here nor there. And yes, this is very clearly significant coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  For a start there were two in the article before you made that comment, and many more can be found by clicking on "books" and "scholar" above. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There's been a fair bit of coverage in newspapers over the years especially with regard to its founder Ray Spiller who seems to have been edited out of the article, a couple of examples: The Independent (22 Nov 1997) Football: Ray Spiller has turned a hobby into a priceless commodity - and that commodity is information and the Daily Mirror (29 Dec 1996) I turn women off says the real Statto Piecesofuk (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  One article with one mention of this organisation, one article with zero mentions of this organisation. At a push, this guy may pass GNG, as the latter article says he also had his own television show as well, but the organisation definitely doesn't pass. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't have time to go through the hundreds of other mentions in the British Newspaper Archive, Proquest and archive.org Piecesofuk (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean out of all the hundreds of other mentions to have picked one that didn't even mention the organisation, I guess that was just bad luck huh. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  They were to show that Ray Spiller was behind the organization the details which you seemed to have recently removed from the article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Football_Statisticians&type=revision&diff=1095095045&oldid=1095095006&diffmode=source Piecesofuk (talk) 03:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Links to British Newspaper Archive results and archive.org results https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/search/results?basicsearch=%22association%20of%20football%20statisticians%22&retrievecountrycounts=false https://archive.org/search.php?query=%22association+of+football+statisticians%22&sin=TXT a separate search can also be carried out at Proquest https://www-proquest-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/?accountid=196403 Piecesofuk (talk) 03:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Literally nothing in any of those are WP:SIGCOV. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Just show you know this is probabally the third time User:ItsKesha has tagged this article for deletion which was declined and had previosuly received a severe administartor warning for this persistant behavior, check the talk page history that he tried to hide: [1] Dilbaggg (talk) 19:55, 5 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. SpinningSpark 14:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan J. Downey[edit]

Ryan J. Downey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. References are profiles, passing mentions and social media links, and a Spam link. Nothing of depth or quality. scope_creep^Talk 16:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed with these criticisms. I've pared it down to actually notable information and am fixing up the sources as per what you've noted. VictorCreedxXx (talk) 06:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment So far nothing has been to effectively improve the references. Ref 1,5,10, 13 are non-rs. They are unreliable sources. Looking at the other references:

• Ref 2 Profile It is passing mention
• Ref 3 Listing This is primary. It is podcast episode listing. Its not a real source.
• Ref 4 Archive of work] Listing of work at MTV News
• Ref 6 Hearst Digital Studios continues to expand its suite of online programming Hosted by Ryan J. Downey.
• Ref 7 Andy Biersack’s memoir "Written alongside Ryan J. Downey", possibly an author? Just a passing mention.
• Ref 8 Shop ref A spam link
• Ref 9 Pod link Link to the podcast.

There is no real WP:SECONDARY sources here. There is a hint being an author but no reviews of the work to prove it. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 15:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The coverage of this individual has been moderate to say the least, but the presence he has made is quite large. I think the podcast links should be considered in the future as a form of historical archive, as many a time have they corrected mistakes that authors on this very platform have created. Also, there are numerous articles on this platform with fewer references and works to back up notoriety. Nevertheless, there is enough here to maintain the article's importance. Despite the user who continually removes the history of this individual, regardless of what they feel is important, there is plenty of sources remaining to maintain this page. --Metalworker14 (Yo) 21:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The article references have been redone such that 1,5,10,13 are non-rs but they show passing mentions, for example Hearst Digital. It is the same references before. For example hollywood reporter, a passing mention. The form here is to produce three secondary sources per WP:THREE that show the person is notable. scope_creep^Talk 10:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since subject fails WP:NCREATIVE and WP:GNG. The sources are simply not there: The typical IMDb non-reference; a few interviews, in fact podcasts, though not enough of them, e.g. here, here, or here with multiple others interviewed; a simple announcement about his book's publication; the Discogs listing of Burn It Down, but not of our subject; personal blog articles such as this; and so on. At the end of the day, has our subject been an "important figure" in his field? Is he "widely cited by peers or successors"? Is he "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique"? Has he "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work"? Firmly no to all, per sources, and, more accurately, lack thereof. No matter what are our personal, art preferences might be, this encyclopaedia is not a directory of artists. Wikipedia is not a collection of random information. -The Gnome (talk) 12:04, 13 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!} 06:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dhruv Joshi[edit]

Dhruv Joshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Refs are passing mentions at best. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 16:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no question about Dhruv Joshi's notability as a tech entrepreneur and music industry executive. This article is a stub, meant to be built upon as new references are available. Not necessary to delete. Copeland.powell (talk) 13:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide quality sources, as the ones given are only mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 00:13, 5 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!} 22:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I will examine the current references:

• Ref 1 Joyner Lucas Wants to Be a Legend on His Own Terms "..weren’t for my manager, Dhruv Joshi" Passing mention
• Ref 2 Sony-backed music creation startup Tully, founded by Joyner Lucas and manager Dhruv Joshi Press-release
• Ref 3 Joyner Lucas & J. Cole Join Forces For New Single “Your Heart” "Helped by Lucas and supervisor/innovation business visionary Dhruv Joshi, the Tully Platform enables Artists and Artist Management groups to control their work processes while overseeing work items and studio resources in a single spot". Press-release.
• Ref 4 Joyner Lucas Releases New Video for 'Zim Zimma' "The song was produced by Lucas's manager Dhruv Joshi and his new producer collective Juicebox Slim". Passing mention.
• Ref 5 Joyner Lucas & Ashanti Kiss & Make Up in Incredibly Intimate ‘Fall Slowly’ Video "which he co-founded with manager and technology entrepreneur Dhruv Joshi". Another passing mention.

I was planning to do all the references, but the first five are all about Joyner Lucas, with a mention of Dhruv Joshi. There is a not a single primary source, never mind secondary that pass WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. I don't know why they are all Joyner Lucas? scope_creep^Talk 16:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete passing mentions about the individual, seems utterly non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dhruv is an entertainment and tech executive. This article is meant to be a stub article, so that other editors can contribute content over time. This article should not be deleted – instead, perhaps we put a tag on the article that states it needs stronger references. Not a nominee for deletion. Copeland.powell (talk) 12:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are more references online, just added this one from Business Insider: https://www.businessinsider.com/joyner-lucas-interview-tully-app-music-distribution-venture-2022-5?amp Copeland.powell (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is the only created this article because of the app? Also, its an interview and per policy can't be used to establish notabilily. scope_creep^Talk 13:49, 6 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 00:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Lorenzo[edit]

Brandon Lorenzo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 15:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I would strongly argue that there is sufficient mention of this notable person with multiple external citations and factual information as per the terms and guidelines. WikiHuman2021(talk) 12:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the discussion for deletion of article Brandon Lorenzo I don't agree the article should be deleted. The RS, citations and content are reliable and within the Wikipedia guidelines. I suggest it remains as is. WorldCitation123(talk) 11:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The sources are not sufficiently notable. airdrielife is some lifestyle blog that will publish anything for cash, while cochranenow.com is local in scope only. calgaryguardian.com, also local, and also just an interview. When 90% of the Career section is covering the subject's appearances on a daytime talk show, it is rather plain to see that a biography of the man is being stretched to cover obvious non-notability. ValarianB (talk) 12:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we lack sufficent reliable, secondary indepdent sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Pay for play sources, rest aren't much to help reliability. Non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:14, 5 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. Stifle (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields[edit]

Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Now that the television discussions have died down some, I figured it was time to revisit this.

Since the first AFD, I have done a second search for "Evans and Novak" + "CNN" and "Evans, Novak, Hunt, and Shields" and variants thereof. I used Newspapers.com, Google News, Google Books, and ProQuest. To a one, every hit I found was either a directory listing, a passing mention of some figure being on the show, a transcript of the show, a statement from the show being cited in an unrelated work, or false positives on unrelated works in which Rowland Evans and Robert Novak collaborated. Not a single source said anything about the show more substantial than X said Y on Evans and Novak today. The show may have journalistic merit, but this is not the same thing as notability; as Mackensen (talk · contribs) said in another AFD, a source can be reliable without being notable.

As I said in the first AFD, it's massively telling that the show doesn't even have an IMDb page, nor can anyone seem to agree on when it started or ended. One article even claims the show became The Novak Show in 2006, which contradicts other sources stating that it ended in 2002. For a show's timeline to be this muddy despite an alleged 20-plus-year run is quite telling.

In the first AFD, Nfitz (talk · contribs) cited an entry in The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows, 1946-present, but this is a barely one-paragraph entry in a television encyclopedia and does not warrant WP:SIGCOV on its own. Also presented were two obituaries on the hosts, but these only mentioned the show in passing. The last source given was catchall article on various news talk shows that only mentioned Evans Novak and Whatever for a single sentence. Questions about the reputability of these sources went unanswered. I am still not convinced that an encyclopedia listing and two obits give the show notability on its own. Rowland Evans and Robert Novak were clearly notable journalists, but the show isn't automatically notable just because they are.

The first AFD saw every participant calling for a different result, and discussion abruptly died off with no further participation even after two relists. As a result, the first AFD closed as "no consensus". It is my hope to find a consensus this time. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:14, 3 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?)} 22:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I did not cite a television encyclopaedia, User:TenPoundHammer; I cited the NY Times and the LA Times. There was no consensus to delete this a few weeks ago, and I see absolutely no point in resurrecting it again. Even if it's not kept, how is this not a redirect? Nfitz (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I explained this. You cited two obituaries and a "capsule" article, all three of which only mentioned the show in passing. When I questioned these sources in the last AFD, you went completely silent. Personally, I find it a waste of time when I start an AFD and it suddenly goes stone cold silent for two weeks. Re-nominating after a "no consensus" is a perfectly valid move if the argument to delete is still valid, which I feel that it is. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you point to where I mentioned a capsule article/encyclopaedia? Because I don't see it. As you noted in your response (which wasn't a question and didn't tag me) I assume that you hadn't read the articles I mentioned, as you were clear that there was one Proquest reference, not the two I noted. Also you claimed that it was just a trivial namedrop - which is also not true for the LA Times article - with over a dozen reference to Novak, even though the article was about Evans! Given all the false claims you make, I'm not sure why I'm beholden to respond to your last word - when it's clear clear that you are just making stuff up. Nfitz (talk) 00:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This is the article that I considered a "capsule". It only mentions Evans and Novak in passing, in the greater context of other similar shows. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Where did I cite The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows, 1946-present? Nfitz (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  ETA: There was no consensus to redirect, either, which is another one of the reasons I re-nominated. Do you still feel that the sources you cited are valid? Because I still do not believe them to be sufficient for the reasons I stated above. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I never said there was a consensus to redirect; though why a redirect wouldn't be the automatic default for such an article. Yes, I still feel the sources are valid - which is why I said keep above. And I still think you are completely wrong about nominating this for deletion. Nfitz (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Politics. WikiVirusC^(talk) 23:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I realize there's no timeframe after a no consensus result before another discussion can take place, but I feel a month and change is too soon. If last edit was the closing of deletion discussion, these concerns could of just been brought up on talk page imo. Personally from what I've found I feel Evans & Novak could have an article on their own(as duo), in regards to their work in in writing together and working on television, and this rename and such could be expanded into that, that ain't my vote but an option for future. Anyways back to keeping, The Times Tribune has sigcov, Spearfish Star has 2nd paragraph covering the show itself, USA today had a small blurb that Bill Clinton did a video tribute to the show's 15th anniversary (King, Larry (October 27, 1997). "Happy 15th to Evans and Novak". ...Rowland Evans and Bob Novak will celebrate the 15th anniversary of their talk show on CNN. President Clinton taped a congratulatory message:...). Ignoring that Larry King wrote it, as I'm focused on the fact a sitting president did a video tribute for the shows anniversary shows notability is/was well established. 30 years ago there were a lot more newspaper, and a lot less internet, and if we are able to find a few articles that made it to an archive, we can assume there are more out there. Regardless passes WP:GNG with what we have found, so as I said keep. WikiVirusC^(talk) 01:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a multi-page article in the Washington Post. For this and the discussion above, I'm happy that there is enough WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG. Here's some other stuff that might be helpful to others. There's this in Politico.This, which I believe is a repub of a New York Times article, looks useful. There are several collections at University libraries, that are only accessible in-person. We don't need them to establish WP:N, but if anyone wants to pursue...[2],[3],[4], there was one at U of Wisconsin, but I lost the link. Oh, did anyone talk about the book references? I'm not going to bother, to me this one is a cut-and-dried keep. More digging is fruitful, everywhere you look. Jacona (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Where were all you guys last AFD? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• the volume of AfDs is just too much. AfD is not my life! Jacona (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Pretty sure I added the old AfD and article to my watchlist with plan to search for stuff later, but there wasn't any activity either place until the closing so it never bumped up on my watchlist and I forgot about it until it was nominated again. WikiVirusC^(talk) 22:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• TPH, you literally prodded and AFDed hundreds of articles. You can't both do that AND complain that people didn't defend it better last time. Nfitz (talk) 07:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no sources found, unlikely to find anything further. The show existed (and I have a vague memory if it), you can find a three line mention in TV Guide online and it seems to be indexed in Library and Archives Canada. That said, we'd likely need paper sources to be used to prove notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:17, 5 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!} 22:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Taylor Hart[edit]

Nicole Taylor Hart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Zero sourcing found. Current roles stated are not notable. Prod contested because of ASCAP award, which seems to be insufficient absent any better sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Tennessee. Shellwood (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a search by the name "Nicole Hart" comes up with many other Nicole Harts. No evidence this meets WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 02:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't find sources about this woman. There might be stuff offline or on the databases, but my access is limited. The ASCAP award could mean she's a keep per WP:ANYBIO 1 ("The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times;"), but I don't think the ASCAP awards are well-known or significant enough to count. But IDK that much about music awards, so I'm just going off of the bit about the ASCAP Awards on Wikipedia. We do have coverage (albeit not in-depth) of Hart's winning of this award, so if anyone can demonstrate the significance of this award, I might change my mind. Samsmachado (talk) 02:37, 5 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!} 22:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PicNet[edit]

PicNet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I placed a PROD on this article last week with the rationale "A longstanding article about an IT Services firm of questionable notability, created in mainspace after a draft had been rejected multiple times. The article describes a small company going about its business without indication of notability. Searches find occasional listings for their products (e.g. PredictBench) but nothing to demonstrate that notability has been attained.". An Admin noticed that a previous article instance had been deleted at PROD in 2015 and so declined the PROD, so I am now bringing this to AfD on the same rationale as noted above. AllyD (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. AllyD (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don’t see any in depth coverage in RIS. Mccapra (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete could not find significant coverage to meet WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no evidence of notability, and the material comparing its revenue to the average company revenue is rather pathetic Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:54, 10 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. Sources have now been added to the article (non-admin closure) NemesisAT (talk) 09:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgeton flood of 1934[edit]

Bridgeton flood of 1934 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article cites no sources at all. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 20:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Plenty of hits in Gnewspapers confirming it happened, [5], causing a million dollars in damage, not sure if they're beyond routine media coverage of the event. Oaktree b (talk) 00:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Someone needs to add Citation. However lack of Citation is not sufficient to delete an article Greenhighwayconstruction (talk) 01:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A superficial search found sources from 1934 to 2015 discussing the flood, from books, newspapers and magazines. The search required by WP:BEFORE would have uncovered these sources, if it had been done properly. The notability standard is clearly satisfied. Alansohn (talk) 03:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sourcing problem was fixable, and I don't think there are any other problems with the article bad enough to require deletion. --ais523

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Solar Saros 151. ✗plicit 02:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Solar eclipse of April 23, 2191[edit]

Solar eclipse of April 23, 2191 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Solar eclipse of October 9, 2200 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

i fail to see how an event happening 169 years from now (that also covers another event millennia from now) can possibly be completely encyclopedic - it's certainly possible it might happen but any number of things could change in the universe that would make this unlikely or impossible. so, WP:CRYSTAL and some other stuff applies. Even NASA isn't sure. Maybe a list of NASA predicted events might be appropriate but I don't think a standalone article is, much less one that says something will definitively happen so far in the future in wiki-voice PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Then the article Solar eclipse of July 16, 2186 would thus also fall under the page. It's 164 years away. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 19:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It probably should. We cannot state something will definitively happen in Wikivoice that isn't even close to the realm of possibility of happening. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Redirect to Solar Saros 151 but not per WP:CRYSTAL. This event has a 99.999999999% chance of happening. Instead it fails WP:NOTDATABASE, because there are hundreds of these events and none of them are particularly notable. I'd suggest a mass AfD on all partial eclipses post-2070, maybe 2050; I think that'd be fairly uncontroversial. A similar mass AfD on total eclipses may annoy some umbraphiles, but I'd still support it per WP:NOTDATABASE. (Note: saw this article on the Wikipedia Discord) Ovinus (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Eclipses are very predictable events, thanks to centuries of work in classical mechanics and detailed astronomical data-gathering, so the concerns in the quoted guideline are beside the point. There could be an argument for condensing multiple predicted eclipses into a single page, but that's a question of how to present the information most conveniently, not a question of expunging it. Nor do I see how articles on predicted eclipses are "indiscriminate"; they're not just piles of statistics quoted without organization. XOR'easter (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about one list per Saros cycle containing all the eclipses of that cycle, images for each such eclipse within 500 years from now (plus or minus), one GIF of the Saros cycle, and an external link to the correct page NASA's database of these eclipses for each eclipse (incl. ones outside of the 1000-year range)? Ovinus (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    That's not unreasonable, but it's also a bigger question than one deletion discussion page can resolve. We're talking about dozens of articles, after all (the exact number depending on whether we draw a line at 2050, 2070, etc.). XOR'easter (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    That's fair. Perhaps we should start a broader discussion on how to treat eclipses at Wikipedia talk:Notability (events). Ovinus (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The only thing completely predictable about anything 169 years from now is that, you, me, everyone reading and participating in this and anything else on Wikipedia currently, and their children will all be dead. An astronomical event happening is not guaranteed. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    To be fair, Praxidicae, it's far more likely that we'll invent a method of immortality than move the Earth or Moon far enough to prevent this eclipse from happening. ;) XOR is right that this event will happen, unless astronomers since Galileo were/are collectively out of their minds. Ovinus (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Sounds like a good idea. I don't think I'll have time today to compose a decent opening for such a discussion, so feel free to start one if you'd like. XOR'easter (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I've opened an RfC there. Ovinus (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Ovinus. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 20:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Redirect Not only will every participant in this AfD be dead and gone long before this happens, so will any of our children. If Wikipedia and humanity somehow still exist in 2191, the article can be recreated then. But that's not my problem, I'll be dead long before that happens. Unless we discover the secret to immortality. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  maybe we'll discover the secret to immorality instead. :D PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or turn into a list. Bizarre hypotheticals about mortality and cosmology aside, this fails GNG and ROUTINE. It has no significant coverage beyond lists of eclipses, so Wikipedia should reflect that by including it only in a list, not in a separate article. Toadspike (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Ovinus to Solar Saros 151. I agree that the event under discussion will happen according to calculations as XOR'easter pointed out. This is thoroughly known science. But according to NOTDATABASE we should not have an article on events that don't have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. So, yes redirect is called for. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable based on a lack of significant coverage. Praemonitus (talk) 14:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as suggested. Content is risible for a standalone article, with no expectation of subject-specific expansion. This is list material. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or add it to a list somewhere, we don't need a stub article for something 200 yrs down the road. Hopefully wikipedia will still be around then, draftifying until then seems silly. Oaktree b (talk) 00:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. We should reform the eclipses articles. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 20:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The redirect option proposed by Ovinus is the most logical for our reading public. Innumerable articles on individual eclipses without differentiating content is not valuable to readers. But I must reject the theory that something 169 years distant cannot be notable and may not happen because "any number of things could change in the universe". 169 years is an incredibly small blip in history of the universe, and the universe does not change its laws willy-nilly like it is the US Supreme Court. Thus cool articles about the future like Timeline of the far future are great entries. I dearly hope this article gets recreated sometime closer to 2191 and that some descendant of mine finds this AfD and my comment! (....psst, ggggggrandchild of mine, go look up Birds Aren't Real and tell everyone we believed that in 2022, I wrote that one!!! Look at us funny 21st century humans!)--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE: There's a current RfC on this topic at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(events)#Eclipse_RfC. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:51, 6 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!} 22:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pascale Guiton[edit]

Pascale Guiton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:PROF and does not state why it is notable. (One can also see this discussion.) Biosthmors (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete In agreement with the nom at the moment, but happy to proved wrong. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:31, 4 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) 19:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No mercy in Mexico[edit]

No mercy in Mexico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not an A7 candidate as a claim of significance (namely, going viral and being the subject of commentary) has been made, but still likely fails WP:NWEB as the coverage is in KnowYourMeme and other sources of dubious encyclopedic reliability (DeathMilitia, Sportskeeda). ChromaNebula (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Notability not demonstrated. Page creator clearly has a fascination with the grim but a good article that does not make. --Pokelova (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Viral content, that doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. No reliable sources even cited. WikiVirusC^(talk) 20:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no reliable sources found, the article only has tiktok and knowyourmeme as sources. You can find it on websites, but no critical discussion about it. Oaktree b (talk) 00:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I could not find other sources, but the article is accurate. Casint (talk) 17:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Internet, and Mexico. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per above can't find any usable sources to base this article on. If WP:RSes write about it, then we can have an article. Skynxnex (talk) 15:57, 9 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) 19:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Titan Aviation India[edit]

Titan Aviation India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is not an aviation company and a broker. Does not hold any AOC / NSOP as per DGCA India website. Promotional page. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --Vaco98 (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and India. Shellwood (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Zero sources found, article has a dead website as the only source. This appears to be a webpage for the company. Oaktree b (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 1 gnews hit. Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 01:21, 5 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!} 22:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit Air (India)[edit]

Spirit Air (India) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

As per DGCA website , no such charter company exists. Google search does not reveal anything. Even their own website does not claim that their have or had any AOC / NSOP. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Aircraft bearing registration VT-IAT shown on WP page belongs to State Government Training institute. Even the source cited does not claim the aircraft belongs to Spirit Air. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and India. Shellwood (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep charter airlines are notable. --95.117.31.251 (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The issue is that there is no such airline as shown in official sources, not whether charter airlines are notable. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think the page should be deleted. It seems like the page is based on some fake airline. When you go to the website of the airline they don't mention anything about commercial flights. They don't offer any commercial or even charter flights. The destinations list on the page is completely fake as well because most of those airports were never operational for flight operations. User:Yellow alligator

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jal Hans[edit]

Jal Hans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No records on DGCA or independent sources found that this airline existed. Kindly review.. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and India. Shellwood (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete could be notable, but fails reliable sources requirement. --2A01:C22:7231:3800:DC94:D85A:E399:69DE (talk) 11:51, 4 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. Nomination withdrawn. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Brewer[edit]

Steve Brewer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Nomination Withdrawn - Previously deleted article on a writer who does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:NAUTHOR criteria for notability. The article had previously been deleted. Netherzone (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and New Mexico. Netherzone (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree. The article in its current form has never been deleted. A previous article about the subject was deleted many years ago. I thought I had provided enough sources to show notability, but I can add more if this would help. Maps Imaginary (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello @Maps Imaginary, the curation info pane shows that the article had previously been deleted. But neverthelessless, this version of the article does not seem to meet our notability criteria for a notable author. The community will decide if I'm wrong about this, and I'm not opposed to withdrawing the nom if I have made a mistake. However, to my mind the article sourcing is weak, not sure if Encyclopedia.com is considered a reliable source (there has been discussion on RSP talk); the Tsetsi citation is an interview on a blog; the KRQE citation looks ok; the Abq Journal piece seems more like a human interest piece about he and his wife's bookstore; HomeFront is his own self-published blog. I'm not finding any reviews of his work as an author, or notable awards, he doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria for notable author WP:NAUTHOR; and I don't think the KRQE and Abq Journal pieces are enough to meet WP:GNG, or notable business person WP:NBUSINESSPERSON or notable academic WP:NPROF. Netherzone (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for clarifying, @Netherzone. I see that in attempting to use the most comprehensive sources for my citations I failed to consider the reliable source criteria. I thought the personal blog should be an okay source for the bibliography as indicated in WP:SELFSOURCE, but I see your point about the blog interview. I do have sources for reviews of his work, as well as other articles about the bookstore. If you don't mind, could you tell me if these references are more likely to meet WP:GNG? Maps Imaginary (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • https://www.kirkusreviews.com/author/steve-brewer/
  • https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/authorpage/steve-brewer.html
  • https://www.abqjournal.com/1437998/steve-brewers-quirky-upshot-is-packed-with-interesting-characters-and-abq-locations.html
  • https://www.abqjournal.com/956913/characterrich-heist-tale-also-packed-with-action.html
  • http://news.unm.edu/news/lobo-alumni-family-unveils-nob-hill-bookstore
  • https://www.dailylobo.com/article/2019/01/organic-books-abq
  • https://www.dailylobo.com/article/2016/08/nm-authors-come-to-campus

• Reply - Maps Imaginary, thank you for taking the time to look for additional sources, I didn't see these when I did a BEFORE search, although I found a lot on the politician with the same name. The Kirkus Reviews and Publisher's Weekly are good finds, as are the ABQ Journal articles. It is now clear that he meets WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. I am withdrawing the nomination. Great research work! Netherzone (talk) 19:02, 8 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 Draftify. There isn't a clear consensus that draftification will solve the issues that a long main space tenure didn't, but nor is there a clear consensus that it isn't an appropriate solution. I will protect the mainspace title to enforce AfC, but have no issue with an experienced AfC reviewer or other admin removing it when the time is right. I do not need to be consulted. Star Mississippi 14:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arno Tausch[edit]

Arno Tausch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article has already been at AfD three times, with decisions being keep, delete, and keep. In my opinion, albeit not too convincingly, this academic meets WP:ACADEMIC. So why then are we at AfD again? The reason is that this article is irredeemably promotional. Going through the history, it becomes evident that it has been promotional from the very beginning. One sign of this are the descriptions of Tausch's work sourced almost exclusively to his own publications, or to articles that mention him in passing. The article is also excessively refbombed with 196 (!!) references. The way it is written, it's rather shocking to see that such an incredibly successful and influential researcher has only ever held adjunct and visiting positions... Given the foregoing, I tagged this for WP:CSD#G11, but that was denied by Liz given the AfD history. However, cleaning this up so that it becomes an acceptable neutral bio will be a major undertaking and given that I haven't found a neutral version in the article history, I argue that it would be better to start from scratch and that WP:TNT applies, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Draft & require mandatory rewrite Two aspects of this:
  1. The article is clearly promotional & poorly written. The statement that WorldCat (Worldcat Identities) lists three book titles present at more than 1000 global libraries, and two more books present at more than 300 libraries. should never appear in any article. That is the type of the information that ((Authority control)) is meant to present, if it is of interest of to the reader. I feel that there are many other examples in the article, including the WP:Citation overkill. This article is simply not ready for prime-time & needs to be pruned & rewritten. I would recommend only moving it back to the main space when a consensus has been made to do so.
  2. The subject is notable. See these searches:
     • https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C48&q=%22Arno+Tausch%22&btnG=
     • https://www.semanticscholar.org/search?q=Arno%20Tausch&sort=relevance
     • https://core.ac.uk/search?q=Arno%20Tausch
     • https://www.base-search.net/Search/Results?lookfor=Arno+Tausch&name=&oaboost=1&newsearch=1&refid=dcbasen

I believe we should move this article to the Draft namespace as soon as possible. Peaceray (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't disagree with you, but why would moving it to draft result in a neutral article when 9 years in main article space did not succeed? --Randykitty (talk) 19:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• First, this is one of the reasons for the Draft namespace. In fact, there is an entire page devoted to the draft rewrite of notable academics.
• Second, there are different deletion rules that apply to drafts versus articles, specifically WP:G13 that covers abandoned drafts. Whereas something in the main space can exist for years until an AFD discussion comes along, a draft that has been untouched for over six months can be speedily deleted. Peaceray (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• But while it is standard operating procedure to move newly-created sub par articles to draft, it is exceedingly unusual to move an article that has been around for years to draft space. In fact, WP:ATD-I specifically talks about "newly created articles". I'm not entirely against it, but it's very unusual. --Randykitty (talk) 16:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Referring you again to specifically Wikipedia:Drafts #As a result of a deletion discussion & also WP:AFDTODRAFT.

  I have seen this occur a number of times. Just search for Draft in these histories:

  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theresa_Greenfield&action=history
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_School_of_Temple_Arts&action=history

  I think that I have seen this at least a dozen times, so pretty much accepted as a standard alternative practice to deleting a not-ready-for-prime-time article. Peaceray (talk) 17:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Cesar, Circus Maximus, Thumb up, Thumb down? User Randykitty seems to push for a quick deletion of the Tausch article, which she proposed already three times for deletion before.

But more neutrality, please. This morning, I visited the website of one of the best libraries of political science in the world, the Dudley Knox Library of the United States Navy Postgraduate School in Monterey in California. Any Wikipedia decision maker now deciding in this deletion Circus Maximus process is kindly invited to look at the Tausch entries in the Monterey library system, ^[1].

User Randykitty stated in her present contribution in a sentence that could imply a lack of the necessary neutrality and a rather sweeping value judgement about the curriculum vitae of a living person stating that:

"The way it is written, it's rather shocking to see that such an incredibly successful and influential researcher has only ever held adjunct and visiting positions...". But Wikipedia is not the personnel service office of a University.

This non-neutral statement, together with the other non-neutral statement:

„In my opinion, albeit not too convincingly, this academic meets WP:ACADEMIC“

And

„I tagged this for WP:CSD#G11, but that was denied by Liz given the AfD history“.

Well, if user Randykitty were more familiar with the academic system in Continental Europe, she would realize that it is quite normal that "Privatdozenten" ^[2], i.e. "adjunct professors" are working nowadays for hundreds of institutions, like government bureaucracies, think tanks, etc, and not only for the Universities. Arno Tausch, at age 71, joined the ranks of the Austrian diplomatic service in 1992, became Counsellor for Labour and Migration at the Austrian Embassy in Warsaw, and then, from 1999 onwards, worked for the Austrian Ministry of Social Affairs in Vienna until his retirement in 2016. ^[3]

In the framework of improving Wikipedia coverage of Austrian debates and Austrian political science, I will certainly do my best to improve the article over the coming weeks, and especially to shorten it and to free it from citation overload.

As to independent sources from the world press, I will refer to an interesting and very lengthy article published by Al Jazeera on Tausch, it's in Arabic, and I will certainly refer to it in the improved version which I will present. The reference is:

• إدريس قسيم (2022-02-06). "الدول العربية في الشرق الأوسط وشمال إفريقيا: الهشاشة وعوائق الديمقراطية قبيل أزمة كوفيد العالمية" [The Arab States of the Middle East and North Africa: Fragility and Impediments to Democracy Ahead of the Global Covid Crisis] (PDF). studies.aljazeera.net (in Arabic). Retrieved 2022-07-04.

Springer, one of the world’s biggest and most important publishing houses, now lists none the less than 70 entries with Arno Tausch as author, from 1980 onwards to the present day. ^[4]

At the end of the day, there are not too many Austrian political scientists, who have made it to the pages Le Monde and Al Jazeera and of think tanks like the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, and the Institute for National Security Studies (Israel) in Tel Aviv. His regular contributions to Wiener Zeitung are a proof that this author also contributes to the defense of the values of the open society in Austria, so Wikipedia should handle this “thumbs up thumbs down” issue with great care. Austrian political observer (talk)Austrian political observer (talk) 05:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: You write "User Randykitty seems to push for a quick deletion of the Tausch article, which she proposed already three times for deletion before." This is incorrect. We are at AfD here, not speedy deletion and I did not propose this for deletion three times before (in fact I !voted ""weak keep" in the third AfD and none of the previous AfDs was initiated by me). --Randykitty (talk) 07:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: I did my best - I hope - to clean up the article. I translated the essence of the important Al Jazeera article as well, so the percentage of independent assessment and critique is now sufficient, I hope, so PLEASE remove now all these tags, SHALOM, SALAM, PAX Austrian political observer (talk) 09:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article, IMHO, is still not ready for prime time. Many citations are poorly formatted. With citation templates, there are no reason to have URLs displayed, except for the website parameter. There are extraneous new lines. Statements like External reviewers included Ulrich Albrecht and Wilfried Röhrich. just do not belong; maybe if Albrecht & Röhrich were notable, but without articles they are clearly not.

  I fail to see the justification for entire sections, such as Publications & Presentation of Tausch’s work in the 70th Anniversary Issue of the International Social Science Journal.

  I agree with Randykitty that 9 years in main article space is too long for something this poorly crafted. Moving it into the Draft namespace will force resolution of these issues. Peaceray (talk) 16:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Remains promotional even after cleanup attempts. There is no reason to think that pushing it into Draft space will result in any actual improvement; at best, it will languish there until it is deleted out of staleness. XOR'easter (talk) 21:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This appears to be a paper synthesis and largely promotional. A draft would not fix it after 9 yrs in main space. Oaktree b (talk) 00:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Article now changed substantially I did my best to remove materials which might look like promotional. Austrian political observer (talk Austrian political observer (talk) 05:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Stubify: Even with the cuts made above, the article still reeks of promotion, but as nom admits, he's probably notable. So why don't we just take the axe to the article? Curbon7 (talk) 11:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  we could do that in the Draft namespace. Peaceray (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The axe to the article: Dear user Curbon 7, an excellent idea. I admit that I am not a very experienced Wikipedia writer, and no Wikipedia:Edit warring is in front of you, and I wish you well in your endeavours. The Wikipedia category needs lot of work, and the same applies to Austrian historians, economists, sociologists etc. I simpliy cannot shoulder all these tasks alone. But on the talk page of the Tausch article, I will at least provide you with additional sources from the world press which might be useful for "the axe to the article" Austrian political observer (talk)Austrian political observer (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify: Putting page through AfC process would be a good way to fix the issues identified with the page. Gusfriend (talk) 04:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I think he may pass WP:AUTHOR: A quick search found three reviews of his books [6] [7] [8] and I suspect a more thorough search would find more. The article could use cleanup but I don't think it's quite bad enough for a WP:TNT delete. And I don't see the point of draftification: keep or delete, don't pretend you're doing something else only to delete six months later. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible Error: The second review linked to by David Eppstein just above is to a review of a book by Arno Tausch published in 1954 Die Lautentwicklung der Mundarten des Trièves which can be translated as The sound development of the Trièves dialects . This book is not written by the Arno Tausch under discussion here - who our page says was born in 1951. (Msrasnw (talk) 13:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC))[reply]

• Reviews Thanks to user David Eppstein. The point he is making is a valid one, indeed. All those acquistition editors of international publishers, which printed articles and or books by Tausch since 1980, like Springer Nature, Palgrave Macmillan, and - one article - Oxford University Press would have been grossly negligent in their work, if there were not any reviews about this author. The following reviews and articles featuring the work of Tausch could be used in a re-written article, and as you immediately will see, the journals include real high impact journals like the Journal of Common Market Studies and Political Studies. So here are the titles:

In addition, the following few selected works, referring to Tausch's publications, could be used in this context:

Some of the think tanks, which published Tausch's work o er the years, include

• Hoover Institution, Stanford, California;

• Institute for National Security Studies (Israel);

• Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO RAS Institute), Moscow;

• IZA Institute of Labor Economics

• Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA), Jerusalem, Israel,

Open Syllabus, which is a database with nine million English-language syllabi from 140 countries and which was founded at The American Assembly, a public policy institute associated with Columbia University ^[1] lists 59 global classes using materials by Tausch on their syllabi. ^[2] By any standards, this would be an argument to keep.

Keep, weak keep, notable, not notable, thumb up thumb down? Isn't all that, in a way, absurd?

Austrian political observer (talk)Austrian political observer (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Austrian political observer (talk) 06:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The article creator was clearly a Tausch SPA and spammed his name and writings all over Wikipedia: [9]. That said, DGG says on that editor's talkpage that Tausch deserves a decent article (but that this isn't it). I'm at a loss as to what to do but Draftify (and making it pass through AFC) or TNT spring to mind. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Final Cleanup: I provided a still shorter version of the article, relying on primary sources. I hope that all these tags are removed. Jokingly said: User Randykitty will protest perhaps against the mentioning of the UNDP Arab Human Development Report, but they really refer to Tausch's work; and I am not going to comment extensively on what recently has been written in major papers like Frankfurter Allgemeine on the decline of Wikipedia and its cumbersome editing process; but - how on earth can a relatively new Wikipedia writer know what TNT and all these abbreviations mean? I hope that with my new edits, this matter is now closed for good, and I can use my energy for other Austrian social science projects (talk)Austrian political observer (talk) 10:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Austrian political observer, WP:PRIMARY sources are exactly what a Wikipedia article should NOT be relying on. Softlavender (talk) 03:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Final Cleanup - the first sentence should have read (sorry for the nomenclatura error): "I provided a still shorter version of the article, relying on good, and carefully checked external sources." This is what I did, look at the article, please.(talk)Austrian political observer (talk) 04:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Austrian political observer (talk) 04:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Austrian political observer (talk) 04:57, 12 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 USL League Two. I find the first keep has been adequately rebutted, and the second makes no argument whatsoever. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caledonia SC[edit]

Caledonia SC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The only two sources here are press releases and I can't find others. Doesn't seem to be notable in the slightest. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Florida. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — As you said, article does have sources. Notability is rather subjective criterion. As I said in earlier change comment, this article is one of 100s of articles for semi-professional teams in America. Most of other teams do have similar stub pages, and this one is correctly marked as a stub.

Ђидо (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ђидо: On Wikipedia, "notable" means something different than it does elsewhere. It refers to the amount of independent coverage a topic has received from reliable sources. Although at times it can be a little ambiguous, for the most part, it is not a subjective criterion here: the coverage either exists or it doesn't. In this case, both sources in the article are a single press release distributed by United Soccer League: not independent, and therefore not contributing to notability. All the other sources I could find were event announcements, routine statistical coverage, and the club's own websites; not significant, and therefore don't contribute to notability. Merely "having sources" is not sufficient. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 03:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can read about notability on Wikipedia here. I suggest you do; it is the backbone of deletion discussions. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 03:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — Notable. Simione001 (talk) 00:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your single-word assertion that the subject is notable isn't in the least bit useful. If you can actually provide a couple of independent sources providing significant coverage of this club, I'll happily withdraw my nomination. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 03:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to USL League Two. No significant coverage that I can find. GiantSnowman 19:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to USL League Two due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. The argument that other similar articles exist doesn't help the notability of this one. I did a search and turned up no significant coverage, and frankly I bet many of those other articles wouldn't turn up significant coverage either. Still it is a plausible search term, so I think a redirect is preferable to deletion. Jay eyem (talk) 05:02, 6 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!} 22:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Otago Rambler[edit]

The Otago Rambler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article fails WP:GNG and does not meet WP:SINGER. Subject has not been published in reliable and independent sources. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 16:53, 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 New Zealand. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article does not demonstrate how this person was notable. It is not true, however, that the "subject has not been published in reliable and independent sources". The Otago Daily Times is both reliable and independent. Schwede66 05:17, 5 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. Agreement that this is WP:TOOSOON. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2023 in politics and government[edit]

2023 in politics and government (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:TOOSOON – the one event included here is already mentioned at 2023 in public domain (and a redirect there would be inappropriate), and there's not much to add that would not violate WP:CRYSTAL. Alternatives include redirection to 2023, or a better target if one exists, or draftification, though per WP:REDDEAL deletion would encourage later recreation, similarly to many other not-yet-created 2023 articles. ComplexRational (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Lists. ComplexRational (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 18:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not the right time to talk about events in 2023. ScriptKKiddie (talk) 03:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A clear-cut case of WP:TOOSOON. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Although it's only 5 months until 2023 (at the time of writing), 2023's still in the future. Wikipedia doesn't try to predict what will happen in the future, just what is supported by reliable sources. Maybe we can undelete this and work on it when 2023 comes and some notable events happen. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 20:23, 6 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. Nomination withdrawn. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Brewer[edit]

Steve Brewer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Nomination Withdrawn - Previously deleted article on a writer who does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:NAUTHOR criteria for notability. The article had previously been deleted. Netherzone (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and New Mexico. Netherzone (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree. The article in its current form has never been deleted. A previous article about the subject was deleted many years ago. I thought I had provided enough sources to show notability, but I can add more if this would help. Maps Imaginary (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello @Maps Imaginary, the curation info pane shows that the article had previously been deleted. But neverthelessless, this version of the article does not seem to meet our notability criteria for a notable author. The community will decide if I'm wrong about this, and I'm not opposed to withdrawing the nom if I have made a mistake. However, to my mind the article sourcing is weak, not sure if Encyclopedia.com is considered a reliable source (there has been discussion on RSP talk); the Tsetsi citation is an interview on a blog; the KRQE citation looks ok; the Abq Journal piece seems more like a human interest piece about he and his wife's bookstore; HomeFront is his own self-published blog. I'm not finding any reviews of his work as an author, or notable awards, he doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria for notable author WP:NAUTHOR; and I don't think the KRQE and Abq Journal pieces are enough to meet WP:GNG, or notable business person WP:NBUSINESSPERSON or notable academic WP:NPROF. Netherzone (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for clarifying, @Netherzone. I see that in attempting to use the most comprehensive sources for my citations I failed to consider the reliable source criteria. I thought the personal blog should be an okay source for the bibliography as indicated in WP:SELFSOURCE, but I see your point about the blog interview. I do have sources for reviews of his work, as well as other articles about the bookstore. If you don't mind, could you tell me if these references are more likely to meet WP:GNG? Maps Imaginary (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • https://www.kirkusreviews.com/author/steve-brewer/
  • https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/authorpage/steve-brewer.html
  • https://www.abqjournal.com/1437998/steve-brewers-quirky-upshot-is-packed-with-interesting-characters-and-abq-locations.html
  • https://www.abqjournal.com/956913/characterrich-heist-tale-also-packed-with-action.html
  • http://news.unm.edu/news/lobo-alumni-family-unveils-nob-hill-bookstore
  • https://www.dailylobo.com/article/2019/01/organic-books-abq
  • https://www.dailylobo.com/article/2016/08/nm-authors-come-to-campus

• Reply - Maps Imaginary, thank you for taking the time to look for additional sources, I didn't see these when I did a BEFORE search, although I found a lot on the politician with the same name. The Kirkus Reviews and Publisher's Weekly are good finds, as are the ABQ Journal articles. It is now clear that he meets WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. I am withdrawing the nomination. Great research work! Netherzone (talk) 19:02, 8 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 as rough consensus is there are sufficient sources. (non-admin closure) Kj cheetham (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kelsey Impicciche[edit]

Kelsey Impicciche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG; her time producing content for Buzzfeed confers no notability on this YouTuber, coverage is entirely incidental. And, incidentally, fails WP:WEB too. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Websites, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @Alexandermcnabb: are you claiming the sources in the article don't meet the requirements of WP:N? If so, could you briefly explain why. I'm seeing an article that is solely about her (so certainly not incidental) and others (e.g. [10]) with a few paragraphs. We also have an interview which seems pretty detailed [11]. Hobit (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @Hobit: I certainly am. The article you link to contains a para mentioning Impicciche's work on the 100 baby challenge at Buzzfeed, while the interview is an interview and doesn't contribute towards establishing notability. The other sources are, as I mention, incidental. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• keep This article is focused on her in the context of fashion. The USA Today article has 3 paragraphs on her as does this one. Both of those are in the context of the 100-baby challenge, but I don't see why that matters. There are also two solid interview articles, so we have plenty of sources to write an article around. Hobit (talk) 10:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per sources detailed by Hobit. the Gamerevolution piece is entirely on her completion of the 100 baby challenge. Also coverage in New York Times.--Mvqr (talk) 10:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Gamerevolution article is solely focussed on Impicciche. It does discuss her work at Buzzfeed, but it is primarily about her and so not 'incidental'. While that is the only article (IMHO) that by itself constitutes reliable, secondary, and in-depth coverage, the other articles cited in the article and listed by those above constitute the "multiple independent sources [that] may be combined to demonstrate notability" per WP:NBIO. While the interviews are interviews and not secondary, that non-secondariness, as I understand it, applies only to the interview itself and not (necessarily) to the pre-amble, which can be counted towards demonstrating notability. Also, WP:WEB is totally 'incidental', to borrow y'all's phrasing, as it is " rough guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use to decide if a form of web-specific content, being either the content of a website or the specific website itself, should have an article on Wikipedia". And I'm pretty sure people don't count as web content?? If we're gonna turn to SNGs, WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENT are much more relevant. I would argue Impicciche meets WP:CREATIVE by criteria 3 for her work on the 100-baby challenge series and Spark'd and seems to meet criteria 1 in The Sims (and possibly the larger gaming) community, as demonstrated by the fact that she was a judge on Spark'd. She also appears to meet WP:ENT 1 if we consider her work on Buzzfeed to be a notable performance (which it seems to be, especially that the nominator seems to be implying the coverage is only about her work at Buzzfeed) in addition to her 'role'/'performance' on Spark'd. (disclaimer: I started the page.) Samsmachado (talk) 02:27, 5 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!} 22:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

White Antiguans and Barbudans[edit]

White Antiguans and Barbudans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There are very few sources regarding White Antiguans and Barbudans, other than statistical databases and stories regarding Christopher Columbus. CROIX (talk) 15:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Caribbean. Shellwood (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we lack sourcing that covers this group of people as a distinct group in a way to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 18:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Their population is insignificant. White isn’t a ethnicity. White people don’t exist. White is just a color. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.235.231.66 (talk) 02:23, 7 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 14:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Cameron[edit]

Joe Cameron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NSINGER. Seems to be very very early career. No coverage, no social media, no streaming. scope_creep^Talk 14:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 15:14, 3 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 14:50, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Split Decision (unreleased film)[edit]

Split Decision (unreleased film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article about an apparently unreleased film, not properly referenced as notable enough to exempt it from the primary film notability criteria at WP:NFO.
As always, we do not want to indiscriminately maintain an article about every film that enters the production pipeline without regard to whether it ever comes out the other end as a finished and screened and distributed film or not -- with some exceptions for very high profile projects, our notability criteria for films generally require a film to have actually been released to the general public.
This, however, is a ten-year-old project whose article was clearly created to help promote the film's efforts to find a distributor -- it was created by a virtual WP:SPA whose edit history concentrated almost entirely on this film, the filmmaker and the subject, and it somehow manages to contain a detailed synopsis of the film's content despite the lack of verifiable evidence that anybody without a direct personal conflict of interest ever saw enough of it to write a synopsis.
For sourcing, we have one piece written by the filmmaker (thus not support for notability), one Q&A interview in which the filmmaker is discussing his interest in boxing in the first person (thus not support for notability), and one very short blurb about his efforts to complete it (thus not substantive enough to carry this film over NFO or WP:GNG all by itself if it's the only non-primary source the film has.)
I'm willing to withdraw this in the unlikely event that somebody can actually find evidence that it actually has been released which Wikipedians have somehow missed for an entire decade, but neither the substance nor the depth of sourcing on offer here suggest a reason why this film should be deemed permanently notable in the absence of any evidence that it's ever been released. Bearcat (talk) 14:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Cuba, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 14:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The film is pretty much dead, I can't find anything on it. Should it get released, the article can be recreated. Oaktree b (talk) 15:10, 3 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. Stifle (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taverna List[edit]

Taverna List (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

It was just a personal electoral list created unsuccessfully by Claudio Taverna for the provincial and municipal elections in Trento in 2003 and 2005. The few subsequent information attributed to the party (support for La Destra and adhesion to the Pensioners Party) in reality seem to be inherent to Claudio Taverna himself. The sources on this list, apart from the poor election results, are non-existent. No encyclopedic relevance is deduced from the page. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Every little piece of political history deserves a space in Wikipedia, whose greatness lies specifically in gathering and organising infos which would be difficult to find elsewhere. This regional political party was represented in the Provincial Council of Trentino and participated in a provincial election. If the article is deleted, its contents will be lost. Readers reading 2003 Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol provincial elections clearly benefit of this link. The article is properly sourced. Of course, it is not easy to find more sources on an old minor political party, but it is very important that Wikipedia keeps having articles also on little-known subjects. --Checco (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  keep i fully agree Braganza (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would suggest merge, but as there is no standalone article for Claudio Taverna on en.wiki (at least not yet), I come down on the side of keep, in order to preserve the information.--Autospark (talk) 09:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Minor political party, no lasting effect. No sources found in Engilsh, can't comment on other languages. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - 1) local/regional party, with local notability only at most; 2) no inherent notability: the fact that a party exists/existed doesn't mean it deserves an article in Wikipedia. P1221 (talk) 08:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per User:P1221. Yakme (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I realized that this Afd nomination is the 15th recurrence (the previous instances are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14) in which Scia Della Cometa nominated an article, created by Checco, covering a minor and rather obscure Italian political party. Almost all nominated articles generally cover parties with limited territorial diffusion, very short lifespan and which have obtained a low number of votes (sometimes lower than 1%) and which didn't elect any representative at any level.
  Although I believe that the reasons for these nominations are valid and that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of everything, it seems to me that all these nominations are part of an ongoing dispute between two only users. I would like to call both Scia Della Cometa and Checco to trying to sort their differences out in another manner, like for instance proposing updates on the current policies and notability criteria for political parties. I don't think that nominating for deletion all the articles created by one person is a constructive way to build consensus... Thanks to all. P1221 (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@P1221 I think you totally misunderstood my intentions. I am definitely not proposing pages for deletion based on the author! Since the list of Italian parties will have to be completed in the future, I am simply proposing for deletion the pages that do not seem relevant to me. Many of these were created by Checco, but not only by him, there is nothing personal about all of this. I am proposing the pages for deletion only after evaluating their content, the author is irrelevant to me. It is simply necessary to slightly thin out the number of pages of parties, to make the list of Italian parties more usable in the future. Indeed, I think to have proposed for deletion only pages objectively not relevant for an encyclopedia. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ps. I have chosen all the pages to be proposed for deletion before verifying the author (indeed he is not the only author of the pages I have proposed for deletion). However, if a user has created a considerable number of unimportant pages in the past, I don't think this can be a deterrent from proposing them for deletion...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Scia Della Cometa, let me clarify that all your nominations are legitimate and valid for me (and in fact I concur with your reasons in most of them), and I don't think at all that you operated in bad faith. However, if I were the nominator and I would notice a pattern similar to what I described above, I wouldn't keep on nominating new articles for deletion, even if they clearly deserve deletion. I'd rather talk with the author for reaching a compromise, or if this doesn't get anywhere I'd seek for third opinions or the advice of other contributors, in order to reach a broader consensus. P1221 (talk) 09:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@P1221 Well, I would be sorry if anyone thought I'm not in good faith. However, I have no idea how to deal with this issue, other than via Afd. After all, Checco's position is clear and he reiterates it in every Afd: "Every little piece of political history deserves a space in Wikipedia, whose greatness lies specifically in gathering and organizing infos which would be difficult to find elsewhere." I am an inclusionist but I am aware that Wikipedia cannot cover everything. And the only way to involve other users, in this case, seems to me the Afd procedure. I don't think we have to push ourselves to re-discuss the current policies and notability criteria for political parties. In any case, I don't think this is the right place to address this topic, but if you have any ideas about the resolution of the issue, please to expose them to me in another seat (in my talk page, for example).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is simply a spill-over from Special:PermaLink/1087724241 this May 2022 dispute despite what is being said above. It appears to me that if the editors aren't willing to learn and continue with disruptive behaviour despite a narrow TBAN being in place, perhaps the original decision should be revisited. Pinging the blocking admin - Galobtter. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing Insinuating that these AFDs are a spill-over from the previous dispute is insulting towards me. What's disruptive in proposing the deletion of pages (whose authors are more than one) of three/five lines, can you explain it to me? These Afd had already been planned for some time, the proponent of the topic ban himself said that I could have started the afd procedures ("they may edit in any related areas such as more specific lists of parties, or AFDs to delete parties not having a reliable source, or any other topic."), they were part of a well-defined procedure, read if you don't believe it!--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this whole situation needs to be cleared up once and for all: we already knew that a considerable number of pages were created years ago that could meet Wikipedia's minimum standards of notability, and we also knew that most of these were created by one user. If on the one hand it would not be fair naming pages for deletion based on their author (which I am not doing at all), on the other hand it would not be equally fair to consider the fact that many pages were created by the same user as a deterrent: if a topic is not encyclopedic, it is not, regardless of who created the page. Let's consider the Taverna List: what's relevant on this page? The first two lines merely state that the list existed. The third line shows the (poor) result of 2003 provincial election, which can be seen directly from the page of the provincial election itself. The fourth and fifth lines do not refer to the party, but to Claudio Taverna's subsequent political career (without success). Would you consider it disruptive to submit a page like this for deletion?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't change the topic ban unilaterally, and the current topic ban is very narrow so I don't see any violation. If you think there should be a IBAN or a ban from AfDs etc you can propose that at WP:ANI. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:19, 12 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 List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters. Content can be (selectively) merged from the history if there is editorial consensus for it. Sandstein 06:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters[edit]

List of minor Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Mostly unreferenced list. We have List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters. Fine. But we also have this more fancrufty companion. First, what is the criteria for determining if a character is minor or 'main'? Second, while a list of Buffy characters may meet WP:LISTN, a list of minor Buffy characters probably does not. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The fact that they're called "minor" in the name of the list suggests all by itself that these aren't especially significant characters. Those who have some level of third-party sourcing to establish their significance can be merged to the main list easily enough. DonIago (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Many of the characters here are ones that only appeared in an episode or two, and the ones that had slightly more significant roles are already also listed under the "Supporting Characters" section of the main List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters. As stated by the nom, while the actual overall concept of the characters of the series very obviously passes WP:LISTN, that does not automatically extend to include every single minor character that ever showed up in the series. Rorshacma (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Rorshacma. I see a few characters which should be listed, but they are already mentioned in the List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters. However, I wouldn't rely on the number of episodes of a character to decide whether a character is worth mentioning, but it's remaining effect on the audience and whether it is discussed in magazines, books etc. or not. If the page will be deleted, it will mean a lot of work to remove all the links to that page... I am okay with removing some links, but not all. So there need to be some people who will do this afterwards. Maybe some of the sources for the characters, mentioned on this page can also be included in the List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters, as that page doesn't cite any sources. --Dynara23 (talk) 10:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Please rescue all the sourced content, before deleting it: the first passage of Dracula, the first passage of Ethan Rayne, the 5th and 6th passage of Kendra Young, the first passage of Severin and maybe the part on Merrick. I think it would be too sad to lose all the sources, if needed on another page. As Daranios says below, it could be moved to the supporting characters section. I would add the passages myself, but I don't wan't to commit copy right violation. I don't know if it is somehow possible to move the page history for only these small parts to the other page? Maybe the old page histories for Kendra Young (1) and Ethan Rayne (2) can also help, as at least the parts on Kendra and Ethan are also added there? --Dynara23 (talk) 16:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dynara23: Your request reads just like my suggestion: rescue of sourced content could be achieved merging that to List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters#Supporting characters, and turning our page here into a redirect afterwards would preserve the history, thus avoiding any copyright issues. Maybe you'd like to amend your !vote into that direction? Daranios (talk) 11:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Would you clarify if you're interested in the sources only? Per WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed, "Bare references" not associated with content do not require attribution. It is possible to merge directly from the character redirects' histories, but it would be best to build support first. Do you know the on-wiki sources of the other content you mentioned? Flatscan (talk) 04:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Flatscan: If I may jump in: the comment already says this is about the sources passages, not only the sources. The mentioned passages about those four characters are not present at List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters. Daranios (talk) 10:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I am insterested in the sources and the content that is referenced. Well the Merrick part can also be found here. I just don't find the part on Severin and Quentin Travers anywhere else. I think it is bad if sourced content already exists and needed on another unsourced page is just lost. The people made an effort to research the topic. The fifth and sixth passage on Kendra forexample can just be added behind the stuff that is already mentioned on Kendra Young. If there would be no other way to keep it, I would propably change my vote to redirect. Dynara23 (talk) 11:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I went through the characters mentioned, and I think they're all covered. It will be a little more work than merging from this list. Flatscan (talk) 04:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Character data

Name	Mentioned in List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters	Redirect with history	Content
Dracula	N		quote, can be rewritten from source
Ethan Rayne	Y	Special:PermanentLink/716753682	merge from redirect directly
Kendra Young	Y	Special:PermanentLink/346631673	merge from redirect directly
Severin	Y		quote and sentence that can be rewritten from source
Merrick	N	Special:PermanentLink/81651890	merge from redirect directly
Quentin Travers	Y	Special:PermanentLink/168836438 (no sources)	plot summary cited to episode, redirect's content seems similar

• Okay I already rewrote the parts of Dracula and Severin and put it to the other page. (I don't know if I made any mistakes though, I am not a natural English speaker) Maybe someone else can do the rest. Dynara23 (talk) 06:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Both Severin (original diff) and Dracula (original diff) look good! Merrick needs to be added somewhere for his redirect target, but I am unsure because he has only one appearance in the series. I retargeted the other redirects – Ethan Rayne, Kendra Young, and Quentin Travers – ahead of the close because there is no support for keeping this list. Flatscan (talk) 04:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay I have added Merrick, however not the text and the source of the List of minor Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters article. I think he should be added to the list. Maybe he only appears in one Buffy episode, but next to this he is in the Buffy movie as well as in the comics and is talked about a lot. Furthermore he is the father of the main characters in two Buffy novels. He also is a character which influences the title character's actions a lot and you will find a lot of sources about him. I have only added the sources to three books and one web article, but when you search on Google books for Buffy Merrick, you will find a lot more. I think he is a very notable character. --Dynara23 (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, I retargeted Merrick also. Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect sourced/relevant content to List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters#Supporting characters, where I think this fits well. While we may not need a spin-out list for minor characters, and don't need to list every character there is, throwing out relevant content (and the existing sources themselves) would be against WP:AtD. Daranios (talk) 11:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as mostly unreferenced. This is a WP:CONTENTFORK of the better sourced list of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters. If content cannot be referenced it should be removed, not spun off into articles that bypass WP:LISTN. Jontesta (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:LISTN. However, I have no objection to properly-sourced content in the article being merged to List_of_Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer_characters#Supporting_characters or another suitable target. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge selectively (not everything!) to List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters#Supporting characters. This doesn't warrant a standalone article. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you have specific characters in mind? Dynara23 has already rewritten a few from their sources. This is covered by WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed, and no direct copying from this list has been identified, so deletion is allowed. Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 11 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 Draftify. Less Unless (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah Green[edit]

Elijah Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Slywriter had draftified this article because he said that the subject failed WP:NATHLETE. Then, I have recreated the redirect to Pumpsie Green. After that, Debartolo2917 had queried me about the redirection at my user talk page, so I have restored the draft back to the article namespace. Now, here is an AfD to determine whether the subject still fails WP:NATHLETE or WP:GNG. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft Specifically, WP:NBASEBALL and WP:GNG is not met as the sourcing is a press release and multiple articles from a scouting company. Given subject is likely to be drafted, they will meet GNG sooner or later but at this point they are just an undrafted prospect with no guarantee of ever playing a single game of professional baseball or future coverage Slywriter (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify, redirect to Pumpsie Green pressbox.com looks like a RS, and it does presume the assumption of lasting notability, but none of the accomplishments at present guarantee it. Therefore, his mention should be in another article – his father's. However, since "Elijah" was also Pumpsie's first name, it should redirect there with no hatnote since this Eljiah does not yet meet GNG. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify per above. WP:TOOSOON for an article on this player, but given his status as a likely draftee, he may become notable in the future. The title "Elijah Green" should redirect to Pumpsie Green and eventually become a DAB page to the two players if an article on this Elijah Green is made in the future (though this is not the forum for such a discussion). Frank Anchor 13:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Draft The athlete is not yet notable. He is getting some coverage that reaches WP:BARE at the moment. But we can draft. Lightburst (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Draft -Needs more coverage & thus notability. GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 10 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 14:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thinstation[edit]

Thinstation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Similar to OpenThinClient (AfD discussion), here's another bit of commercial fluff on a similar topic sourced only to a primary source and with no other sourcing readily available. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian musicians[edit]

List of Australian musicians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

We already have Category:Australian musicians and this list does not provide a huge improvement over the category. It also has no real criteria for additions. A separate list with this title was deleted back in 2007 and very little has changed since then regarding lists on Wikipedia ... if anything, we've become stricter about them. This list was created in 2019 and largely edited by David AH Morton, basically a single-purpose account ... it's clear that a lot of work has gone into this list but it's just not appropriate for Wikipedia. Graham87 14:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is better handled as a category. LibStar (talk) 00:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Hard to see an advantage over just being a category. Doctorhawkes (talk) 00:29, 9 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 14:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Morrison University[edit]

Morrison University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

University distinctly and clearly fails WP:GNG; WP:NSCHOOL and, as a commercial institution, WP:NCORP just for kicks. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, United States of America, and Nevada. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:06, 6 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. Star Mississippi 19:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IDEA – List for Veneto[edit]

IDEA – List for Veneto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The subject, which is introduced as a political party, was in reality just a local electoral list like many others in Italy, composed of two parties: Solidary Ethical Movement and Greens. This electoral list only got a mere 0.7% of the votes in the 2010 regional election in Veneto, I do not see any encyclopedic relevance on this page... Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Christianity, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Every little piece of political history deserves a space in Wikipedia, whose greatness lies specifically in gathering and organising infos which would be difficult to find elsewhere. This political party was a very interesting political experiment and, while it did not achieve success, it deserves a space in Wikipedia. Moreover, from this experience, a green local political party obtained notable electoral results in the city of Padua (8.1% in 2014, 11.5% in 2017 and 6.0% in 2022)—it could also have an article of its own, as Livable Rotterdam and others. A minor party in a polity like Veneto, counting 5 million people, is definitely more relevant than minor extra-parliamentary parties from small countries, of which Wikipedia is full (and, as an inclusionist, I happy of that too). The article is properly sourced and is clearly relevant for Wikipedia. Of course, it is not easy to find more sources on an old minor political party, but it is very important that Wikipedia keeps having articles also on little-known subjects. If, regrettably, there is no consensus on keeping it as a stand-alone article, let's merge it with the Federation of Greens, at least, even though it is clearly better for readers to navigate from article to article than finding infos on a subject in larger articles. --Checco (talk) 14:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The most important thing is how many votes a party/list has received (few in this case) and how much is known and treated in the sources (and also in this case the sources are very few). The results you've showed were obtained from other civic lists, not from IDEA – List for Veneto. And even if the Civic Coalition (not IDEA – List for Veneto) has achieved not negligible results in a city as important as Padua, it is not exactly the same as a party like Livable Rotterdam has obtained 30% of the votes in a city with more than 600,000 inhabitants (even if the relevance of a party should not be demonstrated by comparing it with other pages). Honestly, I don't see how a list that scored 0.6% in a single regional election could be merged with a party with thirty years of national political experience: the Italian Greens have created a multitude of such local lists... --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- A short-lived electoral list, not even a political party. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/merge An electoral list isn't the same as a party, and it's untrue that every little thing deserves a space, or at least not an article. Can be mentioned in respective election or party articles, but poor performance at the local/regional level doesn't win you a stand-alone page. Reywas92^Talk 22:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete political parties are kind of notable, however I see it was not a classical party but a electoral list-project in local region. --2A01:C22:7231:3800:DC94:D85A:E399:69DE (talk) 11:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Italian users needed here I suppose 2A01:C22:7231:3800:DC94:D85A:E399:69DE (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft keep kinda special coalition Braganza (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is special about this coalition?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Scia Della Cometa it deserves remaining in Wikipedia. 95.117.31.251 (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yes... but why?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

well its a merger of greens (which are more ecosocialist than green liberal in italy) and christian democrats Braganza (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly still do not see anything special in this local list which, moreover, has obtained a forgettable electoral result...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - 1) local/regional party, with local notability only at most; 2) no inherent notability: the fact that a party exists/existed doesn't mean it deserves an article in Wikipedia. P1221 (talk) 08:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning towards keep, even given the minor nature of the electoral list, as there is no current natural choice of article for the information within to be preserved elsewhere via a merger. --Autospark (talk) 10:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the last part has nothing to do with the list, the little initial information could be integrated directly into 2010 Venetian regional election.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Wikipedia does not need to contain articles on all parties who got 0.x% at regional elections. Unless they are notable enough to have extensive coverage in sources, which is not this case. Yakme (talk) 14:34, 12 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 Venetian nationalism. Star Mississippi 14:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lion of Saint Mark (political party)[edit]

Lion of Saint Mark (political party) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

An unknown party that existed and nothing more. The very few and only existing sources, indeed, just mention the fact that this list did exist. If there were a page about Italico Corradino Cappellotto (founder of this list), it could be merged to it, but the page on him does not exist either. It seems really difficult to find the usefulness of this page. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Every little piece of political history deserves a space in Wikipedia, whose greatness lies specifically in gathering and organising infos which would be difficult to find elsewhere. This AfD subject is particularly notable because it was the first political party representing Venetian nationalism. The article is properly sourced and is clearly relevant for Wikipedia, an ideology and movement that has long become dominant in the 5-million region of Veneto. Of course, it is not easy to find more sources on an old minor political party, but it is very important that Wikipedia keeps having articles also on little-known subjects. If, regrettably, there is no consensus on keeping it as a stand-alone article, let's merge it with Venetian nationalism, at least, even though it is clearly better for readers to navigate from article to article than finding infos on a subject in larger articles. --Checco (talk) 14:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was simply one of the many lists that participated in the 1921 elections. The page merely indicates its leader and ideology, nothing else. A page is not just for stating in two lines that something existed. However, a mention on the Venetian nationalism page through a merge would be a sensible solution.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because it is forerunner of many Venetian nationalism and generally im the opinion that most pre-WWII parties should have articles Braganza (talk) 12:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An explanation as to why this party has encyclopedic relevance would also be needed...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I particulary agree with User:Braganza. Of course, it is difficult to find sources and more information on pre-WWI political parties (please note that most articles on pre-WWI political parties are very short), but the subject is clearly encyclopedic and I would ask User:P1221 and User:Autospark to re-consider their position in favour of an outright "keep". However, I will try to find more information and sources. --Checco (talk) 08:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some articles on pre-WWI political parties are very short, but they are parties with well-defined histories and which have won seats in the Chamber of Deputies. In this case the list did not win seats and there is not even a well-defined history, the only thing we know is its leader and its participation in the 1921 general elections...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Venetian nationalism as it is; I would consider to keep it only if the article is expanded. P1221 (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, as per P1221 – would prefer if the article could be expanded upon and maintain its standalone article status, however.--Autospark (talk) 10:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I am in favour to keep this article, even though it would be nice to find other sources for expanding it. It is indeed a precursor of late XXth century autonomist and regionalist parties in Veneto. I do not generally agree with the utilitarian use of Wikipedia pages: if the sources are verifiable, reliable and all the other requirements from the Guidelines, therefore even minor articles deserve to stay here. Filippo83 (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per User:P1221. Yakme (talk) 14:30, 12 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 The Sandman (wrestler). Star Mississippi 15:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Fullington[edit]

Lori Fullington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

fails WP:GNG, only famous for appearing with her husband The Sandman, not notable in her own right. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 11:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Wrestling, and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 12:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sources in the article seem to support WP:BASIC notability for her own roles, because she is not described as a bystander on the sideline of her husband at the time's career. She has more than just a relationship with The Sandman. Beccaynr (talk) 12:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  She is also e.g. #3 on this list: The 10 Most Iconic Females In ECW History, Ranked (The Sportster, 2020), #1 on this list 10 Great ECW Managers You Totally Forgot About (The Sportster, 2020), described in #5 on this list 9 ECW Storylines So Bad They Embarrassed Fans (The Sportster, 2020), and there is biographical and career information about her here: This Day in Wrestling History (May 17): Bruno Sammartino Wins WWWF Championship (Cageside Seats, 2017). Beccaynr (talk) 13:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really, listicles? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lists appear to be a form of secondary and sustained coverage, all include more than her name on a list, and are publications specific to this entertainment industry, with an independent focus on her roles over time. And this is in addition to coverage in the several books in the article. The sources listed above also appear helpful for further developing and expanding the article. Beccaynr (talk) 14:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarity here, Sportster article number one says: "Raven played mind games with The Sandman by involving his wife Lori and son Tyler...Lori Fullington was Sandman's legitimate wife". Number two says: "The Sandman’s real-life wife Lori Fullington was a regular in the early days of ECW, often teaming up with her husband". Number three says: "The Sandman’s family became part of the show... the man’s wife, Lori Fullington". The Cageside Seats article has four paragraphs about her, all of which mention The Sandman. None of this is significant coverage. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 16:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are some of the sources that clearly indicate she had a role more than simply "wife", i.e. bystander, e.g. Lori Fullington was a regular in the early days of ECW, and The Sandman’s family became part of the show. Just because she is a wife does not mean she is not also notable 20 years later as "iconic" and a 'great manager' and a noteworthy part of a noteworthy episode, and we have a variety of sources to support her independent WP:BASIC notability, because this guideline includes If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability and this is not trivial coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Sandman still living the dream" by Jan Murphy Kingston WhigStandard/The Gananoque Reporter (Online) 2016 (via Proquest) includes mention of "Lori Fullington - who had her own role in ECW" in addition to the divorce etc; and "PRO WRESTLING: MERO, ASSAD IN TITLE BOUT" by Alex Marvez, Dayton Daily News 1996 (via Proquest) includes mention of "Hyatt may have suffered a broken arm when clobbered by Lori Fullington with The Sandman's cane." Beccaynr (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, just for clarity, as you didn't include the full quote, so here it is: "The Sandman’s real-life wife Lori Fullington was a regular in the early days of ECW, often teaming up with her husband". So, she was only part of the show because of her husband, and with her husband. This is all trivial information and minor coverage at best, it's just rankings in list articles on content farms, and a brief mention in an "On This Day" article, and brief mentions in the sources already included in the article. Her fame is not independent in any way from her husband, and none of the sources demonstrate otherwise.

The article from "The Whig", which you haven't linked to, so I will here, is an article about The Sandman with one minor mention to his wife. The other article you mention is, again, clearly a minor mention and demonstrates no notability whatsoever. None of this is significant coverage. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I noted these as sources in addition to the books cited in the article, as additional support for how it is clear she had an independent role, even though she happened to be married to the Sandman. There does not appear to be an objective basis to dismiss her due to her marital status, given the variety of sources that acknowledge she had an active and independent role. Beccaynr (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Literally none of the sources you've brought up here, or in the article, acknowledge that she had an independent role. You have wilfully misrepresented several articles now. Her fame and her participation in wrestling are solely due to her husband; she started because of him, all her storylines and matches were with/against him, her career ended because she was no longer with him. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of the sources noted above that I quoted states, "Lori Fullington - who had her own role in ECW", and it seems clear from my review of the sources that she is discussed for her participation, not only due to her relationship, which is how I understand WP:INVALIDBIO to apply to this discussion. If the sources only discussed her as an actual wife, instead of as a character in a long-running entertainment enterprise, then I would have a different opinion. That her character was "wife" does not invalidate the coverage of her as an actor and manager. Beccaynr (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She isn't discussed for her participation, it's literally the only mention of her in the article. The article, about The Sandman, her husband. She receives one mention in this article. There's more discussion about Sandman losing friends in real life in that paragraph of the article alone than there is of her participation in ECW. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bleacher Report also wrote about 1996 events in 2009, which includes noting her role as an active and independent participant. And The Sportster has an editorial and news team, so it does not appear to be a "content farm". Cageside Seats is produced by Vox Media, as noted in the Editorial Ethics and Guidelines section of its website. Beccaynr (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Much of Bleacher Report's content pre-2013 was user-generated, so no, that article by "Tommy Nolan", which mentions Lori Fullington once, probably isn't a reliable source. Having an editorial team has no bearing on whether something is a content farm. The fact you posted three listicles says it all. I've not mentioned whether Cageside Seats is a reliable source, it has no bearing on my description of a brief mention in an "On This Day" article, however if you want to go down that road, the project deemed it an unreliable source. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Sportster is on the unreliable list as well, which leaves us with the books and news sources, which still seem like a sufficient objective basis for finding her role as a "wife" character is not enough of a reason to delete an article about her. Beccaynr (talk) 18:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or you know, just put any information worth keeping in the article about The Sandman, seeing as most of the information in this article is about his storylines anyway. The one who is actually notable. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Sandman (wrestler) could work well for both articles and help avoid a WP:REDUNDANTFORK, unless additional reliable sources can be found to help develop her BLP. Beccaynr (talk) 01:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, merge is probably a better conclusion to this than just deleting. She (and Tyler Fullington) were part of major storylines with The Sandman. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, she was featured on television and pay-per-view on multiple occasions from the early 1990s to the early 2000s. McPhail (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She was only ever featured on television and PPV's due to her husband, he fame and notability is solely dependent on him, and not due to anything she did. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 16:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, per the above discussion. Her notability was never independent of her husband, so it makes the most sense to put whatever in her article that is DUE into The Sandman's page. JoelleJay (talk) 00:14, 8 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 23:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Khalaf[edit]

Mohamed Khalaf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Previous AfD in 2009 closed as 'no consensus' as it was unclear as to whether he played for Al Ahly. Now that WP:NFOOTBALL has been deprecated, the debate about whether he played a game or not is irrelevant. All that matters is WP:GNG. I couldn't find any significant coverage for this Egyptian defender when searching "محمد خلف" in conjunction with clubs that he allegedly played for. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Egypt. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No notability. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:16, 3 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 13:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AIRO Group[edit]

AIRO Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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