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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raymondson Azemard[edit]

Raymondson Azemard (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 and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 21:19, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lenford Singh[edit]

Lenford Singh (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 and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 21:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sources are just profiles. Nothing acceptable. Lovewiki106 (talk) 07:26, 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 keep. The consensus is that sourcing is sufficient (non-admin closure) NemesisAT (talk) 09:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Peet[edit]

Matt Peet (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 significant coverage, coverage is passing mentions or local media reports. Coach = not automatically notable. Sent to AfC, declined, brought back to mainspace but still problematic - otherwise I'da just tagged it for notability... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Rugby league, and United Kingdom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So I did some work on this article, including the move to userspace. I do believe it needs some work, I just wanted to get it to where I thought it could stand up as an article. A few points I would make:

• I'm not entirely sure an AFC decline from October 21 (when he was just appointed Head Coach, and had barely any articles about him anyway) should be held against the article. In my personal opinion it bears no resemblance to the article it was then.

• I'm not entirely sure what's a 'passing mention' about the sources that were given either. Yes, most of the sources are local coverage, but that's purely for the more detailed claims in the article. Would something like this have been more 'acceptable'? Or this? Perhaps this one?. There's also mentions and information elsewhere too. I have very little experience with page creation but I'm not sure how a trophy-winning coach at the top level in rugby league is being considered for deletion. Better sourcing needed possibly? That I could understand. If I'm honest this feels a bit of a rush to delete something that could be worked on. And yes, I include myself in that. Porterjoh (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs improving, but there is clearly much more coverage now compared to last October when he was virtually unknown. The recent cup win removes any doubt about his notability. J Mo 101 (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongest possible Keep - He was notable on 11 February when he took charge of Wigan as head coach for the first time in the Super League.Fleets (talk) 10:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for clearer consensus on whether sourcing is sufficient
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:21, 29 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!} 23:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep article needs improvement from its current state, but the sources are there as shown above. Frank Anchor 13:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve. Sources provided above are good. Lovewiki106 (talk) 07:24, 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!} 02:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shokz[edit]

Shokz (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:NCORP by a mile. Company appears to OEM Chinese product, no significant coverage, no notability in evidence. Product reviews are majority of sources, article reads like a product catalogue. Tagged as such, too, since Jan 2022. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you feel that way. I put this page together after researching a number of their products and there wasn't any other place on the internet that brought all of that information together. I figured Wikipedia was the perfect place to consolidate some of that information so that others have a place to reference in a single repository. When I need to know tech specs of a mobile phone or processor family for instance, I often seek out wikipedia directly since it combines all of that information in a single place. While the article definitely needs some more support, I don't believe that deleting it is the right route. It's been some time since I've worked on this page but I just did a search for bone conduction headphones and Shokz/Aftershokz pops up in all of the top hits, mostly in "best bone conduction headphone" type articles so the headphones as well as their development history I believe has relevance. Devilsbane (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, New York, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:07, 29 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!} 23:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; also note that non-review sources are mundane corporation moving/articles based off of press releases. Can't find anything significant myself. Defense above does not engage with WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 06:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sources seem to be mostly made up of a mix of paid-for articles and press releases. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 15:57, 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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Zito[edit]

Ronnie Zito (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)

Stub fails WP:GNG; WP:MUSICBIO beyond a doubt. No notability, no significant coverage. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete The PDF source used in the article is about him, rest are mentions. I find plenty of name drops in google, mostly as lists of bands/musicians associated with a certain event. Scattered coverage in GBooks, in the context of the larger jazz scene. Not quite enough for notability at this point that I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Modern Drummer has a 2+-page article devoted to him, as well as entry in the Jazz Encyclopedia mentioned by Oaktree. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep obviously meets WP:GNG through coverage in reliable sources:

• An entry in Leonard Feather's Encyclopedia of Jazz probably the preeminent encyclopaedia of jazz biography (on it's own this should be enough).
• Biography by Eugene Chadbourne at AllMusic.
• A three page profile in Modern Drummer.
• A recent hour long interview for the Fillius Jazz Archive at Hamilton College.
• A section on Zito in a Woody Herman biography.

This is alongside hundreds of other mentions and other print sources that are not easily searchable. I doubt a serious WP:BEFORE was undertaken. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:28, 30 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!} 23:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Vladimir, although I need to note that these sources they found aren't all that easy to find, except for the interview, which doesn't qualify for significant independent coverage. I'm not sure what a serious BEFORE is when given the note other print sources that are not easily searchable. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 06:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Vladimir.copic. Notable enough to justify an article, though it needs expanding. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 16:00, 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 delete. ✗plicit 12:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Churachandpur Medical College[edit]

Churachandpur Medical College (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. "All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both." This college satisfies neither. No independent, in-depth coverage beyond 'it will be a thing soon' announcements from local government officials. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I agree with the nomination that the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 12:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; note that even with the will-be-a-thing announcements, those mention the school opening last September, which it has not. More doubt, more delete. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 06:13, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wellness Forever[edit]

Wellness Forever (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)

Indian pharma retail company, fails WP:NORG; WP:GNG - coverage of routine funding rounds, company announcements. No indepth coverage, no evidence of notability. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and India. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:32, 29 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!} 23:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a company therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:51, 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 redirect to Dancing with the Stars (Irish TV series). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ervinas Merfeldas[edit]

Ervinas Merfeldas (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)

Does not meet WP:GNG independent of Dancing with the Stars (Irish TV series), all available independent secondary coverage is in the context of that show. Restoring the redirect to Dancing with the Stars (Irish TV series) seems appropriate as an alternative to deletion, but this change has been contested in the past so I'm bringing this to AfD for discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Television, and Ireland. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subject’s career has been expanded to include his achievements and notoriety as a public figure outside of Dancing with the Stars.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:bb6:4012:ca00:ad1e:6615:3312:4137 (talk • contribs)

Additional sources have been added, but they are not secondary, comprising listings of dance competition results by said dance competitions. My assessment remains unchanged. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:53, 1 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!} 23:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Dancing with the Stars (Irish TV series) per nom. Most of the coverage appears to be related to the show, with the exception of a few primary sources from championship pages. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 16:09, 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 delete. ✗plicit 03:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Lopag[edit]

Richard Lopag (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:RLN and WP:SIGCOV. Never played in Super League for Huddersfield and only has a handful of semi-pro appearances in the lower leagues. J Mo 101 (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Shellwood (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 22:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd and dePROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:26, 29 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!} 23:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:RLN. Never played top professional league. LibStar (talk) 01:10, 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 delete. However, if someone wants it to actively work on in draft space, I'm happy to provide it. Star Mississippi 02:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn Obi[edit]

Carolyn Obi (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 and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify.[1][2]--MonFrontieres (talk) 23:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Source 4 in the article seems to be a video on her, which is SIGCOV and may or may not meet rule 3 in WP:N. Regardless, source 5 and [3] should be enough to push her over the GNG line. EternalNomad (talk) 02:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The video from EMTV is almost an exact word for word copy of [4] meaning that only counts (if that) as one source. The Post Courier source is worthless (she's a teammate's favourite player). The OFC source isn't independent of her as she played in one of their tournaments. Dougal18 (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:53, 30 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!} 23:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. The sources in the article are: 1-3, 5: From Oceania Football Federation, a governing org for her sport and therefore not independent. 4: Reasonable coverage in EMTV (~10 sentences on her). The sources from MF and EN above: 6: Same source as 5. 7: Same source as 4. 8: Literally a "favorite [blank]"-type questionnaire filled in by the subject herself (clearly fails independence). Can we get more non-EMTV sources covering her in depth? JoelleJay (talk) 01:06, 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 no consensus. Star Mississippi 02:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Big Drum Bonanza[edit]

Big Drum Bonanza (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:BEFORE yields no reliable sources and mainly irrelevant news articles when searched in news on Google. I have a feeling there might be some sources out there but I cannot find any. Maybe this should be merged with Thomas Lang. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, Organizations, and California. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This event has existed for 10 years and has been written about in every drumming magazine in the world multiple times. The sources which cover it (i.e. Drums & Percussion, Rhythem, Drumhead, Drum! magazine, etc.,) are global publications, and it is typical of these magazines to withhold print copy from online because it devalues content.

This event has existed as a "redirect" to Thomas Lang's page for a decade because he was the host. He has no affiliation with the event other than as a host and a performer. The event deserves its own page. Unsure what you mean by "irrelevant" news articles. The news articles and announcements which exist online after most of the drumming publications folded in the past few years are the ones which remain accessible to cite. Qwertymerty3456 (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources, articles and image added. Qwertymerty3456 (talk) 19:49, 23 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!} 23:23, 29 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!} 23:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't found enough independent and reliable coverage of the show. WP:CORPDEPTH: the depth of coverage is not sufficient. In my opinion, any worthwhile show needs a significant amount of reviews and news. But this fact does not apply Big Drum Bonanza. --Mestrossino (talk) 09:24, 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 delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lela Ivey[edit]

Lela Ivey (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:NACTOR. No notable roles; Google search yielded nothing. Bgsu98 (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Theatre, and New York. Bgsu98 (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - happy to change my mind if someone can find significant coverage in reliable sources, all I could find (other than brief mentions of roles) was one profile in Michigan local newspaper The Argus Press Mujinga (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we are not even remotely close to having enough sourcing to suggest meeting GNG. A local newspaper article is not the type of thing that notability is built on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete obviously doesn't meet requirements for WP:NACTOR Kazanstyle (talk) 11:24, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bryce Pierre[edit]

Bryce Pierre (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 and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 21:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very few sources with more than a trivial mention. All I was able to find was stuff from local media outlets, and even then it's still very limited. BilletsMauves (talk) 13:35, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Hassan (footballer)[edit]

Syed Hassan (footballer) (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 and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 21:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we lack substantive sources to even add towards passing GNG, let alone pass it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:58, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dorren Hamlet[edit]

Dorren Hamlet (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 and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Expected coverage given he has 60+ caps, but nothing SIGCOV on google that I can find. GiantSnowman 21:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:18, 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 redirect to Venus Hum#Discography. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Songs for Superheroes[edit]

Songs for Superheroes (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 album. I couldn't find any reviews and other than one song from the album supposedly being used for a promotional trailer for a TV series, it is a total failure under NALBUM. RÆDWALD E|T 21:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Venus Hum#Discography. Instead of the AfD process, this type of redirect can probably be done without controversy when nobody ever responded to edit tags placed years ago and the article only gets a few minor edits in a standard decade. Anyway, the nominator is correct about this album's lack of notice, and it's a little-known early release from a band that found more success later. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Venus Hum#Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 23:50, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gianna LePera[edit]

Gianna LePera (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 don't think she quite meets WP:GNG. She is mentioned in the NYT review from thirteen years ago but that doesn't constitute significant coverage (or for that matter, sustained coverage). Her career on screen (per IMDb) consists of non-recurring roles in TV series and short films. She's still quite young, so she may very well become notable but she's not there yet. Pichpich (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Theatre. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections. I created the page as I found it via a red link, but then never found more articles about her to make it a better page. Frakkler (talk) 00:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete one mention for one stage role is not enough to establish notability. the guideline calls for multiple signiciant roles in notable productions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:21, 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 merge to Georgia Guidestones. WP:SNOW closure - overwhelming support for merger and redirect with little opposition. Non-admin close. (non-admin closure) —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Guidestones bombing[edit]

Georgia Guidestones bombing (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)

Per WP:DELAY. There may well eventually be enough to support it's own article, but what is here now could be a single sentence in the main article. Fbifriday (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect — The points made by Fbifriday are valid. The Georgia Guidestones bombing is hardly notable as it stands and there isn't enough information to justify its existence in the main namespace. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Delete into Georgia Guidestones. There is only one sentence there right now, pointing to this article, and that article is already on the short side, so it won't be harmed by the extra material. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Georgia (U.S. state). Shellwood (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Delete Someone blew up a stone; not too notable. It could be mentioned in Georgia Guidestones, but an entire article? Nythar (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect unless/until the event becomes notable enough to warrant its own article. Maximajorian Viridio (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC) Keep, at least for now, because we should probably wait at least a week for further developments. Maximajorian Viridio (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect. If the section gets too large, it can be split from the other article. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 22:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC) Keep per comments at the bottom of the page. Possibly become notable for own article.CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 06:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hang onto it for now: I hope no one's tempted to delete and close this discussion early, give it at least a week to see what additional information develops. – Athaenara ✉ 22:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect: my view changed after a couple of days of furthur consideration. – Athaenara ✉ 05:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral Comment: WP:RAPID is massively at play here with the article in question being PROD just over an hour after creation, contested 5 minutes later, and AfD’ed 2 minutes following the contested PROD. I would like to ask that all the !votes be reconsidered in 24 hours, so tomorrow, I will ping every !vote within the first few hours of the AfD beginning to this message (Supports, Opposes, & merges) for a new look at the article after it would no longer be in a WP:RAPID timeframe. (Member of WP Current events who has not edited the article prior to this message.) Elijahandskip (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  For the record, PROD was contested because it was unlikely to succeed, in the same edit comment, I was advised to bring it to AfD, hence why I simply did that. I know current event AfDs are held for a few days, but please don't mischaracterize me as being in a rush. Fbifriday (talk) 23:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never said anyone specifically rushed deletion on it. My message was more or less a generic "heads up" that WP:RAPID was at play and that all !votes should probably wait 24 hours. I would say none of the !votes would change from now, but just as WP:RAPID says "As there is no deadline, it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days...to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge." So waiting 24 hours should give time for a true clear picture of the event to emerge. In my opinion, it will probably still not be notable enough for a stand-alone article, but I will wait and see before I would do any !votes. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect Keep a redirect here, I think it would be a valid search query, and that way if it ever becomes notable we can spin it back off into its own article. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. There is very little that can be said, even if they catch the alleged bomber, that can't be said on the monument's main page in one paragraph. The monument itself is barely notable enough to merit inclusion on Wikipedia, and only became prominent recently because of the NWO conspiracy theories circulated during the election (which I suspect will turn out to be the reason for the bombing). Quixilver391 (talk) 01:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Georgia Guidestones, a page that is a perfectly good repository for whatever we can say about the bombing, and selectively merge as appropriate. Not every event needs its own page, and scattering information across multiple articles does little more than make the material harder to maintain. XOR'easter (talk) 23:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hang on for now but rename The title is a bit premature, we know it was an explosion, but the investigation has just begun. A better title would be Destruction of Georgia Guidestones since we now have an explosion and a backhoe (the latter did the most damage) that led to the complete leveling of the monument. Calling for a deletion of the article is also premature, we should give media some time and judge the importance of the subject in the following days and weeks. petrarchan47คุก 23:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  News sources are calling it a bombing, as is the GBI. Unless they tell us later it wasn't a bombing, if it's kept, the name seems appropriate to me. Fbifriday (talk) 23:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As nominator, I would like to say that the dynamics around this event are shifting, and it's appearing this may be a bit more serious, as they have actual video of people planting a bomb, and thus, now have a bomber on the run, meaning there is going to be a manhunt for the suspect. All of this is much more appropriate on the bombing page than it would be on the main page, so I am beginning to believe that the article may meet notability guidelines. I firmly stand by that this was a WP:DELAY type of article, and should have started as a section on the main article, however. Fbifriday (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning keep I predict this will grow, and I think technically it passes WP:GNG, so I think our debate should be about logic and common sense = is there enough to split the article? I think all votes here will be rapidly out of date in days, so I suggest we all wait a few days before rushing to delete. Seems like big news: https://www.wsj.com/articles/georgia-guidestones-damaged-explosion-11657131684 CT55555 (talk) 01:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy merge The main article is not that long and a separate page should not have been made in the first place. If you think there's potential, there's still no reason why it can't be split when more content is added – there's potential for more content at Georgia Guidestones too! How about we wait a few days before rushing to have a separate page? Reywas92^Talk 02:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now - This has the potential to be a notable, significant event, given the history and the controversies surrounding this monument. I say we sit on this for a couple of weeks before we consider deletion again. Love of Corey (talk) 02:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I just found out today on Facebook that a lot of people who were very hostile to the monument (they thought it was satanic, or advocating world government, or some such thing) are delighted it was destroyed. I suspect that some hostility to the article is stemming from that: they don't want too much attention paid to a terrorist act of which they approve. I would like to keep the articl for the time being, because if the vandal is located there might be a lot to learn about his affiliations. Ducdebrabant (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but... Current reporting suggests that there are multiple possible motives for the bombing. If reporting keeps relating the events as tied to political or religious motives, there may be cause yet to keep the articles separate. However, if the article on the bombing does not appear to have any contextualization or extensive coverage outside that which should be present in the main Guidestones article, then it should be merged. This should be a conversation had in a month or so. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Georgia Guidestones. No deaths so far. Centralknights (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Georgia Guidestones. This does appear to be a bombing, but I still think it would fit better into its own section on the main page for the sake of keeping things organized. Every event doesn't need its own page. Rainier Blue (talk) 03:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Delete into Georgia Guidestones as others have suggested. There's no reason for a separate arucle, just add these details to the appropriate section in Georgia Guidestones. Truthanado (talk) 03:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per above suggestions. Too short to merit its own page as is. Shaded0 (talk) 04:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Georgia Guidestones as it's been suggested. I don't find a lot of the arguments for keeping it moving; if it's not relevant now, why should we wait for it to stay simply because it has the potential to be relevant? Even if there's more to it than it seems, which there likely is, I don't see why it couldn't be a subsection of the Georgia Guidestones page itself, especially since that base page is as short as it already, too: it'd be more useful in all cases to merge and redirect it. NekomancerJaidyn (talk) [she/her] 05:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and delete Not notable enough to have its own page. All the information so far in this page can be summed up in a paragraph under its main page. Enjoyddos (talk) 05:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per the precedent set at Buddhas of Bamiyan. Viriditas (talk) 08:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect Unless further information comes out, having a separate article for the event is trivial with the lack of information/detail. Freakmenn (talk) 08:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and delete Not notable enough to have its own page. All the information so far in this page can be summed up in a sentence (possibly paragraph) under its main page. DublDizl (talk) 08:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and delete Do we seriously need a separate article for every little news event? It's common with WP:RECENTISM to overly detail recent things. Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect someone blew up a stone, that's not worthy of its own article. This article is just trying to hype that nothing event by calling it a bombing. No need for a separate article, would be fine to be explained in the relevant section of the main article. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Considering the notoriety of the monument, linked theories of significance and the likely investigation that may follow and potentially even political aftermath (see Last Week Tonight of few months back), this may merit its own page. Potentially up for deletion at later stage. -- Otapka (talk) 10:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect I do not believe the stones are notable enough that their destruction requires another article. Most people probably weren't aware of them until Kandiss Taylor said something--dashiellx (talk) 11:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." MarshallKe (talk) 11:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 12:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Georgia Guidestones. WP:TOOSOON to say whether this deserves its own article. It's unlikely that the bombing receives coverage independent of the guidestones. WP:DELAY applies here more than WP:RAPID as there's already clearly a space on Wikipedia for this information, the Georgia Guidestones article, and it can be later determined whether or not there should be a spinoff article as coverage develops. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect — SQB (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to Georgia Guidestones. It's too soon to determine whether a separate article is needed for the destruction, and a standalone article should not be a stub. Hocus00 (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It is no longer a stub CT55555 (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for Now - While this page was created a little prematurely, I also feel like this will continue to grow as more details come to light. If it turns out it's not a significant story, and that point it can be deleted. But it'd seem counter-intuitive to delete a page if it is going to be created at a later date. 142.183.26.246 (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't create articles before they meet guidelines, and wait for them to meet notability. The question here is whether or not it meets them as it is right now. Fbifriday (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect to Georgia Guidestones. A stand-alone article is not needed for the story of the bombing to be told well. All that needs to be said about it can be stated in the existing Guidestones article (WP:NOPAGE). Drdpw (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - nothing really to merge, content at target on bombing is already pretty tight. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 19:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conspiracy theories and Events. • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Convenient to have the redirect to a section, but no need for it's own page. --Cerebral726 (talk) 13:51, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Chris Troutman (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jackpot Juicer[edit]

Jackpot Juicer (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 currently fails WP:NALBUM and the sourcing (some of which fails WP:SPS) is too weak to pass WP:GNG. The few reliable sources don't discuss this album in-depth. I already PROD'd and Thedivinemania removed it without explanation so there's no reason to draftify. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator Chris Troutman (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there is enough sourcing to warrant keeping it. Not to mention it's more developed than 90% of upcoming album articles. Sergecross73 msg me 20:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • https://loudwire.com/dance-gavin-dance-jackpot-juicer/
  • https://www.revolvermag.com/music/dance-gavin-dance-announce-new-album-jackpot-juicer
  • https://www.altpress.com/dance-gavin-dance-jackpot-juicer/
  • https://metalinjection.net/upcoming-releases/dance-gavin-dance-announces-new-album-jackpot-juicer

  All of these are dedicated, in detail, to the subject, and have a consensus for being reliable per WP:RSMUSIC. Sergecross73 msg me 20:58, 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. Consensus that the subject is notable per WP:PERP and also WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Krahe[edit]

Fred Krahe (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:PERP Heyallkatehere (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alberger process[edit]

Alberger process (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 was speedy closed due to an unclear rationale, an outcome endorsed at DRV with no prejudice for a renomination or merger discussion.

I'm not sure from WP:BEFORE that this topic is notable enough even for a merger. Most results are mirrors of Wikipedia, primary, or non-RS, except for Encyclopedia Britannica. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I will grant that this is clearly an obscure topic and seems to have been more important in the past than it is in the present, but of course that is true of many of our articles. Nevertheless, there clearly are sources available, and they clearly indicate that it is an industrially relevant thing. I added a bit from a journal, and other sources are available--not exciting ones, but verifiable and informative. Here's a government release that discusses it in depth, for example. There are several similar industrial journal articles and so on that turn up in a Google Books search, including significant coverage in this industrial manual. Etc. blameless 02:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Searching for "Alberger method" indicates that the term is in wider use than I had thought. SailingInABathTub has done a good job in expanding this and there are lots of sources out there, including some that speak to the practical issues for cooks, and others that indicate the process is used for salts other than Diamond Crystal. blameless 21:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, passes WP:GNG based on the sources now added to the article. SailingInABathTub (talk) 09:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; despite being obscure, there seem to be enough sources to write a valid article. --ais523 01:30, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Meghalaya Legislative Assembly election[edit]

2023 Meghalaya Legislative Assembly election (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 as it is WP:TOOSOON. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as with the other 2023 Indian regional election articles being proposed for deletion, and the arguments provided against deletion there. There has been precedent for such articles for over a decade. Munci (talk) 07:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move Some user has incorrectly moved it from "Next Meghalaya Legislative Assembly election" to "2023 Meghalaya Legislative Assembly election" in the last few days. The article is notable with significant coverage. Since the elections are not announced yet, the article should be moved back to "Next Meghalaya Legislative Assembly election". Dhruv edits (talk) 03:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep More than sufficient sourcing available to satisfy the GNG.^{[1][2][3][4][5]}

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:58, 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. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Nagaland Legislative Assembly election[edit]

2023 Nagaland Legislative Assembly election (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 as it is WP:TOOSOON. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep TOOSOON is an essay; WP:CRYSTAL (ie policy) makes clear: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced....Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." More than sufficient sourcing in English alone is easily available to satisfy the GNG.^{[1][2][3][4][5]}

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and move Some user has incorrectly moved it from "Next Nagaland Legislative Assembly election" to "2023 Nagaland Legislative Assembly election" in the last few days. The article is notable with significant coverage. Since the elections are not announced yet, the article should be moved back to "Next Nagaland Legislative Assembly election". Dhruv edits (talk) 03:27, 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. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Karnataka Legislative Assembly election[edit]

2023 Karnataka Legislative Assembly election (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 as it is WP:TOOSOON. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep TOOSOON is an essay; this nomination for deletion lacks grounds in policy or guidelines. Also, would note it's five months closer to the election since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Karnataka Legislative Assembly election was Speedy Kept. Sourcing passes the GNG. WP:CRYSTAL makes clear that articles about events highly likely to happen are acceptable. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, my mistake, misread the nomination. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and move Some user has incorrectly moved it from "Next Karnataka Legislative Assembly election" to "2023 Karnataka Legislative Assembly election" in the last few days. The article is notable with significant coverage. Since the elections are not announced yet, the article should be moved back to "Next Karnataka Legislative Assembly election". Dhruv edits (talk) 02:38, 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. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly election[edit]

2023 Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly election (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 as it is WP:TOOSOON. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chhattisgarh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and move as per comments on other AfDs on 2023 election articles pertaining to India. Some user has incorrectly moved it from "Next Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly election" to "2023 Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly election" in the last few days. The article is notable with significant coverage. Since the elections are not announced yet, the article should be moved back to "Next Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly election". Dhruv edits (talk) 03:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep sufficient sourcing to pass the GNG.^{[1][2][3][4][5]}

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:15, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Mizoram Legislative Assembly election[edit]

2023 Mizoram Legislative Assembly election (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 as it is WP:TOOSOON. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and move as per comments on other AfDs on 2023 election articles pertaining to India. Some user has incorrectly moved it from "Next Mizoram Legislative Assembly election" to "2023 Mizoram Legislative Assembly election" in the last few days. The article is notable with significant coverage. Since the elections are not announced yet, the article should be moved back to "Next Mizoram Legislative Assembly election". Dhruv edits (talk) 03:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Suffient sourcing to pass GNG.^[1][2][3][4]

Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 06:02, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Tripura Legislative Assembly election[edit]

2023 Tripura Legislative Assembly election (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 as it is WP:TOOSOON. References are not about the election. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as with the Nagaland AfD. This one with significant national implications due to the TMC role. Surfeit of sourcing, Bangla too!^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]}

Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 09:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and move Some user has incorrectly moved it from "Next Tripura Legislative Assembly election" to "2023 Tripura Legislative Assembly election" in the last few days. The article is notable with significant coverage. Since the elections are not announced yet, the article should be moved back to "Next Tripura Legislative Assembly election". Dhruv edits (talk) 03:23, 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. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly election[edit]

2023 Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly election (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 as it is WP:TOOSOON. References are not about the 2023 election. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Not going to vote on all of these, but it's not too soon to have articles for the single next election that we know will happen, especially when it's in the next calendar year. Sources such as [5][6][7][8] indicate there is notability for this election already. Reywas92^Talk 18:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Madhya Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and move Some user has incorrectly moved it from "Next Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly election" to "2023 Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly election" in the last few days. The article is notable with significant coverage. Since the elections are not announced yet, the article should be moved back to "Next Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly election". Dhruv edits (talk) 03:31, 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 delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Next Indian general election in West Bengal[edit]

Next Indian general election in West Bengal (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 as it is WP:TOOSOON. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: toosoon, those are yet to be declared. QueerEcofeminist[they/them/their] 05:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no sourcing to justify an election article four years away. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:25, 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic violence among Korean-American immigrants[edit]

Domestic violence among Korean-American immigrants (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)

Overly specific article topic, which comes off as purely original research. – Ploni (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Korea, and United States of America. Ploni (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Reads as an essay til you get down to the bottom with source citations lumped together. Overly specific; with proper sourcing, could be a subsection in either a Korean-American article or something about domestic violence in the USA. Oaktree b (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and per Oaktree b. This is an essay disguising itself as an article. BD2412 T 04:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because it is an essay, I don't think lumping citations at the end gives it a pass. CT55555 (talk) 11:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, very overly specific. Also entirely reads as an essay. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 17:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article is an essay not a Wikipedia article. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:26, 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid deletion rationale has not been advanced. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. WP:TNT is an opinion essay, and issues with links alone is not under the purview of Wikipedia's Deletion policy. No prejudice against speedy renomination with a valid deletion rationale. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1973 Tour de Corse[edit]

1973 Tour de Corse (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:TNT. A big mess of incorrect links The Banner talk 16:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and France. Shellwood (talk) 16:48, 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian Fire (cruise missile)[edit]

Bulgarian Fire (cruise missile) (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 appears to be a hoax. The only cited sources that mention this missile are nearly exactly the same text, by the same author (I couldn't find any mention of some "Bulgarian Fire" in the "Nova Zora" article). This text is not even on the subject of this hypothetical missile, but on a flare-up between Bulgaria and Turkey in 1989, which probably is another hoax: it does not even have its own WP article, despite the fiery rhetoric supposedly employed and the scale of the resulting military build-up; it isn't even mentioned in 1989 in Bulgaria. Generally, it just looks like the product of some Bulgarian nationalist's wet dream, in which the "Bulgarian fire" is only mentioned as a detail. A Google search only returns this article, and a forum thread about this article (where they say that it's most likely some bullshit). Google news and books don't give anything either. BilletsMauves (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Bulgaria. Shellwood (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm calling bull plop on this one, the Soviets very much ran the space program in the Soviet world and the Warsaw Pact nations were subservient to them. Maybe in Albania where they told Stalin to shove it this would be a remote possibility. Zero sources and frankly this is the first I've heard of the Bulgarians having anything close to a domestic missile industry. Oaktree b (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Bulgaria barely had a locomotive industry at the time, they were either built in Romania, the USSR or Czechoslovakia. The best East Germany could do was the Trabant, I'd very highly doubt the Bulgarians could develop a cruise missile without foreign assistance. Oaktree b (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Albania, between its split from the Soviet Union and the fall of communism, was more Stalinist than the Soviets. It was Khrushchev that they told to shove it. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete After reading through some of the sources, this appears to be the local Bulgarian name for S-300 Missile Batteries. Fbifriday (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteA combitation af the lack of non-Bulgarian sources and the implausibility of the article. A thermobaric warhead capable of destroying the whole of Istanbul?!?. I think not.TheLongTone (talk) 11:59, 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SnakeHead Software, LLC[edit]

SnakeHead Software, LLC (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)

Promotional article written by the company. Some minor local coverage, but little else of significance. – Ploni (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Texas. Ploni (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH, ultimately nothing more than an advertisement. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable advertisement. HomemadePotato (talk) 09:57, 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 redirect to Empiricism. The "keep" opinions don't address the problems identified in the nomination (OR/SYNTH). Sandstein 09:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Empirical limits in science[edit]

Empirical limits in science (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)

Contested redirect. Justification was made on the talkpage as follows:

I looked through this article and cannot see anything worth keeping. Our article on empiricism can use some expansion, I would wager, but this should be done over there and not here. To start, the article did not even define what was meant by a "limit" and, because of that, never really established what the scope of the article was supposed to be. There are physiological limits to the senses, there are epistemological limits to what knowledge can be gained empirically, and there are even political arguments as to what empirical evidence is good for in the context of persuading others or making claims about questions of moral or legal judgements. None of these points are adequately identified in the lede and then the rest of the article goes on to give a pretty half-assed description of how sensory perception works without really engaging in the literature that argues that our division into five senses is arbitrary and cultural, for example. Finally, the article went on about certain advances in science that are made through improved observations and then questions about language. Yuck. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a place to write original essays like this. It is a place to summarize the best available sources in context.

Some of the text might be usable on other articles, but as a standalone, this one just wasn't worth keeping. I think preserving the history is fine in case someone wants to use some of this material elsewhere.

Annoyed that WP:NOTBURO wasn't followed by Thriley (talk · contribs) who did not even bother to engage on the talkpage with their reasoning, but not that annoyed, I guess. jps (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Science. jps (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to empiricism as nominator. History can be preserved. Future WP:CFORK is, in principle, possible though I think it unlikely. jps (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not clear to me what grounds you are using to nominate this for deletion. It has been in existence on Wikipedia since 12 June 2008‎; it was recently expanded; it is not in violation for lacking sourcing, plagiarism, vandalism, etc. Disliking the way in which it is written is generally a reason to improve an article, not to delete it. If you are arguing that the content should be merged, then a merge proposal seems the appropriate step to propose, not a deletion. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 03:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the result is a redirect without keeping any of the content of the original article, normally AfD is what is required. While we can tag with a merge at the top of an article, AfD is also where merge decisions get made as well. You are free to !vote "merge" if that's the way you feel. jps (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk · contribs) that improvement or merging (if possible) would be a better direction to take. Also "Yuck" did not add anything constructive, just inappropriate in my opinion. Airstarfish (talk) 07:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry. I dislike poor content and this article is a prime example of such. jps (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Article is assigned to various WikiProjects and could be improved, or at the least, merged. Dorevabelfiore (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an unusual keep rationale. Assigning an article to a Wikiproject can be done by anyone for any reason -- I don't see why that should be a reason to keep an article. I am glad you agree with me that the article could be improved or merged, but why is that a "keep" then? What value is there in keeping the article in articlespace as opposed to redirecting to Empiricism? jps (talk) 18:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article doesn't remotely meet any of the common deletion reasons. It's appropriately sourced and is on a notable topic. This is a subtopic of empiricism, but that article is fairly long and is mainly historical, and I don't think a merge would be appropriate. The nominator's comments would be appropriate for requesting improvements during a GA review, but the bar for basic inclusion is much lower than that. See also WP:ARTN and WP:NOTPERFECT. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 02:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is bald WP:SYNTHesis at least. How do you not see that? jps (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - This article definitely reads as a product of early Wikipedia, where people were much more fast & loose with article content. There is not really a coherent topic here, and the article reflects that by meandering between different subjects without really giving any of them more than a brief overview. Specific articles on the various topics included here might be of use, but such a broad (and ill-defined) topic as covered by this article can't be anything more than what we have. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in mind WP:ARTN (part of WP:N)—for AfD you need to justify that no good article could ever be written about this topic. Any identified inadequacies in the current text are irrelevant for an AfD discussion. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think a good article can be written about this topic as there isn't a consistent framing in the literature. I remind you of WP:NOR. We are not a place to be publishing hot takes on what students think about the limits of science, which is what this article currently is and, it seems, is the only thing it really can ever be given the lack of consensus in reliable sources about what it means to have a "limit in such contexts. jps (talk) 12:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to empiricism. I concur that we are not a platform for hot takes on what students think about the limits of science. Neither the version nominated for deletion nor the shortened version produced during the process actually defined the scope of what the article should cover; there's nothing well-defined enough to improve upon here. It's conceivable in principle that a worthwhile article could be written under this title, but trying to pass this off as that does a disservice to the reader. XOR'easter (talk) 22:21, 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 and salt. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sagar Wahi[edit]

Sagar Wahi (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)

paid for pr spam, not a notable actor, mostly minor or one off roles and hte only "coverage" is from the typical churnalism outlets and nothing truly in depth. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt Very very early stuff. Refs are all PR. Not really an actor in the traditional sense, since they have been in one small series. No indication of being notable. Fails WP:NACTOR. scope_creep^Talk 14:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt Non-notable, created and re-created by undisclosed paid editors. Salting will prevent the inevitable re-creation by another UPE. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We don't need articles about every actor, and this doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion WP:NACTOR. I'm not expressing an opinion about salting one way nor the other at this time. Jacona (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 07:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I do not find anything notable about the subject. Lightburst (talk) 18:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet WP:NACTOR, too early to be notable Kazanstyle (talk) 13:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt. Page has been repeatedly recreated. SWinxy (talk) 17:50, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bustan (garden)[edit]

Bustan (garden) (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)

Seems to be a definition of different types of gardens, for which pages exist elsewhere. No sources, do not provide any new information. Suggest either deleting or merging information into various garden types, at best. Kazamzam (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Reading around the subject, it looks notable for an article on the history of gardening & agriculture in Iran but not as a stand-alone article. I can't find a current page that is appropriate. Could be draftified if someone wants to help create it. EDIT: Meant to add a JSTOR article that some may find helpful: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44987900 NeverRainsButPours (talk) 09:53, 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:20, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Progesterex[edit]

Progesterex (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 from early Wikipedia was kept based on WP:GOOGLEHITS. No reliable sources cover this hoax. Daily Mirror is not a reliable source. Most of this article is original research scrubbed from blogs and the hoax itself. Jontesta (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The Snopes page[9] probably counts towards something, there's also a number of book hits.[10][11][12] I'm leaning towards this being a notable hoax. Artw (talk) 15:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep With it being in Hansard[13] pushing it over the line for me. Artw (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Borderline. The article is using weak sources (tabloids, etc.). The drug (hoax) is mentioned in academic sources, but mostly non-English. WP:SIGCOV is a problem; the only English academic source to mention this, [14], has a sentence in passing. The Polish article I checked [15] is a false positive (includes a question about this drug in a survey of students knowledge about drug rape but does not discuss the answer). Book sources look more promising. It has a short entry in The Encyclopedia of High-tech Crime and Crime-fighting by Infobase Publishing. This seems more in depth. (Univ. Press of Mississippi Press). Leaning keep, and arguably tag with ((better sources needed)) or such, so we move from tabloid referencing to academic here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Additional reliable sources can be found at [16] and [17]. Between us we have disproved the nominator's claim that no reliable sources cover this hoax. There are plenty. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment would a move to Progesterex hoax be clarifying? Artw (talk) 16:22, 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 delete. Can be redirected to time viewer if somebody writes it up there (with sources). Sandstein 09:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chronovisor[edit]

Chronovisor (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)

Original research. Appears in a single source based on a single author. The rest is uncited speculation. Jontesta (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete appears to be "non-fiction" as in nonsense. Artw (talk) 15:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: there are substantial sources from within the fringe space (e.g. the two books [18] [19]) and from without [20] (free copy at [21]). – Uanfala (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to time viewer. There simply isn't enough reliable documentation available to warrant expounding upon the topic at such length. I did like this description of the book that is currently the article's main source: Krassa's book will appeal most strongly to the highly gullible. XOR'easter (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If we redirect it, the article we redirect it to should mention it, but we have no reliable source for such a mention. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the link I provided is reliable enough for pointing out the (obvious) similarity of the claim to the fictional concept. XOR'easter (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. de:Peter Krassa is the opposite of a reliable source. He wrote nothing but fantasy camouflaged as non-fiction. The publisher, "New Paradigm Books", has hardly any Google hits, and they do not seem to have any quality criteria. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge. It's a bit unclear to me if the references are reliabe (see HG's cricism of Krassa just above). Time viewer mentions this with "citation needed" and could benefit from a merge IF this is not a hoax. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Guys, no-one is suggesting that Krassa should be used a source, I linked it as an example – one of 3 so far – of a fringe book dedicated to this topic. Reliable sources also exist. I'll repeat my last link, which is: Ladous, Régis. "Voix et Images d’ailleurs: Les Deux Fables de Dom Ernetti." Ethnologie Française 33, no. 4 (2003): 601–9. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40990619. – Uanfala (talk) 11:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Uanfala Since this is non-English, potentially paywalled PDF (although, Wikipedia Library), could you be kind enough describe how the coverage of the topic within meets WP:SIGCOV? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There's also an openly available copy online, repeating the link to it: [22]. – Uanfala (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Uanfala Thanks. From what I see (MT fortunately works, since it's an html), that article treats Krassa as a serious source, and engages with it. Nonetheless it seems that the article is not seeing a difference between a "chronovisor" and the "time viewer" (ex. it discusses Aasimov's "The Dead Past" (1956), also mentioned in our article on time viewer). I am increasingly supportive of merger, also given the terrible state of the time viewer article (both articles may merit WP:TNTing and restubbing based on the article you found which indeed seems like a solid source to rescue something from this mess). But I sincerely doubt we need two articles on what are, in essence, very similar sci-fi gadgets. Chronovisor may merit a section in the time viewer article, fine, but the case for a stand-alone article is weak. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Redirect to time viewer. Not enough coverage in WP:FRIND sources to justify a stand alone article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, but if you do delete and redirect I just added a little additional material at time viewer to help any editor begin a merge there, maybe as a new section or subsection. While I was looking for acceptable English mainstream sources I found that the Chronovisor was used as the basis for a question (pdf link) in the 2022 International Collegiate Programming Contest in Germany. 5Q5|^✉ 11:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The sources here are either unreliable or unsubstantial, if not both. Does not meet the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:43, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Alleviation at the Last Minute Act[edit]

Cliff Alleviation at the Last Minute Act (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 law that died in committee. Gabe114 (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. Gabe114 (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Never passed legislation. Nate • (chatter) 21:39, 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. ✗plicit 14:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gruppo Sportivo Pavione[edit]

Gruppo Sportivo Pavione (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 significant coverage found, and does not appear to meet criteria at WP:NSPORTS. No corresponding article on Italian Wikipedia, which is telling. Ploni (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Italy. Ploni (talk) 14:36, 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. ✗plicit 14:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Invisible Lost Time[edit]

Invisible Lost Time (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)

Does not appear to be a significant or widespread enough concept in engineering research to warrant its own article. Ploni (talk) 14:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Ploni (talk) 14:33, 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. with socks and SPAs discounted, consensus is clear. Star Mississippi 15:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ayesha Singh[edit]

Ayesha Singh (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)

Issues with both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Article appears to be created by a fan (see [23]) and the images on the page are obvious copyright violations. There's not much sourcing and after removing some minor non-notable awards and unsourced material, it's a basic article. Singh has one significant role, the other roles appear to be minor. The most recent show is a musical game show, that's not going to meet the significant role criteria. It's still WP:TOOSOON. Ravensfire (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. Ravensfire (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows. Suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)), suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)), accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username))

• Why can't a musical game show meet a significant role criteria when there are wikipedia pages of artists participating in just one reality show ?? Before the page was deleted saying that , actor appeared only in one show with a significant role but noe even in recent show her's is a vital role , so why should it be deleted ??

Those images are my work , I edited them . If I posted original pics , you could have claimed copyright but these pics are my own edits . And even I mentioned few sources which are notable..

I just request the team to keep this page and not to delete it . Kindly reconsider it Tarun K Chowdary (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editing an image does NOT make it your own work. The copyright owner is the person that originally produced the image. And several of them you didn't edit at all - you just took credit for someone else's work. That is not acceptable on Wikipedia, copyright is taken very seriously here and on the Commons project. Ravensfire (talk) 14:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Hi , This is fanpage of the Actress Ayesha Singh . We have created the wikipedia page for the actress only after she started appearing in other show than her present show . We have mentioned notable sources only , they are verified on various social media platforms . and as for images , I uploaded them as found on internet so that copyright violation doesn't happen . Please reconsider this decision as it's very important for an actor to have a wiki page and we have written everything true only , no false information . Thank You . AyeshaSinghFC (talk) 04:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Striking as AyeshaSinghFC‎ is confirmed to be a sock of Tarun K Chowdary on the Commons (CU resulks are valid across projects for SUL accounts). Эlcobbola _talk 05:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom. There's no assertion of notability plus there's lack of significant coverage, hence failing WP:ENT and WP:GNG. ManaliJain (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Why can't a musical game show meet a significant role criteria when there are wikipedia pages of artists participating in just one reality show ?? Before the page was deleted saying that , actor appeared only in one show with a significant role but noe even in recent show her's is a vital role , so why should it be deleted ??

Those images are my work , I edited them . If I posted original pics , you could have claimed copyright but these pics are my own edits . And even I mentioned few sources which are notable..

I just request the team to keep this page and not to delete it . Kindly reconsider it Tarun K Chowdary (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Isn't Eastern Eye a notable source ?? Doesn't it have a significant coverage ?? I mentioned many coverages but all has been deleted or I say edited , Why ?? I could have proved them to be notable.. Isn't IMDB notable ?? Please reconsider it . This is our 8th time , Kindly keep this page . Tarun K Chowdary (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't vote more than once. You can comment multiple times, but don't keep putting keep. Keep in mind that making the same points over and over can be counterproductive (WP:BLUDGEON). The Eastern Eye source is an interview, that's not considered independent of the subject and doesn't help for notability. It's useful as a source of information, but not for notability. Sources need to be independent of the subject and from reputable publishers. Two of the sources are online episodes - not helpful for determining notability. The last is a list of tweets selected the editor - not helpful for determining notability. Ravensfire (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider this . This Wiki page is very important for us . Tarun K Chowdary (talk) 06:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This page shouldn’t be deleted as the actor has had a few significant roles too. She was the lead for her film adrishya. She’s currently playing the lead in ghum hai kisikey pyaar meiin. And as for the musical show it’s a reality entertainment show which can be considered. Has had a few minor roles in the past too. Currently she’s one of the most talked and loved actor from the Indian television industry so keeping this page should be considered as the public would like that. As for the copyright for the photos. Wikipedia can use a personal photo from her Instagram account and the actor would not have any issues with her photo being used for her Wikipedia page. It’ll come under fair use. And Wikipedia can put the source under the photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.214.61.210 (talk) 04:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin: please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tarun K Chowdary when weighing this IP comment. Эlcobbola _talk 13:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: non notable. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. A Google search couldn't find any reliable sources talking in depth about her. Bears (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per Ravensfire's analysis of the sources above; insufficient coverage/evidence of notability. The substantial double-voting, and socking to double vote, also seems telling; there would be no need for deception/manipulation if a genuine case could be made. Эlcobbola _talk 13:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Only one significant role. Even I do agree with Ravensfire's research under the matter. Moreover she fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG too as she hasn't even won single notable award like ITA or Gold Awards to remain in mainspace and contains only primary and Unreliable sources.Pri2000 (talk) 16:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I declined the speedy as there were assertions of notability over and above the originally-deleted version, at least enough to decline an immediate speedy deletion, but I do agree the assertions of notability aren't up to much and the article as it stands fails WP:NACTOR. Fish+Karate 13:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Ayesha Singh is an indian television actress who became popular for an important role in Zindagi Abhi Baaki Hai Mere Ghost and lead role in Ghum Hai Kisikey Pyaar Meiin^[1]. She is eligible for getting a Wikipedia page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dashingkadee (talk • contribs) 15:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the same reasons as the previous AfD from December 2021. The addition now has been the reality show which is why I gave the creator an opportunity for argument at the speedy deletion contest discussion. The game show as mentioned in the nomination is not going to be considered. When socks and IPs are making emotional pleas in reviving and retaining this article, and there is no seasoned contributor willing to take this up, it is just bad news for the article. I do see the subject passing WP:NACTOR in the near future, however it's WP:TOOSOON for now. Jay (talk) 08:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NACTOR, hard to find anything on the person. Kazanstyle (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP : Ayesha Singh has already played a significant role in Zindagi Abhi Baaki Hain Mere Ghost and is the lead role in Ghum Hai Kisikey Pyaar Meiin . What more reasons are needed for forming a wiki page ?? 2406:B400:B1:B907:E5BE:9550:F58C:C9CA (talk) 06:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: When the actress meets actor's wikipage criteria . Why to delete it ??

She played significant role in Zindagi Abhi Baaki Hain Mere Ghost . Lead role in Ghum Hai Kisikey Pyaar MEiin . Has coverage of blue tick and verified sites . What more is needed ?? Mysticalx04 (talk) 11:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC) (Striking blocked sock vote.) —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 20:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Expect votes from new editors - [24]. Ravensfire (talk) 13:44, 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 Draftify as there's a reasonable chance it could meet GNG with some work. Star Mississippi 15:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coleen Johnson[edit]

Coleen Johnson (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 and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GiantSnowman: I've just found these sources.[25][26]--MonFrontieres (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The first source is OK, the second not acceptable - and there is not enough for GNG. GiantSnowman 20:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify.--MonFrontieres (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify per MonFrontieres. @GiantSnowman: I added one more article from her college career (named to NationNews Barbados "Fantasy League Team" as a left forward) which is more than a passing mention, but for notability it would be good to have at least one more source in addition to that and the 2015 feature article in The Anguillan about her football scholarship. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]