< June 09	June 11 >

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

The result was delete. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Earle family[edit]

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

Genealogy of a family based on one self published family tree from 1888 and supplemented with Original Research for persons after 1888. No secondary sources, no indication of notability for the family name and no way to independently verify the names. Fails WP:GNG Slywriter (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Slywriter (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom, vanity piece. Oaktree b (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Many members of that era have individual Wikipedia articles, making this article unnecessary, plus reliable, independent sources about the Earle family do not exist, and notability has not been shown. Fails WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 02:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Re-write adding citations from independent sources. I do agree that the article as it stands is not well written and sourced. It mostly comes from one book. But, the Earle Family played a very important role in American History over several generations. And I think rather than delete all this information, wikipedia would be served better by either merging content into several pertinent articles, or re-writing this article showing relevance for the family’s contribution to American History and adding many more independent citations. I took several hours to re-write one paragraph and add 5 independent citations on Ralphe Earle the immigrant, but somehow my changes did not update and I did not save a copy. It will take some time to redo this and add more citations and make this article more fleshed out so that it can stand on its own. Independent sources are abundant. But, this just hasn’t been developed yet into a good piece of writing yet. user:SoundNotater 17 June 2022 — Preceding undated comment added 08:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While there are several notable members of the family, it is not clear that the family itself is notable as a topic given that there is not significant independent discussion of the family as a topic. There is not much guidance in our notability guideline for people, but notable family members does not confer notability to a single person. If we extend these principles to the family as a whole, there would need to be independent coverage of the family, and the only sources I could find are a genealogical family history written by a descendant, and low-quality genealogy website entries. Malinaccier (talk) 20:50, 18 June 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asahi Firearms[edit]

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

Original PROD rationale: Did not locate any substantive sources on a search. The Japanese wiki article is sourced entirely to blogs/commercial sellers, so none of those sources are suitable. When I tried to search the Japanese name (アサヒファイアーアームズ) I got nothing but marketplace listings.

Article was de-PROD'd but no actual reliable sources have been added. CollectorAirsoft.com is a sales website and is not reliable, and WWII Guns appears to be an enthusiast blog, also not an RS. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Firearms, and Japan. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Looking at this edit, just wow. It's moves like this, and the lovely note left on my talk page that make wikipedia a fun and interesting place to edit. --evrik ^(talk) 23:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moves like what? Removing unsourced, machine-translated content that you yourself tagged with a CN tag? And leaving a note reminding you that the addition of unsourced and/or machine translated content is generally to be avoided? If anyone here should be saying "wow" here, it's me, that an editor with your tenure and edit count should need reminding of basic policies like WP:V. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not only did you leave me a nasty note, but you left some pithy comments in the edit history. Oh, and then not only did you revert, but you escalated by moving this to AFD. A clear example of Meta:Don't be a jerk. --evrik ^(talk) 04:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I left an explanation of my edit, as is expected for an edit summary. I'm sorry that my accurate description of the content as unsourced and machine translated was problematic for you. And of course I took it to AfD - I didn't locate any sources on a BEFORE search, and you hadn't added any. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meta:Don't be a jerk. Again. --evrik ^(talk) 04:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Calling me a jerk for explaining things to you in a calm and forthright manner is hardly an effective argument for keeping the article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm calling you jerk for leaving a nasty note on my talk page, leaving aggressive edit summaries and escalating the prod into an AFD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by evrik (talk • contribs)

It is deeply ironic for you to be making personal attacks while accusing me of being rude and aggressive. I hope you strike that comment. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article has been expanded and sourced. It needs some more work, but it is a good start. --evrik ^(talk) 04:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that you've added are primarily unreliable blogs and commercial sales sites. The Tokyo PD source is reliable, but is hardly significant coverage about the company. None of it meets WP:CORPDEPTH, so none of it contributes to a claim of notability in line with WP:NCORP. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When I did the 5x expansion I went with the available sources. --evrik ^(talk) 04:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and the point I'm making is that none of the available sources meet the criteria for supporting a claim to notability. Hence, my argument that the article should be deleted as not meeting our notability guidelines. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps if had waited longer than 15 minutes for me to expand the article, we wouldn't be having this discussion, right? --evrik ^(talk) 03:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No? Because regardless of how much you expand the article, notability depends on the availability of reliable sources. Which you have still, after two days and lots of arguing, failed to produce. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't see much in the way of reliable sourcing from a search, and certainly the sourcing used in the ja-wiki is not up to scratch, and machine translation shouldn't be used for this sort of thing where the language structure is very different. Finally, I would ask Evrik to desist from personal attacks towards PMC. Sure, the note on your talk page could have been a little friendlier, but that's no excuse to start throwing insults around; and on the underlying issue with the machine translation, they're correct. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. This is about the subsidiary of a corporation, a corporation that is not even notable enough itself. One could not even invoke hereditary privileges. What's probably confusing is the existence of so many unrelated Asahis. -The Gnome (talk) 16:47, 16 June 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) PamD 06:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Piano bar (disambiguation)[edit]

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

~~Not needed: both albums are linked by hatnote from Piano bar~~ PamD 23:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC) Withdrawn PamD 06:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete per nom. There is a clear primary topic of the term, and the hatnote suffices to serve the disambiguation function. BD2412 T 00:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to keep based on the addition of other senses beyond the scope of what will fit in a hatnote, and per User:PamD's note below. BD2412 T 05:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion. Where should "Piano bar (album)" redirect to then? 7szz (talk) 01:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC) I made some changes on the page and added some entries. 7szz (talk) 01:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to withdraw if @BD2412: would like now to lean the other way. It was 50-50 whether to raise this AfD or to fix the hatnote at piano bar which didn't mention the dab, but 7szzz's addition make all the difference. Sorry I didn't do more [[WP:BEFORE]. PamD 05:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw as nominator. PamD 06:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Boarding up[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary says it all. Toddst1 (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a dictionary. CT55555 (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a resource like The Free Dictionary. TH1980 (talk) 02:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because Wikipedia is not Wiktionary. Who knows how this item managed to still be up in Wikipedia after all these years! But things have changed since then - for the better. -The Gnome (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Shia jurisprudence and development[edit]

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

Erudite essay discussing whether Shia jurisprudence hinders development, but better suited to an academic symposium than an encyclopedia article. Mccapra (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Personal essay and unencyclopedic, but it wouldn't hurt for someone to expand the page of Ja'fari jurisprudence. Zaynab1418 (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed, very much an essay. Oaktree b (talk) 23:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Essay. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 14:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anything worthwhile can be transposed into other Islamic jurisprudence articles. As mentioned above, this reads like an essay. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it's quite evident the subject lacks any claim to independent notability. This is, as already indicated above by other contributors, yet another personal essay attempting to claim a Wikipedia article. And the fact that the text's creator has been identified as a dirty sock does not help much. This merits a respectful defenestration, in tandem possibly with a generous move over to Principles of Islamic jurisprudence of any worthwhile text. -The Gnome (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dome Car Magic[edit]

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

Some random train DVD from 2006 is not notable. This fails GNG by a large margin. I found nothing from a before search. Article has zero references. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Transportation. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree, not notable. No sources found. Oaktree b (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it needs more citations/reviews. My search only brings up TV listings and such. Lovewiki106 (talk) 07:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P. A. Mohideen[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Madikeri is not such a large city that mayors/leaders are default notable under WP:NPOL, and I didn't find anything on a search. The archived "Coorg Creek" website is not an RS as far as I can tell. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and India. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of WP:N and no WP:RS could be found in searches of both news and books. Article was likely developed as a platform for P:PROMO Further, this article is being repackaged by other sources creating a disinformation loop that is feeding off itself. Volcom95 (talk) 02:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mayors do not get an automatic inclusion freebie under WP:NPOL, and that applies regardless of the size of the city — getting a mayor into Wikipedia is never a matter of just stating and single-sourcing that he exists, it's a matter of writing and sourcing a substantial article about his political significance (specific things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth). But that's not what this article is. Bearcat (talk) 14:58, 17 June 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. Arguments to keep the article point out coverage in major outlets. Arguments to delete point out that some of this coverage is via interviews. The discussion has not brought further clarity to this debate, so there does not appear to be clear consensus. Malinaccier (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fitness Blender[edit]

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

Fitness Blender

Run-of-the-mill digital content publisher. There are two problems with this article. First, an article should speak for itself and explain why the subject is notable, but this article does not. There is nothing in it that identifies the significant coverage by third parties that would support corporate notability. It simply says that the company exists. What little content there is reads like a brochure. Second, the references do not provide multiple significant coverage by reliable sources. The Wall Street Journal article is independent reliable coverage. The other three references are interviews, essentially copies of each other. However, references are necessary but not sufficient, and the article is not sufficient.

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	Wall Street Journal		Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
2	Seattle Times	Interview (and puff piece)	No	Yes	Yes	No
3	King5.com (Seattle)	Interview	No	Yes	Yes	No
4	Business Insider	Interview	No	Yes	Yes	No

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Sports, and Washington. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - looks like subtle case of WP:PROMO. ~XyNq^t_c 05:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Found one brief description of the company and how they are different, [1] and a limited but notable discussion in a peer-reviewed journal [2] and head-to-head comparaison here [3] these and the sources above seem to be enough for notability. One strong source, these are weaker but still independent sources added with the other sources mentioned seem to give us notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be more of a promotional piece and will not likely stand he test of time.Adam.Sudo (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree with the nominator, especially about the Seattle Times article, which I consider to be much more than an interview. That article is 38 paragraphs long and only a small percentage consists of quotations from the couple that run the company. I consider it significant coverage without a doubt. As for standing the test of time, they have already been in business for 14 years, so I do not understand that comment. In my view, the references in the article, taken as a whole, are sufficient to establish notability. Cullen328 (talk) 17:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That is a beefy Seattle Times article which makes it notable, but even the two and half million youtube fans, now 6.6million, puts them in very top of influencer territory. That alone would make them notable. scope_creep^Talk 10:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This publisher's YouTube channel was the subject of an article in The Wall Street Journal, which described it as a "fitness empire."
Delete per nom. The Seattle Times article is not intellectually independent (as it is, of course, based on an interview); and the WSJ piece is only one source (while GNG requires multiple) and mildly even looks like a puff piece. Youtube views, like google hits, are not indicators of anything pertinent for determining notability. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When a vlog has 2.65million views which is about the same viewership as an episode of Eastenders, on the BBC in 2022, then they are notable. scope_creep^Talk 09:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vlogs are user-made sources, so they do not indicate notability. Hemanth Nalluri 11 (talk) 17:53, 10 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!} 21:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do the peer-reviewed sources not satisfy notability requirements? Oaktree b (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Concept of Qada and Qadar from a Shia viewpoint[edit]

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

An essay on a religious topic but unfortunately not an encyclopedia article. Mccapra (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think "not an essay" is the easy way to justify deletion, but also not a notable topic is a way to see this. CT55555 (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like a non-notable guideline/clarification. Jhy.rjwk (talk) 06:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW delete. BD2412 T 02:15, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is Shia Islam created by Iranians?[edit]

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

This is a discursive essay rather than an encyclopedia article and I don’t think Wikipedia is the place for it. It belongs on someone’s Wordpress site. Mccapra (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Iran. Mccapra (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete But maybe some of the info could be included on the page "Shia Islam in Iran" if it is not already. Zaynab1418 (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find the Wordpress site, but no copyvios detected via the tool. Doesn't make sense to merge this to Shia, as the content is either already there or violates all sorts of POV/OR rules, and Shia#History itself links to plenty of other pages for more detail. Redirecting doesn't make sense because this is plainly an op-ed title, not something encyclopedic. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 21:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sorry - to be clear, I’m not saying this is copied from a Wordpress site. I’m saying it properly belongs on a Wordpress site about Shia islam rather than in an encyclopedia. I agree redirecting or merging won’t work. Mccapra (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete essay and not an article. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 05:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree it's an essay Mujinga (talk) 10:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- agree as per the nominator's reasons. Akalanka820 (talk) 11:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not encyclopedic. Reads like an essay. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 14:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An essay answering one question. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me • contribs) 20:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete clearly not encyclopedic. Did not finding anything suggesting this was some notable written work anywhere. Gnomatique (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's an essay. Difficult to see this one surviving, has a WP:SNOWBALL's chance. CT55555 (talk) 00:56, 14 June 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. I'm not seeing much useful content to move to the draft space. In the future this article can be recreated with more than a short plot summary and with references to establish notability. Malinaccier (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Mess of the Senses[edit]

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

This article does not meet the notability guidelines, as is noted on the article page. LoganP25 (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: also appears in translation as The Chaos of the Senses; preliminary searches indicate that there is some academic work based off of it. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 21:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems to be one of at least a dozen articles on Arabic novels created recently. All seemingly machine translated from Arabic Wikipedia and filled with excessive details, all lacking reliable sources. Quite a few of them are certainly notable though, I wouldn't be quick to rule this one out. "فـوضـى الـحـواس" yields quite a few hits. Arabic isn't a language I master, so navigating through all the sources is a bit of a hassle for me. Hopefully a few Arabic speakers are willing to take up the task. -- Mooonswimmer 01:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify If some see the article as promising but not displaying notability right now, move it to Draft space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds good, but I'm not sure how to do this, as I am a rather new editor. LoganP25 (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a page move, but in any case, we can't do that so long as this deletion discussion remains open. I'd be happy to walk you through it, though. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 21:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Bilodeau[edit]

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

Article about a diplomat, not properly sourcing a strong claim to passing our notability criteria for diplomats. Wikipedia long ago deprecated the notion that diplomats are "inherently" notable just because they exist, and a diplomat must now be explicitly shown to pass WP:GNG on his sourceability to qualify for an article -- but the only "source" here is a press release from DFAIT (i.e. his own employer) rather than notability-building coverage or analysis of his work, and the article's been flagged for that problem since 2013 without ever having any better sources added. Bearcat (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No sources found in my own research, despite filtering out the actor and the artist with the same name. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 21:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ambassadors are not default notable, and we lack sourcing to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:03, 13 June 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 2005 Dhaka garment factory collapse. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shahriar Sayeed Husain[edit]

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

Not a significant person according to the policy. Didn't do any significant work. Also, there is not enough information about him on the internet. Even in real life he is not a familiar person. ~ Nahian ^Talk 20:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2005 Dhaka garment factory collapse as ATD. Mccapra (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2005 Dhaka garment factory collapse. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rui Costa (musician)[edit]

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

I'm not sure that this member of Silence 4 is independently notable. This BLP has no references, and the external link (supposedly an announcement of Costa leaving the band) is dead. I have already corrected the title from an unnecessarily fine band-based disambiguation, since the other Rui Costas are not musicians. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Portugal. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that it meets WP:MUSICBIO. There are not independent and indepth citations for this person. Zeddedm (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of Venezuela[edit]

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

The current sources all appear to be databases and catalogs. The others are unreliable self-published websites or 404. Furthermore, they do not support every entry on the list. Even if a source existed to verify every entry on this list, there is zero evidence that the subject of them being a list-worthy topic is notable. Like all of these other similarly minded lists, this is a clear-cut example of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Consensus is increasingly strong by now that such lists fail WP:SALAT Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Venezuela. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Page XIV of the following book appears to list people on postage tamps in Argentina, Venezuela, Mexico, Ecuador and others. I can't see through google's interface the extent to which this provides significant coverage, or what text precedes or follows the list. : Child, J. (2008). Miniature messages: the semiotics and politics of Latin American postage stamps. United Kingdom: Duke University Press.

As per what I've said in other discussions, there's lots of circumstantial indications of offline sources generally pointing towards notability of people on postage stamps per country. CT55555 (talk) 20:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at my copy, and xiv is just an index to the color plates - several plates only include notable persons on stamps. I also saw a mention of a related book [4] of which I was not previously aware. Stan (talk) 12:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; basically an indiscriminate list, since the selections themselves are whatever the government in question decides to use on a given day. BD2412 T 00:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is an indiscrminate list lacking the needed sources to back it up in full. Beyond this, the list is about half entries that lack articles, which Wikipedia should not be creating unless we have a subject that actually is regularly covered as a group and every entry and point is well backed by sources, which is not met here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An indiscriminate list. Clearly WP:NOTDIR applies here. LibStar (talk) 04:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete by MSGJ. (G4 - Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion, Articles for deletion/Atul Kumar Sharma) (non-admin closure) WikiVirusC^(talk) 20:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Atul Kumar Sharma (producer)[edit]

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

All of the references are either completely fake or unreliable (e.g. IMDb). Some might say that Indian Economic Observer is a good source but it's clearly a press release as per the comment at the bottom, which says This story is provided by PNN. ANI will not be responsible in any way for the content of this article. (ANI/PNN).

Previously deleted at Atul Kumar Sharma, which is now salted. Please see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atul Kumar Sharma. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Businesspeople, Television, Bihar, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 10 June 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 Extensible Application Markup Language#Technology. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

XAMLPad[edit]

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

Undid a presumptive bad-faith PROD nomination by LTA, per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Software_projects_crosswiki_LTA, but I have reason to believe that this is genuinely non-notable. My own WP:BEFORE returned no usable secondary sources. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Extensible_Application_Markup_Language#Technology where it is mentioned. There is possibly enough reliable sourcing in Google Books to for notability, but if not, a redirect to the XAML article where it is mentioned seems a reasonable alternative to deletion. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 15:46, 11 June 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. RL0919 (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Alive (TV series)[edit]

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

The source already in the article does not constitute significant coverage: A Colorado teen fights for his life after being bitten by a black widow, and a man is attacked by a wild elephant in China in the premiere of this new survival series. That's all it has to say.

After weeding out a crapton of TV Guide listings and false positives, I looked for articles that seemed to have something to say about the show. I feel the results of my WP:BEFORE were very low:

"Mom tells of bear attack". Human-interest story about a bear attack. The only content actually about the show amounts to Susan Cenkus will tell the story a 2006 bear attack in the Cherokee National Forest on the Animal Planet show "I'm Alive" today at 9 p.m. and 11 p.m. today.
"Snakebite victim recalls ordeal for TV". Human-interest story about a snakebite. This one is slightly more substantial; it contains about a paragraph or two about how "the producers" arranged things for the snakebite victim. Still, it gives literally zero detail about who was involved in the show or what their names are.
"Rattlesnake bite drama coming to Animal Planet". Human-interest story about the same snakebite. Again, mostly mentions the show in passing with vague terms like "the producers" and quote-farming from the show's website.
"FHU graduate shares his adventures in travel" (alternate copy). Human-interest story that dedicates less than a full sentence to the show: On Friday, he will be featured on the premiere of Animal Planet's reality show "I'm Alive." The program shows how people survive the wild. The rest of the article is about the victim of an elephant attack, including an interview with him and extensive mentions of his other efforts.
"Watch This". Only content about the show is Then a father and son on an elk-hunting trip endure a grizzly bear attack on "I Shouldn't Be Alive" at 9 p.m., both on Animal Planet.
"Watch This". Only content about the show is A crocodile rescuer is bitten by a cobra in his own bed. He probably didn't see that one coming. Then a kid mauled by a bear shootswhitewater rapids to get help, earning the title World's Toughest Teen.
"All creatures great, repulsive: Making sense of animal TV". Opinion piece about Animal Planet as a whole. Entire quotation is The Animal Planet shows "I'm Alive" and "I Shouldn't Be Alive" are full of true stories of people mauled by bears or shipwrecked in shark-filled seas.

There is no word on who the producers even are, or any other production details of the show. Does it have a host? A narrator? A director? An editor? Even IMDb is unclear on most of this. Nearly all the sources above are highly detailed on the events that were re-created for the show, but say next to nothing about the show itself, and the same seemed to be true for every subsequent one. The rest were just one-sentence blurbs in catch-all "what's on TV tonight" lists, such as the two cited here.

In short, I feel there is insufficient WP:SIGCOV of this show, and it should be either deleted or redirected to List of programs broadcast by Animal Planet. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with nom. There are not proper or enough references. Lovewiki106 (talk) 07:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep changing to keep, per new citations found below by Cunard. Lovewiki106 (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Wade, Will (2022-02-24). "I'm Alive. TV review by Will Wade, Common Sense Media". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on 2022-06-12. Retrieved 2022-06-12.
  The review notes: "It’s hard to beat the drama of real-world, life-threatening encounters with wild animals, but I'm Alive drains much of the excitement from the stories by stretching them out too long. Hearing someone talk about being gored by an elephant in a remote part of China is fascinating; listening to his entire life story -- including his school years, travels, marriage, and a tragic loss -- is unnecessary filler that detracts significantly from his story."
2. Martin, Melanie J. (2015). Kemmerer, Lisa (ed.). Animals and the Environment: Advocacy, activism, and the quest for common ground. London: Routledge. p. 138. ISBN 978-1-138-82587-1. Retrieved 2022-06-12 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Animal Planet's Human Prey and I'm Alive do the same. By casting nonhuman animals as inherently violent and dangerous, nature documentaries follow trends set by horror movies like Jaws, Anaconda, and Lake Placid. Such programs portray nonhumans as dangerous and unpredictable, without admitting that humans as a whole are far more dangerous to wild animals. Viewing these films uncritically increases our society’s desire to conquer such animals by killing, capturing, and harassing them. An episode of I'm Alive (2009), in which a man is attacked by a leopard, begins like a scene in a horror movie. An overhead, angular view reveals a man sitting in the dark. A fast-moving series of clips then shows a leaping leopard, a screaming woman, and a man lying on the ground, howling in pain. The camera then appears to fall, so the viewer cannot clearly see what is happening. Through the bouncing vision of the moving camera, which disorients viewers, the man is rushed to surgery, creating an intense feeling of danger and panic. Shortly thereafter, while the man's wife is describing her reaction to her husband's near death at the hands of a terrifying wild beast, the camera flashes to repeated images of the man being attacked by the wild leopard. This flick, like so many wildlife shows, relies on shock and terror to captivate viewers. By airing such clips, Animal Planet is unapologetically teaching viewers that other animals are dangerous, deadly—the enemies of humanity."
3. Scripps, Lora (2011-04-25). "Limestone native to be featured on 'I'm Alive'". The News Courier. Archived from the original on 2022-06-12. Retrieved 2022-06-12.
  The article notes: "White’s story of survival will be retold next week on the Animal Planet series “I’m Alive” produced by Gurney Productions. The episode “Out of Reach” will air at 9 p.m. Wednesday, April 27, and at 8p.m. and 10 p.m. on Animal Planet high-definition channels. “I’m Alive” features the death-defying and moving stories of people who — regardless of the obstacles or consequences — were determined to survive an animal attack. White was contacted by the producers through Vanderbilt University."
4. Nguyen, Dong-Phuong (2010-07-02). "Snakebite Victim Recalls Ordeal for TV". Tampa Bay Times. Archived from the original on 2022-06-12. Retrieved 2022-06-12.
  The article notes: "This week, the mother of fourbasked in California's movie star glow while filming a segment for I'm Alive, an Animal Planet program that features people who survive animal attacks and shows how it changed them. ... Monday, she spent about five hours filming a re-enactment of what happened on June 10, 2008. ... When producers for I'm Alive tracked Diaz down, she was ecstatic. ... The show paid all expenses - travel, lodging and meals - for Diaz, husband Charles and daughter Madelyn. They arrived Sunday and walked along the boardwalk. On Monday, Diaz filmed the show. Charles and Madelyn were scheduled to be interviewed Tuesday."
5. Moy, Chelsi (2010-05-17). "Rattlesnake bite drama coming to Animal Planet". Missoulian. Archived from the original on 2022-06-12. Retrieved 2022-06-12.
  The article notes: "The Missoula family recently experienced the lights, camera, wardrobe and makeup that goes along with recounting the near-death experience and remarkable rescue effort to producers at Animal Planet's "I'M ALIVE" TV series in Los Angeles. Producers with the cable and satellite channel contacted Ebinger several weeks ago and flew the father and son to California last week, put them up in a swanky hotel and interviewed the pair about the series of events. ... The two spent all of last Friday in California, telling their tale to Animal Planet producers. Interviewers asked detailed, often redundant, questions to acquire every kernel of information during two, four-hour interviews. ... "I'M ALIVE" is a relatively new show on Animal Planet, described on the cable channel's website as an ..."
6. Buntjer, Julie (2009-10-08). "Worthington native to appear in episode on Animal Planet tonight". The Globe. Archived from the original on 2022-06-12. Retrieved 2022-06-12.
  The article notes: "Worthington native Branden Roth, who left his hometown behind more than two years ago to pursue a life-long dream to become an actor, will appear in an episode of "I'm Alive" tonight on Animal Planet. The show airs at 8 p.m., and is the first in what Animal Planet hopes will be a new series on its network. The show shares the real-life stories of people who encounter attacks by animals and survive. In the episode, Roth plays the older brother of a boy who was bitten by a Black Widow Spider."
7. Paddenburg, Trevor (2010-05-09). "Shark attack survivor - will ride wave of fame". The Sunday Times. Archived from the original on 2022-06-12. Retrieved 2022-06-12.
  The article notes: "This week, producers of I'm Alive, a show aired on the Animal Planet channel, had phone interviews with the Golebiowski family. The gutsy surfer, who lives in Margaret River and works as a photographer, will be flown to the US for studio interviews and filming of a new series in the next few months. He said he didn't feel special -- but if people were interested in his story, he was happy to share it. ... The show has featured survival stories of victims of near-fatal encounters with alligators, bears, leopards, lions, sharks, scorpions, snakes and deadly species of fish."
8. "I'm Alive (Animal Planet, 5.03PM)". The Borneo Post. 2015-04-08. Retrieved 2022-06-12 – via PressReader.
  The article notes: "For Staff Sergeant Monique Munro-Harris, a string from a death stalker scorpion while deployed in Iraq necessitates a risky meical airlift over enemy territory."
9. Less significant coverage:
  1. "Snakebite Story Plays Out on Animal Planet". Tampa Bay Times. 2011-04-25. Archived from the original on 2022-06-12. Retrieved 2022-06-12.
    The article notes: "Yolanda Diaz spent 10 days in the hospital after a snake attacked her near her home in June 2008. Last summer, she spent several days in California re-enacting it all for Animal Planet's I'm Alive."
  2. Goins, Tammie (2009-12-04). "Story of bear attack to air". Chattanooga Times Free Press. Archived from the original on 2022-06-12. Retrieved 2022-06-12.
    The article notes: "Now the world will have a chance to hear the chilling tale of how Mrs. Cenkus risked her life to save her children in the 2006 attack on the Animal Planet show "I'm Alive" tonight at 9 and 11 p.m."
  3. Trentelman, Charles F. (2010-08-29). "Farr West woman overwhelmed by buffalo incident, media attention". Standard-Examiner. Archived from the original on 2022-06-12. Retrieved 2022-06-12.
    The article notes: "A couple weeks later she flew to Los Angeles to be on "Animal Planet," on a show called "I'm Alive." ... The trip to Los Angeles was the same. Hayes said the Animal Planet show, "I'm Alive," looks for people who've had dangerous encounters "and when you tell the stories, they back light you and dramatize it, and then they do a followup." But Animal Planet only gave her $500 plus the trip, ..."
  4. "8 p.m." Connecticut Post. 2011-03-21. Archived from the original on 2022-06-12. Retrieved 2022-06-12.
    The article notes: "I'm Alive. Jaws comes gruesomely true in Hawaii for teenage Hoku in this new episode, as an enormous tiger shark severs his leg. A vacationing couple step in to try to keep him alive until help comes. In Canada, help isn't forthcoming for Gerald, who's the target of a 300-pound black bear. He climbs a tree to escape, but the animal drags him back down again in "Eaten Alive."
  5. McDonough, Kevin (2009-10-09). "Television / Tune in Tonight / 'Dog Whisperer' teaches how to put the best paw forward". The Press of Atlantic City. Archived from the original on 2022-06-12. Retrieved 2022-06-12.
    The article notes: "Proof that not every critter has been properly puppy trained can be found on "I'm Alive" (9 p.m., Animal Planet), a weekly series dedicated to stories of folks who survived deadly animal attacks. Many surmounted horrific pain and moments of fear by focusing their thoughts on family and loved ones. A rattlesnake-bite victim tells himself he has a daughter to raise. Similar determination helped the survivor of an alligator attack swim to safety using his one remaining arm."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow I'm Alive to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per new citations listed by Cunard. Jacona (talk) 23:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified by Cunard in this discussion so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard's sources. Another time consuming effort to save an article that was nominated without a proper WP:BEFORE DonaldD23 talk to me 22:37, 16 June 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. RL0919 (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chashma Chadha ke[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG in that most sources – present in the article or from a Google search – do not provide detailed, specific information about the music video itself. Most sources also date to the release (early December 2021), with little to no coverage in sources published more recently. A mention of this video in Govinda (actor) would probably be sufficient, at best. ComplexRational (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Internet, and India. ComplexRational (talk) 17:12, 10 June 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!} 04:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barof[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Barof

This film article does not have enough information to establish film notability. There has already been a previous AFD, so that the question should be whether this article contains any additional information. However, it has neither a plot summary nor reception information, so that the article does not provide any third-party information. (I have not read the deleted article and so am not tagging this article for G4.) A check of the references shows not only that there is no independent secondary coverage, but that there are only three references, each of which is repeated, and they basically say that the movie exists.

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	www.cinestaan.com	A web site providing movie information	Yes	No	Yes	No
2	timesofindia.com	Advance publicity about the movie	No	Yes	No	No
3	nowrunning.com	Cast listing about the movie	Yes	No	Yes	No
4	www.cinestaan.com	Same as reference 1	Yes	No	Yes	No
5	timesofindia.com	Very little information except the name of the Same as reference 2	No	Yes	No	No
6	nowrunning.com	Same as reference 3	Yes	No	Yes	No

If a plot summary and reception information can be found within seven days, a Heymann close may be possible. Otherwise this article should be draftified or deleted. (Do not salt it, because someone might find reviews.) Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The original version of this article had a plot summary that may have been copyvio. This does not affect this nomination. Reception information is still lacking. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet NFILM with the cited refs. Cannot find any reliable reviews in English, however, Bengali or offline sources may exist -- Ab207 (talk) 07:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does the Kolkata Mail plot summary count? [5] or this from a Canadian website [6]. The Canadian website serves a large Indian population in the Greater Toronto Area. Oaktree b (talk) 23:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Plot summaries without critical commentary" do not establish notability per WP:NFSOURCES. No idea about the Canadian website's reliability but one review is not sufficient to meet NFILM. -- Ab207 (talk) 08:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur with Robert McClenon's analysis of the cited sources. The only one of any depth is The Times of India, which is non-indepenent pre-release promotion. The external links are more of the same. The two links suggested by Oaktree b are advertorials ("Eros Now, South Asia's leading streaming entertainment service owned by the Eros STX Global Corporation (NYSE: EROS), a Global Entertainment company, recently unveiled the trailer ...", "creates a void in the life of his mother as well as his wife"). Searches of the usual types in English and Bengali found nothing better, no independent full-length reviews by nationally known critics, such as needed to meet WP:NFF criterion 1. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Home Along Da Riles guest stars[edit]

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

There's no indication that these guest stars meet List Notability, nor any reason that they can't be discussed within the show's article if relevant. Here because the creator refuses to accept established editors (courtesy @Mccapra and DoubleGrazing:'s assessment that it's not ready for mainspace and continues to move war. Star Mississippi 16:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. Star Mississippi 16:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails even basic WP:V. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - When a user move-wars a page from draft space into article space, it usually isn't ready for article space. This is no exception. It has no references and fails both verifiability and notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Home Along Da Riles as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. SBKSPP (talk) 01:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to notability concerns. Most of the artists in that list are notable but not because they were guests in the sitcom. I also disagree with redirecting this to the main article as the only notable character there is probably Bayani Fernando whose entry in the plot heralded the end of the show.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wa-Will-Away Park, Indiana[edit]

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

Searching with the hyphens brings up basically nothing, and searching without the hyphens brings up basically nothing. I'm finding listings in old government publications of FIPS code, and it appears in the pre-GNIS place name listings, but I have not seen one thing that I would refer to as WP:GNG-eligible coverage. Appearing in GNIS doesn't meet WP:GEOLAND, and neither doe the FIPS listings. A quick skim through some of the entries in Category:Unincorporated communities in Indiana suggests a larger look-through of these Indiana geostubs is advisable. Hog Farm _Talk 16:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Hog Farm _Talk 16:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, this is one of many bulk-created by the same user in Indiana from poor GNIS data that was not actually verified for accuracy or notability. 74/513 of their stub creations have been deleted so far, surely lots more to go. Reywas92^Talk 17:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find nothing about this place. One hit on Mount Baldy, not sure what is has to do with this place. Oaktree b (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Campbell Corner, Indiana[edit]

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

I noticed this article while putting together Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Campbell Corner, Virginia and thought I'd take a look at this one as well. I couldn't find anything on newspapers.com that was unambiguously about this place. Searching in other locations brought up a passing mention in a soil survey and a 1980s USGS publication referring to this as a locale (geography). Locales without substantial history generally don't pass WP:GEOLAND, and I'm not seeing any coverage that would indicate a WP:GNG pass. This is my first geostub AFD nomination for an Indiana location, so I'm less familiar with the "standard sources" than I would be for Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia, or Missouri, so if I missed something I'm perfectly willing to be persuaded that this is notable. Hog Farm _Talk 16:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Hog Farm _Talk 16:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete topo shows nothing. Reywas92^Talk 17:14, 10 June 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 John F. Rider. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Francis Rider (philatelist)[edit]

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

The one source here does not work. My searching for sources in both google and google books turned up no sources that supported Rider having been the subject of multiple instantces of significant coverage from reliable sources. I do not think the award he received is in and of itself enough to justify an article, and I do not think we have enough sourcing to show that he is notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to John F. Rider - I've fixed the archived link, and it affirms his date of birth and date of death. Well, the stamp fanboys got it wrong... This John F. Rider is almost certainly the same person as the John F. Rider radio engineer! How do I know? Rider the radio engineer has the same birthday and year of death. See here. His field of expertise was communications, so it's not a far stretch to assume he had some interest in postal stuff. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with a merge. Here's a link to an obituary that mentions that he was a radio pioneer, author and philatelist https://worldradiohistory.com/hd2/IDX-Site-Early-Radio/Call-Letter/IDX/Call-Letter-1985-07-IDX-7.pdf Piecesofuk (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly if he is the same as the other John F. Rider we should merge. I figured since one said he was born in "Bristol?" and the other "Hungary" there was no way they were the same. I guess I should trust such unclear birth places less, because that article presented above clearly shows there was only one person who did both radio and stamps.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect p b p 15:40, 15 June 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) Slywriter (talk) 02:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel Kopelowitz[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Seems nice enough but not sure there is enough to satisfy WP:GNG Slywriter (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Judaism, and England. Slywriter (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep, but hoping for feedback. Does having a Order of the British Empire confer any notability? Also:

I think there's a mention here, maybe discounted as routine notifications?: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/12/queens-birthday-honours-list-2014-mbe
His obituary does seem to have editorial oversight, so I think legit for notability? https://www.thejc.com/news/obituaries/dr-lionel-kopelowitz-jp-mbe-1.495410
The book in the article has significant coverage, I'm certain of that
Lots of quotes in serious newspapers.
He gets 8 mentions in Brook, S. (1996). The club: the Jews of modern Britain. London: Constable.

CT55555 (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He's published quite a number of articles in the British Medical Journal in the 1980s, might be notable as an academic. Oaktree b (talk) 01:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Order of the British Empire, he's an MBE, so the lowest grade. They include (in order of precedence):

   GBE, KBE or DBE (Knight or Dame) - Knight or Dame of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire
   CBE - Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire
   OBE - Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire
   MBE - Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire [7]

Leaning notable. Oaktree b (talk) 01:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Withdrawing as believe the significant amount of publishing establishes notability when coupled with already available sources.Slywriter (talk) 02:00, 11 June 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tushar Kumar (film director)[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a music video director, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:CREATIVE. As always, filmmakers are not automatically notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia just because their work exists, and instead must show some evidence of distinction (major national-level awards, third-party media coverage, etc.) to prove that their work has been externally validated as significant -- but the strongest notability claim here is that he won a couple of "Best Local X" awards from a local-interest magazine in the city where he lives, which is not enough in and of itself, and otherwise the sourcing is almost entirely to blogs, press releases and sponsored content rather than WP:GNG-worthy media coverage. (I also had to strip 16 footnotes of the "video metaverifying its own existence on YouTube" variety, which is also not notability-supporting sourcing.)
It should also be noted that this was started in draftspace, and was then moved to mainspace without an AFC review by a different editor (not the creator) who's only been a Wikipedia contributor for a month. The page mover has otherwise only ever edited their own userpage and an as yet unapproved and unsubmitted draft about a city councillor, and thus has no established record as a qualified judge of whether articles actually pass our inclusion standards or not. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, India, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update: the creator and the page mover have both been blocked on behavioural grounds at WP:SPI; although they were found to be technically unrelated, their respective edit behaviours pertaining to this article were deemed highly suggestive of coordinated meatpuppetry. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - likely undisclosed paid-for spam, per meatpuppetry detailed above and other telltale signs. MER-C 09:02, 12 June 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. Contact me if any editors want to work on this article in Draft space but it's clearly not main space material. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

People's Biodiversity festival[edit]

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

Just no notability for a "celebratory assertion". The lead states "One such festival" so is too broad for individual coverage. Otr500 (talk) 08:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Otr500 (talk) 08:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 08:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - it's possibly notable, but this article needs lot of work. I would be willing to draftify it. Bearian (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think there are four reliable sources at most, but all are borderline WP:ROUTINE and definitely not WP:DIVERSE or sustained. The event appears to not have had any lasting effect. Since there is no possibility of any new coverage, this fails WP:NEVENT. Hemantha (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Congrats! This is the first article in a new delsort! This has been placed in Andhra Pradesh because Telangana did not exist at the time this event took place (2012). For events within Telangana's borders on or after 2 June 2014, use Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Telangana. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds almost propagandist, CBD is also short for cannabis-derived products, so needs lots of work. I find no sources. Article is too vague as to what it's supposed to be about, appears to be for a festival in India? Oaktree b (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found nothing on any of the usual search locations, I think this is not notable. CT55555 (talk) 15:57, 10 June 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 seems to be that this article needs rewriting, not deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dilara Fındıkoğlu[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Also, possibly undisclosed paid contribution for PR purposes and advertising. Kadı Message 08:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, Turkey, and England. Kadı Message 08:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nope ser, not true at all. First of all, this is not a paid contribution, not even close to "possibly" as she's well-covered on most fashion leading publications in the UK/World including i-D, Dazed, Vogue with not only written content but also visual documentaries. I'd recommend doing research about the topic like I did to be able to write this article. So you can check my statements one by one and can see it's all covered by the sources following my own research. Second, the reason why I created this article is because I think she's an important designer as she changed the standards for one of the most famous fashion schools, the collaborations she made with world's well-known fashion people FKA Twigs, Madonna, Bella Hadid, etc. How many Turkish fashion designers are able to reach that level in these days? And finally she caught my attention after I saw the news about she's the designer working for Mayor of Istanbul, Ekrem İmamoğlu. Have great week everyone and my Turkish friend Kadı :) Palaangelino (talk) 11:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Palaangelino (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

It is very meaningful to see you active again for this nomination after 8 months. Kadı Message 17:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Surprise! :) Palaangelino (talk) 04:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Several hits in Vogue UK, leaning keep, but the potential paid contribution is concerning. We could rewrite it, I think there is enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course notable. It's just ssssneaky nomination by Kadı. Be cautious about this guy tho. Anyway, have a great Wiki everyone! Palaangelino (talk) 04:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is some concerns of paid COI, but several hits by Vogue UK is enough for me. Still, however, that there is some puffery, which requires rewriting the article. Mario Jump 83! 01:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MaxnaCarter (talk) 11:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed, the article is rather "puffy" and needs a rewrite. Oaktree b (talk) 13:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I will re-echo the COI concerns, however with coverage by Vogue and many other RS coverage she passes the GNG. Promotional content should be tackled via editing. Pikavoom ^Talk 06:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Dilara Fındıkoğlu for the COI concerns. Some input there could be useful. ~Styyx^Talk? 17:34, 12 June 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 12:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anogen[edit]

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

This is a company therefore WP:NCORP applies. I am unable to locate references that contain "Independent Content" and in-depth information on the *company*. References instead focus on the science and the developed treatments (not the topic of the article). HighKing⁺⁺ 12:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Canada. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 12:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simmons Foods[edit]

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

This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. I am unable to locate references that meet both ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. Most of the references regurgitate corporate announcements and PR. The rest focus on the class action lawsuit but don't meet CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Arkansas. Shellwood (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The following sources show the company meets WP:NCORP (not exhaustive):

"Simmons Foods, Inc". D&B Hoovers. Retrieved 2022-06-04 – via ProQuest.
"Simmons Foods, Inc - Company Capsule". Canadean. Retrieved 2022-06-04 – via ProQuest.
Fandl, Kevin J. (2018-09-03). Law and Public Policy. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-351-24307-0.
"Rehab scam: Defendants in court-ordered rehab work for free". Reveal. 2017-10-04. Retrieved 2022-06-04.

The bottom two sources describe the companies employment practices, which is in scope of WP:CORPDEPTH.Jumpytoo Talk 23:28, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep large corporation in the pet food processing space with sources to back up information. Jonpatterns (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the primary sources need to be cut in part or in whole, the corporation is worthy of note. SWinxy (talk) 04:03, 16 June 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 13:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Plum[edit]

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

Non-notable hip-hop musician with no notable breakthroughs into either the mainstream or within his respective genre; no substantial coverage bar one or two mentions in minor magazines years ago – easily fails WP:NOTABILITY. This individual also appears to have died several weeks ago according to social media posts, with zero media coverage following Jkaharper (talk) 12:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 June 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Idaho. Shellwood (talk) 13:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find the NPR piece as cited and a roundtable discussion? in Vice: [8], neither of which is substantial. Delete. Oaktree b (talk) 13:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sad to see this and have to say, but notability just isn't there despite the tragedy. R.I.P. IrishOsita (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that it meets WP:MUSICBIO. Not enough coverage here. Zeddedm (talk) 02:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I found 2 more news articles about arson conviction and have added a section about it, but since it is unrelated to his music career, I would still vote delete. Zeddedm (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He got a nice review from NPR in 2010 (already cited), but his music career received no other notice beyond the usual social media and directory entries. He has minor news coverage as a criminal, but over at WP:PERP there are additional notability requirements that a small-time local thug cannot meet. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he is not notable as an article and certainly not notable for the crime conviction later. Pikavoom ^Talk 06:26, 12 June 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 01:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Catapult international[edit]

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

WP:SERIESA, WP:NOTYET, WP:NCORP Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 11:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 11:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - This article is about what the company says about itself, and not what third parties say about it, and so does not establish corporate notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore WP:NCORP applies. I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:23, 10 June 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Holland Pratt[edit]

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

I'm not seeing GNG being met here, nor any achievement that warrants a WP article. PR coverage of one event - best soldier in her year (2 refs) - does not cut it; nor does being a Rhodes Scholar. Nor does an incidental mention in an article about a historic environmental issue (1 ref).

GNG calls for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. What we're presented with here are, in essence, not very much local paper and trade magazine coverage of a routine event - best soldier - and nothing else.

Note, fwiw, that this article is somewhat involved in a DYK nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/List of United States Military Academy First Captains Tagishsimon (talk) 11:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Military, and Washington. Shellwood (talk) 11:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shellwood: @Tagishsimon: @Maile66: I think we ought to keep the article, since it's already done, but if we don't, it's not that big a deal.

I put the Pratt article together because I made a few edits to the article on cadet first captains, and another contributor suggested that an article on the most recent incumbent might be a good idea. I had time and there were sufficient sources to use as references, so I went ahead and followed up. But it wasn't a priority or anything like that.

Billmckern (talk) 12:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing here suggest meeting our actual notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most universities, including the military academies, recognize their top-achieving students and student leaders each year, and it's hard to recognize something so routine as a basis for notability. It's also typical for such top students and recipients of prestigious scholarships like the Rhodes to be recognized by their schools and hometown newspapers, but with 100 recipients of just that one each year, it's not a basis for notability either. Reywas92^Talk 14:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GNG: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources This criterion has been met. The coverage is significant and the sources are reliable. I dispute the assertion that the CBS Evening News does not constitute widespread coverage. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The CBS Evening News piece can be viewed here: it's a two-and-a-half-minute interview of the four Rhodes Scholars from the USMA together, and Pratt has just two lines. This is in no way, shape, or form significant coverage about her. Reywas92^Talk 01:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NACADEMIC "Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. #2 "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." Rhodes Scholarship "The Rhodes Scholarship is an international postgraduate award for students to study at the University of Oxford. It is considered among the most prestigious international scholarship programs in the world." 1 2 — Maile (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. NACADEMIC begins with "An academic is someone engaged in scholarly research or higher education; academic notability refers to being known for such engagement...Many academics have been faculty members (such as professors) at colleges or universities. Also, many academics have held research positions at academic research institutes (such as NIH, CNRS, etc.). However, academics may also work outside academia and their primary job does not need to be academic if they are known for their academic achievements. Conversely, if they are notable for their primary job, they do not need to be notable academics to warrant an article." This does NOT apply to undergraduates who have received an award for postgraduate study, but rather this criterion is for awards specifically for scholarly research such as IEEE Edison Medal or Abel Prize. Reywas92^Talk 01:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on notability (I did find some coverage but I'm torn on whether or not they count as lasting or significant), but I'm not really convinced that a Rhodes Scholarship is by itself enough to establish notability. Indeed, Amakuru mentioned on the talk page discussion that there's around a hundred of them per year. A Rhodes Scholarship is very impressive and speaking as someone who comes from an academic background myself it's something that we'd want to aspire to have. However, for what it's worth, it's not mentioned in WP:NACADEMIC and I'm not sure if it would fit the certain awards, honors and prizes of notable academic societies, of notable foundations and trusts part, especially when it's a scholarship and not exactly an award. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to all other participants in the WT:DYK discussion who haven't commented here yet: @Amakuru and Theleekycauldron: Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

!Voting redirect per the arguments raised by Reywas92 as well as Theleekycauldron's link below. I did find one independent article specifically about her (from a local newspaper), but most of the remaining coverage, as noted above, seem to be about her corps in general and she only happened to be part of it. I'm not convinced that being featured in the WWE Tribute to the Troops conveys notability. I was originally considering !voting weak delete, but given that she's a possible search term (she did become First Captain only recently) and she could be notable in the future, I think a redirect to List of United States Military Academy First Captains could be a suitable compromise in the meantime. This is nothing against her achievements or her as a person, I'm only speaking with my encyclopedia notability glasses on. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not coming down one way or the other on notability – I agree with NLH5, it seems borderline – but I will say that the Rhodes scholarship is not quite usable for WP:NACADEMIC. See Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)/Archive 13#Rhodes scholar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by theleekycauldron (talk • contribs)
Weak keep. I think the subject meets GNG with significant coverage in reliable sources. There's certainly adequate sourcing here for a stand-alone article. While the Rhodes Scholarship and the position of first captain at West Point do not in themselves guarantee notability, they do contribute to it. Aside from the CBS interview, she was also featured in 2021's WWE Tribute to the Troops. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 11:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sure one day she'll be notable enough for an article, but it's way too soon. Gamaliel (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Students and junior officers have a very high notability bar. She's well beneath it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON and known for just one event (distinguished career at West Point) WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:15, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC, sources do not amount to significant coverage. Mztourist (talk) 10:52, 18 June 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 Accidents and incidents involving the V-22 Osprey. ✗plicit 13:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial County V-22 Osprey plane crash[edit]

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

Tragic but run of the mill military aviation accident. Military accidents are not uncommon. WP:NOTNEWS also applies. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Aviation, Transportation, and California. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for now - This is the first time I've heard of a military aviation accident causing this many fatalities in the U.S. in a while. If there are better examples of the contrary, I might reconsdier my vote, though. Love of Corey (talk) 02:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to redirect per everyone else. Love of Corey (talk) 00:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2020–present)#June 3 - nothing particularly significant about this event that would merit having its own article. ansh.666 03:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with the aircraft-specific accidents page as well. ansh.666 15:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Accidents and incidents involving the V-22 Osprey, where the accident can be adequately covered. Mjroots (talk) 07:53, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Mjroots. Under most circumstances, V-22 accidents that do not involve independently notable persons belong in that article. Carguychris (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete and salt - Speedy deleted under G4 as the text was virtually identical to the prior deleted version, with the exception of several citations, and under G3 as a blatant hoax as all of the new citations failed verification as they did not mention the subject at all. Salted as this has been deleted and recreated multiple times. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is This Abdul[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about a Musician that fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Jamiebuba (talk) 10:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Kenya. Jamiebuba (talk) 10:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 plus hoaxy as written: the first source[9], "African stars play Glastonbury 2022", has nothing about Abdul or his label. Fram (talk) 10:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. BrutBrother (talk) 11:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - WP:G4, WP:G3 hoax; all of the sources with the exception of the self-published ones, fail verification. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 10 June 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 23:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moamel Ahmed Shakeer[edit]

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

Notability not established Amigao (talk) 00:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Iraq. Shellwood (talk) 08:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Article created Find many articles about the person and search results in the last 6 years There are many articles similar to it Muamalq (talk) 01:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree to delete it because there are many similar articles on Wikipedia, but this article contains more sources

Example :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Elnouby Muamalq (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY DELETE per nom. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added English language resources Muamalq (talk) 14:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The rationale given twice by Muamalq (talk · contribs) is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but the other !vote is uninformative. Notability is based on the existence of reliable, secondary sources, which need not be in English. Some of the existing sources in the article, such as Ref. 10 and Ref. 33, likely do prove notability. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Untrusted references can be deleted, and only known sources remain.

Put it as a seed Muamalq (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems Legit. Some sources can be modified Mohamedadilkhaled (talk) 01:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only reasonable viewpoint to establish a consensus is from LaundryPizza03. More input from established editors is needed. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. A huge number of Arabic sources are presented and they link back to a single statement put out by the Iraqi Digital Media Center about a Facebook award for discovering a vulnerability. I don't have time to check every single source, but they have the same date range and the sample of about 10 I dipped into were all one and the same thing - even those outside the date range. The article, additionally, does not make any credible assertion of notability. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with User:LaundryPizza03 who has identified two good sources. A search for his name in arabic also brings up the the following:

https://www.alarabiya.net/technology/2021/08/21/%D8%A7%D9%83%D8%AA%D8%B4%D9%81-%D8%AB%D8%BA%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D8%A8%D9%85%D9%88%D9%82%D8%B9%D9%87%D8%A7-%D9%81%D9%8A%D8%B3%D8%A8%D9%88%D9%83-%D8%AA%D9%83%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%A6-%D8%B4%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%8B-%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%82%D9%8A%D8%A7%D9%8B- Summary: Facebook gave him $4,000 for finding security bug in their platform, he was one of 129 that they rewarded in 2021 for compatible efforts. He also received several similar rewards from them in the past
https://www.mobtada.com/sciences/1078943/%D9%84%D9%8A%D8%B3%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D9%88%D9%84%D9%89-%D8%B4%D8%A7%D8%A8-%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%82%D9%89-%D9%8A%D9%83%D8%AA%D8%B4%D9%81-%D8%AB%D8%BA%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D9%81%D9%89-%D9%85%D9%88%D9%82%D8%B9-%D9%81%D9%8A%D8%B3%D8%A8%D9%88%D9%83 (similar story)
https://www.azzaman.com/%D8%B4%D8%A7%D8%A8-%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%82%D9%8A-%D9%8A%D9%83%D8%B4%D9%81-%D8%AB%D8%BA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D9%81%D9%8A%D8%B3%D8%A8%D9%88%D9%83/
He's mentioned here for catching a hack of CBS news https://al-ain.com/article/iraq-ukraine-abuse-hackers-hack, he's quoted a lot in this one

There's plenty more. Just copy his name in Arabic from the article, google it, filter to news. He's obvioulsy notable in Iraqi/Arabic-language media. CT55555 (talk) 13:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The CBS piece is a press release from the Iraqi Digital Media Center, the other sources cited are press releases from the Center. The Center's 'Cybersecurity Official' is... have you guessed yet? Moamel Ahmed Shakeer. In fact, every one of these sources is derived - including those found IGF by LaundryPizza03 - from a press release from the 'Center'. Anyone smelling coffee? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:30, 11 June 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sticks 'N' Stuff[edit]

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

A search on Google did not provide a satisfying result on the Alabama company, most result are about the company with the same name in Scotland. All the references used are routine coverage, no in-depth coverage of the company. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 07:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, United States of America, and Alabama. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 07:54, 10 June 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 12:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Denny (fighter)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMMA notability criteria. his highest quarterly ranking by FightMatrix was thirty fourth, falling short of the top 10 requirement, also never reached Sherdog's top 10. Closest thing I found to significant or indepth coverage was a Bleacher Report article about his appearance on Bully Beatdown, where he failed to submit or knockout the bully, essentially marking his performance as the worst in the shows history, but that's one article, I'd like to see more independent reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 07:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and California. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 07:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:NMMA. Maybe if his epic failure on bully beatdown is enough to generate multiple in depth articles then sure. -Imcdc (talk) 11:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He appeared to have got success only at KOTC. He clearly fails WP:NMMA and I don't believe he has the coverage to meet WP:GNG. Even more coverage of his "failure on bully beatdown" would run afoul of WP:BLP1E, while fight results and database entries don't provide significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 22:32, 14 June 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of the Democratic Republic of the Congo[edit]

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

This article fails WP:LISTN. It has been dePRODed. It was unsourced upon its creation in 2004, and has been tagged accordingly since 2010. MY WP:BEFORE is turning up zero evidence that the phenomenon of people appearing on Congolese stamps has SIGCOV in RS. The closest I found is this, a table-breakdown analysis of all Congolese stamps which notes that presidents have appeared on 69 stamps. That's not SIGCOV of the phenomenon of people appearing on these stamps. Likewise, all other info I'm seeing about Congolese stamps discuss them broadly in such a fashion geared towards information that can be placed at Postage stamps and postal history of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It's time we remove this 18-year-old relic which has no basis in RS. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Democratic Republic of the Congo. Shellwood (talk) 07:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete exactly the same as all the others. Nominator clearly did a WP:BEFORE to prove that the underlying topic -- that is, "these people have appeared on stamps in this country" -- is not substantiated by any sources. Even if a catalog can verify every entry on this list, no relevance or encyclopedic merit has been placed on the list as a whole. All of these AFDs, and not one person has given a valid, policy based reason to keep. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've seen a book about this before somewhere, obviously sources exist 2601:2C3:57F:3F80:2CF6:872A:911D:531B (talk) 07:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROVEIT. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There was a very good and deep search for sources done above, and it showed absolutely nothing. Actually the link say royalty/presidents, and gives other numbers for other iterations of the place. Some of the other categories probably include stamps with people, clearly the closest we have to a reliable source discussing the topic at all does not think people are even notable as a dinstict class. Also those numbers would seem to lead us to believe that this list of less than 40 people is probably not even close to comprehensive. Articles should not stand for even 18 hours without sources, arguably not 18 minutes because they should have a source for their birth. 18 years is just plain insane. I would say it is a record but Lists of people on postage stamps holds the record since it lasted for over 20 years with no sources at all. I know Wikipedia was born in 2001, I am not sure exactly what day of the year though, so Wikipedia may not be 21 yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The article I mentioned still has no sources. People have proposed some sources in the deletion page, but I am not convinced those sources support having that article.

Comment. This is a difficult situation, as the likely sources for this are offline. For example:

Adair, T. Stewart. The Belgian Congo: The Stamps of the Belgian Congo . London: AJSefi, 1925
Coq, André de. The Belgian Congo and its postmarks, evaluation of the postmarks of the Belgian Congo . Antwerp: R-Editions, 1986 ISBN 9068120107 217p. Originally published in 1931.
Du Four, Jean and Rene Goffin. Congo, fifty years of postal history . sl: Editions of the Postal Review, 1962 507p.
Gallant, Roger. History of the postal service in the Belgian Congo = De geschiedenis van de postdienst in Belgisch Kongo: 1886-1960 . Brussels: The Author, 2005 2 volumes (Volume 2 is subtitled: De Postzegels)
Gudenkauf, Abbe G. Belgian Congo: Postal History of the Lado Enclave, 1897-1910 . Newbury: Philip Cockrill, 1985 144p.
Keach, RH A Philatelic Bibliography of the Belgian Congo and Ruanda Urundi . Tadworth, Surrey: R. Keach, 1976 85p.
Mallet-Veale, H. The Stamps of the Belgian Congo and Belgian East Africa . Johannesburg: The South African Philatelist, 1928 39p.
Oh, John. The Belgian Congo in 1940-1950 . Neufchateau? : The Author?, 1992 51p.
Frenay, J. M. Postal History of the Congo Free State . ? : The Author, 1991 30p.

I'd bet a search of the above wound be fruitful, but of course can't run AfD based on speculation. CT55555 (talk) 13:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other relevant content, probably not enough coverage to call significant:

Page 45 through to 50 does talk about the representation of people on postage stamps produced by France during colonial years https://constellation.uqac.ca/2379/1/Vol_30_no_2.pdf
Page 101 briefly mentioned a 1898 example https://www.rpsl.org.uk/gplstatic/BL_CrawfordDocs/016670032.pdf CT55555 (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

France doesn’t have a relationship here. That’s the other Congo. -Indy beetle (talk) 13:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This quote from an early version of what was then called List of people on postage stamps is illustrative of the mindset behind creating such lists. "Although many smaller countries will put a hodge-podge of international personalities on their stamps in an effort to make sales to collectors, countries with a more respectable issuing policy will more often feature people who have played an important role in the country's own history and culture. For a Wikipedian, a list of such people can be a source of inspiration to find more obscure topics to write about." That people lists all stamps and create complete catalogs of them does not show that Wikipedia needs comprehensive lists of all stamps, and even less so a specified list of people on stamps. Sources on the postal history of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and its predecessors should be used to back Postage stamps and postal history of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (I really do not see why the article is not just called Postal history of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, but that is a different issue. Showing that such sources exist in no way demonstrates that they treat the sub-set of stamps showing people as a group, let alone as a group that we need to cover by listing every single person who has been shown on such stamps, as opposed to just having a general article such as Trends in who is shown on postage stamps of the Democratic Republic of the Congo or whatever a non-list topic article would be. The Democratic Republic of the Congo was not under French colonial rule, so I am not sure why the source above talking about "the representation of people on postage stamps produced by France during the colonial years" has any relevance to a place that was under Belgian colonial control. Did Tippu Tip or the King of Kongo ever operate a postal system? Also keep in mind talking about "the representation of people on postage stamps" is a source that backs an article that talks about the representation of people on postage stamps (but not everything that you can find a source somewhere that discusses is an actual good topic for an article), just because some people talk about a topic broadly, does not mean we need comprehensive lists that seek to document every person who has ever been pictured on a postage stamp.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not sure how any of the sources given above show a coverage of this particular topic in a way that justifies inclusion. Some of them look to be self published sources as well, which are often reliable. Wikipedia is not meant to be based on every source or document ever made, it is supposed to be built on references to reliable, secondary sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The list of sources above is rather desperate. Ignoring the one for French Congo, already correctly dismissed, we have things like "The Belgian Congo and its postmarks, evaluation of the postmarks of the Belgian Congo " (which is, you guessed it, about postmarks, not about stamps), or "Postal History of the Lado Enclave, 1897-1910", about a period when one person had appeared on the stamps, so rather unlikely to be a good source for this list. For the source "Oh, John. The Belgian Congo in 1940-1950", I can't even verify that it exists. "Postal History of the Congo Free State" again has the small problem that the only person on these stamps is Leopold II, so not a good source for this topic either. "The Stamps of the Belgian Congo and Belgian East Africa" is from 1928, so could perhaps if we are lucky mention 2 of these stamps. While some of these sources may be useful perhaps for a general article on Congolese stamps, there is no indication at all (and for quite a few a counterindication) that they may be of any use in determining notability for this list. Fram (talk) 14:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Postage stamps and postal history of the Democratic Republic of the Congo is indeed where that list of sources came from, it would seem. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:39, 17 June 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.

Based on the below discussion this topic is notable. Hence, as nominator I close this discussion as a "Speedy keep." ----Steve Quinn (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Steve Quinn (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

School District 59 Peace River South[edit]

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

No independent reliable sources cover this topic. Fails WP:GNG. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Arts, and Education. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm in agreement with the explanatory essay WP:OUTCOMES that "Populated, legally-recognized places" include school districts, which conveys near-inherent notability to school districts per Wikipedia:Notability (geography)." So far I've only tried the first page of a Google News search for ["Peace River South" school district] and I've found a significant mention in this 2022 CBC piece and this 2022 article in the Dawson Creek Mirror. I'll keep looking. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - School districts are notable as Geographic featured, having fixed boundaries and taxing authority per WP:NGEO. 174.212.211.230 (talk) 19:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (from the nominator). It appears this topic is covered in a reliable source per User:Firefangledfeathers above. Also it appears to pass WP:GEOLAND per "legally recognized places..." Thanks to the above editors for their input. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Steve Quinn! I have no objection to letting this run longer, but you could withdraw and close as a speedy keep per WP:WDAFD. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Firefangledfeathers Yes. That is a good idea. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Quinn. It's not something anyone but you can do. The steps are:

To withdraw a nomination, add a note saying "Withdrawn by nominator" immediately below your nomination statement at the top of the discussion, give a brief explanation, and sign it.
If no one has supported deletion of the article you may close the discussion yourself as a WP:Speedy keep, or you may leave it for someone else to close the discussion.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 06:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Millions[edit]

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

Doesn't need millions of reliable sources, but more than just one (Vulture) would be good. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Rosenfield, Kat (2019-01-09). "The Millions Will Live on, But the Indie Book Blog Is Dead". Vulture. Archived from the original on 2022-06-13. Retrieved 2022-06-13.
  The article notes: "When the Millions launched in 2003, it was in every way an artifact of its moment: a labor of love with a blogspot.com URL, dedicated to one man’s love of literature. By day, C. Max Magee worked in a West Hollywood bookstore; by night (or whenever), he was the sole proprietor of the Internet’s newest hub for literary discussion, where year-in-reading lists and enthusiastic reviews ran alongside short, casual posts like this one:"
2. Domsch, Sebastian (2009). "Critical genres: Generic changes of literary criticism in computer-mediated communication". In Giltrow, Janet; Stein, Dieter (eds.). Genres in the Internet: Issues in the Theory of Genre. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. p. 229. ISBN 978-90-272-5433-7. Retrieved 2022-06-13 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "A typical example of the self-made nature of blogs is "The Millions" a blog about books and literary life created by C. Max Magee in 2003, who is, according to his own page, writing "about the stock market for indieresearch.com". The postings reveal the characteristic mixture of a very strong emphasis on personal experiences and viewpoints on the one side and an extensive practice of intertextual opening up by way of hyperlinks on the other. After anecdotally discussing his reading preferences at age twenty and the way they were changed by a friend in one post, the author's next post might be a link to a list of links to other blogs, webzines or commercial sites that offer any news or reviews the author thinks interesting."
3. Watts, Jessica (2010-10-30). "The best book blogs; A Good Read". The Sudbury Star. p. C4. ProQuest 2211703468.
  The article provides 123 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "The Millions (www.themillions.com) started out as a space for one guy, Max Magee, to keep track of his reading. "Six years on, it is now a seriously comprehensive blog that offers personal opinions on books, arts and culture, as well as prizes, features, columns and book reviews from an array of in-house writ-ers." My favourite part of this site is the feature The Future of the Book, which includes a number of articles looking at the rise of the digital age and the increase in use of digital books and media (of particular interest for me, someone work-ing in a library, as I get asked all the time about my thoughts on our downloadable collection and whether it is ruining the future of libraries.)"
4. Williams, John (2013-01-22). "Literary Web Site Enters the E-Books Fray". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2022-06-13. Retrieved 2022-06-13.
  The article notes: "As the commercial landscape for books continues to shift, a prominent literary web site, The Millions, is celebrating its 10th anniversary by getting into the publishing game. On Tuesday, the site unveiled its first e-book, “Epic Fail: Bad Art, Viral Fame, and the History of the Worst Thing Ever,” by Mark O’Connell."
5. Kellogg, Carolyn (2013-01-22). "The Millions launches e-book venture". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2022-06-13. Retrieved 2022-06-13.
  The article notes: "The literary website the Millions is getting into the e-book business: Starting Tuesday, it will publish e-books that are available on Amazon.com, in Apple’s iBookstore and at Barnes & Noble. While its website is about books, authors and publishing, its e-books will move into other realms. The Millions’ debut is “Epic Fail: Bad Art, Viral Fame and the History of the Worst Thing Ever” by Mark O’Connell. It’s a long essay that begins with the botched Jesus fresco repair that looked like a monkey, moves to Susan Sontag’s “On Camp” and goes on from there."
6. Higgins, Jim (2011-07-07). "The Millions booklist offers thumbnail previews of 66 books out later this year (and early 2012)". Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2022-06-13. Retrieved 2022-06-13.
  The article notes: "The Millions online magazine already earns a million hugs from a grateful literary nation for its annual Great Book Preview, which is posted each January and looks ahead to the most promising titles of the forthcoming calendar year. Now editor C. Max Magee, novelist Emily St. John Mandel and the rest of the Millions book crew have given us "The Great Second-Half 2011 Book Preview," thumbnail previews of 66 titles, with scheduled release dates through the end of 2011 and into 2012."
7. Less significant coverage:
  1. Ciabattari, Jane (September–October 2011). "Back From the Dead: The State of Book Reviewing". Poets & Writers. Vol. 39, no. 5. ProQuest 905248650.
    The article notes: "The Millions, which publishes three or four reviews each week, started out in 2003 as a personal writing project for editor C. Max Magee and has evolved into a book-oriented website with a staffof a dozen writers and dozens of guest writers. "We reach more than a million people a year," Magee says. "We've been lucky to get links from our fellow online magazines in the culture space, like the Daily Beast. We'll cover anything that piques our interest, from the very mainstream to the very obscure.""
  2. Pilton, Nick (2010-01-28). "Day 2, Non-Apple News". The Gainesville Sun. Archived from the original on 2022-06-13. Retrieved 2022-06-13.
    The article notes: "The Millions, an online magazine, has a great article titled "Confessions of a Book Pirate." In it, C. Max Magee interviews an anonymous pirate, who explains why he uploads and downloads unauthorized copies of electronic books using Usenet groups and torrent sites."
  3. "A Tiny New Culture Section With No Name". The New York Times. 2011-03-08. ProQuest 2217261812.
    The article notes: "The essay appears in a new book from Soft Skull Press titled “The Late American Novel: Writers on the Future of Books,” co-edited by Jeff Martin and C. Max Magee, both of whom are affiliated with the indispensable literary site, The Millions. They have kindly pointed us toward a video trailer for the book, which we now point you toward."
  4. "The NS Recommends: US Magazines". New Statesman. Vol. 141, no. 5102. 2012-04-23. p. 45. ProQuest 1010281114.
    The article notes: "Like the LARB, the Millions exists online only. The site was created in 2003 by C Max Magee and publishes features on "books, arts and culture" as well as reviews." LARB refers to the Los Angeles Review of Books.
  5. Samuel, Benjamin (2011-12-16). "8 Years in Reading: an Interview with C. Max Magee of The Millions". Electric Literature. Archived from the original on 2022-06-13. Retrieved 2022-06-13.
    The article notes: "As year-end reading lists go, you can’t find a more insightful and valuable collection than The Year in Reading from The Millions. Rather than seduce time-strapped readers and holiday shoppers with a gift-giving cheat sheet (5 eBooks for Stepdads for Under $5), The Millions asks their “favorite writers, thinkers, and readers” to share the highlights they recently checked-off their reading list. “Their charge was to name, from all the books they read this year, the one(s) that meant the most to them, regardless of publication date.” The participants they’ve worked with over the last eight years represent a publishing pantheon, from Pulitzer Prize winners to first-time novelists. For a better look into this legacy, Electric Literature interviewed C. Max Magee, the man behind The Millions."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Millions to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard. — Mainly 16:20, 13 June 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brisbane Street, Hobart[edit]

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

NN local street, no indication of notability. MB 06:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. MB 06:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Of the streets in the inner parts of Hobart, it is notable if the time and effort had been put into editing the article - as trove adequately shows there have been activities, locations and since 1884, that go well beyond the notion of not notable, but then there's no accounting for lack of interest and effort compared to what is offered... Being parallel to Liverpool Street, it wouldnt take much to have an article the same as liverpool, its just nobody has bothered... JarrahTree 10:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that two streets run parallel doesn't mean that they are equally notable. We have articles about Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills, but not Camden Drive which runs parallel to it, and Wall Street in Manhattan, but not Pine Street which runs parallel to it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify a possible misunderstanding - Hobart in Tasmania in Australia in the city centre has blocks of historically important buildings and addresses which are spread throughout the centre, where streets and blocks are in no way 'more notable' than others, I had not even considered liverpool as being more notable or less than this street when I put the comment up - as a current mainland Australian, I would agree with your assertion that sometime parallel streets in some central city areas in the mainland of Australia have exactly what you say, real drop off between blocks or streets of significant historic or notable structures - as a former resident of Hobart/Tasmania I believe the point made is possibly a misunderstanding the dynamic of historic city centre areas such as Hobart which due to its early city development which locates a spread of significant historic places. Due to the nature of the spread of significant items within the streetscapes of the city from the 1830s, the existence of the Catholic church buildings on the corner with the harrington street, and the mix of the notable prohibitionist group, as well as the congregational buuldings, I believe that brisbane street material that is easily available on trove (where most of the citations come from) show that it is a component of the Hobart city centre historical fabric that is neither greater or lesser than the parallel Liverpool street. JarrahTree 15:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:13, 3 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!} 04:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I looked at this entire street on Google Maps Street View, and it doesn't appear to be a major thoroughfare of the kind that would merit an article here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Focus of significant colonial activity. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More significant colonial history can be added, eg, Convict penitentiary and chapel. Downsize43 (talk) 11:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JarrahTree, The Drover's Wife an Downsize43. Deus et lex (talk) 22:56, 11 June 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All the Young Dudes (fan fiction)[edit]

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

The secondary sources are not sufficient to establish notability. Furthermore, the article relies far too heavily on primary sources, and original research drawn from them. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just added some more sources. One is The Roxbury Review, one is Elite Daily, and the final one is The Telegraph. Cedar Tree 03:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How should I update this article to make it sufficient? Should I find better sources? Cedar Tree 04:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it needs reliable, independent sources to show that it passes notability guidelines (either WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG). You should also replace the primary sources to Goodreads, and WP:UGC sources like Fanlore and MyCast, or remove them and the content sourced to them. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 04:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying to change the AO3 source into the Goodreads and WP:UGC or are you saying to get rid of the Goodreads and WP:UGC? Cedar Tree 04:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Get rid of or replace them. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 04:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just got rid of them and added new ones that are hopefully better. Cedar Tree 05:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I really didn't expect to be voting keep on a Harry Potter fanfic, but the articles in Slate and The Telegraph are substantial and enough to scrape past WP:NBOOK criterion one (assuming fanfiction is considered a book). The article does need work (for example, I wouldn't cite the Roxbury Review, which appears to be a high school student paper). Spicy (talk) 08:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the Slate and Telegraph articles are sufficient to meet GNG.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the secondary sources found are enough to establish notability. While this article needs work, that's no reason for deletion. Daranios (talk) 13:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and changes to article. Artw (talk) 23:43, 16 June 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!} 04:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

R. P. Eddy[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Eddy is quoted every so often in media, but very little is written about him elsewhere. The blatantly promotional article as is stands relies heavily on his LinkedIn or tangential mentions. There may be a case for an article about Warnings: Finding Cassandras To Stop Catastrophes, a book he wrote, but that also seems unlikely. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 02:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politics, Companies, and United States of America. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 02:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete CEO notability = F500/FTSE which these are not. Fails WP:GNG; WP:NBUSINESSPERSON which is a guideline, but there we have it. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
R.P. Eddy is a Publishers Weekly Bestselling author for his book, Warnings, which was also included in President Bill Clinton's recommended reading list.

His government experience is vast:

• NSC, Director, Global Issues and Multilateral Affairs (under President Clinton)

• Senior Advisor to the Secretary (Department of Energy)

• SES — Chief of Staff to US Amb. to UN, Richard Holbrooke (State Department)

• Senior advisor to Secretary General Kofi Annan (United Nations) where he served as an architect of The Global Fund to Prevent AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. R.P. was a group recipient of the Nobel Prize award to SG Annan and the UN for “commitment to the struggle to contain the spreading of the HIV virus in Africa.”
R.P. is now a member of the National Security Leaders for Biden. Foreign Policy Magazine described him as one of the U.S.'s "most esteemed terrorism and national security experts." The World Economic Forum at Davos named him a “Global Leader for Tomorrow.” R.P. is also a founder of the Center for Policing Terrorism (LAPD, NYPD). S124k (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Several leaders, major organizations, and real decision makers rely on R.P. Eddy.
Gov. Ned Lamont (CT): https://www.nga.org/news/commentary/governors-look-at-preparing-for-and-responding-to-a-cyber-crisis/
"R.P. Eddy... Wrote a book, some years ago, that was somewhat predictive of the type of attacks we should anticipate in the future... he did have pandemics and cyberattacks in there."
Jen Easterly: Head of CISA "Brilliant articulation"
Big think says, "He is the man that, if we had a functional government, would be helping lead us through this mess right now." https://bigthink.com/the-present/pandemic-warnings-rp-eddy/
In 2018 a Fox Business news commentator described him as, "the best intelligence expert in the world today"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfnOL1zGj0A
ESPN, Sarah Spain: https://poddtoppen.se/podcast/1076962094/thats-what-she-said-with-sarah-spain/rp-eddy
Sarah talks to businessman and author R.P. Eddy about the work he's done in public service- he created the first White House pandemic response, was a UN diplomat, and was the architect of the Global Fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. Eddy also discusses how the pandemic was predictable (he wrote as much in 2017), how to discern the glut of information out there to find the most accurate stuff, and how to become aware of the ways that our minds trick us.
Fox News: https://www.foxnews.com/world/russia-cyberattack-sanctioned-cyber-expert-warns
A top cybersecurity official [R.P. Eddy] Saturday warned that the U.S. is "already in a warfare state" with Russia and said it should prepare for cyberattacks coming out of Moscow. Mar8493 (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that both of the above accounts are single-purpose accounts re: the subject of the article. Mar8493 is an approximately 24-hour-old account. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 15:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We need article about Mr. Eddy, not interviews with him. Oaktree b (talk) 04:03, 10 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!} 03:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the sources given by the sock(?) are interviews or brief descriptions of the book he wrote. He's been mentioned in the New York Times, but as part of a year end reading list, only having a few lines in the article. Similarly I find an interview he did with PBS, but none of these help establish notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 04:02, 10 June 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 07:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anugerah Industri Muzik Malaysian-Indian[edit]

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

Non-notable music award, no sourcing found. Deprodded without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Malaysia. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When a website makes the immortal point, "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat.", you know you're in trouble. 98% of online coverage is WP-derived. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:44, 3 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!} 03:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. 2404:4402:17E5:9C00:E5D8:6E92:7F60:E144 (talk) 01:34, 14 June 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. The keep !votes seem to be some mixture of ILIKEIT and dismissing LISTN out of hand. People on stamps may be inherently notable, but that is a potential topic for an RfC elsewhere instead of this deletion discussion because it is not rooted in current policy. On the other hand, the delete !votes sit on LISTN and NOTDIR. Based on both numerical talleys and the strenth of arguments, the consensus is to delete this batch of articles. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of people on the postage stamps of countries (A-B)[edit]

(View AfD)

First, no evidence whatsoever exists that any of these meets WP:NLIST. Heck, even a very generic "People on postage stamps" doesn't appear to do show anything amounting to WP:SIGCOV (only seems to throw up a few pages about how at some point in the recent past the US Postal Service relaxed rules against depicting living people on them) - and that's for the broad subject, not for the individual intersections of it.

Otherwise, all of these pages fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY (as generally "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit."); and furthermore, because having this is definitively a WP:BADIDEA, as Wikipedia is not a philatelical catalogue and there is no indication how this kind of page is of any broader encyclopedic significance. An encyclopedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, even if it is true, and despite it possibly being interesting to a limited number of dedicated enthusiasts.

The only of the above pages which has anything even remotely resembling actual encyclopedic content (the Azerbaijan page) only has a verbose lead which isn't supported by any source for most of it, and the only meaningful non-trivial content actually cited to a source is already in Postage stamps and postal history of Azerbaijan), so there's nothing to merge or redirect anywhere even in the best of cases. Shows how unencyclopedic the whole of this is.

Thus, Delete all. Bulk nominations (by smaller batches) to save everyone the trouble of having to argue this time and over again. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Honestly, a bulk nomination is probably better than the countless prods and AfD noms, they're similar in scope and discussing them individually is counterproductive. I only participated in one AfD but I didn't realize this was a broader issue until I saw the talk page for someone who has recently had a lot of notices regarding these types of list articles. Clovermoss (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question if this discussion closes one way or another, would it impact the consensus of the other articles that are prodded/at AfD? Because this nomination doesn't cover all of them. Clovermoss (talk) 03:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA. Supported by reliable sources (professional catalogues which have been in continuous publication, some for over a hundred years). Not an indiscriminate list (strictly limited by a country's issuing policy). Absolutely not a trivial matter - stamps may be a bit 'old-fashioned' today but in many people's living memory they were everyday items with regular news articles - in fact about 30 years ago one American 'person on a postage stamp' was major international news. Daveosaurus (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Go look up WP:LISTN - Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines. No source whatsoever exists which discusses as a group "the people who have appeared on the postage stamps of [x]" for the vast majority of countries (including all of these listed here); and the burden is on those claiming they do exist. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I note that it's phrased as "one accepted reason", not "the only accepted reason". List of national capitals does not mention any source that discusses national capitals as a group, for instance. Stan (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That really takes the cake. It is trivial to find sources talking about the concept of national capitals or listing them (ex. Britannica). Sources giving a detailed list of "people on the postage stamps of countries" or discussing the topic as a group, however... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If that Britannica article is sufficient, then so is Miniature Messages, or the general discussion of the choice of stamp subjects in Williams's Fundamentals of Philately starting at p. 91. Going back a little further, A Hundred Years of Postage Stamps by Patrick Hamilton starts with the discussion of the stamp as "a printed symbol of authority", and later talks about how "the scope of the portrait stamp was extended from the depicting of rulers and politicians" to "famous men [...] singled out for, usually posthumous, honour", continuing in that vein for several pages describing subcategories of people on stamps, such as artists. Stan (talk) 13:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And where is that coverage of the specific "people on the stamps of country X"? Where does it discuss the "group of people who have appeared on the stamps of country X" as required by WP:LISTN? Broad, general sources about philately are not sufficient sources for these very narrow and specific lists. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Else, weak merge to Postage stamps and postal history of _X" where available. CaribDigita (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mind giving a reason why you want it to keep? WP:JUSTAVOTE doesn't fly here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Saying "unencyclopedic" over and over using different words does not make it so. Jack Child's Miniature Messages has a number of discussions of the political significance of who appears on Latin American nations' postage stmaps and when. Persons interested in List of people on the postage stamps of the Faroe Islands recently made a good case for retention, and for the US, the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee has a number of rules with the general goal of ensuring that only the most notable individuals make the cut. When persons interested in a particular country are informed that the stamps of their country are being dismissed as insignificant, we are seeing pushback, and lack of such really speaks more to Wikipedia's lack of breadth and depth, than to any inherent lack of notability. Stan (talk) 02:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "unencyclopedic" over and over using different words does not make it so. Conversely, saying "this is important" does not make it so. As for the comparisons, these are neither lists about US stamps or Faroe Islands stamps. the stamps of their country are being dismissed as insignificant A textbook example of a strawman - nobody has dismissed the stamps as insignificant; what is the issue here is that these pages fail WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a philatelical catalogue as explained above) and WP:NLIST. Whether the stamps are significant or insignificant is entirely irrelevant, these are not articles about the stamps but articles about the people who appeared on them, and given that no secondary, reliable source has covered these groups to a sufficient depth, they are not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia, as Wikipedia does not engage in generating coverage of topics which have not been covered elsewhere. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all None of these lists satisfy our criteria for lists. They are listing of trivia. It is a collection of indiscrminate lists that do not fall within the scope of Wikipedia. These are clear cases of violating our rules against fancruft.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the lists also have unacceptably high numbers of people on them who lack article in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Belgian article has some really interesting entries. Such as "*Marguerite Khnopff, sister of Fernand Khnopff (2004)" Khnopff was a painter, but how does that make his sister notable? Lists are not supposed to have non-notable people on them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I actually know the answer to this one, but who cares? They're all going to be deleted anyway. Stan (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It does not matter if you know the answer to the question. Ot matters of you can source the answer to reliable sources and then use those to show that this is a topic that needs to be covered by a list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @RandomCanadian, Johnpacklambert, Stan Shebs, TenPoundHammer, and Lupe: Some lists of people on stamps can be found in philatelic literature. As an example, a "Who's Who On Malta Stamps" was published in the Gozo Philatelic Society Newsletter some years ago, spread out over a number of editions of the newsletter. This list included people depicted on stamps or who were the subject of stamps (covered in List of people on the postage stamps of Malta), as well as stamp designers (covered in Designers of Maltese stamps).

I can't speak for the particular countries in this nomination (or the dozens of other individual nominations about other countries), but it might well be the case that lists or articles about people on stamps could be found in country-specific philatelic literature. The problem with such literature is that in many cases it is not widely distributed or readily accessible, and older publications can be hard to come by, so finding sources is not necessarily an easy task. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 01:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. People appearing on postage stamps seems like a notable topic, that is covered in very many sources in a significant way. It's difficult to make the case for each of them here, because in some ways this is 9 topics, so I think the only way to discuss this is to be a bit generic in terms of people on national stamps. With that in mind, here are some of the easier to find examples:

https://www.npr.org/2011/09/26/140802801/living-people-to-appear-on-stamps-for-first-time
Beleck, M. (2017). Noted Jewish People of the World on Stamps: A Collection of Stamps Issued by Over 95 Countries in the World. United States: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
Yardley, C. B. (2014). The Representation of Science and Scientists on Postage Stamps: A science communication study. Australia: ANU Press.
https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=950014
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/377286 CT55555 (talk) 03:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1. is about US stamps (not under discussion here)
2. is an intersection of people on stamps and religion/ethnicity, not people on stamps and nationality
3. same as 2.; replace "religion/ethnicity" with "occupation"
4. is about Serbia, and is specifically about women (and might very well be suited to expanding Postage stamps and postal history of Serbia without needing a whole all-inclusive list)
5. see no. 3
In short, none of these sources are relevant. Considering most of them are not even about a nationality/stamps intersection... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the deletion discussion is very wide. Imagine if someone proposed to delete the article for USA. Would someone have to present one source that covered every aspect of USA? Probably we'd see clearly that there will be multiple books, articles and news sources that covered different parts of USA. I see this the same way. In the context of lumping so many different countries together, not geographically, not in any way other than alphabetically, people arguing to keep are forced to make some sort of generalisation. If the nominator wanted a specific discussion about the specific merits of each one, they could make 9 different nominations, but they chose not to. So we're presumably expected to argue about postage stamps and people. I think I've done that. CT55555 (talk) 05:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All seems to fail WP:LISTN. "People appearing on postage stamps seems like a notable topic" is a personal opinion, nothing more. Many of these are completely lacking in inline citations, and there's zero reason to believe that the sources crammed at the bottom support most or any of the info in the lists. Yes, philately journals exist. No, a stamp simply appearing in the journal doesn't mean that the phenomenon of people appearing on stamps is being given SIGCOV. Keepers should show some proof of that. The complete lack of understanding of this is astounding. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. By now, the consensus is quite strong that WP:NOTDIR is in full force. A stamp catalog or articles about certain stamps may prove their existence; hell, some individual stamps may even be notable on their own if enough coverage exists, such as the Inverted Jenny. However, is the underlying list notable? Are there sources that discuss the concept as a whole? That is, are there sources specifically dedicated to these countries' stamp history, with a particular focus on every person who's appeared on a stamp in these countries' history? As many times as these discussions have gone around, not a shred of evidence has been given that this is the case. Those arguing "keep" are almost entirely giving invalid reasons such as WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT and not backing themselves with any valid reasoning or even any sourcing beyond catalogues. (In fact, some of the other AFDs have even proven that the catalogues are full of errors.) Even in this AFD alone, I'm seeing WP:JUSTAVOTE and WP:ILIKEIT, combined with little to no attempt at finding relevant sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:06, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. 07:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per participation in other lists of people on stamps discussions. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1. We're entirely relying on one or two 'stamp collectors directories' as references for these article (where they have any sources at all), many are blogs or self-published fan sites, so we struggle for WP:V 2. None of them that I've seen identify any reference that suggests the list itself is notable per WP:LISTN and 3. I don't think mirroring the content in stamp collecting directories can be anything other than WP:NOTDIR. I think that particularly notable stamps should have their own articles on their own merit, if there enough notable 'stamps with people on' to merit a category then so be it. If not some of those could be listed in small lists under the page about the relevant country's stamps. If it's particularly relevant that a person was put on a stamp, that fact could be added to their article, but that's likely to be trivia in most cases. JeffUK (talk) 13:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Honestly I don't even understand why we would need specific literature about people on stamps of a country and not just catalogs. There are plenty of awards with lists of people without any literature about it (like list of COUNTRY Nobel laureates). Why should stamps be treated differently? Just look at the categories list of xxx people one level above and the sources given in all those lists. --Lupe (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Unlike even Nobels, who tend to get lots of coverage, being depicted on a stamp is not even a reliable indicator of being notable (for example, List of people on the postage stamps of Belgium, as a random example, contains a fair number of non-notables...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At risk of going off in too much of a tangent, if writing a book about someone indicates notability, featuring someone on a national stamp should probably be an indication of notability itself. Governments, I think, aren't commissioning paintings of random citizens for their postage stamps. CT55555 (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it should. They don't put random people on stamps. Lupe (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not "Are people who appear on stamps individually notable?" (and even the answer to that is "it depends", since, clearly, not all have attracted significant coverage, but that's another discussion). The discussion is whether there exist sources which specifically cover "people from country X/Y/Z who appear on stamps"; and whether the way they discuss this is meaningful and in-depth enough to avoid WP:NOT issues so we can write proper articles (and not just indiscriminate, context-less listings). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. See WP:LISTPURP. And WP:NOT ("Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. ") can be easilly avoided by improving the lists. Lupe (talk) 23:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where LISTPURP allows groupings of people by trivial characteristics (or at least, characteristics which are so trivial as to rarely be even mention worthy at the biographical article of the person in question). WP:NOT specifically includes "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics", specifically including persons (real or fictional). Unless you can show how the group of people who appeared on stamps of country X/Y/Z is not a set of "loosely associated persons" (by, for example, showing sources which specifically discuss it to a standard meeting WP:LISTN/WP:GNG), then this remains unsuitable for inclusion. This also means that claims that one could be transforming these into something more than a simple listing without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit, are well, not really plausible, since these are groupings of topics too unrelated for there to be "contextual information showing encyclopedic merit" about them. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who on List of people on the postage stamps of Belgium is not notable? As the wikilinks indicate they are. The chracteristics of the lists are not trivial. And the issueing of a stamp is often mentioned in articles. If it's not it should be. It is not a set of "loosely" associated people. The association is clearly defined, they are related. Examples where these groups have been discussed have already been made. There are hundreds of philatelic societies out there Lupe (talk) 01:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I don't even understand why we would need specific literature about people on stamps of a country and not just catalogs. Because catalogues are often WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and Wikipedia is not. You might as well use a phone book to create a "list of phone numbers in X region". Does that sound ridiculous? It does, and yet such a list would have the same source-backing as most of these stamps cross-categorization lists. Also, Nobel prize winners have been discussed collectively in groups by RS, thus satisfying LISTN. The !vote you give appears to be WP:ILIKEIT. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Telephone numbers are not notable, it is a ridiculous comparison Lupe (talk) 01:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And these people being on stamps is notable? -Indy beetle (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just wanted to add, maybe to help explain by contrast, a page like Women in German history series is an example of a valid list of stamps, because we have verified that both the list of stamps is notable as a collection, and that each person listed did actually appear in that collection. (It's not a great article, but I think it shows what the minimum standard should be) JeffUK (talk) 09:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a good way to erase a category of lists. The topics seem in general to be notable. Bw Orland (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it notable? Or are your objections proceadural? -Indy beetle (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  One of the remarkable things about this campaign, is that every Keep is met and challenged with this kind of quasi-legal arguments. Honestly. Orland (talk) 07:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - From another point of view, it is even more remarkable how every Keep vote is "because it seems notable" which is an empty argument which says nothing about policy or guideline. Honestly. How hard is it to address that? The procedural question was a genuine inquiry as to whether you think these stamp articles should be considered individually. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all indiscriminate lists. WP:NOTDIR applies here too. LibStar (talk) 04:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A strange coincidence this week: while these discussions are taking place on en:wp, about whether it has any public and encyclopedic interest to list people on stamps, my friends in the indigenous community of the Inuit people of Canada celebrate that one of their leaders and founding fathers (Jose Kusugak) have been considered noteworthy to be portraited at a national stamp. [10] [11]. At least there are some people who consider this people on stamps-stuff to be important. Bw Orland (talk) 05:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity as the WP:NOTABILITY guideline says. But if you got enough SIGCOV on that Inuit stamp than it could be used to create an article on it. -Indy beetle (talk) 12:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  My point was rather that both the Canadian Post and the inuit community considers being on a stamp a national honour. And that is what makes these lists important and interesting. And you can quote "does not necessarily" as much as you like. I know when I'm right. Bw Orland (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, congratulations on being right, so where's the extra SIGCOV on people being on stamps discussed collectively? That's the purpose of the lists. Keep in mind that if the stamp is an important part of the legacy of a specific person, like Kusugak, it can always get a mention at the Kusugak page. Or if an individual stamp gets enough attention, we write an article on it.-Indy beetle (talk) 00:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's some:
    https://www.npr.org/2011/09/26/140802801/living-people-to-appear-on-stamps-for-first-time
    
    Beleck, M. (2017). Noted Jewish People of the World on Stamps: A Collection of Stamps Issued by Over 95 Countries in the World. United States: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
    
    Yardley, C. B. (2014). The Representation of Science and Scientists on Postage Stamps: A science communication study. Australia: ANU Press.
    
    https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=950014
    
    https://muse.jhu.edu/article/377286 CT55555 (talk) 00:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - - That first source is not a discussion of people appearing on stamps collectively. It is a source about a change in US policy. The first person ever portrayed on a postage stamp (Queen Victoria) was actually alive at the time that stamp was issued. None of these sources show that people on postage stamps from any of the countries involved in this discussion are notable. I also have strong doubts that something published by "CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform" is a reliable source. Just because someone somewhere bothered to compile a list does not mean it has been the subject of study in reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CreateSpace is a self-publishing service, so yeah, not reliable. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per Stan. I think the subject is inherently notable and individual lists should be improved rather than deleted. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:03, 18 June 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!} 04:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Tawerilibeg[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so ineligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: can only find this in my supplementary checks; not significant coverage. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 02:58, 10 June 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!} 04:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sesario Sigam[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so ineligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: trivial sources, can't find any sigs on my own. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 03:11, 10 June 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Musical fiction[edit]

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

Original research--particularly the first sentence. That prose can have rhythm and flow is not new: all good prose is musical. That certain books about musical topics are supposed to be musical is a matter of judgment, which would need serious secondary sourcing. The only sourcing here is a book called "Rock Fiction", which is a collection of stories about rock and roll--a completely different thing. Drmies (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Music. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - The article appears to either be WP:OR or an attempt at a neologism that did not catch on. Doing searches on the term do bring up a number of results for times the two words "musical" and "fiction" were used next to each other, but these are being used to talk about a wide range of topics unrelated to the claims of this article, such as fiction that is about music, or using music to help teach fiction, etc. Rorshacma (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in agreement with the nominator and previous voter. The article is an attempted original research exercise that clumsily messes up prose that is musical with fiction that is about music. Two different things that don't even remotely fit together. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep/Non-Deleting TNT: The title is potentially useful as many sources use the term "Musical fiction", such as An Annotated Bibliography and Reference List of Musical Fiction by Kellie D. Brown, Teaching Musical Fiction by Marcin Stawiarski, to name a couple. A simple Google Scholar or Books search reveals a lot of actual sources discussing the genre. It is easily a suitable topic for a comprehensive encyclopedia. However, the page as it stands is pretty subpar, meaning I would not reject a non-deleting TNT and rewrite. Why? I Ask (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is indisputably, as Why? I Ask says, a topic on which it's possible to find a lot of reliable sources (Draucker 2018, Graham 2013, Losseff and Fuller 2016, MacAuslan 2016, Melnick 1979, Petermann 2014, Smyth 2016, Werner and Bachleitner 2012...). The question is whether those sources are actually talking about musical fiction as a discrete concept, or whether there's just a lot of coverage in the way there is about small dogs or long-serving police officers or novels about shopkeepers, i.e. as a convergence of two concepts that don't necessarily add up to something notable. My sense is that there's enough common ground here for a coherent concept to emerge. Petermann (pp. 5–6) and Smyth (pp. 101–2) are particularly useful for indicating a body of scholarly work on the topic. It's true that "musical fiction" sometimes refers to fiction about music and at other times to fiction with a musical quality, but the sources seem to treat these as very closely-related concerns, so I don't see a problem in an encyclopaedia article doing the same. Having said all that, though, the state of the article does suggest WP:TNT still might apply, so consider this a weak WP:NOTCLEANUP keep if no one's done any work on it when this is closed. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As stated above, AFD is not cleanup. I also found these sources that may be used to expand the article 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. With that being said I think there is a fine line between music as fiction and music in fiction which should probably be discussed in the article if possible.★Trekker (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Arms; requires article improvement, not deletion. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 03:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was gonna weigh in 'keep' but a review of the piece and of the comments above have convinced me we're looking at pure play OR here: this is the shortest essay I've ever seen, but it's an essay. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possibly a notable topic, but most of the sources don't actually relate to the term defined in the article (a genre of fiction in which music is paramount). The sources are primarily about the usage of music in fiction without defining "musical fiction" as a genre. WP:TNT is the best solution here. I don't think any of this WP:OR article is salvageable. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm finding WP:SIGCOV in line with the sources reported by User:Arms & Hearts and User:StarTrekker, including whole books discussing the topic. SailingInABathTub (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the many, many, many academic sources on the topic including entire books and annotated bibliographies. Given how small the article currently is, WP:TNT is a silly argument. It is fairly obvious that almost none of the delete voters above have done any WP:BEFORE and their votes should be read with that in mind. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:26, 17 June 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!} 04:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Constantino Wilson[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; no online sources. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 03:13, 10 June 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 02:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ayelech Yakob[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lack of WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Ethiopia. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; unable to find sources myself. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 03:18, 10 June 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 02:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yerusksew Tura[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lack of WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Ethiopia. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:30, 10 June 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 02:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Firehiwot Getachew[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lack of WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Ethiopia. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:27, 10 June 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 01:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saskatchewan 3.0 Summit[edit]

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

A 2012 conference with "over 350" attendees, supported by zero reliable independent secondary sources, with no such sources available from a quick WP:BEFORE. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 01:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and Saskatchewan. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 01:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find no conference papers or mention of any kind in Jstor or GScholar about the event; it sounds like a government-sponsored event to get more investment in the province, nothing more than that. Oaktree b (talk) 03:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete iSaskatoon 3.0. Not notable, passing mention of this minor event on the main Saskatchewan page would likely be appropriate weight. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:19, 10 June 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 01:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rachelle Bukuru[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article fails WP:GNG, as the subject is completely lacking in WP:SIGCOV from independent WP:RS. The last time this was nominated this was closed as "no consensus" because many editors cited WP:NFOOTY, which no longer exists. My WP:BEFORE is showing only WP:ROUTINE soccer match coverage of Bukuru with sporadic mentions in the international sports press, either in a list of the match lineup or things like "Bukuru scored a goal this game". No hits from Burundi's sole private national newspaper, Iwacu. No hits from the government newspaper Le Renouveau. No hits from Jimbere Magazine, a Burundian magazine which focuses on women's issues. As for the current sources cited thus far:

Source 1 - database entry. Doesn't count towards notability per WP:SPORTCRIT.
Source 2 - Single mention in list of players, not SIGCOV
Source 3 - Post by Burundi team's official Instagram account showing a player lineup, single mention, fails SIGOV and source is not independent
Source 4 - Link is dead, but archive shows its just a list of players, fails SIGCOV
Source 5 - Single mention in list of players, fails SIGCOV
Source 6 - Single mention ins list of players, fails SIGCOV. Article is from Burundi's football federation website, thus also probably lacking independence
Source 7 - Database lineup page, single mention, fails SIGCOV
Source 8 - Subject not even mentioned.

This player is not notable, and the article should be deleted. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are more about Burudi squad than this footballer. Shankargb (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG with the currently available sourcing. The first discussion's closure was disgraceful. Avilich (talk) 23:11, 15 June 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.