< June 25	June 27 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 HEC Paris#Research and Entrepreneurship. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incubateur HEC Paris[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Refs are interviews, press-releases, PR and routine business news. scope_creep^Talk 15:39, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect: An article describing the basis for an institution's incubator programme. I am not seeing evidence that it has distinct notability. There is brief coverage of this incubator in its context at HEC_Paris#Research_and_Entrepreneurship, which can serve as a suitable WP:ATD redirect target. AllyD (talk) 08:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. It's mentioned in HEC_Paris#Research_and_Entrepreneurship and that's the sum total of the includable information contained here. But it's a part of that institution, so redirecting would be appropriate. FalconK (talk) 03:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Maybe one day, more sources can be found for this organization than are presently available. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pathpoint[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Non-notable organization and the only reference is to its website. SL93 (talk) 21:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and California. SL93 (talk) 21:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was leaning stub, since its WP:PROMO as is, but really can't find any coverage of the 50 plus year organization under this or the original name Work Training Programs Inc. Fails WP:GNG.Slywriter (talk) 23:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SL93: do you have access to Newspapers.com? (If not, go ahead and apply for one at Wikipedia Library. You deserve it!) I'm finding enough there that it would take some time to review and sort through. Of course a lot of it is self-reporting on the part of the non-profit, but there appear to be feature articles that try to balance quotes from the organization with what people in the community say, and also compare and contrast to other similar organizations. (And of course this article as it currently stands is problematic and needs work.) Cielquiparle (talk) 09:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have access to Newspapers.com, but I didn't find anything that I thought would help. Though I could try to sort through it better later. SL93 (talk) 09:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:52, 26 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!} 23:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory James[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:16, 27 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. Star Mississippi 02:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Mallouk[edit]

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

Financial planning company CEO doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO - notability of the company is not inherited to the individual. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Kansas. Shellwood (talk) 07:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had a little wobble with the Barron's 'most influential' nomination, but that alone is not enough, IMHO. The other stuff is humdrum/company stuff. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am on the fence on this one, most of the references are for the company, not the subject. But there are a couple of reference that are on the cuff of supporting WP:N for the subject. As I said when I removed the speedy, there is to much here for a speedy. I think the subject has potential, maybe it is a case of WP:TOOSOON. No objections to keep or recreate (after delete) if more can be found to meet WP:N for the subject. Jeepday (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After reading this and carefully analyzing the sources I believe it passes WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:N as said above. But adding more sources would be better obviously. JK.Kite (talk) 19:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete was hoping we'd find more about him from the baseball angle. Mostly just press-releases about him buying into part of the team. Probably need a deep dive to find sources, all I see are press-releases/routine announcements in industry publications for financial planning for example. Oaktree b (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep seems to pass WP:GNG to me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is quite notable as he has been feature in business insider, CNBC, Wall street Journal etc. He has notability.Gingie11 (talk) 14:47, 28 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 draftify. ✗plicit 12:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kara Lewis[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:34, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Drafity.--MonFrontieres (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:14, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - extremely young player who has just arrived on the international stage, don't see any harm in sending to draft Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify seems fine, only difference I see from delete would be a saved trip to RFU. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pros & Cons[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, only newspaper listings on Newspapers.com and nothing suitable or reliable enough to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE. The Film Creator (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's a mention here about it being generally panned, but it doesn't say by who or where. So far I'm getting the impression they're likely meaning the general audience reaction rather than critical reviews. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I was able to find one independent review in an offline reference, and an entry in a reference work on a filmography of the African diaspora. See below.4meter4 (talk) 20:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

C. Edward Wall (2002). "Pros & Cons". Media Review Digest. Vol. 32. Pierian Press. p. 376.

Audrey Thomas McCluskey, ed. (2007). "Pros & Cons". Frame by Frame III: A Filmography of the African Diasporan Image, 1994-2004. Indiana University Press. p. 585. ISBN 9780253348296.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:56, 26 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!} 23:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joerisse Cexome[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:55, 26 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) 22:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:15, 27 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!} 22:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marino Akapo[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:39, 26 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) 22:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even remotely close to enough sourcing to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:15, 27 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!} 22:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyse Lolo[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. [3].--MonFrontieres (talk) 23:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:15, 27 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!} 22:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marius Bako[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:36, 26 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) 22:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:15, 27 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jekob Jeno[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:33, 26 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) 22:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Commment A quick search turned up three long articles about Jeno: [4], [5]), [6]. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG with sources such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7...all from a very quick Google News search. Giant Snowman 20:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: National team player with some sources. Passes GNG. The Footballean (talk) 08:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - France Info and Le Dauphiné are both significant coverage Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iamel Kabeu[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:30, 26 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) 22:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:14, 27 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 per G5, as the creator was a block-evading sockpuppet of User:Bennet43. Hut 8.5 18:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ThermoPro[edit]

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

Sourced with affiliated marketing links; a page started by a blocked editor. Fails WP:NCORP. Amon Stutzman (talk) 21:13, 26 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 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 23:48, 26 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. Undeclared paid editing SpinningSpark 07:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OMONO[edit]

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

Created by a blocked UPE. Routine coverage, fails WP:NCORP. Amon Stutzman (talk) 21:12, 26 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 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, and Japan. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:57, 26 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!} 22:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Audric Dandres[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Refs in article aren’t in-depth independent secondary sources. I searched for sources: only one I found that appeared to have some content about him was an alumni source, so not independent/reliable. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, France, and Italy. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing does not rise to the level of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

https://www.thestar.com/life/food_wine/advice/2018/05/25/treat-yourself-to-five-wines-that-taste-as-good-as-they-look.html

https://ricerca.gelocal.it/tribunatreviso/archivio/tribunatreviso/2015/01/14/NZ_23_01.html

the two sources linked in fiol prosecco page about audric are independent...

Thanks Iamyouaresheis (talk) 09:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Rough consensus that meets WP:GNG, beyond any comments on prior consensus that "all train stations are notable" as that is disputed. Not ruling out a potential merge in the future, which can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Kj cheetham (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xianju South railway station[edit]

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

No indication of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. No content other than it's existence. IMO an inevitable permastub limited to that. Better merged to a line or sentence or two in the rail line article. North8000 (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple references that focus on the subject. Despite what the nom states, I think it meets WP:GNG. Unclear how a merge would be better. NemesisAT (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the benefit of those who are not Chinese speakers, can you elaborate on how this meets GNG? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and China. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG:

"仙居火车站尚未开通已成"网红"-浙江新闻-浙江在线". zjnews.zjol.com.cn. Retrieved 2022-06-27. - Describes the citizen reaction of the station before it opened
"仙居南站是金台铁路唯一的曲线客运站". zj.zjol.com.cn. Retrieved 2022-06-27. - Describes the station in detail
"金台鐵路通車運營一周年：山海之路串聯幸福生活". zj.people.com.cn. Retrieved 2022-06-27. - Describes impact the station has after 1 year, shows WP:SUSTAINED coverage

Jumpytoo Talk 07:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Longstanding consensus is that all railway stations are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment People keep talking about an imaginary "consensus that all rail stations are notable" which does not exist. First, the place such a thing that came out of an actual consensus process is at WP GNG and the SNG's. They aren't mentioned under any SNG's leaving it to GNG says that they have to meet GNG souring. Some folks point to WP:RAILOUTCOMES which:

Is not even a guideline, it's an observation of common outcomes, and per other posts, it appears that even that observation may be wrong
Conflicts with their blanket statement, stating a few types which are usually kept after which it says:"Other stations are usually kept or merged and redirected to an article about the line or system they are on.""

North8000 (talk) 13:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All WP:RAILOUTCOMES does is illustrate the consensus, which most assuredly exists and has been established over many AfDs. Nobody is claiming it is a guideline, but WP:CONSENSUS is a policy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My post just said that that is not accurate, and gave many specific. You are just repeating your previous assertion. North8000 (talk) 16:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Existing heavy rail stations on a main system (i.e. not a heritage railway) are generally kept at AfD. Is this is a heritage railway? No it isn't. And yes, it is accurate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the first section from the essay that you have been quoting from and trying to mis-use Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Common outcomes#Citing this page in AfD and you will see that what you have been trying to do with it here conflicts with it in many ways and is invalid.North8000 (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For those editors who refuse to accept that a consensus exists that railway stations are notable, here it is very clearly illustrated. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can change. Your argument is invalid. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you agree that there is a consensus? Can you demonstrate where it has changed? Djflem (talk) 07:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xingke Avenue station and the 2019 RfC which explicitly held there is no consensus that all train stations are inherently notable. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One AfD does not a consensus make and the comment by the closer is irrelevant and overreach (they should have joined the conversation to take a position). So what is the change in consensus from the RfC from 2019 to which you refer? Djflem (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read the RfC I linked? It said there is NO CONSENSUS that train stations are inherently notable. NO. CONSENSUS. It is your comments here that are irrelevant and overreach. You are claiming a consensus that explicitly has been found not to exist. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you mentioned consensus can change (through discussion or editing). Since the 2019 RfC one can see consensus is to not delete articles of this type.Djflem (talk) 10:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, consensus is a particular Wikipedia decision-making process. You trying to "interpret" something out of a list of articles (including ones that that are there due to "no consensus to delete") isn't it. North8000 (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The survey clearly represents Wikipedia-wide consensus developed over an extended period of time to keep such articles. Wikipedia:Arbitration succintky states that "where there is a global consensus to edit in a certain way, it should be respected and cannot be overruled by a local consensus". This is re-iterated at Wikipedia:CONLEVEL: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale."

Please see my post which you were ostensibly responding to where you completely ignored the points made in it, which refute your most recent post. North8000 (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, nothing to do with that post. Pointing out the fact Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Transportation/archive demonstrates a community wide consensus through editing to keep articles of this type (handily condensed in survey presented). Djflem (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Trainsandotherthings has started an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability of train stations. NemesisAT (talk) 10:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jumpytoo. Djflem (talk) 12:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a second debate going on here which is the false "all train stations are notable" claim. That false claim aside, I think that some folks have established that this is at least an edge case under GNG, and note that a result could be determined noting that it was based on (edge case) GNG review of provided sources. You could count me as a keep only if something like that was described in the close. North8000 (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep without prejudice to a merge discussion. The nomination presents no rationale for deletion but rather is actively seeking a merge. Nobody else has provided any reason why this should be deleted rather than merged. Thryduulf (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Overall rough consensus to keep due to sourcing. (non-admin closure) Kj cheetham (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Branford Boase Award[edit]

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

I don't believe this is a notable award - it's pretty much used entirely in sources as PR for individual books (ie. cover awards) and I can't find any real meaningful coverage of the award itself. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, couldn't find any coverage, just minor press blurbs here and there. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While undersourced, the article is clearly not nonsense or inaccurate or only of interest to a tiny number of people. The award is an objective assessment of excellence in an area of wide public interest. I do not see any value in deleting it. --- Robina Fox (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
based on what sources? PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added more sourcing - the awards get listed in multiple media outlets such as Locus, The Bookseller, and The Guardian. I've also found some general coverage of the award as well. It's not the most major award, but it seems to have gained a decent amount of coverage. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — per ReaderofthePack. Best, R E A D I N G ^{Talk to the Beans?} 05:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable enough for the Guardian to report on it. pburka (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diadem (series)[edit]

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

"Book report" article written in-universe w/ no sources other than the books themselves. Should be deleted or alternatively, merged into author's article. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At most this could redirect to the author's page, but I don't think that there's really any need to merge content into the author's article. It's already fairly well covered in its own section, at least as covered as available sourcing allows. What's in the article is pretty much just indiscriminate fan wiki type content. As far as sourcing goes, the most I could find was a review at Foreword, which is unusable because nowadays they sell reviews as part of their marketing service. It's a shame, as Clarion used to be more respected. I'm not sure when they started the pay to review service, but it casts some doubt upon anything reviewed by them. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree that there is nothing to merge. (The only useable content currently in the article as far as I can tell is "Diadem is a series of fantasy novels by John Peel.") Not sure there's any point in a redirect, since it already has a disambiguated title - just need to update the disamb page itself to link to John Peel (writer). -- asilvering (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Nanny Express[edit]

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

Only source is a press release. No reviews. (One editor has mentioned finding a review at Dove.org. I leave it to others to decide if this is a RS.) Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - There are also reviews at themoviescene.co.uk, Soap Opera Network [7] and Radio Times [8]. Daß Wölf 16:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dove.org is considered a Wikipedia RS, and at the very least Radio Times makes 2 reviews, minimum for WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 17:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reason that it the highest-rated cable movie of the day and week that it premiered with a 3.1 HH (household) rating, 2.7 million homes and 3.6 million total viewers.^[1] That's pretty impressive no doubt. Davidgoodheart (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that video is WP:COPYVIO and the other cite is also from Hallmark Channel, so it's still only one source. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 03:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Hallmark Channel Press Release

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nasty Crue[edit]

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

doesn't appear to have ever been a notable band, no coverage to be found in english or polish and was even deleted on plwiki after a discussion establishing more or less what i've already said. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Poland. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-- I can't see anything on Google search. Most of references are deadlinks, it lacks media coverage completely. Gartuwaso (talk) 12:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are limited to YouTube and a blog. Fail (of WP:GNG and like). Band is mentioned in one other article on pl wiki but never had its own article there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find any SIGCOV by a Google search. Fabiobengario (talk) 07:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gaelscoil An Choillín[edit]

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

Unsourced article, my search found no sources that would count towards WP:NORG (t · c) buidhe 19:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Ireland. (t · c) buidhe 19:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NORG and WP:SIGCOV (as encapsulated in WP:NSCHOOL). Schools are not automatically notable. And this example is a relatively small secondary school (with perhaps 80 children enrolled) that has been the subject of no coverage in (for example) the Irish Times, the Irish Examiner, on RTÉ.ie or (apparently) any other national/mainstream news outlets. While a Google search returns a number of results (Facebook pages, directory entries and the type of local coverage common for any/every school), these just confirm that the subject exists. Not that it is notable. Mine is a firm "delete" recommendation. Guliolopez (talk) 21:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. it doesn't have enough citations and as per above it doesnt have much other news about it. Raffistar (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Primary school are seldom notable, This article and a search do not give evidence that this is the exception. The Banner talk 20:12, 29 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Military Academy bottom-ranking graduates (1818–1899)[edit]

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

No indication why it's notable who graduated last in the class. Biographical Register of the Officers and Graduates of the United States Military Academy, at West Point, New York [9] has a comprehensive listing of graduates of each year, sorted by class rank, and this just collates the bottom person of each list without explanation of why this matters or is encyclopedic. Reywas92^Talk 19:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Education, and United States of America. Reywas92^Talk 19:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep:~~ Unlike the previous West Point list you nominated, this one ~~actually has~~ could have validity. The lowest-ranking graduate (known as the goat, previously the immortal) is an actual thing that seems to generate pretty significant coverage (ex. [10] [11] [12]), mainly because of the association with Pickett and Custer. Curbon7 (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not an appropriate list per WP:LISTPEOPLE. Most of the people listed here don't have Wikipedia articles of their own, and in many cases there is no reason why they would, as many of them resigned from the Army or died within a few years of graduation, making it unlikely that they would pass WP:BIO. Finishing last in their class at West Point might seem like a notable mark of shame, but on the other hand, somebody always has to be last in any class, and many of these classes had less than 100 graduates. Not to mention that it would have been only a small percentage of American men who were able to pursue any kind of higher education in the 19th century, and the really bad students would have failed or left the Academy before graduation. Pace Curbon7, I suggest it might be better to have an article that discusses the general concept of the West Point goat/immortal rather than listing every one of them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Curbon7 (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, this could be a section in United_States_Military_Academy#Traditions, but even a stand-alone article without the list seems excessive. Reywas92^Talk 21:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just because sources exist for a topic doesn’t mean we need to have list of extremely un-notable nobodies associated with it, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Dronebogus (talk) 09:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivia. The fact that most of these people went on to have successful careers in the military and other fields illustrates the lack of value of this list in an encyclopedia. Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete generally lists where the vast majority of people lack an article on Wikipedia are discouraged.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true, just the opposite in fact. WP:CSC bullet #2 gives "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria" as a valid selection criterion. SpinningSpark 10:59, 28 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!} 22:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valorie Armstrong[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR… no notable roles. Bgsu98 (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Television. Bgsu98 (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Two brief mentions here in newspapers: [13] from the early 1970s, might be more in offline sources. I doubt it based on her short career and list of mostly bit parts. Oaktree b (talk) 12:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of these roles amount to multiple significant roles in notable productions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:46, 27 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Graduates of the United States Military Academy Class of 1829[edit]

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

The United States Military Academy has a class of graduates every year, no indication why we should be cataloguing them in general or 1829 in particular. No sources attest to the notability of the class of 1829; the main source Biographical register of the officers and graduates of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y. has been published in many volumes with the thousands of alumni. No reason given for prod removal. Reywas92^Talk 18:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Education, and United States of America. Reywas92^Talk 18:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The reason this particular class has a list is certainly because of Lee and Johnston, but I'm not sure this arises to WP:NLIST on its own. Curbon7 (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This isn't the class the stars fell on. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate repository of information. There is no reason this class, or any other class, should have a listing of every single graduate. Jacona (talk) 13:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also don't think a catalogue of military graduates needs a Wikipedia page. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:03, 29 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 List of Santa Barbara characters. Seems like an acceptable and appropriate target. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Raymond[edit]

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

Absolutely minor character from Santa Barbara; no justification for having its own article. Bgsu98 (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bgsu98 (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Santa Barbara characters. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect due to insufficient sources to meet WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to List of Santa Barbara characters. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico Leututu[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:20, 26 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) 18:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:54, 26 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 Direct air capture#Global Thermostat. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Global Thermostat[edit]

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

no evidence this is a notable company on it's own - it's all PR and basic announcements. I suggest a deletion and redirect to the founders article. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per the nominator. No evidence of notability. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 15:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Direct air capture#Global Thermostat. Even if they are notable, it is pointless having a standalone page that says no more than "it exists" when there is substantially more information in the redirect target. This company probably is notable – the fact that it has deals with Coca-Cola and Exxon Mobil is enough to suggest that, but see this review of the company last year by Bloomberg if you're not convinced, also this article from GreenBiz. Because of that, the title and history should be retained because someone is going to write a proper article at some stage. SpinningSpark 10:56, 29 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 CILQ-FM#Programming. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Psychedelic Psunday[edit]

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

Article about a single-market local radio show, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing our notability criteria for radio shows. As always, radio shows are not "inherently" notable just because they existed -- they have to reliably source a claim to significance, such as winning noteworthy radio awards and/or being the subject of enough media coverage in sources independent of themselves to pass WP:GNG.
But there's no evidence of anything noteworthy being shown here: firstly, the article just reads like a listener summarizing the show's format, without making any effort to record any external validation of its significance. Secondly, the only source that's actually being used to footnote any content was self-published by the station that aired it and thus isn't an independent source for the purposes of establishing notability -- and while there is one independent news article about its cancellation in 2018 being used to footnote the footnote instead of the article body, one piece of media coverage in the same market's local newspaper isn't enough all by itself. And thirdly, even on a ProQuest search for older coverage that wouldn't Google, I didn't find anything that would turn the tide: apart from the same newspaper article that's already here, I can only find one other source that might actually be useful, and even that's a fairly short piece which still isn't substantive enough to nail notability to the wall if it's the only other thing I can find. Otherwise, I'm only finding glancing namechecks of the show's existence in tangential coverage of Andy Frost's stint as a hockey announcer and/or his thoughts on the anniversary of Woodstock, which don't help notability as they aren't about the show.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the show from having to have much better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Ontario. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to CILQ-FM § Programming, where it is briefly mentioned. Source searches are providing very little coverage. Does not meet WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to CILQ-FM#Programming. Fails WP:RPRGM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Fangtooth snake eel. Star Mississippi 02:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Texas sea monster[edit]

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

non-notable, now identified sea creature (Fangtooth snake-eel), the coverage isn't lasting or all that significant. And 0 of the sources call it "texas sea monster" and what can be said about it is already covered in the name of the animal article. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fangtooth snake-eel, not completely non-notable, given press coverage, but insufficient for a stand-alone article. Kleuske (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Fangtooth snake eel which is almost as interesting a title as Texas sea monster. It is highly doubtful that this interesting sea animal will get extended coverage over a significant amount of time, and the appropriate place for this sighting is the Fangtooth snake eel article. Netherzone (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect to Fangtooth snake eel as a relatively plausible search term (i.e., of the form [location] [subject]). --Kinu ^t/_c 23:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fangtooth snake eel, which is the sort of animal that this is. Content appears to already have been merged, so I don't see a need to merge it further. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Globster may be an appropriate redirect target here. Similar articles have already been redirected there but aren't currently mentioned on the page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four Mile Globster, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippine Globster. Plantdrew (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It has been identified as the Fangtooth snake-eel, so that seems more appropriate. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This has already been merged in verbatim to Fangtooth snake-eel, but without a claim that it has subsequently been identified as A. chauliodus, let alone a cite for that. So for now, I oppose redirect. SpinningSpark 11:08, 29 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 speedily deleted by Bbb23 per CSD A7. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tennessee Philosophical Association[edit]

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

Completely unnotable. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Organizations, and Tennessee. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I could not find any real sources (only social media and advertising). Maybe even speedy as A7 if my hunch about the non-significance of "TPA hosts annual conferences at Vanderbilt University" is correct. ChromaNebula (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Derp, I had forgotten about A7. I'm going to go for it. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:57, 27 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!} 22:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cyril Drawilo[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:18, 26 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) 17:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:54, 26 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!} 22:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kiam Wanesse[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:17, 26 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) 17:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are some hits in Google and ProQuest but all are passing mentions in U-17 match reports, which fail to establish any notability under GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Takai Pouli[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:15, 26 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) 17:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:53, 26 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!} 22:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ueli Tualaulelei[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:13, 26 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) 17:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find anything other than stats coverage and a video of a goal Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Milo Tiatia[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:11, 26 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) 17:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:26, 26 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!} 22:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Faamoana[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:09, 26 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) 17:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find any SIGCOV under either variant of the surname Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus between keep and merge and as no one is arguing for delete, that does not require a relist. Discussion on where this content should live can continue editorially. Star Mississippi 02:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jinyun railway station[edit]

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

Merged to rail line during new page patrol and was reverted. No indication of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. No content other than it's existence. IMO would be an inevitable permastub limited to that. I moved the content and image to the line article which IMO is a good, appropriate and stable place for it and was reverted. North8000 (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and China. Shellwood (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and per WP:NOPAGE. This is getting ridiculous honestly. If NemesisAT is going to frustrate all attempts to deal with their creations of permastubs, ANI may be the only recourse left. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that threats to take other editors to ANI when they have done nothing wrong just because you disagree with what they are doing are not in the spirit of Wikipedia and could be seen as attempting to force your own viewpoint on other editors and throw your weight around. Please do not do it! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - and could be seen as attempting to force your own viewpoint on other editors and throw your weight around I see the hypocrisy of you saying this when you are frequently guilty of it clearly is lost on you. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Listify to List of stations on the Jinhua–Wenzhou railway as WP:ATD. All the coverage I found is for Jinyun West station, I did not find anything substantial for Jinyun station. I ask for listify because I want to look at filling in data for the rest of the stations, which are currently redlinks. Jumpytoo Talk 07:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Longstanding consensus is that all railway stations are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment People keep talking about an imaginary "consensus that all rail stations are notable" which does not exist. First, the place such a thing that came out of an actual consensus process is at WP GNG and the SNG's. They aren't mentioned under any SNG's leaving it to GNG says that they have to meet GNG souring. Some folks point to WP:RAILOUTCOMES which:

Is not even a guideline, it's an observation of common outcomes, and per other posts, it appears that even that observation may be wrong
Conflicts with their blanket statement, stating a few types which are usually kept after which it says:"Other stations are usually kept or merged and redirected to an article about the line or system they are on.""

North8000 (talk) 13:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All WP:RAILOUTCOMES does is illustrate the consensus, which most assuredly exists and has been established over many AfDs. Nobody is claiming it is a guideline, but WP:CONSENSUS is a policy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My post just said that that is not accurate, and gave many specific. You are just repeating your previous assertion. North8000 (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Existing heavy rail stations on a main system (i.e. not a heritage railway) are generally kept at AfD. Is this is a heritage railway? No it isn't. And yes, it is accurate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Necrothesp, please read the first section from the essay that you have been quoting from and trying to mis-use Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Common outcomes#Citing this page in AfD and you will see that what you have been trying to do with it here conflicts with it in many ways and is invalid.North8000 (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel the present sourcing is sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Railway stations are an uncontroversial topic that doesn't need extensive sourcing. I feel a consistent approach of keeping all station articles is beneficial to Wikipedia's readers as it aids navigation with categories, Special:Nearby, and the adjacent stations templates. I see little benefit in potentially thousands of deletion discussions to determine the notability of every individual station. NemesisAT (talk) 16:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For those editors who refuse to accept that a consensus exists that railway stations are notable, here it is very clearly illustrated. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is a particular Wikipedia decision-making process. You trying to "interpret" something out of a list of articles (including ones that that are there due to "no consensus to delete") isn't it.North8000 (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This survey clearly represents Wikipedia-wide consensus developed over an extended period of time to keep such articles. Wikipedia:Arbitration succintky states that "where there is a global consensus to edit in a certain way, it should be respected and cannot be overruled by a local consensus". This is re-iterated at Wikipedia:CONLEVEL: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." Djflem (talk) 07:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xingke Avenue station: "The argument that all train stations are automatically notable has no basis in an actual guideline, as has been pointed out, which makes the "keep" arguments presented here rather weak." And more clearly, an RfC was held on this question which resulted in a finding of no consensus that all train stations are notable, meaning that it is really at these previous AfDs that a local consensus is overriding a global one. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The global consensus through editing seen at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Transportation demonstrates that the community has consistently chosen to keep articles of this type (main line stations). Incidentally, comments of that type from a closer do not create consensus, policy, guidline and are irrelevant and best ignored as useless Wikipedia:Supervote. Djflem (talk) 20:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try totally ignoring the 2019 RfC that found no consensus for your argument. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am adressing the results of community choices shown at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Transportation and global consensus established by broad participation of editors. Djflem (talk) 06:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep without prejudice to a merge discussion as not even the nominator has advanced any rationale for deleting. If your bold merge is reverted, then the correct course of action is either to let it go or to start a discussion about the merge, not to head to AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nightmare on Film Street[edit]

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

Reviewed under new page patrol. This is a website with no indication of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. It declares a bunch of self-defined self-awarded firsts where that claim appears sourced but isn't. Except for one, any of the sources that mention them in the ref section text are where their on site is the "reference" Found only 1 few-sentence mention of them by independent sources in the listed references. North8000 (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Best recognition is a '12th best podcast' from a Vairety listsicle. That's not enough in light of WP:GNG/WP:NWEB/WP:NCOMPANY/etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet to become notable. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 09:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia does not indiscriminately accept every award that exists as an instant notability clincher — we only extend that to major awards that can be shown as notable by virtue of garnering media coverage in sources independent of themselves (e.g. Oscars, Emmys, Canadian Screen Awards, etc.), and not to awards that have to be sourced to the awarding organization's or the recipient's own self-published content about themselves because media coverage is non-existent. That is, the award has to itself be demonstrable as a notable award before it can make its winners notable for winning it. But the awards here are of the latter type, not the former, and the article is otherwise very overdependent on primary sources and glancing namechecks of its existence in coverage of other things, with virtually no third party coverage about the podcast being shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Rondo Hatton Classic Horror Awards nomination is a major accolade among the Film Community and is used as Accolade reference in many comparable Wikipedia pages, including Joe Bob Briggs, M Knight Shyamalan, John Walsh, Karen Gillan, House of 1000 Corpses, and others. Suggest adding improvement tags for 'additional citations for for verification. and that This article relies too much on references to primary sources. Kimmikillzombie (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a massive difference between an award that can be listed for completionism's sake in an article that's already adequately referenced as having strong notability claims and strong sourcing, and an award that can actually constitute a topic's article-clinching notability claim in and of itself. M. Night Shyamalan, for example, is in no sense depending on "Rondo Hatton Classic Horror Awards" as his notability claim — dude's got Oscar nominations under his belt, and would have a Wikipedia article on that basis even if the Rondo Hatton Classic Horror Awards didn't exist at all. So no, the fact that his article happens to list a couple of Rondo Hatton Classic Horror Award nominations does not mean that an unrelated topic gets to claim that it's notable specifically because of a Rondo Hatton Classic Horror Award nomination — an award can only be a notability claim for its recipients if it's an award that demonstrably receives enough GNG-worthy media coverage to demonstrate that the award is a notable one, and cannot be a notability claim for its recipients if you have to depend on the award's own self-published website about itself to source the claim because media coverage is non-existent.
And no, we don't keep poorly sourced articles just because somebody theorizes that better sources might exist than anybody has actually found — once notability has been questioned, you have to show that the necessary reliable sources to salvage the article with definitely do exist to get an article kept. Please see Wikipedia:But there must be sources!. Bearcat (talk) 12:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of science fiction television programs by genre#Satire and comedy. Consensus is against keeping, but split between merge and delete. As a compromise, the article is redirected, and merging anything from the history is up to editors. Sandstein 13:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of science fiction sitcoms[edit]

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

Article dating back to 2002 prodded with "Pure WP:OR with zero sources; fails WP:LISTN. Does not have an associated article (Science fiction sitcom redirects here) or even an associated category." - I am bringing it to AfD as it seems like it could do with greater discussing based on it's venerability. Please consider my vote neutral. Artw (talk) 15:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and Comics and animation. Artw (talk) 15:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: ~~Science fiction and fantasy,~~ ~~Television,~~ and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as prodder. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was listed twice at two delsort pages. This has been corrected. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Science fiction sitcom with the goal of turning this into an article consisting mostly of prose. As a second choice, delete per LaundryPizza's PROD. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to List of science fiction television programs by genre#Satire and comedy, where many of these shows are already listed, per Daranios below. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence that the combination of "science fiction" and "sitcom" is a notable topic. Seems to fail WP:SALAT. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is effectively a List of science fiction television shows, right? I'd expect that such a list may pass WP:LISTN. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's a list of science fiction comedy television shows. The science fiction television shows that are meant to be taken more seriously are not on this list. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:SALAT and WP:GNG. Not enough coverage to establish this as its own topic, and there are already more reliable articles about the same thing.Jontesta (talk) 01:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jontesta: Care to name those "more reliable articles about the same thing"? Daranios (talk) 10:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of science fiction television programs by genre. What we have here is a good aid for navigation. I am not sure if the topic fails WP:LISTN, having not searched myself, but it would fit well into that target and could fullfill the navigation function there. And as Piotrus has already indicated, there should be no doubt about the notability with regard to List of science fiction television programs. That should also solve any perceived problems with WP:SALAT. I think List of science fiction television shows indicates more than just sitcoms, right? So I have pointed that redirect to the broader, existing list as long as there are no objections. Daranios (talk) 10:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, according to WP:LISTN, the group needs to be discussed. Best comedy/humorous sci-fi is routinely discussed by independent sources, just as humorous scifi books are. Without a category this is a useful resource for this group without having to guess, guess, guess.Halbared (talk) 10:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of science fiction television programs by genre per Daranios. There's no question that the list of science fiction television programs in general would pass WP:LISTN, and this list is basically just an unnecessary spinout of that topic. Redirecting there, and merging over any shows that may be missing from the main list, would basically solve the issues with this list. Rorshacma (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vikas Singal[edit]

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

completely non-notable vanity spam sourced to black-hat SEO and sponsored pieces/PR. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can suggest edits that can improve the article, i think it's better than just deleting it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddyug (talk • contribs) 14:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I could, but there is nothing to improve because he isn't notable and you also don't listen. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — a promo piece citing as its sources... more promo pieces. No indication of notability; fails WP:GNG with flying colours. Could even be A7 and/or G11 speediable. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable. Fails our notability criteria. --Baggaet (talk) 14:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG a promo piece.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Though more references can be added.STEWEART (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The words Entrepreneur, SEO Consultant and Digital Marketing Strategist are almost sufficient to condemn this to deletion. The references(!) achieve that. The blocking of the creating editor for UPE is unsurprising. WP:ADMASQ and fails WP:BIO 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity (story arc)[edit]

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

This article came up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triarch as a potential redirect target, but several users (and myself) have noted that this DC Comics story arc fails WP:GNG. The content is solely a short plot summary and a list of issues. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Comics and animation. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches are complicated by the fact that DC has published several other series since this one also named "Trinity" or some variant of such, as well as the term often being used as the general term for the teamup of Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman. The particular story arc described in this article, however, appears to be the least notable of all of their uses. I am finding no significant coverage in reliable sources regarding this particular story arc. Rorshacma (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Rorshacma Avilich (talk) 19:28, 26 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!} 05:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Gyamfi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Was kept at AfD in 2009 because of an unsubstantiated claim that the subject met WP:ATHLETE (older and more lenient version of WP:NFOOTBALL) but no claim to meeting WP:GNG. Now that ATHLETE and NFOOTBALL are irrelevant, this simply needs to meet GNG. Current source is a stats profile page from a primary source, which is unacceptable. Searches in Google News, ProQuest yields one trivial mention and DDG has no WP:RS at all for him. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ghana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:52, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - I can't find any SIGCOV (just match reports, a note about a Ghana U23 call-up, and similar trivial coverage). Fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 13:53, 27 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!} 05:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Addy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Kept in a 2009 AfD back when the guidelines were much more lenient; it simply had to be likely to pass WP:ATHLETE, the predecessor to WP:NFOOTBALL, to be kept. The sources presented in the previous discussion were all examples of trivial coverage and do not amount to a WP:GNG pass, which is the current requirement. Searches in Google News, DDG and ProQuest yielded nothing better than Wikipedia mirrors. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ghana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any SIGCOV in online sources. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Nuru Dini[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Was kept at AfD in 2009 as, back then, WP:ATHLETE (the predecessor to WP:NFOOTBALL) was all that you needed to meet to have an article. Now that WP:GNG is the sole relevant guideline, I don't believe that this article qualifies any more. In fact, searches of "Mohammed Nuru Dini" and "Mohammed Dini" in multiple search engines are giving me no useful results at all. Unless clear significant coverage can be found, this article should be deleted. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ghana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:BEFORE reveals only autogenerated spam sites and zero relevant media mentions, not even in sources of questionable reliability and not even in passing. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 08:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No SIGCOV available for this footballer. Fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 13:50, 27 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 13:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Galactic Frontiers[edit]

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

Only references are a couple of reviews from a single publication, one of which is very, very tiny. Archive.org search also comes up with nothing. If there are additional reviews please let us know and I will gladly withdraw the AfD, but as it is, this is a very clear fail of WP:GNG and such a prolific article creator should know better? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 12:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment found these two sources from the Human Media(the developer) website [14]], [15]. Timur9008 (talk) 15:19 ,26 June 2022 (UTC)

Sources from a developer don't count towards notability, as they are WP:PRIMARY. Not that those really have much beyond a description of what the game is. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Macintosh games for now until more sources can be found. BOZ (talk) 12:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but you're the article creator. Why did you publish the article in the first place? Sergecross73 msg me 17:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That also assumes that lists should include non-notable games. I think that most people would agree that games appearing on any (non-developer-specific) list in Wikipedia should either be bluelinked or redlinked (having article potential)? Otherwise the criteria for inclusion would be tremendously broad. Redirecting a non-notable game to a list is literally useless for readers, they may as well head to Mobygames. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Additionally no hits in major databases: ProQuest, ebscoHOST, the Wikipedia Library federated search, or newspapers.com. List of Macintosh games is already lengthy enough that it doesn't need to list titles that are not yet independently notable. There are no other worthwhile redirect targets. czar 02:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A couple of capsule reviews are the only independent refs, and it does not indicate GNG. VickKiang (talk) 07:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Fullington[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG, famous only for his father's storyline in ECW, non-notable in his own right All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 11:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Wrestling, and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 12:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless someone can point me towards WP:SIGCOV, I feel like if this guy is notable, then so is Judy Bagwell! Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:07, 26 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) --VersaceSpace 🌃 03:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Locus Award for Best Science Fiction Novel[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. All sources are own sources. Searches reveals very little beyond own sites and press release publishing. Appears to be a very niche award from a poorly publicised magazine. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Awards. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a significant international award, and the description of Locus as "a poorly publicized magazine" is not correct. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Everything that Newyorkbrad said is true. Reasons to keep: 1. the magazine heavily publicizes the results of other awards' procedings; 2. locus publishes a well-circulated periodical and releases new short fiction, novelettes, and other stories by note-able contemporary science fiction and fantasy authors; 3. the results of the locus awards are followed by goodreads, worldwithoutend, macmillian, tor, uncanny, and others. not mainstream enough? "The winners of the Locus Awards, considered some of the most prestigious prizes in science fiction, fantasy and horror literature, were announced Saturday" a quote from the la times in 2018; 4. the magazine maintains active online presence the staff conducting reviews of new literature and interviews with award-winning authors; 5. publishers excitedly post when their works are nominated and win. many people like the authors or publishers even write on the front of the books "winner of Locus Award". like this: https://www.hachette.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/hbg-title-9781529346671-26.jpg?fit=440%2C675 if it wasn't note-able, why would they add it to the front covers of the books? Create a template (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for a significant award, it is very difficult to find on-line and as for the magazine, that too is not an easy find. Having someone put an award on their dust-jacket is hardly more than a sales pitch. If an editor could produce some robust, reliable and truly independent sources, I might be convinced, but the above is just words,. Nothing more. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for this significant award, it took less than 2 minutes to find an la times article describing its importance and as for the magazine, that too is easy to see that it's won 30 hugo awards during its run. You must need to see it in the NYT or the Atlantic or EW.com, slate.com to get satisfactorily assured. If an editor could levy a robust, reliable contestation of its lack of merit, I might be convince, but the above is just words. Nothing more. Create a template (talk)
Keep. I have updated the article with secondary sources – The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction sources the full list (except for 2022). Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Locus Awards are, with the Hugos and the Nebulas, the big awards for speculative fiction, and it makes sense to have separate pages for the different categories given the length of the lists. The winners are also independently wiki-notable, and so the list serves a valid navigational purpose. XOR'easter (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Per Olivaw-Daneel. This is just way too obvious that no previous search was made before nominating. RB ^{Talk to the Beans?} 10:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a pretty major award in the sci-fi/speculative fiction world. A quick search shows that this is the spinoff award from the former "Best Novel" award, likely when they realized that there was a need for individual ones for the various genres that Locus covers as a whole. (That's more of an aside, though.) Now as far as sourcing goes, I will have to refer to a 2019 review by Ian Green in Nature Physics - a scientific journal - of The Calculating Stars: A Lady Astronaut Novel, which won the 2019 award. Green refers to how the book won a Hugo and a Nebula as well, referring to the awards as "three of the top awards in science fiction." If a noted scientific journal that does not typically deal in fiction is referring to the award as such, that is a sign of its notability. The list of awards is also covered in various different magazines and news outlets as well - given that this is one of the top awards, it makes sense to spin this out into its own article, especially given that it's been presented for over 40 years. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:16, 27 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 11:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Hacking[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, let alone WP:NCORP. Did a WP:BEFORE check and only fund more promo/passing sources from CrunchBase/Forbes ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Education, and Computing. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BEFORE and the article itself is promo.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 16:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This does not seem accurate under the referenced criteria for significance or notable coverage for organizations. There are numerous "reliable" secondary sources of varying levels of significance and independence referenced on the article with differing points of view on the organization and its activities since 2013. 108.30.135.53 (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't see it. To which do you refer? FalconK (talk) 07:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV indeed. Note that I conducted a WP:BEFORE which led to this Teahouse discussion and then this AfD. Ovinus (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of lacking the coverage required in WP:ORGCRIT. FalconK (talk) 07:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus to keep and move to Setellia femoralis. (non-admin closure) Kj cheetham (talk) 12:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cephalia femoralis[edit]

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

This would appear to be a case of citogenesis. The EOL page 404-s, an ITIS search yields "No Data Found for all containing Cephalia femoralis", and the Catalogue of Life suggests that it is a synonym of Setellia femoralis - and neither the species nor its genus have en.wp articles. Shirt58 (talk) 09:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Setellia femoralis. This isn't a case of citogenensis; the name didn't originate with Wikipedia or any of the mentioned taxonomy databases. Cephalis femoralis was first described in this publication, and is accepted as Setellia femoralis per Systema Dipterorum and other databases. Plantdrew (talk)`
Keep and move to Setellia femoralis per Plantdrew. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:31, 30 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 11:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Kaleopa[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; lack of WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 09:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United States of America. JTtheOG (talk) 09:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:25, 26 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 13:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neva Gilbert[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Biography for a non-notable playmate. damiens.rf 06:10, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 07:10, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One story about her in the retirement home [16] from the TV station, might have enough for GNG, unsure about notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are multiple stories about Gilbert. Two by one reporter at the Palm Beach Post (yes, I realize that can be considered as one, but they are from 2016^[1] and 2017^[2]). Then there is the more routine coverage Playboy centerfolds.^[3]^[4] DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Surely simply being the oldest surviving playboy centrefold makes her noteworthy? 2A00:23C8:3383:7801:698A:75B6:612:132 (talk) 10:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Aydlette, Larry (December 2016). "Lake Worth's Neva Gilbert recalls her "lucky" life as one of Playboy magazine's original Playmates". The Palm Beach Post. Archived from the original on December 19, 2016.
^ Aydlette, Larry (2017-02-05). "Lake Worth woman named oldest Playmate". The Palm Beach Post. pp. [1], [2]. Retrieved 2022-06-12.
^ Kleiner, Dick (1979-12-06). "Show World Spotlight". The Times-Tribune. p. 38. Retrieved 2022-06-12.
^ Lennon, Troy (9 December 2015). "Sting in the bunny tail for Playboy's earliest nudes". The Daily Telegraph; Surry Hills, N.S.W. [Surry Hills, N.S.W]. p. 60.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:48, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets general notability per references. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:05, 26 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Jick[edit]

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

Can a team's Public address announcer be notable? o apparent non--local coverage DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has enough WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG. Anyone can be notable as long there is enough significant coverage on him. There is plenty of coverage on Jick in several publications [17][18][19][20] Alvaldi (talk) 09:38, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'd expect an article with more meat on it, but I guess it's notable, based on what we see as sources. Oaktree b (talk) 23:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on WP:SIGCOV provided by User:Alvaldi. Frank Anchor 12:51, 27 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. (also nomination withdrawn) Canley (talk) 09:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Filopoulos[edit]

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

~~BLP of a sports executive doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO - notability isn't inherited from the roles he has held. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

Nomination withdrawn, thanks to the recent improvements to the article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Football, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom there is no inherent notability from the roles he has had. This article fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he fails WP:GNG. WP:NOTINHERITED definitely applies here. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. 99.165.88.9 (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Despite contrary unsupported assertions, clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Assertions of WP:NOTINHERITED are specious. With very little effort I was able to find multiple RSs and have added them to the page. Nom and reviewers: Please be mindful of performing proper WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion. An absence of citations on the page is not a reason to nominate the page for deletion: it's a reason to improve the page and add suitable RSs. Cabrils (talk) 01:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Deus et lex (talk) 05:35, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Several references were added to the article on 18 June 2022‎ (UTC).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG with the sources now in the article. Alvaldi (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment MrsSnoozyTurtle Even if you withdraw a nomination, it won't close the discussion, as multiple other people have voted deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have removed the notability tag per recent improvements. Segaton (talk) 04:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remy Raisner[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG - no significant reliable coverage Aoyoigian (talk) 06:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Aoyoigian (talk) 06:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sportspeople, Basketball, France, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator has been blocked for UPE spamming. However, it is also probable that this article is also UPE spam. Please leave this nomination open. MER-C 05:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Gets solicited for quotes often enough, but no real SIGCOV. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

INX Digital Company[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, no independent coverage in RS Aoyoigian (talk) 06:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Aoyoigian (talk) 06:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Technology, and British Columbia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:55, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator has been blocked for UPE spamming. However, this article is also likely UPE spam in a topic area notorious for spamming. Supported by only press releases and similar pieces, non-notable. Delete. MER-C 05:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on a company, with text and references consisting of announcement-based coverage which falls under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. A company going about its business but searches are not finding evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 10:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SERIESA. FalconK (talk) 03:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 13:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian Brazilians[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Romanian Brazilians

Articles on this subject have already been deleted, as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romanian Brazilians and a G4. I haven't seen the deleted article and so am not tagging this article for another G4. However, the same arguments apply as in the AFD, including not everything is encyclopedic and not enough information to be encyclopedic. The references verify that what is in the article is verifiable. The question is whether the subject is encyclopedic, and it has already been decided once that it is not.

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	brasilia.mae.ro	Says that Romania has an embassy in Brazil	Yes	Not about the subject	Yes	No
2	romanialibera.ro	Romanian newspaper - Says that there are 200,000 Romanian Brazilians	Yes	States that the subject group exists	Yes	Yes
3	romenos.com.br	An article about one group who emigrated from Romania to Brazil	Yes	Not really	Yes	Yes

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Ethnic groups, Romania, and Brazil. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The previous article about the same subject has been deleted but it was completely different, the sources i used for this article are also presented in the Romania-Brazil relations article, there are a lot of pages about european diaspora in Brazil, my article is very similar to others such as the Bulgarian one (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarian_Brazilians). Vladdy Daddy Silly (talk) 02:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i added more sources to the page and expanded it with a section about notable romanian brazilians. Vladdy Daddy Silly (talk) 23:32, 12 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, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added a lot more sources and deleted unclear parts, but i still do not understand why this should be deleted since it is clear that there is a Romanian presence in Brazil, this is an encyclopedia. Vladdy Daddy Silly (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

for how long will this last? Vladdy Daddy Silly (talk) 03:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vladdy Daddy Silly, hard to say but we look for more participation. It's hard to make a decision on an article with only two people weighing in their opinions who disagree. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well i updated the article since the deletion discussion started, i added more RS and i cleaned up some parts. I added a category about famous Romanian Brazilians that redirects to the proper page. I don't understand why this article should be deleted, it has nothing to do with the previous article that bare the same name, there are similar pages about every diaspora in Brazil, only the Romanian one misses basically. Plus the OP who started the tp didn't reply to any of my comments. Vladdy Daddy Silly (talk) 03:14, 29 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 per WP:SK#1. A specific, valid deletion rationale has not been advanced, and otherwise, the nomination is only proposing a merge. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid deletion rationales. Merge templates can be added to the articles denoted and a merge discussion can be initiated on a talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alberger process[edit]

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

Page does not seem to justify a stand alone page. Perhaps a merge to sodium chloride or salt. Gusfriend (talk) 08:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Products, and Science. Gusfriend (talk) 08:13, 26 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 11:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Katanga TV Tower[edit]

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

Being on a list of tallest towers can't make this notable. Ironmatic1 (talk) 07:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Architecture. Ironmatic1 (talk) 07:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In the radio transmitter world, 738 ft is pretty much average, and its appearance in Template:Supertall is in no way justified. Nate • (chatter) 19:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Madhya Pradesh-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:42, 28 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. After previous AfDs resulting in "no consensus" and then "keep", the current consensus seems to still be "keep". (non-admin closure) Kj cheetham (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kampyle (software)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:SERIESA. Minimal third party coverage, just lots of getting profiled in sources like WP:TECHCRUNCH. The Washington Post article is actually syndicated from Techcrunch. Not notable. I add that since the previous deletion debate, which relied mainly on Techcrunch articles to establish notability, our criteria for what counts as notability for tech startups has become more formalized and I don't think we'd reach the same result today. FalconK (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Israel. FalconK (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Software. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most of sourcing is books. When there is so much crap out there with not a single source, why delete an entry about a company that is clearly notable?--Geewhiz (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to disagree here. Yannacopoulos, for example, mentions Kampyle only 3 times, and those times are in a list of related vendors, and two screenshots comparing it with those other vendors. This is not the substantial coverage contemplated in WP:CORPDEPTH; it's a passing mention. The book isn't covering how to use Kampyle, even. Gordon name checks Kampyle exactly once: "Companies such as Kampyle... use online survey instruments..." and that's it. Clifton comes close, but still only superficially mentions what Kampyle might be used for in a small handful of examples. These are not, any of them or any of the others, substantially about Kampyle. I'd also like to point you at WP:OTHERSTUFF - I also nominate a lot of essentially unsourced articles here, but in this instance we're talking about Kampyle. FalconK (talk) 08:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Medallia per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Both articles are short and the parent company can use more content and refs. Add just a bit into history. Don't pass any limits of WP:UNDUE. Their domains also merged, as did their operations, so this really makes sense! Kudos to FalconK for nominating. gidonb (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Falcon Kirtaran: This is going in the keep direction. I would appreciate your feedback at one point. Would you conceive the selective merge above an improvement over the current situation and a desirable outcome from your perspective? gidonb (talk) 15:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think a merge would be appropriate. I'm really not convinced of the notability of either company, but if we were to assume Medallia is, a merge would be the right answer as I see it. Thanks! FalconK (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Clifton, Brian (2010). Advanced Web Metrics with Google Analytics (2 ed.). Indianapolis: Wiley. pp. 457–459. ISBN 978-0-470-56231-4. Retrieved 2022-06-25 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Kampyle (www.kampyle.com) is an online Feedback Analytics platform that allows website owners to create their own advanced, branded, and customized feedback forms and put them on their sites for the benefit of their users. Website visitors can quickly and simply submit their feedback with a general grade, feedback category, subcategory, text description, and the contact details. Visitors access the feedback form through the use of a non-invasive feedback button, which can be placed in various locations on the web page. ... Clearly integrating Kampyle feedback data with Google Analytics provides a more complete picture of website performance."
2. Page, Rich; Ash, Tim; Ginty, Maura (2012). Landing Page Optimization: The Definitive Guide to Testing and Tuning for Conversions (2 ed.). Indianapolis: Wiley. pp. 131–132. ISBN 978-0-470-61012-1. Retrieved 2022-06-25 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Kampyle gathers feedback from site visitors in two ways. An orange "Give Feedback" button or triangle permanently pins itself ot a corner or side of the browser window on a website that has deployed Kampyle. The tool can also be configured to display a "Would you like to take our survey?" lightbox popover window to a small percentage of visitors. ... When giving feedback with this tool, users also have the option to leave their e-mail address for you to respond to, therefore allowing you to form an ongoing dialogue with your respondents (particularly useful for discontented ones). Reasonably priced plans for small businesses are available as well as enterprise plans, making this a cost-effective way of gathering feedback for your website and uncovering problems."
3. Tonkin, Sebastian; Whitmore, Caleb; Cutroni, Justin (2010). Performance Marketing with Google Analytics: Strategies and Techniques for Maximizing Online ROI. Indianapolis: Wiley. pp. 216–217. ISBN 978-0-470-57831-5. Retrieved 2022-06-25 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Two companies, Kampyle (www.kampyle.com) and OpinonLab (www.opinionlab.com) offer excellent tools for collecting and analyzing voice-of-the-customer data on your site. Kampyle's tool, shown on the left side of Figure 8.12, combines a colorful prompt on the corner or edge of the page with predefined categories that make it easy to process feedback. Kampyle also allows you to combine the feedback reported through the tool directly to your Google Analytics data using a prebuilt integration, which allows you to connect qualitative feedback with key segments in the Web traffic with minimal development. For example, Twiddy & Co., one of our success stories from Chapter 3, used an integration between Google Analytics and Kampyle to identify a frustrating disconnect between a print ad promoting a discount and an out-of-date product page."
4. Morales Martínez, Maribel (2010). Analítica web para empresas: Arte, ingenio y anticipación [Web analytics for companies: Art, ingenuity and anticipation] (in Spanish). Barcelona: Editorial UOC (Open University of Catalonia). ISBN 978-84-9029-852-7. Retrieved 2022-06-25 – via Google Books.
  The boko notes: "Kampyle http://www.kampyle.com Kampyle, es un servicio para sitios web que nos permite tener un feedback directo de los usuarios de un sitio web. Kampyle dispone de un simple cuestionario muy práctico y fácil de utilizar, que permite establecer contacto directo con los visitantes de un sitio web. Para utilizarlo es necesario registrarse e incorporar este servicio de feedback en el sitio web, es decir, es lo que se denomina “processlevel feedback service”. Por ejemplo, si accedemos a cualquier página del sitio."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Kampyle to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is enough material to support a standalone article. I consider a merge of Kampyle (software) to Medallia (which was also nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medallia) to be undue weight. Cunard (talk) 08:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a product therefore NCORP is the appropriate criteria. We require in-depth "Independent Content" about the *software* in order to meet notability criteria. The links provided above by Cunard (in particular the third link) and independent reviews such as this from IMA. Topic meets NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:00, 28 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 11:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lim Kai Yi[edit]

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

Dismally fails WP:BEFORE search. The article is basically just a list of the (several hundred) minor speedsolving records that they hold. Not even close to notable. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 05:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Malaysia. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 05:48, 26 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!} 22:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mian Taj Muhammad[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG in my view, the sources cited in the article currently aren't reliable sources per WP:RS and research doesn't bring up much in the way of additional useful sourcing. Mike1901 (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Religion. Mike1901 (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

comment There is one source which is of OUP publisher, but it is not accessible, other than that all other sources seem to be poor. Maybe draftify the article first to let someone improve it. Sajaypal007 (talk) 07:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

comment As You can see I've improved the article very detailed, it is now easy to understand everything added strong sources that meet Wikipedia rules , i improved it and i suggest please do not let it be a smoke , keep it . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.61.99.27 (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per WP:HEY. Recent improvements to the article appear to have addressed the sourcing issues raised by the nominator.4meter4 (talk) 01:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There's something really odd here with the edits that expanded the article. It looks like they've been pulled from another article - Rumi. See the Childhood and emigration sections added here and compare to the same section in the Rumi article. Most (if not all) of that edit appears to be lifted from the Rumi article and Rumi changed to Taj. The copyvio report has some big hits, but I think those are all from the text copied from the Rumi article, which substantially predates this one (and appears to predate those reported possible copies). Ravensfire (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Ravensfire above makes a very valid observation and I entirely agree with these concerns that the supposed "expansion" is nothing more than a prose lift from another article with the name changed where it appeared. Furthermore, the diff noted has clear evidence of the poor quality of the content being merged, with half-started or half-finished sentences and formatting issues arising from this clear violation of copyright. I would hope 4meter4 would retract their !vote in light of this. Even "expansion" edits before this which use credible references are relating to Rumi, but passed off as "Taj". There is no valid consensus to keep this and so i'd favour outright deletion or draftification at best. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have also took the decision to revert the article state back to that from when this afd was initiated, on the basis of the above. I have warned the editor in question, who already has previous copyvio warnings. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nice catch Ravensfire. Delete per nom and Bungle.4meter4 (talk) 18:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This decision is partially arrived at by the fact that the nominator seems uncertain about this article's deletion and after 2 relists, the only participant voiced a "Very week keep". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Dunlap[edit]

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

Not at all my field, but I suspect it needs to be re-evaluated under the current standards for athletes. DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bodybuilding, and Kansas. Shellwood (talk) 23:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dunlap appears to be the NPC National Chamption of 2007, in the United States. This covers the whole of the country, so it likely acceptable as a notability criteria and that makes her notable. However, it is only a single reference, which is primary and 4-line profile. There is not single mention of her anywhere, very little on social media, no other coverage. There is 1 video with 7k views on Youtube. No other sources. Very weak keep. scope_creep^Talk 08:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:39, 26 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 23:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mozambicans in the United Kingdom[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; there is no significant coverage of Mozambicans in the United Kingdom as a group.

Prod removed with the edit summary Removed Proposed deletion/dated tag: let's not quietly pick these off one by one ((AfricansinUK)). Courtesy ping to Kvng. BilledMammal (talk) 02:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 02:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 12 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!} 03:25, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Delete due to prior PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sourcing has come forth to prove this is a notable intersection of topics. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Despite some other well-developed articles on similar subject, I am unable to find sufficient sourcing for this one. ~Kvng (talk) 16:05, 27 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 05:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lonnetrix[edit]

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

no significant coverage in RS, including those cited. Does not meet WP:NCORP or WP:NPRODUCT. (t · c) buidhe 01:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Organizations, and Maryland. (t · c) buidhe 01:43, 12 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!} 03:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lacks notability, no good sources found. Fram (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for Soft Delete due to prior PROD
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 26 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 05:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Klopman diamond[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The current sources in the article are: A wayback link to Mark Evanier's personal blog, a dead link to a newspaper article that apparently just reprinted the joke, a review of an album containing a reference to the joke, two dead YouTube links, and a jokebook. While there are multiple hits on Google Books, all of them are either jokebooks that just reprint the joke, or works of fiction that use the joke. Not a single one of them discusses the joke's history or origins. Compare the sources in bar joke, which extensively discuss the earliest known origins of it, the common setup, and use literary sources on humor to expound on why the joke is such a standard. Similarly, every result on Newspapers.com was either just a reprint of the joke, or an episode title with "Klopman" in it. The first AFD was kept mostly per WP:ITEXISTS ("it existed before Mark Evanier wrote it into Garfield and Friends, therefore it's notable"). The two books cited as reasons to keep in the first AFD are one that only mentions it in passing, and one that just reprints the joke without commenting on it. The second AFD was kept per the now-404 newspaper article which I am now entirely unable to locate. These were in 2008 and 2010, and surely consensus has changed by now given that the state of sourcing has not improved. Also apropos of nothing, this article is a complete WP:ORPHAN and has been since creation. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, in particular, WP:SIGCOV. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:11, 19 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!} 04:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While this particular article is not overwhelmingly important, the reference has appeared in enough places to warrant some sort of coverage. This is an example of the ongoing efforts to decimate our popular culture coverage through AfDs like this one, which in my view have no value. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is not a valid argument. Try again. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing the WP:GNG due to insufficient coverage. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stated by the nomination, while searches bring up plenty of hits from joke books and the like that simply retell the joke, there are no sources that actually provide any significant coverage about either the joke or the fictional object that is the focus of it. So, it is a failure of the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keyera[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:NCORP, the article is mostly sourced to primary sources plus one WP:ROUTINE announcement in a trade publication, and the only sources I could find from a search were similar WP:CORPDEPTH failing routine pieces, plus churnalism in trade publications. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:10, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:10, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - largest midstream gas company in western canada. [21] it has been a 5+ billion dollar company for quite a few years now. itsEnviroFuels (AEF) facility is the largest iso-octane manufacturing plant in the world" [22] it is especially notable today given the uncertainty around oil and gas supplies. it is unique in that it processes NGL, does fractionation, refining, storage, transportation, logistics and marketing services for American and Canadian companies (provides essential services as noted here [23]). energy infrastructure (enbridge/TC) and processing (fractionation) makes it a unique company that "doesn't have competition". has an "industry-leading condensate system" [24] [25] [26].Grmike (talk) 03:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)grmike[reply]

"one of canada's leading publicly traded companies" [27] . has history the rimbey plant's 50th anniversary was recognized here [28] "won an award for Environmental Excellence in recognition of its environmental management and for voluntarily de-grandfathering its emissions license." canadian politician says "Rocky Mountain House MLA Ty Lund, who attended the celebration, said the Rimbey Gas Plant fills a need in the oil and gas industry. It is a godsend to the industry as it is a processor and there is a real need for that. And they are doing a super job.” [29]. KEYERA is talked about here [30] [31] [32] [33][34][35][36][37]

As I said, churnalism, unreliable trade publications and passing mentions in relation to things that are not this company. Also, keep WP:THREE in mind. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree entirely. it's a Canadian midstream natural gas company and iso butaine refiner that has been a large cap company for the greater part of the last decade. it is larger, more significant and arguably more talked about than three quarters of all canadian oil companies on wikipedia. references and citations were added to the article. I agree that the article did need more references and I provided them.Grmike (talk) 11:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Surely it's very unlikely that any company that meets WP:LISTED in a G7 country is going to not be notable. But not only that, it's one of the about 10% of stocks listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange that's part of the S&P/TSX Composite Index - the primary index in the nation. A full search for good references is difficult with over 20,000 hits for this unique name in Proquest. But digging deeper (which is a time-wasting exercise for such a blatantly notable subject) yields detailed coverage in articles like this and this and this and this all in national media. Nfitz (talk) 17:09, 29 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 Calvin and Hobbes#Calvin's alter-egos. I would like to express my gratitude towards Daranios for their thorough effort at finding sources. Regrettably, the consensus is that the verifiable content that can be gleaned from those sources should be included as part of the main Calvin and Hobbes article rather than in a standalone article. I hope that we can make use of Daranios's sources moving forward. Mz7 (talk) 01:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spaceman Spiff[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No out-of-universe notability asserted. There are no sources at all in the article, and I was unable to find any that did not originate from Watterson himself except for a few superficial mentions (less than a full sentence) in articles about Calvin and Hobbes. Neither Calvin nor Hobbes has his own article, so it makes zero sense for Spiff to have one. Redirect was contested with rationale of "take it to AFD". Previous AFD was in 2005, when rationales for keeping were vastly different than they are now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why would you redirect it if there was a prior AfD? That’s clearly not appropriate. Artw (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By what policy? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the first nomination ended in Keep. Why does your opinion overrule the opinion of the participants of the first discussion? DonaldD23 talk to me 11:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a policy, though? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for its original research. No comment on the other points. NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Attempting to find the full text or a quote at an established RS, but what i have seen of "The Calvin and Hobbes Tenth Anniversary Book" confirms what is in the article. Have added it in a more conventional citation format with a "check", which I will be following up on shortly. Artw (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ back to Calvin and Hobbes. The character ~~is not independently notable (doesn't meet WP:GNG), and~~ is not significant enough to merit a WP:SPINOFF. Just like Calvinball, transmogrifier, and many other wonderful parts of C&H, the content about Spaceman Spiff belongs in the the C&H article so the reader can read it in context. Spiff just isn't significant enough to merit being spun off onto a separate page. (Also the arguments about the 2005 AFD are as laughable as they are deceptive: this was a redirect from 2006, after the AFD, until 2019; and seriously, a 2005 AFD?? That's way too old to care about.) Levivich 18:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Responding to Daranios's ping below, I agree that at least this paper and this German book (AGFing that it's SIGCOV, as I don't speak German, but it sure looks like SIGCOV) count as GNG sources. Striking my !vote accordingly. This places Spaceman Spiff in WP:PAGEDECIDE territory. I'm still of the mind that the article should be merged and redirected because I think it's better to cover Spiff in the article about C&H rather than a WP:SPINOFF, and I think if we were to spinoff anything from the C&H article, it should be a sub-article about Calvin and a sub-article about Hobbes, but on the other hand, if someone wanted to spinoff Spiff first, that's permitted by our global consensus, and there's enough RS material to write an article about Spiff. So put me down for keep or redirect, either one is fine with me (not delete, though). Levivich^[block] 14:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Calvin and Hobbes#Calvin's_alter-egos. A few more sentences could be added to the Spaceman Spiff entry there. I just don't see that the character is notable enough on their own. As for the 2005 AFD we could now have editor, who have children, that were children in 2005 (sorry for making everyone feel old), and a generation old AFD holding any weight is overly bureaucratic. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still not convinced this should be stand alone, but merge to a list article seems reasonable. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Calvin and Hobbes#Calvin's_alter-egos. Why have a second article when the information can be put in proper context in the original article. I dearly love Calvin and Hobbes, and of course Spaceman Spiff - who couldn't? - but he doesn't need a separate article. Elemimele (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to Calvin and Hobbes. That's clearly the suitable solution for this. Reyk _YO! 09:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Calvin and Hobbes#Calvin's_alter-egos. Stand-alone notability is too weak, but redirects are WP:CHEAP. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - and if the person who undid the redirect isnt going to even offer a reason why it should not be redirected this should be closed per SNOW sooner rather than later. nableezy - 20:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not SNOW by any means as there are plenty of KEEP votes. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is notable after all: Das Science Fiction Jahr 2014 has more than 5 pages on Spaceman Spiff, including analysis and the fact that the figure precedes Calvin & Hobbes; if the titel and abstract are to be believed, this 23 page paper deals with the figure to a significant extent. And then there are many secondary sources with shorter treatment (but much more than "less than a full sentence"), like Imagination and Meaning in Calvin and Hobbes, Looking for Calvin and Hobbes, or this paper. So no WP:SNOW here. I wonder why not at least some of those were found in the required WP:BEFORE search. That "Neither Calvin nor Hobbes has his own article" is a valid complaint, but should have no bearing on the question of deletion of this article, because as WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST it is an argument to avoid in a deletion discussion. I am asking everyone to consider these sources, pinging specifically those who mentioned doubts about notability @Levivich, ActivelyDisinterested, and Piotrus:. Daranios (talk) 11:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the verifiable content, along with any on Calvin and Hobbes themselves, could be merged to List of Calvin and Hobbes characters. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per found sources, no objection to merge. Artw (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources by Daranios. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources by Daranios. This is WP:SIGCOV, international and [WP:SUSTAINED]] over a period of years, more than sufficient to meet WP:GNG Jacona (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of options suggested, trying to see some consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. Spaceman Spiff has no existence independent of the Calvin and Hobbes comic strip, so there is no reason this can't receive appropriate coverage in that article. --Nicknack009 (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's yet another secondary source which has a good-sized paragraph on Spaceman Spiff: Comics Through Time: A History of Icons, Idols, and Ideas p. 928. It also tells us that the character had a history before Calvin, though, granted, those earlier strips don't seem to have been published. Another reason why treatment in a stand-alone article might be preferable is the sheer amount of material presented on Spaceman Spiff in secondary sources. Daranios (talk) 10:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge as the compromise position for most editors. I don't see enough coverage here to meet the WP:GNG but there are some mentions that could be covered at the main topic. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Calvin and Hobbes#Calvin's_alter-egos - As WP:NOPAGE describes, "There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context." This would be one of those cases. While there are sources that demonstrate some notability of the topic, it would make much more sense to cover the topic in the main Calvin and Hobbes article rather than spinning it out into a separate article. Rorshacma (talk) 01:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paola Minekov[edit]

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

I've been able to find is a small write-up by Radio Bulgaria ([38]), which seems insufficient to meet WP:SIGCOV. The only other coverage of significance I was able to find is a blog post written by a friend ([39]). – Ploni (talk) 02:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Bulgaria, and United Kingdom. Ploni (talk) 02:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to be significant independant coverage to meet WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:28, 26 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!} 05:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Jureidini[edit]

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

No significant coverage in either English or Arabic (لميشيل جريديني). Fails WP:MUSICBIO. – Ploni (talk) 02:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Lebanon. Ploni (talk) 02:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not have sourcing to show the passing of our notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:34, 27 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) --VersaceSpace 🌃 03:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Chen[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Out of the 11 listed sources, only 3 non user-generated sources have any significant coverage. 1 of them (grow.acorns.com) appears to be a promotional blog of sorts run by Acorns (company), an investment app. the rest of the 9 are either his YouTube or reddit content, or only contain passing mentions in context of a controversy. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see the BBC, CNBC, the Dallas Morning News, and The Business Journals. Seems to be notable. --evrik ^(talk) 03:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: cnbc 10 matches for chen, The Dallas Morning News 15 matches for Chen, the article at the very least has two reliable sources providing significant coverage. Sources 1 and 13 may count as an additional two. Keep per GNG. Justi yaya 07:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There was coverage on Mike Chen in major news sources, such as CNBC, BBC, and The Dallas Morning News. He was also nominated for a Shorty Award. lullabying (talk) 09:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The first two sources seem to both provide independent SIGCOV from reliable sources – article's in rough shape, but I see no reason to delete entirely. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Full disclosure, I came here from a notice on DYK talk. We have significant coverage, as has been called out above. It is easy to find non-trivial references for this person. Bruxton (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. YouTubers with millions of subscribers are usually notable, and as demonstrated above and in a simple google-news search reliable source are available aplenty for Chen.--Mvqr (talk) 14:50, 29 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!} 05:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Waterman Movie[edit]

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

I nominated this article for uncontroversial proposed deletion a few months ago, but it did not qualify as I had already nominated the article beforehand years back. I should've read the criteria for WP:PROD more carefully, that's on me. Since that initial nomination I think I can now properly articulate why the article should be deleted: It is lacking in sources as the film has not received significant coverage. The only notable sourced aspect of the subject matter is the involvement of Leslie Neilson, which could be merged into his article. Otherwise, the subject matter fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines outlined in WP:MOVIE. The article on the Waterman web series has been deleted for similar reasons concerning a lack of sources. I did some searching and haven't been able to find additional sources outside of two citations from Google Books and this article, both related to Neilson. LBWP (talk) 00:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. LBWP (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing to indicate this uncompleted project is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. It's sad that this will likely never get released, but in the meantime there's just not enough to show that this stalled project meets NFF. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:23, 29 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!} 05:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spell Wars[edit]

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

This doesn't appear to be a notable book or one that exists at all. Searching via title and author gives nothing but a circular source from google books (which literally cites Wikipedia), the ISBN returns nothing in the usual places or anywhere else. And on the off chance it does exist, it certainly isn't notable. PRAXIDICAE🌈 00:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: it seems to exist, but I can't find any reliable sources on it: a Google search gives a book titled Epic Spell Wars of The Battle Wizards, and News returns unrelated stuff. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 00:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that proves it's existence in light of the fact that the information likely came from WP. PRAXIDICAE🌈 00:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the website says it came from an Amazon.com product record, on April 30, 2008, more than a year after this article was created. the record doesn't exist anymore, and I can't find any archives. but I'm not sure if Amazon didn't copy over Wikipedia, and it's late date and current unavailability might still indicate citigenesis. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: certainly non-notable if it exists at all. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence the book exists. All signs point to WP:HOAX. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NBOOK. If there is no challenge this is a hoax, this edit should stay, otherwise, it will need to be reverted. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't even find this book mentioned on the author's own website. The book seems to be unverifiable, or even if real, non-notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be curious for someone to tweet her and ask. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As far as I can tell, this is either a hoax or a book that was never released. Here's my evidence towards this:

No mention on the author's page.
No news coverage.
No listings on WorldCat or Goodreads.
No photos of the book or its artwork are present on the internet.
The only info on the internet mirrors the content present in the Wikipedia article.

I've emailed the author, but I'm not sure if she'll get back to me. In the meantime I'd recommend not mentioning this in her article until we have some proof of publication. Part of me wonders if this was an early title for her book Spellfall, which released in 2001. Perhaps it was promoted in another book under this old name and the editor assumed that it was a separate work? Her books also tend to be popular enough to where information is easy to find in some form or fashion, as they were widely published. It just seems unlikely that a book released at the start of her popularity would have zero information about it other than what's in the Wikipedia article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't pass GNG if can't even confirm its out there. Even so, might not be a hoax. When searching Wikipedia Library for sources GALE came up with a mini biography from The Writers Directory. 2018. p3026. that mentioned it. WikiVirusC^(talk) 17:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: OK, heard back from the author herself. She confirmed that she's never put out a book by this name, but that this was the working title for her book Spellfall, which released in 2000 through Chicken House. It was never published through HC, but the publisher did put out her Seven Fabulous Wonders series. This looks like it's probably a case of a devoted fan who heard the working title somehow and assumed it was another of her books. We could probably include it in the main article for Spellfall as a working title, I suppose. Thanks to the author for her speedy response! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay so not a hoax, but a mistake that was never corrected. Would be nice if there was a RS for it, even a primary reference on website would of been enough for citation. Redirect probably not needed as isn't a likely search term, and also the Sorcerer Hunters anime's English version was called Spell Wars, which was what I thought this AfD might have been when I first saw it. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How can we include it in Spellfall if we don't have an actual source? And considering how poorly sourced Spellfall is... PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From the user who contested the speedy deletion. This book is most likely non-notable, if it exists. I agree that it is probably a mistake, but a non-notable one. It doesn't need its own stub article. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:81D5:6D64:11E:646B (talk) 23:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even if this did exist, the lack of any obvious coverage of it shows a lack of notability, so I think that this is a pretty clear cut case. Dunarc (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I'm invoking WP:SNOW here as there are no editors advocating deletion but the nominator and the lengthy discussion seems to have had no impact on influencing anyone's opinion on the matter. Further, I have respect for those advocating to Keep this article and they have gone to great lengths to muster arguments and found numerous sources to support their opinion on whether or not this article should be kept in the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Secular clergy[edit]

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

Delete: This seems an oxymoron. Secular priests? There are diocesan priests, but they are still fully ordained by the Church and are called priests and are allowed to carry out all the sacraments such as consecrating the Host for communion. Lay persons are allowed to distribute the consecrated host at Mass, but they are never considered "secular priest. This seems nothing more than a WP:Hoax article? The sources do not support the claims in the article. Bodding (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)))}[reply]
Keep. The topic is notable. "seems an oxymoron" is not a reason for deletion – Wikipedia has an article on Military intelligence. Maproom (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not my reason for deletion. And yes, military intelligence might seem an oxymoron, but it is real with real secondary sources to support it. My reason here is that there is no such thing as "secular clergy" and I have good reason to believe this article is a hoax. If you think it's 'notable' please provide the necessaryWP:RS secondary sources that say the term refers to ordained members of the clergy. There are no independent sources that support the term 'secular clergy' nor do they describe, identify the titles or duties of this so-called secular clergy. A member of the lay ministry is never a member of the clergy anymore than an altar server would be. Clergy are ordained priests, especially given that none of the sources provided in the article mention such a category. Bodding (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a very well-known term and the nominating editor should retract this AfD that runs against guidelines for such nominations. They should also maybe take a look at WP:CIR. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bodding: From the front page of googling "secular clergy": Catholic Encyclopedia, a book from your alma mater, Catholic Answers. Please retract this AfD and realize the massive WP:BEFORE error here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry the sources you are quoting are not reliable, secondary sources. Show me a source from the National Catholic Register, or the New York Times religion section, or some other actual bonafide source. Homemade websites are not reliable. Bodding (talk) 01:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bodding: I don't know if you're joking or what. Catholic Encyclopedia is such a reliable source that it became the basis for a task force wherein as much content from it was transferred to Wikipedia. Another source is quite literally published by Oxford University Press, the premier academic publisher. In any case, if you're so intent on NYT sources: here. Seriously, this is about the worst AfD I've seen. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bodding: Since this AfD is going to collapse either way, this is the last I'll mention it. However, here, have a source completely divorced for a Catholic-managed institution (as though OUP was not enough). Oh, and here is a source from the Episcopal Church (the American one, not the Scottish one). Next time you nominate, please Google the term first. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One need not even Google, but merely click the links in the "Find sources AFD" template to see that the term is not a hoax and refers to what we say it does. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs} 02:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Pbritti. The nomination is a classic example of WP:IDONTKNOWIT. St Anselm (talk) 00:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am a Catholic diocesan priest and the technical term is, in fact, "secular clergy." It is not a hoax. I'm happy to provide proof of ordination if that would help. Other proof of the term is seen at the Catholic Encyclopedia here and is present in Catholic canon law number of times as seen here. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs} 00:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I can put up a website that focuses on Catholicism and even call it a dot org, that doesn't make it a reliable source. Show me an independent source like The National Catholic Register or the New York Times religion section. That is fact checked and reliable. The term clergy is reserved for ordained priests. The laity, even the Lay ministers are never part of the clergy any more than altar servers are. They compliment the clergy they are not themselves ordained snd are not referred to as clergy. As in, Joe is a member of the lay ministry.' Lay ministry is the term used, not clergy. A diocesan priest is not a member of the secular community. He is a member of the clergy in the Catholic Church. Whether they live in a rectory or are wealthy enough to have their own homes, they are always and forever members of the Catholic clergy. They are never called 'secular clergy. Monks and nuns are called 'religious.' Monks are still ordained and are members of the Catholic clergy. John Paul II was as much a member of the clergy as Padre Pio a Capuchin monk. Neither was called secular. Bodding (talk) 01:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Paul II was a member of the secular clergy. The distinction between types clergy is secular and religious; religious meaning those who are in a religious order and taken vows and commonly live in a monastic cloister, and secular those who have not taken such vows and "live in the world". Being "secular" has nothing to do with the lay state in this context. As a diocesan priest, I am a member of the secular clergy. John Paul II, as a cleric of the Archdiocese of Krakow, was a member of the secular clergy. Padre Pio, as a vowed Franciscan, was a member of the religious clergy. here are a few peer-reviewed articles that talk about secular clergy in such a way - as well as the aforementioned church law that uses the term. You're simply incorrect. Words can be used in equivocal ways, and "secular," while in the context of people in general would perhaps mean a layperson, in the context of "clergy" means a clergyman who has not taken monastic vows. It is the technical term in this usage and is correct. I'm sorry. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs} 02:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Paul II was a diocesan priest. That's what this article should be about. The differences between religious groups that are independent and diocesan priests that go to seminary. This term and very poor quality of this article, the total lack of reliable sources, should in itself have it deleted. At the very least, it should be moved to a the more inclusive diocesan term and the current edits that totally lack reliable sources should be removed. The article is littered with notices to that effect. Don't argue for the sake of arguing. Show me a reliable source and not the websites that anybody can put up. Bonafide published articles about the subject. A diocesan priest goes to seminary, he is Ordained into the priest, he does take vows of celibacy. He does not live in a community like monks. He lives at the rectory of his parish church where he is assigned by the Archdiocese. That should all be explained, but it is not. The title is misleading. You are describing a slang term more than an actual official title. Diocesan clergy, not secular clergy. Bodding (talk) 02:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My brother in Christ, I have now twice linked you to the Catholic Church's Code of Canon Law which clearly uses the term in a technical manner. Not slang. I have also linked three peer-reviewed articles, two from JSTOR, that use the term. The fact that you would say a phrase like "religious groups that are independent and diocesan priests that go to seminary" that is frankly nonsensical or state that a diocesan priest takes "vows" (which only religious priests do) shows you're out of your element when discussing this topic. There are also secular clergy who are not diocesan; such as the members of Opus Dei (cf. Code of Canon Law 294, regarding personal prelatures and secular clergy). Swallow your pride. You're incorrect. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs} 02:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We've now linked to a number of reliable sources. It is not a slang term when the world's premier publishers use the term. Yes, "diocesan" priest is very common today, but that doesn't mean "secular" clergy or priest is incorrect. --Johnnygoesmarchinghome (talk) 03:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Johnnygoesmarchinghome Talk[reply]

Keep. The topic is notable. The Catholic Encyclopedia is considered a reliable source, at least up until the date of publication for certain things, and it is one of the few (public-domain) sources which can be cited easily. Lay ministry really doesn't have anything to do with the term used for the secular clergy, in opposition to the regular clergy, who follow a rule (regular comes from "regula" in Latin, meaning "rule"). from Brill a major publisher of late antique and medieval scholarship, also from Brill, from CUP, from OUP, this is a classic in the field of medieval studies, another peer-reviewed article from a CUP-published journal here Johnnygoesmarchinghome Talk — Preceding undated comment added 02:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They all follow rules. Diocesan priests must take vows of celibacy, just like monks. Diocesan priests are under the aegis of the Vatican. and are considered official members of the clergy. Whereas, "religious" are independent. If anybody is secular it's them. They must seek approval to function. They all take vows, they all adhere to rules, and they are all ordained. I think the confusion is with the Lay ministry, and not the priesthood. They all must be celibate, take vows, recognize the Pope and adhere to the oversight of the Vatican. A man who goes to the seminary and is ordained is automatically under the aegis of the Catholic Church. All religious, on the other hand, must seek that approval to form and maintain their collectives and must adhere to the rules of the Catholic Church, just like the Diocesan priests. Bodding (talk) 03:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bodding: Actually, not all diocesan priests must take a vow of celibacy. Previously married priests in the Latin Church and married secular Eastern Catholic priests are not bound by those regulations. Please, you are very, very wrong. Retract and move on or risk looking worse. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Married men who seek entry to the priesthood are the exception. If they enter the priesthood as single men, they must remain single and celibate. It is not the practice of the Church to seek married men, but it will make an exception for them under certain circumstances. Bodding (talk) 03:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Secular clergy make promises of simplicity, celibacy, and obedience. Religious take vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. There is a difference both in the action (promise vs. vow) and the content of the action (celibacy vs. chastity, simplicity vs. poverty). The fundamental difference between secular clergy and religious clergy is that secular clergy do not make vows and are not "in religion." Moreover, religious priests are just as much "official members of the clergy" and under the "aegis of the Vatican" as I am. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs} 03:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bodding: At this point, it is way off-topic, considering you're not even engaging with the...ten-ish sources you've been given. But, to humor you, yes: the Catholic Church does seek married men for vocations to the secular priesthood. The Eastern Churches will seek them out, and so will the personal ordinariates for former Anglicans (yet another instance where "secular" rather than "diocesan" is the appropriate term for the clergy) ~ Pbritti 03:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti: Try as you might to demean me with the Twitter insult and now you're going to "humor me," does not deflect from the fact that I've been nothing but civil and have consistently presented explanations. I've also offered a solution in simply moving the page to Diocesan priest and adding in reliable sources to the term. In Canon Law, I can find no specific reference to 'secular regulars' or "canon secular." Religious are a very different class and the article could become the difference between the two. The use of 'secular' could be stated as "Diocesan priests, also referred to as 'secular clergy,' with the Canon law reference for the use of that term. Bodding (talk) 04:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bodding Not all religious are ordained, such as religious brothers and sisters (frequently called monks and nuns in common parlance). The comments on this page so far have used the word "Diocesan" 18 times but there is not an article for "Diocesan priests" because the correct term is "Secular Clergy" Ante annum (talk) 03:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"religious" refers to monks and sisters. The sisters are not ordained, but they do indeed take vows. and yes, Monks are ordained. All of them. Max Kolbe, Padre Pio, to name two. All took the vows of celibacy, all were granted the right to consecrate the Host, conduct the Mass, hear confessions and absolve sins, and all may administer the sacraments of the Church including baptism, first holy communion, confirmation, and weddings. Sisters are granted permission, just like monks. to form a collective and follow the rules of the Catholic Church. They all honor the vow of celibacy. Bodding (talk) 04:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bodding: No, not all monks: they're called "lay brothers." You clearly do not understand this topic as much as you believe you do. Please, just accept that. We want to have you edit productively on here, but your comments here are incorrect and contribute to a deleterious understanding of Christian clerical groupings. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are married men and may not live at the monastery. They can remain in their homes. I've met several lay Capuchin brothers but that is an entirely different class of relgious. Do not conflate religious with diocesan. They are separate. Bodding (talk) 04:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bodding: You are still (very) wrong, see lay Carmelite monks here. You have not been civil in the way you think you have. Instead of actually examining sources, you've wasted time by proposing a delete on the basis that this was a hoax. Instead of admitting the error, you doubled- and tripled-down and ignored the sources three editors provided that demonstrated this is a more encompassing term than "diocesan priests" once you started trying to change the topic to that. This will be my last message on the topic. Please, consider letting this loss go. ~ 04:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carmelites do not receive Holy Orders and are not ordained. This is not a legitimate equivalency to other lay brothers as the Carmelites are not married with families. They are single men and they are cloistered. This is a very different type of "lay monk." Being cloistered, their lives on centered on prayer, not administering the sacraments, thus they do not receive Holy Orders. Bodding (talk) 04:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Carmelites are monks who many are not ordained (some are). You just said that all monks are ordained. You are out of your element in talking about this, I am sorry. here, once again, is the Code of Canon Law explicitly referencing secular clerics. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs} 04:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, Carmelite Lay Monks are an entirely different class as they are cloistered. They do not administer the sacraments and are NOT ordained as they are not monks like the Capuchins who do receive Holy Orders. As I said, they do not represent an equivalency. Bodding (talk) 04:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Could someone please just close this? Bodding, would you be able to withdraw the nomination? St Anselm (talk) 04:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's best to let it stand for now without personal attacks and more constructive commentary. Bodding (talk) 04:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has made any personal attacks, but has merely pointed out that you are mistaken. And the only person who has not been constructive is you, because you have refused to accept the evidence of independent reliable sources. I have learnt something from this discussion. You could too if you stopped stubbornly clinging to your prior beliefs. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The distinction between secular clergy and regular clergy is well known and often referred to in works that have occasion to discuss particular priests or monks. The nominator seems to have misunderstood the meaning of secular in this context; see definition 3 of the adjective at Wiktionary. Deor (talk) 12:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I haven't misunderstood. I'm simply referring to the commonly used terms Diocesan and Religious where the former attend seminaries under the aegis of the Archdiocese. They become priests after a time of post-graduate service as a deacon in a parish. They are typically assigned to the area under that Archdiocese can be moved to any other Archdiocese if needs are greater there or there is a legal issue pending that requires removal.

Where as religious have formed their own group known as an Order without any direct oversight by an Archdiocese. But after a time, must petition to be recognized in order that they may receive Holy Orders and be ordained as priests. However, as was earlier pointed out, some Religious prefer to serve as lay brothers because they seek to become cloistered and live a life of prayer. Sisters are always considered Religious and form their order, and are approved, in the same way. Each of the orders has stages one must pass through before final vows can be taken. Sisters also take Holy vows to serve and remain celibate. All groups, Diocesan and Religious, remain single and celibate. However, devout married men and widowed women may also join the Orders. Married men typically seek to be Diocesan for practical purposes. Bodding (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You were misunderstading the meaning of secular, as you nomination statement and your reply to Maproom (the first "keep" registered above) indicate. Deor (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If your issue is "I'm simply referring to the commonly used terms Diocesan and Religious," then you you seem to be suggesting the title be changed to "diocesan clergy." If that is what you are suggesting, the debate might be close as "diocesan" seems more common is informal parlance while "secular" is the more formal term. Right now "diocesan clergy" and "diocesan priest" redirect to "secular clergy." However, given that hundreds of thousands of people around the world have the official job title of "secular clergy," seems to be a non-starter as far as notability as that is so obviously notable as to be ridiculous. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 14:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is so evidently notable given the references above and the hundreds of thousands of people with this job title. Also, in his last comment user:Bodding seemed to suggest what is looking for is a name change to "diocesan clergy": although I think "secular clergy" is likely still best, that is a much more reasonable suggestion as that term is often used & is currently a redirect. If he wants to do that, he should withdraw this removal request and instead start a debate about a name change on its talk page about changing the name. I am a religious priest but I know secular priests too. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 14:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly a notable and well-used term. @Bodding:'s request Show me a source from the National Catholic Register is an unreasonable standard and not supported by policy, but is nevertheless easily satisfied:

... an effort to tamp down the acrimony between the secular clergy and the new mendicant orders [40]
Today, Thomas Becket is among the best known medieval saints, and is venerated as protector of the secular clergy in England. [41]
... then the monks and friars, then the secular clergy, each wearing the insignia of their rank,... [42]

CodeTalker (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - and I think I detect snow in June. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A well-attested term ('first used in the 12th cent' - The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church)^[1] One should note that 'secular' and 'spiritual' are neither opposites nor incompatible categories.-- Verbarson ^talk_edits 09:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Third ed.). Oxford: OUP. 1997. p. 1478. ISBN 0-19-211655-X.

Keep per all the above. Bodding, please just accept you're wrong on this one. This is a very old and valid term, whether you think it's weird terminology (and it is, obviously) or not. And claiming that sources like the Catholic Encyclopedia are not reliable is just ridiculous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:53, 29 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.