< March 24	March 26 >

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Behm[edit]

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

Classic WP:BLP1E case. Fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 23:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, American football, and Texas. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I think the incident that lead to his article being created appears worth having an article about but I don't see that one exists. I could possibly support an expanded article that covers the event in more detail, in which Rich Behm would then redirect to. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. The company who made the practice structure, Summit Structures, might be worth taking a look at as well for BLP1E. Dialmayo (talk) 23:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good point, Dialmayo. I have just nominated Summit Structures too. Edwardx (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per BLP1E, I don't think there's enough for a stand alone article. Suonii180 (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Hamza (poet)[edit]

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

Although I myself created the page, I'm in indecision whether should this page be kept or not. The thing is, at the time of the creation, the subject was a recipient of the highest civilian award. But the government has revoked the award after investigation. Outside of the controversy regarding him receiving the award, there is literally no other coverage of either him or his poetry. He only published one non-notable book. He was more of a psychopath than an author. He killed a guy over some silly your-cow-dung-on-my-field related brawl with a spear, and was sentenced to life for it. Recent media reports suggest it is not the value of Amir Hamza's literary works, but his son – a top bureaucrat – that helped the man get selected. The son proposed the name to the government and a senior secretary endorsed the proposal. The Business Standard did a thorough piece on him, and ended the article with "Seriously? I don't know what more to say about this guy other than being speechless." I'd appreciate others' input on whether he passes notability guidelines.Tame (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tame (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Tame (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Tame (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep I think the subject is notable now. No matter how controversial,disputed or unknown he was in the past, he has now got a lot of significant coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FBedits (talk • contribs) 18:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of them count since they are based in a false awarding. This type of incident is not new in BD. In 2018, a guy named রইজ উদ্দিন was awarded and later it was revoked. Tame (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage exists regardless of whether the award was revoked or not. If anything receiving a country's highest civilian award and then losing it adds to notability. Atchom (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As User:FBedits says, significant coverage now exists, even if the award was revoked. Notability is not the same thing as merit. Atchom (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage in newspapers about the controversy of his award does not ensure notability and the consensus reflected in the article is that he was not a notable poet and was undeserving of this award. And beyond this controversy, there is not really much other content that says who this person was beyond the fact that he was accused of killing someone and that he had a son who was high up enough in bureaucracy to get him an award for writing a few poems. What does his notability center on? Not his poetry, not his contributions. But on the fact he was given an award that others thought he didn't deserve. That fact is not enough to center a biography around. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz, thanks for this. Moreover, The govt delisted him citing: The recipent has been removed from the list because of providing 'false and inaccurate' information as well as 'intentionally hiding' information. ^[1] Tame (talk) 07:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://bangla.bdnews24.com/bangladesh/article2032225.bdnews. ((cite web)): Missing or empty |title= (help)

Comment I'm not sure it's accurate to say he was awarded, or received the award. The Cabinet Division issued a press release listing him among the people to whom it planned to give the award, then three days later took his name off the list. As far as I can tell, his name was never gazetted, and when the ceremony took place a week later, he (or his heirs) didn't receive an award. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (selectively) to List of Independence Day Award recipients (2020–2029). Some of the content is encyclopedic, but it's about the award process, not about Hamza. It's a case of a person notable only for one event. He wasn't a notable poet or a notable criminal. The sources, all from a single news cycle, cover him only in the context of "why is the government planning to give him this award?" He was a low-profile individual (he didn't seek the attention he received for being on the list) and, being dead, is likely to remain so.

The article could be recast to be about the event, with a descriptive title like 2022 Independence Day Award vetting misstep, but it may not have lasting consequences or coverage persisting over a period of time, so may not meet the notability guideline for events. A selective merge is better because it would preserve the paragraph or so of content that helps readers understand the Independence Day Award, while dropping the pseudo-biography detail. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: From my understanding, we have a lot of articles on people committing one murder and are notable for just that. Hamza is notable for multiple things including murder. Dialmayo (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Pakistan Daily[edit]

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

PROD removed without doing much. The sources in the article, in the own words of the creator, show that the outlet is quoted by other sources. While this probably makes the website itself a reliable source, none of it is significant coverage, but rather trivial coverage, which means that this fails WP:NWEB. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 17:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 17:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 17:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 17:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Pakistan Daily is quoted and given coverage by numerous other international media channels makes it reliable and as well notable. Because normally we won't see other media outlets writing editorials and full articles about competitors. The most they do is either quote them or use them as reference. So if any international media is quoting Pakistan Daily then it should be considered notable. For example see this article which I found ^[1] where although Pakistan Daily is mentioned once but it doesn't mean it's trivial coverage because the whole article is based on the reports generated by Pakistan Daily and is acknowledged by Yahoo. Same is the case here in another source which I found today ^[2] where Asian News International has given significant coverage to Pakistan Daily by mentioning their name twice and the whole article is based on the reports generated by Pakistan Daily. Thanks. Jamalahmadpk (talk) 05:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability requires significant coverage, i.e. sources that "address[] the topic directly and in detail". The sources available here do not meet that standard: although they mention or quote or cite this news outlet, they don't discuss it in any depth. (The only exception is [1], but it's a non-independent interview that doesn't contribute toward notability either.) Although there have been various proposals over the years to loosen the notability criteria for media outlets (e.g. WP:NMEDIA), none of them have been successful: community consensus still favors applying the GNG in these cases. Since my search has found no coverage that is sufficiently significant under the GNG, deletion is appropriate. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I make extensive efforts to find any coverage about them in Google Scholar, Google News, Google Books and got nothing beyond primary sources and very brief mentions. Not notable. CT55555 (talk) 09:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--I agree with "Jamalahmadpk" that we won't see other media outlets writing editorials and full articles about competitors to give them coverage. The article just need some editing and a few more references. FBedits (talk) 12:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There will be very few media outlets (For Example BBC, New York Times, CNN etc) which will be quoted in Google Scholar, Books or other channels because these are the top media outlets in the world. The article about "The Pakistan Daily" should be kept in Wikipedia because it does contain a few good references and a lot more can be found through different Google searches as well. If we search it with the keyword of "thepakistandaily.com" then we can see more than 2500 search results. There are several media/newspaper pages on Wikipedia which are heavily relying on just primary sources for example Addis Neger, Immigration Daily where no references are given and even if you search online, you will hardly see any coverage. In comparison, The Pakistan Daily has been featured or given coverage by Yahoo, Asian News International and and many more. Thanks Jamalahmadpk (talk) 06:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Jamalahmadpk (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]
Keep Although all the references mentioned in the article can't be considered as "Significant Coverage" but there are still enough references available which makes the subject notable. Afzlfc (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards keep The references like Yahoo, ANI mentioned them several times. Seems significant Mbilalwiki (talk) 12:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer - I have struck through a number of !votes above, which were all cast by socks of a blocked user. One of them is the author of the article, so it would probably qualify for a G5 speedy deletion, but it's probably worth allowing this discussion to be closed normally to establish a consensus on the subject. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Penny[edit]

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

As usual, the question is notability. The article sources are all worthless (non-independent), but I could find:

A few pieces related to them leaving De Beers. This is a representative sample - full-length piece in a fairly specialized source with no clear editorial control, arguably WP:ROUTINE.
An FT piece called "Ninety One chair’s Russia role is a governance failure for City asset manager", but paywalled, so I could not read it.

If kept, the article needs work on the tone, as well as inclusion of the (probably negative) content from the FT piece. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 15:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the page history, I also see some rather concerning signs of PRwashing. (That is not an argument for deletion, more of a note to myself for when the AfD closes.) Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 15:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and South Africa. Shellwood (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Blakesmith11 (talk) 10:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find enough independent sources to show enough notability. Suonii180 (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anna J. Cooper Circle[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Sea Cow (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Sea Cow (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets notability requirements per these articles from The Washington Post and the circle is a focal point in the LeDroit Park Historic District, listed on the National Register of Historic Places. APK whisper in my ear 22:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (with a trim) >>>> LeDroit Park, where it certainly is worth discussing.Djflem (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per APK. Significant historical interest. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedy deleted by Liz: CSD A7: Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad nuhu ahmad[edit]

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

Looks promotional, and not notable. No reliable source in this article. Kaseng55 (talk) 23:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kaseng55 (talk) 23:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Kaseng55 (talk) 23:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NMUSIC and the GNG. I couldn't find any coverage whatsoever, leading me to think that it is far too soon for Ahmad to meet our notability guidelines. This article (an apparent autobiography) is a borderline A7 candidate, and in any event there's simply no independent sourcing at all. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . fails GNG. Completely promotional. These type of article can be speedy delete.Akevsharma (talk) 01:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. Promotional autobiography. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No indication of notability. Nowhere meets WP:NSINGER. DMySon (talk) 03:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: The article was previously deleted only a day ago for not being a notable person. It should be speedy under WP:A7 as there is no assertion of notability and no independent, reliable sources that show the subject meets WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG.-- Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 08:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Boulder Run (Delaware)[edit]

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

This article was previously purposed for deletion, but it now has sources. Nevertheless, all of those only treat the subject trivially, with the second and third sources barely mentioning it. In my opinion, it certainly does not meet "significant coverage" and should be deleted. Thank you for your time and help. VickKiang (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Delaware. Shellwood (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect to Bellevue State Park (Delaware)) I was not able to find coverage to meet GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is duplicated at Boulder Run (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Uncle G (talk) 05:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A10, then delete the other article; it is already PRODded. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your replies, should a speedy deletion tag be added instead? Cheers. VickKiang (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- No. The article creator created the same article with two titles on the same day. The fair way to deal with this is not to try to argue technicalities but to bring both articles under the umbrella of this AFD discussion, and discuss sources as BeanieFan11 has. I've done the ((subst:afd1)) for you. Uncle G (talk) 09:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your responses and the addition of the tag! Both seem to encompass original research, with the Boulder Run article devoid of sources. The article in discussion trivially mention the stream and is likely not an RS, even if so, it would be merely one source. The language ("It Fills the pond in Bellevue State Park and flows through the park. It is named Boulder Run for all the mossy stones around it.") is unencyclopedic and could possibly be original research, but I am not entirely certain. Still, IMO it would be congruous for both to be deleted. VickKiang (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that if it were verifiable, that could be rewritten, and sometimes such seemingly banal names are verifiable. The question is the depth of sourcing. You've addressed the sources in the article, but deletion policy is that attempts to find sources must have failed. Sometimes terrible articles hide notable subjects. The thing to be looking for now is whether there's in-depth documentation of this as part of some watershed; whether it is documented in the context of the state park in some source somewhere. Is it listed in Heck, Wraight, Orth, et al.'s 1966 book on Delaware Place Names verifying that content? It's not about what's in the article now; it's about whether there even can be sourcing in the article — whether there's sourcing available for an article to be written. Uncle G (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks once again for your insightful comments. You stated that it verified the content, but the notability guidelines require significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. From my perspective, a mere mention of the location's name does not seem to be in-depth, therefore, could you please explain to me how it is in-depth? Many thanks. VickKiang (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Lichtig[edit]

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

Promotional, no real claim of notability or independent sources. Biruitorul ^Talk 21:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and France. Shellwood (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 23:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This artist meets WP:NARTIST criteria #4 and WP:GNG criteria for inclusion. A very quick online WP:BEFORE search finds that her inclusion in the Pompidou Centre permanent collection is verifiable (citation added); she has a permanent public artwork in the city of Sérignan through the Musée d'art contemporain de Sérignan 1% program [2]; significant in-depth coverage (reviews, articles) in reliable sources can be found on the internet. The article sourcing should be improved to reflect her notability, and the resume/CV like form and tone should be trimmed and refined, but it should not be deleted. Netherzone (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the Pompidou exhibition, I think we’re still not there in terms of notability under criterion 4b, which stipulates that the artist’s work must be “represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums”. Not only is one not equivalent to several, but I doubt the work itself qualifies as “representation”. It’s a single photo, reproduced eight times, in a room full of photos by 124 artists. No ordinary visitor would ever be able to tell Lichtig is there: at most, she’s on a long list of names in small print.
- Meanwhile, the Musée d'art contemporain de Sérignan isn’t necessarily notable, is it? I’m aware of the fr.wiki article, but it’s nearly unsourced. — Biruitorul ^Talk 07:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find nothing at the data.bnf.fr or in Gallica, the ULAN list doesn't hit on her name. No article in French wiki either. Oaktree b (talk) 00:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The French article does exist, I fixed wikidata. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 06:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ (downgraded to uncertain weak keep, see comments below) Her work is in the permanent collection of more than one notable gallery, which therefore satisfies criteria 4 of WP:ARTIST CT55555 (talk) 08:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep criteria 4 (WP:Before is your friend). Randy Kryn (talk) 08:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — the singular of criteria is criterion and it’s rather distressing that this isn’t known here, of all places. More to the point, I’ve suggested above that the subject in fact does not meet criterion 4. For example, CT55555, you assert that her work “is in the permanent collection of more than one notable gallery”. What’s the second one, presuming the first to be the dubious Pompidou exhibit? — Biruitorul ^Talk 21:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's increasingly common to use criteria as singular, but maybe still an outlier. Sorry for your distress. :-)

Several of the organizations in the "Collections" section are notable and have their own articles on English and French wikipedia. I recognize that we're on English Wikipedia, and the quality of French wikipedia is an unknown here, so I recognise that I'm being charitable, some examples are URDLA, École des Beaux-Arts, Terra Foundation for American Art, Regional Museum of Contemporary Art Occitanie.

I do recognize that claims to be in these exhibitions are not all cited, I had noticed this one that is cited when translated doesn't seem as grand as it does in the article, the permanent exhibition is in a high school, not the Regional Museum of Contemporary Art Occitanie https://www.ville-serignan.fr/en/a-voir-a-faire/patrimoine-et-sites-remarquables/creations-contemporaines/ but when I Read the details the permeant exhibition is in a school, not the museum.

My belief that she was in multiple notable permanent exbibits came from the link to École des Beaux-Arts I googled her name and saw her affiliation, but upon more careful analysis today, the links when translated are about her studying there, rather than exhibiting and my language skills now leave me with doubts.

So now I'm conflicted between the very PROMO nature of this article (minus point), the lack of citations (minus point), the huge amount of content about her online (plus point) combined with my ability to decipher it.

I'm now left with the impression she is notable, but it doesn't stand up well to scrutiny. Currently wavering on a very weak keep, open to comments on the above, especially from those with relevant language skills and research efforts. CT55555 (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: General notability is confirmed by the large number of news items which turn up simply by searching under News on the English version of Google. She is mentioned on many sites in connection with publications connected with her work and her exhibitions, for example here.--Ipigott (talk) 11:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Requesting another opinion about my check against Earwig. It seems to lift standard biographical data from existing sources. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KeepSubject meets WP:NARTIST criteria #4.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Game Boy Advance family[edit]

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

Not enough to meet WP:CONTENTFORK or WP:SPINOUT in my opinion. Largely redundant information found in each handheld's article.

We have Game Boy Advance#Revisions summarizing each iteration. We have Sixth generation of video game consoles#Handheld systems with a concise table, as well as Nintendo video game consoles.

Interested parties can view past discussions of similar product families found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nintendo DS family and Talk:Nintendo 3DS/Archive 7#Merger proposal. « Ryūkotsusei » 20:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. « Ryūkotsusei » 20:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. « Ryūkotsusei » 20:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. « Ryūkotsusei » 20:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. « Ryūkotsusei » 20:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the outcomes from the recent 3DS family and DS family discussions linked in nom. This subject is already written better at its parent article, making this one redundant and unnecessary. Sergecross73 msg me 01:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Each member of the GBA "family" has its own article, plus the description on the main Game Boy Advance page, make this article somewhat superfluous. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Game Boy Advance#Revisions The redirect is useful. Also redirect Nintendo DS family to Nintendo DS#Later models to match as well. (Oinkers42) (talk) 03:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If its more useful than search results. « Ryūkotsusei » 15:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's harmless... but also kind of pointless. Most people would probably omit the "family" part of the search term anyways, and without that word, you're already at Game Boy Advance. I just can't imagine the redirect not existing actually hindering anyone in a search. Sergecross73 msg me 17:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

True. gba also exists. « Ryūkotsusei » 01:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the DS family discussion. No reason for this article to exist. Gabe114 (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble with a Heartbreak[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSINGLE and WP:NOTTEMP notability for a stand-alone article for a single song. Four references in Billboard give it passing mention on the weekly chart of top 100 singles. Other citations are industry sites which announced the release. Suggest a re-direct to Macon, Georgia (album). Blue Riband► 20:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Blue Riband► 20:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The articles from The Boot, Taste of Country, and Nash News are all WP:SIGCOV about the song itself. Other sources such as Music Universe, Country Now, and Sounds Like Nashville have also covered the song in depth. It was also the most added song to radio playlists on the week of its release. Furthermore, it hasn't even been out two months yet, meaning it hasn't reached its peak position yet. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer, I'm not knowledgeable of this music genera. This article raised a red flag when some heavy editing, by an editor with a username suggesting a COI, was done without summaries. From my initial reading it was heavily dependent on industry release announcements and Billboard tracking. The Moxley source the you cited appears in the article as well. Out two months and yet to reach its peak? The 45rpm distribution is having a supply chain issue? Billboard has it going down in popularity. I've no vested interest on whether this is a keep or a delete and the editorial consensus will eventually sort it out.Blue Riband► 23:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Riband: Country music singles tend to move slower than in other genres, since they're still more dependent on airplay than on downloads or streaming. The previous single was released in July but didn't hit #1 on the airplay chart until October. The sources cited are The Boot, Taste of Country, Music Universe, Nash News, Off the Record UK, and Country Now, all of which are reputable third-party websites with no direct connection to the artist. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Riband: Are you sure you meant to invoke WP:NOTTEMP? You do know that links to Wikipedia:Arguments to make in deletion discussions, right? Also pinging @Caldorwards4:, @Martin4647:, @Hog Farm:, and @ChrisTofu11961: for their expertise. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Caldorwards4, yes, I am invoking WP:NOTTEMP. As I mentioned above to TenPoundHammer what I was reading was industry coverage of its release, and the subsequent followup were Billboard Top 100 listings. Clearly the both the artist and the album have passed the WP:GNG bar, but I'm not seeing where this single meets that threshold. (And with that reply, I'll not comment further in this discussion unless it is to answer a specific question put to me lest it appear that I'm also invoking WP:Bludgeon) Blue Riband► 23:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ten Pound Hammer. I think there's enough here between The Boot, Country Now, etc., although it isn't the most heavily covered yet. Side note: about the two months - that's nothing. "After a Few" took over a year to peak. Hog Farm _Talk 23:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NSONG with sources presented by Ten Pound Hammer. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am in agreement with @TenPoundHammer: that this article is notable. The articles cited on this page are from professional journalists with expertise of the inner workings of the music industry. It's reputable enough to keep. ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 03:30, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable song with enough coverage. Ss112 22:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ten Pound Hammer,passes WP:NSONG .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nguyễn Lam[edit]

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

Nguyễn Lam

This association football player does not satisfy football notability because he has not played at the first tier of professional play, only the second tier (without regard to any downgrading of the notability criteria). This article also does not satisfy general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFOOTY. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Foodie Soul (talk) 15:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HooplaKidz[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Kadı Message 19:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Kadı Message 19:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kadı Message 19:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think the sources are good enoguh, but 90% of the article is based off unsourced stuff. Removing that would cause it to be a worthless stub. So get rid of it. Rlink2 (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another kid's things whose notability exists as solely an electronic babysitter with no industry acclaim (yes it has 4.3 million subscribers, but how many of those haven't watched a video from them in years?). Please note this shouldn't be confused with Hoopla (digital media service), a definite WP:N-met library content service which it has no relationship with at all. Nate • (chatter) 22:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I hadn't been very impressed when I came across it back in 2016 and to be honest, I should have just tagged it as a speedy deletion as promotional content. I cleaned it up some, but the article is still full of fluff years later. There is some nods towards notability but it's pretty tenuous and a lot of it looks to be reprints of press releases, offhand mentions in relation to something else, and notices of it being acquired by various groups over the years. If the current company that owns it has a page I'd recommend redirecting it there with a brief mention on the page about it owning that channel. I don't know that there's anything else that needs to be added. On a side note, I will say that I don't really have much faith in the Parents' Choice Award anymore, as it comes across as more of a marketing gimmick than anything else given wording on its about/FAQ page. For example, the statement "A licensing fee is associated with the use of the Parents’ Choice Award seals, which are trademarked property of Parents’ Choice Foundation." doesn't really give off a lot of integrity. That the awards are given out per season and just one category has 331 "winners" give off the strong impression that it's pay to play and you'd have to be practically Irwin Mainway to lose. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm surprised this article has been allowed to stand for seven years, given that the creator seems to have been blocked for the very act of its creation. The main distinguishing factor here appears to be that these people got in early on the brainrot-inducing kids content game, some years before that genre went into total overheat mode and forced YouTube to regulate it at least a tiny bit. At any rate, as has been pointed out above, most sources seem to be generic "change of ownership"-notices and barely obfuscated reprints of press releases, so it's a D from me... Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Much of this is unsourced.Gabe114 (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB.--Assyrtiko (talk) 07:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeshwant Mahavidyalaya, Nanded[edit]

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

Please consider these reasons for deletion:

The article is currently a vandalized mess. It is unreadable gibberish.
The article never made sense.
The article has never had sources. There ARE a couple of sources relating to the college, but they are iffy and scant.
Prior to my removal, the article featured a link to irrelevant porn.
The name of the article implies that there are multiple places called "Yeshwant Mahavidyalaya", although there is nothing else on Wikipedia or the anglophone internet (that I found) regarding another organization. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Speedy Delete No citations. Seems like maybe even a speedy delete (A7) on the basis of no claim to importance - above my pay grade to comment, but no justification to keep this. CT55555 (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No RIS found in English. I’d consider changing my !vote if anything is found in Marathi. Mccapra (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, A7 even. Nothing notable for sourcing found. Oaktree b (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's zero references in the article to indicate that this is notable and I couldn't find anything about it when I looked that would help with notability either. So from what I can tell there's no reason to keep the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article has since been renamed to 'Ronnie McNutt death video case' and has been given a new layout to reflect the fact that it is no longer a biography.

AfDs for this article:

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

For the exact same reason as the previous AFD that closed earlier this month: This is pretty clearly a person only notable for one event and since that event was their death, they are not likely to be noted for anything else. This was a sad event that sick trolls kept flogging, so I'd add that the victim's family should be considered. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Conservatism, Internet, and Mississippi. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Change Indeed an article about him should not exist because of BLP1E, but I think there should be an article about his death, as it provoked ongoing analysis about the duties of social media companies to cut live stream. Also footage of his death went viral, thus creating sustained coverage.

I have sympathy for his family, but I think their grieving is a result of his death, the people trolling, the people sharing the video, not people talking about that on Wikipedia. CT55555 (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue keep the page, but monitor it for edits from trolls (note that references to the trolling and cyberbullying is part of a notable social phenomenon and could still be valid references, but fact-check any information coming in). A lot of people only notable for their death have a Wikipedia page, and grieving families. We can keep those pages respectful, as they are notable and deserve to be here, but trolling and spam edits need not apply and should be blocked/removed. PetSematary182 (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)PetSematary182[reply]
Comment I think the event is notable, not so much the gentleman himself. Could be redirected to a more appropriate title. Doing my best not to make a pun/comment about what happened to him. Oaktree b (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but if not, rename to Ronnie McNutt death video case Because of the great harm that can come by not following BLP1E, I think it is better to be safer than sorry when it comes to thee things. Regardless, the article is about his death and not him, so the article title should be changed to reflect that. I will note that the article that was deleted had more info about his life and was more focused on him, while the new article is more focused on his death. Rlink2 (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename His suicide and its aftermath received an enormous amount of coverage and attention; he himself did not. The article should reflect this. Additionally, any personal details about him which are not directly related to his suicide, such as what church he attended and the names of his family members, should be removed. Mlb96 (talk) 23:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, KEEP, but rename since the article is about the case surrounding his video on the internet, not him as a person. Is it okay now to move the article to a new title, or is the "to delete or not to delete" question still in the air? PetSematary182 (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2022 (UTC)PetSematary182[reply]
Delete WP:IAR & WP:BLP1E for the sake of the family. Problem is that the coverage meets WP:GNG. If Wikipedia had a general article on viral internet/live stream suicides it would be a more suitable place and less prominent than the current article.Slywriter (talk) 04:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous Wikipedia articles about people and cases that are potentially offensive and upsetting to those immediately connected to the victim, but still notable to the point where excluding it would be counterproductive. I don't think WP:IAR should apply here just because the subject matter is uncomfortable. There are ways to keep trolls and vandals from screwing with the page so that it doesn't contain false information. As for WP:BLP1E, this was already discussed: McNutt himself is only notable for his death, but the article refers more to the case itself, which was a wide-sweeping internet phenomenon with legal, sociological, technological and psychological repercussions. It would be more appropriate to, as others have offered, just rename the article to "Ronnie McNutt death video case". To get rid of a page for such an influential case completely would make no particular sense and call into question a large number of other Wikipedia articles that exist about similar subject matter. When it comes to "the sake of the family", this is simple enough to respect. Ongoing moderation, removal of information that reveals private information about the McNutt/Newcomb Family, and regular checks for troll posts/unverified edits would reduce any offensive content that the family might object to. This being said, mere mentions that trolling and cyberbullying happened are a part of the phenomenon of the case and, if cited with sources, should be left alone (see similar pages Amanda Todd, Nikki Catsouras photographs controversy). PetSematary182 (talk) 11:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)PetSematary182[reply]

Article edits[edit]

I have done as previous debaters have suggested and renamed the article from Ronnie McNutt to Ronnie McNutt death video case. Because this is no longer a biographical article, I have removed revealing names of his specific family members (especially considering most of his nieces and nephews are minor children), and also his specific church name. If this information is later deemed relevant to the case, editors can reevaluate it from incoming sources at a later date. I also removed a link to the "Ronnie McNutt" Encyclopedia Dramatica because this source cannot be cited unless the page is whitelisted; the Encyclopedia Dramatica page is a notable form of some of the cyberbullying that targeted McNutt in the wake of his death, but it features explicitly homophobic and derogatory language and features graphic imagery of Budd Dwyer's suicide, and would be quite upsetting to many people. PetSematary182 (talk) 11:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)PetSematary182[reply]
Comment: The deciding Administrator will consider how the article has changed since the AfD was initiated. David notMD (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Windsor Schnell[edit]

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

Yet another spammy-looking non-notable businessman and crypto founder BLP. Poorly sourced. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of references that would reveal the notability. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and New York. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one reference in the whole article and this article is created by a user who joined Wikipedia just 6 days ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.188.149.88 (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd prodded this page earlier; insignficant sourcing to meet WP:BIO. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of any SIGCOV from reliable sources or claim of notability in the article.Brian O'Conner 23:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added sources and cut anything that wasn't able to be backed up. IMO, he does meet the notability requirements. Grey0464 (talk) 03:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC) — Grey0464 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Running a gnews search for just "Adam Schnell" comes up with namesakes. LibStar (talk) 05:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 08:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rigoletto (1993 film)[edit]

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

Weakly sourced article about a minor league film of questionable notability. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found these, [3] and [4], but I will leave it for others to decide if they count toward the notability requirements. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this film doesn't seem to have received any attention outside of Christian media. Niche product for a niche audience. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not finding much myself - I think that this might be an OK redirect to Rigoletto#Recordings_and_adaptations. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So could we make that merge now or do we need to wait for this AfD to run its course? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Just Another Cringy Username We wait, and if the closer decides "redirect" is consensus, they'll do that themselves. -- asilvering (talk) 05:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ – Many niche products for niche audiences can be notable, alas this one is not. ~~Redirecting per ~~Tok~~, um.. RotP suggests is appropriate, with a little line blurb explaining the film.~~ Would suggest more concurring comments before closing early, there is no rush.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on below, no longer support a redirect. I just cannot get myself to decide on keep/delete, which would be very weak in either direction. So many red link cast/crew does not make for a support call, yet the fact that this film spawned a theatrical musical does make it somewhat noted. Adding in the above refs may be warranted, as well as an overhaul of the plot. Do find it interesting that there have been no support deletion arguments made which makes me think this is one of those types of items that should be nurtured rather than deleted.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything to make the stage version any more notable than the movie itself. No Broadway run, etc. Nobody notable on the creative team. No famous actors (or even "Christian famous" actors) have ever appeared in it. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 02:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do not redirect to Rigoletto. As the article explains (section "Crew"), the plot of the film is unrelated to the opera; it's a mix of "Beauty and the Beast" and The Phantom of the Opera. I changed the article on Rigoletto and this one accordingly. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually good to know! I hadn't realized that! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:If they keep it, I'm stubbing it.Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 03:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just not enough coverage or references cited to establish notability. If kept, needs to be heavily trimmed. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second renewal and I don't think you're going to get anything more than what's already been said. This movie is not notable enough for any further discussion. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Review: "Film Reviews: RIGOLETTO" Leydon, Joe. Variety (Archive: 1905-2000); May 15, 1995; 359, 3. Entertainment Industry Magazine Archive. pg. 100. Via Proquest. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Variety review and the Deseret News article from years later are sufficient. I'll add info from Variety soon. Article needs work, but that's a separate issue. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sailing at the 1936 Summer Olympics – O-Jolle. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Giuseppe Fago[edit]

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

Fago did not medal in the Olympics, so does not meet inclusion criteria. We lack sources that provide significant coverage, just a brief mention in what amounts to a sports table. A search for more sources turned up no instances of substantial coverage. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another day, another AfD from Lambert. If nothing can be found on this guy, then redirect to Sailing at the 1936 Summer Olympics – O-Jolle per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Lugnuts. Rlink2 (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to Sailing at the 1936 Summer Olympics – O-Jolle per WP:PRESERVE, etc. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I highly object to this being called a "revenge AfD". There is no grounds for this. There are no significant sources being shown. There has been a determination that Olympians are not notable. Calling this a "revenge AfD" is clearly out of line.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- My nomination yesterday for deletion was an article on a non-Olympian that was not ever edited by the editor who things this is a "revenge" nomination. I am finding these articles by literrally going back through Wikipedia birth categories having started in 1927. I generally basically chose the low sourced article that I come across at about the time of day when it is 24-hours from my last deletion nomination, although some like Bell I have been working on for longer and post to my talk page first to see if anyone notices anything. I think today this was the second Olympian I did a deep dive into I found some passing inclusion of his name in books, nothing that was truly indepth, but it brought up some issues that were going to take further analysis, so I decided to think on that person for the time being. So then I came to this person and did multiple searches and found no addtional sources, so I brought the article to AfD.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @Johnpacklambert: Just to chip in if I may - I did acknowledge on the Bell nom that you showed evidence of some research there first, which is fair enough, but I have previously encouraged you (and anyone else for that matter) to seek out a wiki subscription to historic newspaper archives, where eligible. It may save a lot of ill feeling when it comes to AfD nominations. With regards to this AfD, as it is likely anything of note is non-English, it is very hard to ascertain notability one way or another. I think a redirect may be the best outcome possible here and maybe a consideration for non-notable Olympians moving forward. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 20+ nominations on my talkpage in recent months would suggest otherwise, Lambert. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I provided good analysis of why this happens. When you create thousands of sub-stabs that come to no longer meet Wikipedia inclusion criteria this is not surprising.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would agree; if editors wish to accuse John Pack Lambert of behavioural issues the correct place to do so is at WP:ANI, and to do so here is to cast WP:ASPERSIONS. BilledMammal (talk) 06:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I found this, but it unfortunately does not add to what we know about Fago. No evidence found he otherwise led a notable life so a redirect to Sailing at the 1936 Summer Olympics – O-Jolle would be most helpful to the reader. Star Mississippi 18:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:SPORTBASIC due to lack of significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 02:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, if not kept, to Sailing at the 1936 Summer Olympics – O-Jolle per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE etc. No reason not to redirect. Ingratis (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Sportsmen are not inherently notable, nor do they get exemptions from the general policy on non-notable people. The target article suggested has, predictably, no coverage whatsoever, so redirecting there would not be helpful to anybody seeking further information, and this seems like a rather unlikely search term ([5]) anyways (so would rather obviously fail WP:RPURPOSE, and copy-pasted vague waves about WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE etc. are not convincing counter-arguments). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on redirecting: No comment on notability - if there are sources, fine. As for redirecting, however, RandomCanadian's comments above are inaccurate:
  - The suggested target article, far from containing "no coverage whatsoever", has detailed information on all performances in this Olympic event including Fago's, which even if not independently notable makes up part of the event: it looks as though RC didn't check it.
  - On page views, the link provided makes it clear that this name IS a search term in use, even if not a particularly frequent one: Olympic competitors are subjects of interest, whether or not certain Wikipedia factions are prepared to accept it.
  - Similarly, WP:RPURPOSE, contrary to RC's claim, specifically includes "Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article" as one of the reasons for having a redirect, and there is in fact a specific redirect template for precisely these circumstances: ((R to list entry)).
  - As for "copy-pasted vague waves", the idea is to save time, on the assumption that other editors are familiar with the acronyms or if not, will take the trouble to look them up. Should neither be the case, then here you go: (a) WP:ATD-R - "A page can be blanked and redirected if there is a suitable page to redirect to, and if the resulting redirect is not inappropriate." - "inappropriate" links to WP:R#DELETE, which lists the reasons not to have a redirect, none of which apply here. (b) WP:PRESERVE includes redirection as a preferable alternative to hard deletion. (c) WP:R#KEEP, as referred to above, gives reasons for keeping redirects, including "Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article", which would be achieved by ((R to list entry)). (d) WP:CHEAP = WP:Redirects are cheap - i.e., there is no reason not to have them unless they are actively harmful - back to WP:R#DELETE. (e) I'll add WP:HARMFUL (see? a new one), which says: "if a redirect is reasonably old (or is the result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is possible that its deletion will break incoming links (such links coming from older revisions of Wikipedia pages, from edit summaries, from other Wikimedia projects or from elsewhere on the internet, do not show up in "What links here")." (my bolding). "Quite some time" is not further defined, but the article on Fago has been in existence for almost two years, and as far as I'm concerned that fits well enough. Ingratis (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - What your comment lacks in concision it also lacks in accuracy. The suggested target articles contains no coverage whatsoever about this person. A listing in a stats table is not "coverage about this person". It's a listing in a stats table, and Wikipedia is not supposed to be a stats database. If the only "coverage" we have is a trivial mention in a stats table, that is equivalent to "no coverage whatsoever". Thus, everything that has to do with this being a "sub-topic" of that page is also irrelevant, because somebody who participated in an event is not a "sub-topic" of that event. We don't usually have redirects about non-notable people unless there is substantial coverage (like, you know, actual prose) of them in the relevant article. Sportsmen are not an exception to that, and simply because somebody bothered scraping a database one day in the not-so-distant past doesn't give sportsmen an exemption from that, and the redirect being cheap or not harmful (actually, it is, as it misleads the reader into thinking there is some coverage about this person when in fact there is none) are not good arguments against that. An example where a redirect for a non-notable person is appropriate (totally unrelated) is Klaas Meurs, whose actions or lack of may have contributed to this (although he is otherwise entirely not-notable). This is clearly not such a case. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, and for page views, what the links shows is A) a few spikes when the page was edited (which does not in any way indicate that it is a "likely search term", just that someone edited the page - the way the tool works, that's going to generate a few "page views") and B) an occasional click, but averaging far less than one per day (in fact, the average is close to one per week) - at best, maybe somebody clicked on the link from any of the pages this is linked from. On top of that, comparing user vs. automated traffic (generally, a page which is an actual plausible search term will get a significant proportion of user traffic - that is not the case here) gives a good clue that, in fact, this page is really an unlikely search term... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - A low number of page views does not equate to deletion. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        No, but if people are arguing this should be kept as a redirect because people frequently search for it (despite the fact there is no content about the subject at the target other than a namedrop), and it turns out that, on average, people don't search for it, then that pretty much refutes that argument. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Low use =/= no use. But the main reason for keeping a redirect is as stated in WP:REDIRECT, i.e. (in summary) that a redirect is likely to be useful to readers and there is no reason not to have it unless it is actively harmful, as defined - and despite your claim otherwise, this one would not be, because it falls within ((R to list entry)) - all of which is already said but disregarded. You are misapplying WP:NOTSTATS - it does not cover all statistics or specify anything to do with those relating to sports performance; and a record of performance detail in a notable sports event = coverage, whether expressed in statistical or prose form. You are making very heavy weather over a redirect. Ingratis (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- insufficient coverage, what little is there amounts to just statistical entries. Attacking the nominator isn't going to help. Reyk _YO! 05:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- clear failure to meet WP:GNG Springnuts (talk) 11:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to per ATD-R, whichever the closer opts for; bottom line, sufficient notability to pass WP:BASIC not yet indicated. SN54129 12:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ashford, Kent. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

County Square[edit]

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

Not a notable shopping mall. The article has been unsourced for years, and a search for sources brings back small local news pieces or trivial passing mentions, such as this reference which mentions the Debenhams store closing. What's the point of having an article if nobody keeps it up to date at all? I can't find any non-local source which suggests a lack of notability. I tried to reduce the article to a redirect to Ashford, Kent per WP:ATD-R but was reverted, so here we are. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and England. Shellwood (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per lack of sources. What's the point of having an article if nobody keeps it up to date at all? Well theres alot of articles on here not updated at all, but if its unsourced and it can be redirected to an article that is, then that is preferrable. Rlink2 (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 08:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Redding[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreated by an SPA after the last AFD had a consensus to delete. wizzito | say hello! 15:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 15:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 15:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 15:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The previous article was deleted for being WP:PROMO. The current article doesn't seem to promotional to me, and even features some of the negative parts about his career, but I haven't seen the one before so I can not say. The article has some lead and grammar issues, but thats irrevelant to AFD and can be fixed. The sources look reliable to me. So it looks like the new article has changed enough that it should be reargued on the merits and not just "straight up recreation". I could be missing something here so please let me know if that is the case. Rlink2 (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis article is now much better than the deleted one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregpolk (talk • contribs) 18:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The deleted article is on the Wikipedia biography cleaninghouse: https://ghostarchive.org/archive/8aumR?kreymer=true (archived link because of Edit filter). The old article is *clearly* promotional, but the current one, less so. Rlink2 (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I did some WP:BEFORE kind of work on this and added some stuff, organized it better. It's a poor quality article, it is promotional, the references are lots of passing mentions and tabloids. I think this article needs lots more work, especially editing down, but I think there is (or maybe probably is, I did give up a bit on the citations) enough to meet GNG. CT55555 (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC) (Scored out, as I upgraded my vote below) CT55555 (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Very weak keep Article has been re-written to eliminate some of the more promotional aspects. It appears that his many books are self-published - none have ISBNs, only ASINs (which are assigned by Amazon when there is no other identifier). Each book has only 5-star rave reviews, and no reviews from regular review sources like Publishers Weekly, Library Journal, Kirkus. Cite #1 says that he has written "eleven best-selling books" but I see ratings like " #3,934,146 in Kindle Store", "#5,406 in Two-Hour LGBTQ+ Short Reads" - and this for books that are 1) Kindle-only and 2) less than $5.00. All of this is classic promotion. The site "Radio Facts" is itself promotional: (from their about page) "Radio Facts is also an aggressive online marketing and promotions company that caters to program directors and music directors at Urban, Urban AC, CHR and Rhythmic stations nationwide as well as consumers, niche markets, clubs, DJs and specific industry professions." The Adweek article is by its nature promotional and is written by someone who is simply listed as "Patrick" - no last name. That makes it hard to verify for authorial value. The Rush Limbaugh bit is trivial and at most could get one sentence. He did post a link to the Young interview, but it's a stretch to say more than that - in fact the cited source says: "Redding posted a link to the Young interview on Wednesday. The mainstream media picked it up Friday afternoon. "He helped to be sure," Eaton said. "I think the jury's still out on who broke it." Promotional, promotional, promotional. As well as stretching the facts considerably. One reference attributed to NPR was actually Adweek, and the other was a copy of an Atlanta Journal & Constitution blog post (which no longer exists). I can't go through every link but I'm not finding anything that is truly substantial and reliable. I'll keep a watch in case others have better luck. Lamona (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lamona How is the fact that his books are 1) Kindle-only and 2) less than $5.00 promotion? I'm just confused, arent there are many books like that?

written by someone who is simply listed as "Patrick" - no last name. Yes, knowing the real name can help with credibility, but tha lack of a name does not mean something is not reliable. Most websites and sources that are not news agencies do not have anyones name on them.

I should have been clearer - the "kindle only, $5" is more proof that these are not mainstream publications, which 1) are rarely digital only and 2) go for more $$ because the publisher is counting on recouping their costs. The standard commercial book price is $9.98 on Amazon. Also, if you look at the details, these "books" are more like long essays - the Amazon pages give them equivalent page lengths in the 50-70 page range. In any case, that's irrelevant because it's obvious that these are self-published as any publisher (even LuLu) would assign an ISBN. As for sources that do not have anyone's name on them, those sites are generally considered non-reliable. Reliable news sites have an editorial staff, named staff writers, and an editorial policy. This site (if you look at the "About") has none of that. I actually think it is worse to have just a first name rather than none at all - it looks deceptive. For reliable news sites, if there is no by-line it is assumed to be a staff or editorial article. Lamona (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lamona Now I see what you are trying to convey, and I agree. While I don't think the price of the books really matter, the books are clearly self published (Amazon.com Services LLC) and WP:RS has some words regarding self-published sources (they are not independent sources).

Regardless, the Adweek article does not meet the WP:SIGCOV requirements either. I don't know if the short snippet is the whole article, but if it is then I don't think its enough to establish WP:GNG Rlink2 (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, would argue that the Marshall University source might go for something, since its from an educational instutition, of which there would be less debate about its reliability. Rlink2 (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is a repository, not a publisher, and the item there is a thesis. Academies often have a digital repository where people can literally deposit their writings so they don't get lost over time. Most likely all theses from Marshall are stored in this repo. Theses are not "published" in the sense we mean of that term. They are considered manuscripts and are the work of a student. Also note that this is a Masters thesis. Lamona (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are the articles in a repository? There does not seem to be a link to them, but there are library reference numbers which means they are, in fact, published with an academic institution. I also think the fact that you all want to delete this should consider that you all are criticizing his work so significantly and he is clearly a hardworking, published achiever. Additionally, he is a person of color and I think unless everyone else here is also a person of color, you could be seeing this through a lense that does not properly consider what he has to overcome in order to be such an achiever. He no doubt, has faced some race-based obstacles, this discussion not being the least of them.ChristaJwl (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ChristaJwl

, in fact, published with an academic institution Read Lamonas explanation above, it makes sense to me at least.

you could be seeing this through a lense that does not properly consider what he has to overcome in order to be such an achiever. There are many people of color who are facing some obstacles, but how does a WIkipedia article aid in those obstacles? In many cases, it might be undeseriable for a subject to have a wikipedia article, because wikipedia articles are not supposed to be fluff pieces, and may contain negative info about the siubject. Rlink2 (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlink2 I disagree. It is rarely desirable for a subject's contributions to be overlooked, regardless of what they may be. And, in this case, the subject is controversial on purpose. There is an avenue for an article to be removed at the subjects request which has not occured here. So, to the extent, there is a request to have it removed outside of him, we need to consider the truth of what makes his article "less than desirable" to the editors. We cannot presume to think on behalf of him or otherwise be working to preserve his reputation. Quite to the contrary, here we are saying that his contributions are somehow insufficient and disagreeing with the editor who initially composed the article who believed his contributions to be significant enough that he should have a page. I do not think the initial editor, nor he would consider this article a fluff piece. I also updated it a bit because initially it had a "journalism" heading which did not quite describe what was below. I changed it to a "controversies" heading because I think it better describes the majority of his contributions. He is a controversial African American who speaks out on subjects which some would prefer not to listen to and, perhaps for that reason, his career does not appear to be remarkable in this space. However, I think the majority of other African American in academia and otherwise would vehemently disagree and would strongly prefer to be able to research him as a subject for reference in future academic works.ChristaJwl (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ChristaJwl

There is an avenue for an article to be removed at the subjects request which has not occured here. Even then, subjects can only request to have an article deleted under specific cirumstances (borderline notability). You are saying the article is notable to the point where even he can't get it removed, which is contradictory I think.

And, in this case, the subject is controversial on purpose What is the controversy surrounding him? I don't see anything of that sort in the current article.

disagreeing with the editor who initially composed the article who believed his contributions to be significant enough that he should have a page. There's alot of stuff I believe in too but we still have to follow Wikipedia policies.

I do not think the initial editor, nor he would consider this article a fluff piece. The old version (see archived link above) was clearly a puff piece. In the old article, there is literally a heading inviting people to buy his books on Amazon. I haven't seen something like that anywhere else on Wikipedia. If that isn't an example of WP:PROMO, I don't know what is.

The creator of the new draft has done a much better job of making the article more encylopedic, and the sources seem to check out, hence why I voted keep. It's still borderline though, especially after @Lamona's comments regarding the sources (which was the other reason the article was deleted) and some additional research I did on my own

. I changed it to a "controversies" heading because I think it better describes the majority of his contributions. Some of the events have nothing to do with his controversy. A section titled "controversy" should detail controversy with Rob Redding, not controversy with the stories Rob Redding has covered.

However, I think the majority of other African American in academia and otherwise would vehemently disagree and would strongly prefer to be able to research him as a subject for reference in future academic works. A Wikipedia article is not needed for that. Most of the things I do "research" on don't have Wikipedia articles or very short ones. Rlink2 (talk) 22:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI just did a major edit of the page, removing all non notable books, rewriting career and education section, massively cutting down the "controversies" section removing all uncited content and most quotes, then putting it into the career section. It still needs work, but think/hope I've addressed the PROMO nature and the prior abundance of superfluous and uncited content. CT55555 (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. You have improved the article. Gregpolk (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CT55555 Great job, thank you. I will happily change my delete to keep although with one change to the article, which is that he has NOT written 11 best sellers - we have evidence of one of his books being a best seller. I also think it would make sense to say, rather than he has written books, that he publishes his longform writings on Amazon. I think that better describes his works, which are not book-length, and which are often listed in the "90-minute" read categories on Amazon, and which are self-published. If no one objects here in the next few days, I'll make that change, and will leave in the one that is confirmed as a best-seller. Lamona (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those seem like reasonable changes, I suggest you do them quickly, as normally these discussions close after 7 days and therefore it will be closed before the change and before you change your vote. CT55555 (talk) 15:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lamona @CT55555I don't agree here on the books. Amazon's list is hourly and these books where published months and years ago. It is literally the number one seller of books and is cited often by many. I think its fair to point out that some are short books ( which are legitimate categories on Amazon) but I will not go along with diminishing this man's body of work. Here are more cites for the No. 1 status of two other books Target and Disrupter.

Please Review these cites:

https://www.blackstarnews.com/education/education/rob-reddings-%E2%80%98target-unwrapping-racism-debuts-at-no-1.html

http://www.urbanradionation.com/2012/08/rob-reddings-book-disrupter-spends-week.html Gregpolk (talk) 16:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it diminishes his work to tell the truth. We run into this a lot with author articles that announce that the person has written "best sellers". In other discussions it has been required that such a statement be verifiable, which seems reasonable. With Amazon it is difficult because of the volatility of its ranking, and I do wish that they kept a "highest rank reached" count, but I don't see one. It is also important to say WHERE it was a best-seller - is this a NY Times best seller list? On Amazon, is it overall, or for a specific category? What's wrong with saying "a best seller in the Amazon category X"? That's good information about the person and his work. Actually, I think that's better than just saying "best seller" because it says more about the work and it is more authoritative. I also don't think that it diminishes the works to say that they are "longform" or "novellas", which is defined as: "Merriam-Webster defines a novella as "a work of fiction intermediate in length and complexity between a short story and a novel".Novella. Amazon, and especially Kindle, has created a viable market for short books that would not have been published in hard copy because they weren't seen as economically viable. This is a GOOD THING. I also think it is truthful to say that he self-publishes via Amazon, because he does. Again, that is a GOOD THING because it creates an outlet that doesn't exist in traditional publishing. That's how "50 shades of gray" got started. If this truth diminishes the person then ... I don't know. Are we working in an alternate reality here? Lamona (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough, I edited the Black Star News website and created a page about its founder last month as a result of checking out the credibility of that source when I was commenting on this AfD. So I can say with confidence that it is a credible publication run by a journalism expert. I therefore agree with you @Gregpolk that the comment about 11 books is credible. I will edit that back in. I hope this might also convince you @Lamona CT55555 (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CT55555Thanks for your support on this. Gregpolk (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another cite for the art: http://www.nyartbeat.com/event/2018/9329 Gregpolk (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CT55555 And one more for the art: https://news.radio-online.com/articles/n40788/Talker-Rob-Redding-Sells-Painting-for-$10K Gregpolk (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I voted weak keep above, and I commented above, don't count me twice) but having just added coverage about his art, I think he passes WP:CREATIVE in addition to his notability for journalism. His work was featured in a notable magazine, therefore satisfying criteria 3 of CREATIVE. CT55555 (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asking @Heathart @Fishantena @Blackdiamond2005 @Halimahart @Q_heretic @Remolachacruda to please help improve art and any other sections here. Thanks!

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per meaningful source analysis and the keep vote is a bare assertion Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:39, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teri Raah Main[edit]

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

Article was moved to draft by Bonadea, after a few weeks, the creator made some minor improvements and moved it to article space. I've been told to no longer move poor quality articles like this back to draft space, so AFD is the only option.

The exiting sources aren't helpful

dramasplanet appears to be a blog and only gives basic information. Questionable source and not much for notability.
tredinginsocial.com appears to be a blog, writer credentials feel iffy, this at least has some relatively in depth coverage but still not all that great.
fashionuniverse is basically a clickbait article with images that feels more like a blog than anything else. It's got a small blurb, no real indepth coverage. Another questionable source that doesn't help much for notability.
galaxylollywood - list of upcoming shows, listed under prior name, 3 sentences. Not all that helpful, not in-depth
niche.com.pk - it's a small blurb from before the show started, some details, but not much. site appears decent, but I don't think this reaches "in-depth coverage"
reviewit.pk - pure clickbait article, more of a blog format than anything else. Pictures and a paragraph for each show, questionable as a source and for notability
wow360.pk - another click-bait style article, mentions the show under the prior name. 2 sentences. Not helpful.

Should be a redirect to List of programs broadcast by ARY Digital. Probably need to take creator to ANI as they continue to move poor quality articles out of draft space. Ravensfire (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously Delete, sources are not reliable and new sources can't be found Rlink2 (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the show have sources from different reliable magazines in Pakistan, and it aired on top most network in the country, received amazing TRP's throughout its run so it should stay in the mainspace. Titles of the show changes but the facts are still the same either title is old or new. Lillyput4455 (talk) 04:13, 02 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William Pleydell-Bouverie, 9th Earl of Radnor[edit]

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

This article was unprodded without a rationale (diff), so it's now at AfD. The article fails WP:BIO, because the subject of the article is not notable: he never sat in the House of Lords because he inherited his title in 2008, 9 years after the House of Lords Act 1999. Coverage is either not significant, not secondary, not independent, or not from reliable sources. The only acceptable source is Burke's Peerage, which is only reliable for genealogy (see WP:RSP). However, keeping this page only for genealogical reasons runs contrary to one of the policies of the encyclopedia, which is that Wikipedia is not a genealogy website.

Source assessment follows:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
[family tree] at seth-smith.org.uk, accessed 5 December 2008	Website belongs to the earl's wife and her family	WP:SELFPUB		✘ No
Folkestone, Viscount (born 5 Jan. 1955), in Who's Who 2008 (London, A. & C. Black, 2008	WP:SELFPUB equivalent: information is submitted by the entrants	2022 RfC on this source: "There is a consensus that Who's Who (UK) is generally unreliable due to its poor editorial standards and history of publishing false or inaccurate."		✘ No
Burke's Peerage, volume 3 (2003), p. 3,248		~ Only reliable for genealogical information, per WP:RSP. However, WP:NOTGENEALOGY.		? Unknown
Stanford, James Keith Edward, in Who's Who 2008 (London, A. & C. Black, 2008	Per above.	Per above.		✘ No
Notice in The Daily Telegraph dated 27 September, 2007	This notice was likely paid for by the family of the earl.		Announcing a birth is WP:MILL, and not sigcov of the earl.	✘ No
Frances Pleydell-Bouverie, half-sister of Longford Castle owner Lord Radnor, jailed after M&S theft. Salisbury Journal. 21 January 2020.			Passing mention	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Pilaz (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article itself makes no claim to notability for Pleydell-Bouverie. My own searches uncovered nothing to indicate he is notable. Best I could find was a 2020 article from the deprecated Daily Mail - about his half-sister being jailed for assaulting police. That's saying something - this fails WP:BASIC. AusLondonder (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when the best we can find is a tabloid article about a relative being jailed that incidentally mentions a person they do not meet any reasonable understanding of having the level of secondary source coverage we need to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Earl of Radnor. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 13:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Falkenberg[edit]

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

Non-notable entertainment lawyer - lots of connections, but WP:NOTINHERITED and all that. Orange Mike | Talk 13:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Orange Mike | Talk 13:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Law, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 13:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leroy Fields[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. None of the NFL stat websites show him ever catching a pass in the NFL, with the 2000 Denver Broncos season showing he did not make the roster. The only stats I can find from his college days show that in his final season, "Fields caught 19 passes for 325 yards and two touchdowns in eight games". Does not appear notable for college or professional achievements. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Louisiana. Shellwood (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, my search did not bring up any SIGCOV, but I want to see what others can find before making my decision on keep/delete. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not let sports stat tables masquerade as articles. Without any significant coverage that is all this article ever will be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, According to this he never played a game in the NFL. Doesn't have significant coverage.--Mvqr (talk) 10:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG. It is possible that he might pass GNG if WP:SIGCOV is found. Jacona (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not finding significant coverage. Rlendog (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails GNG as no one has been able to find any SIGCOV. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Murray, 9th Earl of Mansfield[edit]

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

Non-notable nobleman from Scotland. Fails WP:BIO, and in its current state goes against WP:NOTGENEALOGY. This peer inherited his titles in 2015 and therefore never sat in the House of Lords, so WP:NPOL can't be satisfied. Outside of Burke's Peerage, which is only reliable for genealogy per WP:RSP, the remaining sources don't provide secondary, independent, reliable, and/or significant coverage.

Source assessment follows:

Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Dewar, Peter Beauclerk (August 2001). Burke's landed gentry of Great Britain: together with members of the titled and non-titled contemporary establishment. Burke's Peerage. p. 1077. ISBN 978-0-9711966-0-5. Retrieved 5 April 2011.	~ Only reliable for genealogy, per WP:RSP. On its own insufficient, since WP:NOTGENEALOGY.		? Unknown
The Peerage, entry for 9th Earl of Mansfield	Deprecated self-published peerage website.		✘ No
William Murray, the Earl of Mansfield, dies aged 85. The Herald Scotland. 2015.		Passing mention: "With his wife Pamela, he had three children; Alexander, Viscount Stormont, 59, who will succeed him to the title, [...]"	✘ No
Cameron, Greig. "Coronavirus in Scotland: Groups linked to the super-rich pocket thousands in Covid cash" The Times. 17 November 2020.		? Don't have access	? Unknown
Doughty, Eleanor. "How Scone Palace, the crowning place of Scottish kings, is bracing for the future" The Telegraph. 29 October 2017.		Passing mention. Article is about the estate, and Alexander Murray only gets namechecked once (outside of a quote from his wife).	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Pilaz (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A wholly non-notable figure. Might have got sufficient coverage for notability if we were still in the world before the two World Wars, but not now. RobinCarmody (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RobinCarmody Rlink2 (talk) 04:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per similar recent discussions it is well established that an inherited noble title on its own does not make someone notable enough to have an article and there is no sign that the subject has any other achievements which would meet notability criteria. Dunarc (talk) 23:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Earl of Mansfield. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another article which makes no claim to notability for its subject. Frankly, I would almost suggest some of these are close to meeting the criteria for speedy deletion on the basis of no indication of importance. This article, in its entirety, consists of who Murray's children are, who his wife's parents are, and who his parents are. Not even one sentence to suggest why he is a notable individual. AusLondonder (talk) 14:26, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Waqas Saeed[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO and other notability guidelines. Sahaib3005 (talk) 07:42, 18 March 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 March 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, and United Kingdom. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet any notability guidelines and fails WP:BIO. Heave ho. --Kbabej (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I won't redirect this to How to Undress in Front of Your Husband as the individual and the remake of the film is not mentioned at this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nadja Verena Marcin[edit]

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

I'm not convinced this person meets the notability guideline for artists and the only references that have significant coverage are either not independent from the subject (e.g. the university she went to) or are alternative newspapers/magazines. I also strongly suspect that the article's creator, MANISAHOTAUK (talk · contribs), is an undisclosed paid editor due to their editing pattern and their choice of topics. This is one of the least notable of the articles they've created. Graham87 08:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts, and Germany. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this message is to be taken at face value, this article was indeed created for pay. Graham87 11:45, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The "How to Undress" film would seem a logical redirect, other than the Huff Post article, I don't see much for notable sources. Oaktree b (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:NARTIST. Potential COI editing is a concern. LibStar (talk) 23:33, 24 March 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 12:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Oaktree Rlink2 (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 10:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mariam Iddrisu[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a local politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. The notability claim here is that she's chief executive of a district, which is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees a Wikipedia article -- politicians at the local level are notable only if you can write a genuinely substantive and well-sourced article that contextualizes their political significance, such as by addressing specific things they did in the job, specific effects they had on the development of the district, etc., and are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because you can minimally source the fact that they exist. Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lots of prose, but the sourcing is not there to support having an article on someone with this low level of political position.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I’m new and came here via the list of women-related deletion discussions. Still figuring out the policies and formatting, but I found quite a bit mentioning this person and her activities both in the Sagnarigu district and wider advocacy, particularly regarding the role of local government in climate and gender issues. I added some sources and expanded on some of her work. BLELicaN (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs some cleanup, but appears to meet GNG with sources on the subject. It's difficult to find sources for West Africa sometimes, but it appears there is enough here for a page. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With the recent additions and sources, meets basic notability requirements.--Ipigott (talk) 09:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As she meets the second criteria of WP:POLITICIAN CT55555 (talk) 21:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 10:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Segar[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. A single source is given and searches reveal very little else except advertising, IMDB, LInkedin and social media. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment More than a few mentions of her name in Google News, not sure we have enough to prove notability though. Oaktree b (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found many articles about her on Google news and added them in. Article was in poor shape at time of nomination, but is good now. If anyone has access to archive NYT, there is a serious piece about her here: https://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/23/nyregion/making-it-work-the-back-flip-in-hip-hop.html CT55555 (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CT55555: @Velella: The article without paywall avaliable here: https://ghostarchive.org/archive/mK1jb?kreymer=true Rlink2 (talk) 16:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Now adequately sourced.--Ipigott (talk) 06:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 08:58, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1916 PGA Tour[edit]

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

Per discussion on WP:GOLF, I am nominating 1916 PGA Tour for deletion and the following related pages:

Specifically, we found the source, Kronish Sports, to be of questionable value. In addition, these pages imply that there was a coherent PGA Tour at the time. It looks like the tour did retroactively determine that certain early 20th century victories counted as "official wins." But these pages go much further, implying that the "events" overall were PGA Tour-level and that there was a discrete, organized schedule. There is no evidence for that. So it looks like these pages fail WP: OR.

It would be nice if other members responded, in particular User:Ben76266. He created these pages but, in discussion on WP:GOLF, it appears that even he advocates for their deletion. In addition, I would appreciate it if other members who contributed on the talk page respond like Nigej, pʰeːnuːmuː, and wjemather. Any other members are free to respond too.

Thanks, Oogglywoogly (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

I agree these pages should be deleted for the reasons stated above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Ben76266 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you User:Ben76266 for your response.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 04:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

*Note: AFD was malformed. Fixed and listed correctly now (I hope). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Fails WP:V and WP:OR. The principal source for the circuit is clearly a WP:SPS, author unknown, so does not meet the requirements for being a WP:RS. Reliable sources for these "seasons" do not exist because a formally organised tournament circuit, later known as the PGA Tour, didn't really start until the 1930s. Additionally, the PGA of America and PGA Tour have revised what counts/counted as an official tournament victory on many occasions (sometimes solely based on who won); these articles just reflect what that happened to be at some point in time. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I created the proposal and wrote the introduction. But I would like to vote here to make it totally clear that I want all these pages to be deleted. Obvious WP:OR. Oogglywoogly (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]
Delete all per WP:OR and WP:RS. Oogglywoogly, your nomination itself counts as a deletion call and no one can vote twice – I've changed the above to a comment. Don't worry, you'll get used to it. Good nomination. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:29, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Sorry about that No Great Shaker. I didn't mean to disrespect any rules. I will heed your advice and make sure not to do it again. Thanks, Oogglywoogly (talk) 03:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly (talk) 04:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Warrender, 3rd Baron Bruntisfield[edit]

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

PROD was removed without a rationale. Unnotable British nobleman, fails WP:BIO due to a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Doesn't meet WP:NPOL either, since he never sat in the House of Lords due to inheriting his titles in 2007, way after the House of Lords Act 1999. Keeping this article for genealogy purposes goes against our policy that Wikipedia is not a genealogy website.

Source assessment follows:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
"Results of Final Examinations held in June 1972". Durham University Gazette. 19: 6. 1972. Retrieved 18 March 2020.			database entry, WP:PRIMARY	✘ No
Moyes, Arthur (2007). Be the Best You Can Be: A History of Sport at Hatfield College. Hatfield College Trust. p. 265.	? Per Durham University: "'Be the Best You Can Be' (2007) was written by the College Archivist, Arthur Moyes"		? A single appearance in page 267 (out of 278) suggests that this is only a database entry at the end of the book.	? Unknown
"Bruntisfield, 3rd Baron, (Michael John Victor Warrender) (born 9 Jan. 1949)". Who's Who 2018. Retrieved 7 October 2018.	WP:PRIMARY, information submitted is autobiographical, per publication website	2022 RfC on this source: "There is a consensus that Who's Who (UK) is generally unreliable due to its poor editorial standards and history of publishing false or inaccurate."		✘ No
"Bruntisfield, Baron (UK, 1942)". www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk. Retrieved 12 March 2018.		Deprecated self-published peerage website.		✘ No
Darryl Landy. The Peerage database online. Entry for the 3rd Lord Bruntisfield last edited 1 September 2005. [6]		Deprecated self-published peerage website.		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Pilaz (talk) 10:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 10:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 10:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 10:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly not enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BASIC. A completely non-notable individual (perhaps best evidenced by the article itself "Captain of Hatfield College Swimming Club in 1970") AusLondonder (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC as shown by source assessment table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mztourist (talk • contribs)
Redirect to Baron Bruntisfield. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Archie Comics characters#Other superheroes. Anyone is free to add additional content about the character to the target article if any. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 11:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flygirl (Archie Comics)[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The article is a pure plot summary with a bit of publication history. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you. PS. If the PROD is not challenged, I encourage the closing admin to do a SOFTDELETION and redirect this to list of Archie Comics characters#Other superheroes " It was deprodded by User:Ficaia with no rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to list of Archie Comics characters#Other superheroes because the references are all primary so there is no sourced content to merge. Rhino131 (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge publication history and significant plot details to list of Archie Comics characters#Other superheroes. There are some interesting but unsourced items on the character's copyright status at Fly (Archie Comics). I couldn't find anything usable on it, but there might be something in the MLJ companion if anyone has a copy. It might be worth keeping if more detail can be found. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ventures Platform[edit]

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

promotional and non-notable . The references are either mentions in a more general article, or mere promotional notices. DGG ( talk ) 09:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and Nigeria. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NCORP Rlink2 (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP. As nom says the sources provided are mainly promotional. LibStar (talk) 00:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 10:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outlaw in 'Em[edit]

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

A group of stub song articles which previously competed at the Eurovision Song Contest, which were blanked-and-redirected following discussion on the WikiProject Eurovision talk page and review of Wikipedia notability guidance, specifically WP:NSONG. A large proportion of the information covered in these articles is cloned from related articles covering all aspects of a country's participation at a given contest, e.g. Germany in the Eurovision Song Contest 2018, and any relevant missing details in these articles were merged before redirection. Redirect articles may be considered notable due to their connection with the Eurovision Song Contest, and redirects were tagged with Template:R with possibilities and Template:R printworthy in order to highlight their potential re-inclusion if recreated and further expanded upon beyond tangible information related to the song's participation at Eurovision. Articles were subsequently recreated with no additional information added and discussion via AfD is required in order to determine a path forward and to avoid further conflict among editors. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Clearly notable. This is borderline WP:POINTY doktorb _words^deeds 09:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per Doktorbuk. Nominating user did this after my reverts of part of their months-long campaign of redirecting every Eurovision stub article. A competing entry at Eurovision is notable. Ss112 10:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow/strong keep - WP:NMUSIC section Songs are pretty clear here. BabbaQ (talk) 10:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I don't think there is any disagreement about whether the song is notable, as appearing in an international competition such as Eurovision and charting in several countries clearly demonstrates that per WP:NSONG. This is a redirect-focused discussion by the nominator, not one looking for deletion. The focus is much narrower than the above !votes about general notability. I believe we are discussing this caveat of WP:NSONG: "Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album", or, in this case the "Country in Eurovision Year" article is the relevant target. One of the main issues (that prompted this discussion in the first place) was that articles were un-redirected back to their stub-selves with no growth and for some, no growth potential. They are not reasonably detailed articles to any extent. In fact, there's more information about the subject at the redirect target, which I personally find to be the motivating factor here. Readers looking for information about a song should be directed to a location where they can get that information, not a stub article with a few sentences. I find it a disservice to the reader to spread the information out amongst several articles instead of painting the full picture in one place. Perhaps more information such as chart positions and album covers could be moved to the target articles in the promotion section so they are not left out, but that's a discussion for moving forward. As the nominator pointed out, these redirects have potential, and if a willing editor seeks to expand them into something better than a stub with unique information separate from Eurovision, I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. It's just that right now they're not ready to be standalone articles, and this position is backed by the guidelines. Grk1011 (talk) 03:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 10:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Siren Song (Maruv song)[edit]

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

A group of stub song articles which previously competed at the Eurovision Song Contest, which were blanked-and-redirected following discussion on the WikiProject Eurovision talk page and review of Wikipedia notability guidance, specifically WP:NSONG. A large proportion of the information covered in these articles is cloned from related articles covering all aspects of a country's participation at a given contest, e.g. Germany in the Eurovision Song Contest 2018, and any relevant missing details in these articles were merged before redirection. Redirect articles may be considered notable due to their connection with the Eurovision Song Contest, and redirects were tagged with Template:R with possibilities and Template:R printworthy in order to highlight their potential re-inclusion if recreated and further expanded upon beyond tangible information related to the song's participation at Eurovision. Articles were subsequently recreated with no additional information added and discussion via AfD is required in order to determine a path forward and to avoid further conflict among editors. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep Clearly notable, both as a song and a cultural moment given the circumstances of its disqualification. Crazy nomination doktorb _words^deeds 09:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Song is notable per participation and win in national Eurovision final. And per charting in several countries. Per section Songs, points 1, 2, 5, and 7 of WP:NMUSIC. These points trump a consensus about Eurovision articles in general. Ss112 did the right thing here. BabbaQ (talk) 09:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow/strong keep. Nominating user did so after my reverts of part of their months-long campaign of redirecting every Eurovision stub article. A competing entry at Eurovision is notable per Doktorbuk. Ss112 10:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. A notable song that became a hit. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I don't think there is any disagreement about whether the song is notable, as despite not actually competing in Eurovision, it did chart in several countries, satisfying WP:NSONG. This is a redirect-focused discussion by the nominator, not one looking for deletion. The focus is much narrower than the above !votes about general notability. I believe we are discussing this caveat of WP:NSONG: "Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album", or, in this case the "Country in Eurovision Year" article is the relevant target. One of the main issues (that prompted this discussion in the first place) was that articles were un-redirected back to their stub-selves with no growth and for some, no growth potential. They are not reasonably detailed articles to any extent. In fact, there's more information about the subject at the redirect target, which I personally find to be the motivating factor here. Readers looking for information about a song should be directed to a location where they can get that information, not a stub article with a few sentences. I find it a disservice to the reader to spread the information out amongst several articles instead of painting the full picture in one place. Perhaps more information such as chart positions and album covers could be moved to the target articles in the promotion section so they are not left out, but that's a discussion for moving forward. As the nominator pointed out, these redirects have potential, and if a willing editor seeks to expand them into something better than a stub with unique information separate from Eurovision, I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. It's just that right now they're not ready to be standalone articles, and this position is backed by the guidelines. Grk1011 (talk) 03:58, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 10:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Origo (song)[edit]

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

A group of stub song articles which previously competed at the Eurovision Song Contest, which were blanked-and-redirected following discussion on the WikiProject Eurovision talk page and review of Wikipedia notability guidance, specifically WP:NSONG. A large proportion of the information covered in these articles is cloned from related articles covering all aspects of a country's participation at a given contest, e.g. Germany in the Eurovision Song Contest 2018, and any relevant missing details in these articles were merged before redirection. Redirect articles may be considered notable due to their connection with the Eurovision Song Contest, and redirects were tagged with Template:R with possibilities and Template:R printworthy in order to highlight their potential re-inclusion if recreated and further expanded upon beyond tangible information related to the song's participation at Eurovision. Articles were subsequently recreated with no additional information added and discussion via AfD is required in order to determine a path forward and to avoid further conflict among editors. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow/strong keep. Nominating user did so after my reverts of part of their months-long campaign of redirecting every Eurovision stub article. A competing entry at Eurovision is notable per Doktorbuk. Ss112 10:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow/strong keep - clearly notable. Charting in several national charts. WP:NMUSIC is pretty clear.BabbaQ (talk) 10:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I don't think there is any disagreement about whether the song is notable, as appearing in an international competition such as Eurovision and charting in several countries clearly demonstrates that per WP:NSONG. This is a redirect-focused discussion by the nominator, not one looking for deletion. The focus is much narrower than the above !votes about general notability. I believe we are discussing this caveat of WP:NSONG: "Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album", or, in this case the "Country in Eurovision Year" article is the relevant target. One of the main issues (that prompted this discussion in the first place) was that articles were un-redirected back to their stub-selves with no growth and for some, no growth potential. They are not reasonably detailed articles to any extent. In fact, there's more information about the subject at the redirect target, which I personally find to be the motivating factor here. Readers looking for information about a song should be directed to a location where they can get that information, not a stub article with a few sentences. I find it a disservice to the reader to spread the information out amongst several articles instead of painting the full picture in one place. Perhaps more information such as chart positions and album covers could be moved to the target articles in the promotion section so they are not left out, but that's a discussion for moving forward. As the nominator pointed out, these redirects have potential, and if a willing editor seeks to expand them into something better than a stub with unique information separate from Eurovision, I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. It's just that right now they're not ready to be standalone articles, and this position is backed by the guidelines. Grk1011 (talk) 03:58, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 10:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Friend of a Friend (Lake Malawi song)[edit]

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

A group of stub song articles which previously competed at the Eurovision Song Contest, which were blanked-and-redirected following discussion on the WikiProject Eurovision talk page and review of Wikipedia notability guidance, specifically WP:NSONG. A large proportion of the information covered in these articles is cloned from related articles covering all aspects of a country's participation at a given contest, e.g. Germany in the Eurovision Song Contest 2018, and any relevant missing details in these articles were merged before redirection. Redirect articles may be considered notable due to their connection with the Eurovision Song Contest, and redirects were tagged with Template:R with possibilities and Template:R printworthy in order to highlight their potential re-inclusion if recreated and further expanded upon beyond tangible information related to the song's participation at Eurovision. Articles were subsequently recreated with no additional information added and discussion via AfD is required in order to determine a path forward and to avoid further conflict among editors. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow/strong keep. Nominating user did so after my reverts of part of their months-long campaign of redirecting every Eurovision stub article. A competing entry at Eurovision is notable per Doktorbuk. Ss112 10:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow/strong keep - Mass redirects and then mass-AfDs. Anyways, notable per WP:NMUSIC. Per charting in several countries.BabbaQ (talk) 10:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I don't think there is any disagreement about whether the song is notable, as appearing in an international competition such as Eurovision and charting in several countries clearly demonstrates that per WP:NSONG. This is a redirect-focused discussion by the nominator, not one looking for deletion. The focus is much narrower than the above !votes about general notability. I believe we are discussing this caveat of WP:NSONG: "Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album", or, in this case the "Country in Eurovision Year" article is the relevant target. One of the main issues (that prompted this discussion in the first place) was that articles were un-redirected back to their stub-selves with no growth and for some, no growth potential. They are not reasonably detailed articles to any extent. In fact, there's more information about the subject at the redirect target, which I personally find to be the motivating factor here. Readers looking for information about a song should be directed to a location where they can get that information, not a stub article with a few sentences. I find it a disservice to the reader to spread the information out amongst several articles instead of painting the full picture in one place. Perhaps more information such as chart positions and album covers could be moved to the target articles in the promotion section so they are not left out, but that's a discussion for moving forward. As the nominator pointed out, these redirects have potential, and if a willing editor seeks to expand them into something better than a stub with unique information separate from Eurovision, I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. It's just that right now they're not ready to be standalone articles, and this position is backed by the guidelines. Grk1011 (talk) 03:58, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 10:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Running on Air (song)[edit]

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

A group of stub song articles which previously competed at the Eurovision Song Contest, which were blanked-and-redirected following discussion on the WikiProject Eurovision talk page and review of Wikipedia notability guidance, specifically WP:NSONG. A large proportion of the information covered in these articles is cloned from related articles covering all aspects of a country's participation at a given contest, e.g. Germany in the Eurovision Song Contest 2018, and any relevant missing details in these articles were merged before redirection. Redirect articles may be considered notable due to their connection with the Eurovision Song Contest, and redirects were tagged with Template:R with possibilities and Template:R printworthy in order to highlight their potential re-inclusion if recreated and further expanded upon beyond tangible information related to the song's participation at Eurovision. Articles were subsequently recreated with no additional information added and discussion via AfD is required in order to determine a path forward and to avoid further conflict among editors. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow/strong keep. Nominating user did so after my reverts of part of their months-long campaign of redirecting every Eurovision stub article. A competing entry at Eurovision is notable per Doktorbuk. Ss112 10:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow/strong keep - Per WP:NMUSIC. Its pretty clear here, song has charted in several countries.BabbaQ (talk) 10:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I don't think there is any disagreement about whether the song is notable, as appearing in an international competition such as Eurovision and charting in several countries clearly demonstrates that per WP:NSONG. This is a redirect-focused discussion by the nominator, not one looking for deletion. The focus is much narrower than the above !votes about general notability. I believe we are discussing this caveat of WP:NSONG: "Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album", or, in this case the "Country in Eurovision Year" article is the relevant target. One of the main issues (that prompted this discussion in the first place) was that articles were un-redirected back to their stub-selves with no growth and for some, no growth potential. They are not reasonably detailed articles to any extent. In fact, there's more information about the subject at the redirect target, which I personally find to be the motivating factor here. Readers looking for information about a song should be directed to a location where they can get that information, not a stub article with a few sentences. I find it a disservice to the reader to spread the information out amongst several articles instead of painting the full picture in one place. Perhaps more information such as chart positions and album covers could be moved to the target articles in the promotion section so they are not left out, but that's a discussion for moving forward. As the nominator pointed out, these redirects have potential, and if a willing editor seeks to expand them into something better than a stub with unique information separate from Eurovision, I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. It's just that right now they're not ready to be standalone articles, and this position is backed by the guidelines. Grk1011 (talk) 03:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 10:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Truth (Chingiz song)[edit]

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

A group of stub song articles which previously competed at the Eurovision Song Contest, which were blanked-and-redirected following discussion on the WikiProject Eurovision talk page and review of Wikipedia notability guidance, specifically WP:NSONG. A large proportion of the information covered in these articles is cloned from related articles covering all aspects of a country's participation at a given contest, e.g. Germany in the Eurovision Song Contest 2018, and any relevant missing details in these articles were merged before redirection. Redirect articles may be considered notable due to their connection with the Eurovision Song Contest, and redirects were tagged with Template:R with possibilities and Template:R printworthy in order to highlight their potential re-inclusion if recreated and further expanded upon beyond tangible information related to the song's participation at Eurovision. Articles were subsequently recreated with no additional information added and discussion via AfD is required in order to determine a path forward and to avoid further conflict among editors. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow/strong keep. Nominating user did so after my reverts of part of their months-long campaign of redirecting every Eurovision stub article. A competing entry at Eurovision is notable per Doktorbuk. Ss112 10:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Song is notable per participation in Eurovision Song Contest. And per charting in several countries. Per section Songs, points 1, 2, 5, and 7 of WP:NMUSIC. These points trump a consensus about Eurovision articles in general.BabbaQ (talk) 10:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NMUSIC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I don't think there is any disagreement about whether the song is notable, as appearing in an international competition such as Eurovision and charting in several countries clearly demonstrates that per WP:NSONG. This is a redirect-focused discussion by the nominator, not one looking for deletion. The focus is much narrower than the above !votes about general notability. I believe we are discussing this caveat of WP:NSONG: "Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album", or, in this case the "Country in Eurovision Year" article is the relevant target. One of the main issues (that prompted this discussion in the first place) was that articles were un-redirected back to their stub-selves with no growth and for some, no growth potential. They are not reasonably detailed articles to any extent. In fact, there's more information about the subject at the redirect target, which I personally find to be the motivating factor here. Readers looking for information about a song should be directed to a location where they can get that information, not a stub article with a few sentences. I find it a disservice to the reader to spread the information out amongst several articles instead of painting the full picture in one place. Perhaps more information such as chart positions and album covers could be moved to the target articles in the promotion section so they are not left out, but that's a discussion for moving forward. As the nominator pointed out, these redirects have potential, and if a willing editor seeks to expand them into something better than a stub with unique information separate from Eurovision, I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. It's just that right now they're not ready to be standalone articles, and this position is backed by the guidelines. Grk1011 (talk) 03:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 10:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scream (Sergey Lazarev song)[edit]

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

A group of stub song articles which previously competed at the Eurovision Song Contest, which were blanked-and-redirected following discussion on the WikiProject Eurovision talk page and review of Wikipedia notability guidance, specifically WP:NSONG. A large proportion of the information covered in these articles is cloned from related articles covering all aspects of a country's participation at a given contest, e.g. Germany in the Eurovision Song Contest 2018, and any relevant missing details in these articles were merged before redirection. Redirect articles may be considered notable due to their connection with the Eurovision Song Contest, and redirects were tagged with Template:R with possibilities and Template:R printworthy in order to highlight their potential re-inclusion if recreated and further expanded upon beyond tangible information related to the song's participation at Eurovision. Articles were subsequently recreated with no additional information added and discussion via AfD is required in order to determine a path forward and to avoid further conflict among editors. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Russia. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow/strong keep. Nominating user did so after my reverts of part of their months-long campaign of redirecting every Eurovision stub article. A competing entry at Eurovision is notable per Doktorbuk. Ss112 10:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow/strong keep - WP:NMUSIC is clear about songs that has charted. Per section Songs, points 1, 2, 5, and 7 of WP:NMUSIC. BabbaQ (talk) 10:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow/strong keep per above. --Vaco98 (talk) 11:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Russia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2019. Song meets some criteria for notability, however, it lacks freestanding notability outside of its Eurovision "umbrella". The song's context and importance is therefore better framed by being included in the redirect target than being standalone. Grk1011 (talk) 13:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate, I don't think there is any disagreement about whether the song is notable, as appearing in an international competition such as Eurovision and charting in several countries clearly demonstrates that per WP:NSONG. This is a redirect-focused discussion by the nominator, not one looking for deletion. The focus is much narrower than the above !votes about general notability. I believe we are discussing this caveat of WP:NSONG: "Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album", or, in this case the "Country in Eurovision Year" article is the relevant target. One of the main issues (that prompted this discussion in the first place) was that articles were un-redirected back to their stub-selves with no growth and for some, no growth potential. They are not reasonably detailed articles to any extent. In fact, there's more information about the subject at the redirect target, which I personally find to be the motivating factor here. Readers looking for information about a song should be directed to a location where they can get that information, not a stub article with a few sentences. I find it a disservice to the reader to spread the information out amongst several articles instead of painting the full picture in one place. Perhaps more information such as chart positions and album covers could be moved to the target articles in the promotion section so they are not left out, but that's a discussion for moving forward. As the nominator pointed out, these redirects have potential, and if a willing editor seeks to expand them into something better than a stub with unique information separate from Eurovision, I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. It's just that right now they're not ready to be standalone articles, and this position is backed by the guidelines. Grk1011 (talk) 04:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NSONG per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NSONG. I do want to see more information about the song and less about the festival in which it participated. gidonb (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Grk1011. No notability claimed outside of Eurovision entry and all that information will be at the target. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 10:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Love Is Forever (Leonora song)[edit]

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

A group of stub song articles which previously competed at the Eurovision Song Contest, which were blanked-and-redirected following discussion on the WikiProject Eurovision talk page and review of Wikipedia notability guidance, specifically WP:NSONG. A large proportion of the information covered in these articles is cloned from related articles covering all aspects of a country's participation at a given contest, e.g. Germany in the Eurovision Song Contest 2018, and any relevant missing details in these articles were merged before redirection. Redirect articles may be considered notable due to their connection with the Eurovision Song Contest, and redirects were tagged with Template:R with possibilities and Template:R printworthy in order to highlight their potential re-inclusion if recreated and further expanded upon beyond tangible information related to the song's participation at Eurovision. Articles were subsequently recreated with no additional information added and discussion via AfD is required in order to determine a path forward and to avoid further conflict among editors. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Song is notable per participation in Eurovision Song Contest. And per charting in several countries. Per section Songs, points 1, 2, 5, and 7 of WP:NMUSIC. These points trump a consensus about Eurovision articles in general. Ss112 did the right thing here. BabbaQ (talk) 09:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow/strong keep. Nominating user did so after my reverts of part of their months-long campaign of redirecting every Eurovision stub article. A competing entry at Eurovision is notable per Doktorbuk. Ss112 10:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NMUSIC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I don't think there is any disagreement about whether the song is notable, as appearing in an international competition such as Eurovision and charting in several countries clearly demonstrates that per WP:NSONG. This is a redirect-focused discussion by the nominator, not one looking for deletion. The focus is much narrower than the above !votes about general notability. I believe we are discussing this caveat of WP:NSONG: "Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album", or, in this case the "Country in Eurovision Year" article is the relevant target. One of the main issues (that prompted this discussion in the first place) was that articles were un-redirected back to their stub-selves with no growth and for some, no growth potential. They are not reasonably detailed articles to any extent. In fact, there's more information about the subject at the redirect target, which I personally find to be the motivating factor here. Readers looking for information about a song should be directed to a location where they can get that information, not a stub article with a few sentences. I find it a disservice to the reader to spread the information out amongst several articles instead of painting the full picture in one place. Perhaps more information such as chart positions and album covers could be moved to the target articles in the promotion section so they are not left out, but that's a discussion for moving forward. As the nominator pointed out, these redirects have potential, and if a willing editor seeks to expand them into something better than a stub with unique information separate from Eurovision, I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. It's just that right now they're not ready to be standalone articles, and this position is backed by the guidelines. Grk1011 (talk) 04:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 10:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Home (Kobi Marimi song)[edit]

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

A group of stub song articles which previously competed at the Eurovision Song Contest, which were blanked-and-redirected following discussion on the WikiProject Eurovision talk page and review of Wikipedia notability guidance, specifically WP:NSONG. A large proportion of the information covered in these articles is cloned from related articles covering all aspects of a country's participation at a given contest, e.g. Germany in the Eurovision Song Contest 2018, and any relevant missing details in these articles were merged before redirection. Redirect articles may be considered notable due to their connection with the Eurovision Song Contest, and redirects were tagged with Template:R with possibilities and Template:R printworthy in order to highlight their potential re-inclusion if recreated and further expanded upon beyond tangible information related to the song's participation at Eurovision. Articles were subsequently recreated with no additional information added and discussion via AfD is required in order to determine a path forward and to avoid further conflict among editors. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow/strong keep. Nominating user did so after my reverts of part of their months-long campaign of redirecting every Eurovision stub article. A competing entry at Eurovision is notable per Doktorbuk. Ss112 10:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow/strong keep - song peaked in national chart, highly. WP:NMUSIC section Songs are pretty clear here.BabbaQ (talk) 11:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow/strong keep – this song was contested in International competition called Eurovision Sokuya (talk) 14:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I don't think there is any disagreement about whether the song is notable, as appearing in an international competition such as Eurovision and charting in several countries clearly demonstrates that per WP:NSONG. This is a redirect-focused discussion by the nominator, not one looking for deletion. The focus is much narrower than the above !votes about general notability. I believe we are discussing this caveat of WP:NSONG: "Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album", or, in this case the "Country in Eurovision Year" article is the relevant target. One of the main issues (that prompted this discussion in the first place) was that articles were un-redirected back to their stub-selves with no growth and for some, no growth potential. They are not reasonably detailed articles to any extent. In fact, there's more information about the subject at the redirect target, which I personally find to be the motivating factor here. Readers looking for information about a song should be directed to a location where they can get that information, not a stub article with a few sentences. I find it a disservice to the reader to spread the information out amongst several articles instead of painting the full picture in one place. Perhaps more information such as chart positions and album covers could be moved to the target articles in the promotion section so they are not left out, but that's a discussion for moving forward. As the nominator pointed out, these redirects have potential, and if a willing editor seeks to expand them into something better than a stub with unique information separate from Eurovision, I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. It's just that right now they're not ready to be standalone articles, and this position is backed by the guidelines. Grk1011 (talk) 04:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 10:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Storm (Victor Crone song)[edit]

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

A group of stub song articles which previously competed at the Eurovision Song Contest, which were blanked-and-redirected following discussion on the WikiProject Eurovision talk page and review of Wikipedia notability guidance, specifically WP:NSONG. A large proportion of the information covered in these articles is cloned from related articles covering all aspects of a country's participation at a given contest, e.g. Germany in the Eurovision Song Contest 2018, and any relevant missing details in these articles were merged before redirection. Redirect articles may be considered notable due to their connection with the Eurovision Song Contest, and redirects were tagged with Template:R with possibilities and Template:R printworthy in order to highlight their potential re-inclusion if recreated and further expanded upon beyond tangible information related to the song's participation at Eurovision. Articles were subsequently recreated with no additional information added and discussion via AfD is required in order to determine a path forward and to avoid further conflict among editors. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Song is definitely notable per participation in Eurovision Song Contest. And per charting in several countries. Per section Songs, points 1, 2, 5, and 7 of WP:NMUSIC. These points trump a consensus about Eurovision articles in general.BabbaQ (talk) 09:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow/strong keep. Nominating user did so after my reverts of part of their months-long campaign of redirecting every Eurovision stub article. A competing entry at Eurovision is notable per Doktorbuk. Ss112 10:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Was a Eurovision entry. Reached #1 on the Estonian charts. Was certified gold in Sweden. Has decent referencing. Passes WP:NMUSIC. ExRat (talk) 02:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per :ExRat passes WP:NMUSIC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I don't think there is any disagreement about whether the song is notable, as appearing in an international competition such as Eurovision and charting in several countries clearly demonstrates that per WP:NSONG. This is a redirect-focused discussion by the nominator, not one looking for deletion. The focus is much narrower than the above !votes about general notability. I believe we are discussing this caveat of WP:NSONG: "Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album", or, in this case the "Country in Eurovision Year" article is the relevant target. One of the main issues (that prompted this discussion in the first place) was that articles were un-redirected back to their stub-selves with no growth and for some, no growth potential. They are not reasonably detailed articles to any extent. In fact, there's more information about the subject at the redirect target, which I personally find to be the motivating factor here. Readers looking for information about a song should be directed to a location where they can get that information, not a stub article with a few sentences. I find it a disservice to the reader to spread the information out amongst several articles instead of painting the full picture in one place. Perhaps more information such as chart positions and album covers could be moved to the target articles in the promotion section so they are not left out, but that's a discussion for moving forward. As the nominator pointed out, these redirects have potential, and if a willing editor seeks to expand them into something better than a stub with unique information separate from Eurovision, I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. It's just that right now they're not ready to be standalone articles, and this position is backed by the guidelines. Grk1011 (talk) 04:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 10:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wake Up (Eliot song)[edit]

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

A group of stub song articles which previously competed at the Eurovision Song Contest, which were blanked-and-redirected following discussion on the WikiProject Eurovision talk page and review of Wikipedia notability guidance, specifically WP:NSONG. A large proportion of the information covered in these articles is cloned from related articles covering all aspects of a country's participation at a given contest, e.g. Germany in the Eurovision Song Contest 2018, and any relevant missing details in these articles were merged before redirection. Redirect articles may be considered notable due to their connection with the Eurovision Song Contest, and redirects were tagged with Template:R with possibilities and Template:R printworthy in order to highlight their potential re-inclusion if recreated and further expanded upon beyond tangible information related to the song's participation at Eurovision. Articles were subsequently recreated with no additional information added and discussion via AfD is required in order to determine a path forward and to avoid further conflict among editors. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow/strong keep. Nominating user did so after my reverts of part of their months-long campaign of redirecting every Eurovision stub article. A competing entry at Eurovision is notable per Doktorbuk. Ss112 10:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow/strong keep - Agreeing fully with Ss112. WP:NMUSICs section Songs are also clear about notability. Per section Songs, points 1, 2, 5, and 7 of WP:NMUSIC. BabbaQ (talk) 10:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Belgium in the Eurovision Song Contest 2019. Song meets some criteria for notability, however, it placed poorly and also charted poorly on its own outside of its notability umbrella of Eurovision. The song's context and importance is better framed by being included in the redirect target than being standalone. Grk1011 (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate, I don't think there is any disagreement about whether the song is notable, as appearing in an international competition such as Eurovision and charting in several countries clearly demonstrates that per WP:NSONG. This is a redirect-focused discussion by the nominator, not one looking for deletion. The focus is much narrower than the above !votes about general notability. I believe we are discussing this caveat of WP:NSONG: "Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album", or, in this case the "Country in Eurovision Year" article is the relevant target. One of the main issues (that prompted this discussion in the first place) was that articles were un-redirected back to their stub-selves with no growth and for some, no growth potential. They are not reasonably detailed articles to any extent. In fact, there's more information about the subject at the redirect target, which I personally find to be the motivating factor here. Readers looking for information about a song should be directed to a location where they can get that information, not a stub article with a few sentences. I find it a disservice to the reader to spread the information out amongst several articles instead of painting the full picture in one place. Perhaps more information such as chart positions and album covers could be moved to the target articles in the promotion section so they are not left out, but that's a discussion for moving forward. As the nominator pointed out, these redirects have potential, and if a willing editor seeks to expand them into something better than a stub with unique information separate from Eurovision, I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. It's just that right now they're not ready to be standalone articles, and this position is backed by the guidelines. Grk1011 (talk) 04:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NSONG per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 10:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hatrið mun sigra[edit]

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

A group of stub song articles which previously competed at the Eurovision Song Contest, which were blanked-and-redirected following discussion on the WikiProject Eurovision talk page and review of Wikipedia notability guidance, specifically WP:NSONG. A large proportion of the information covered in these articles is cloned from related articles covering all aspects of a country's participation at a given contest, e.g. Germany in the Eurovision Song Contest 2018, and any relevant missing details in these articles were merged before redirection. Redirect articles may be considered notable due to their connection with the Eurovision Song Contest, and redirects were tagged with Template:R with possibilities and Template:R printworthy in order to highlight their potential re-inclusion if recreated and further expanded upon beyond tangible information related to the song's participation at Eurovision. Articles were subsequently recreated with no additional information added and discussion via AfD is required in order to determine a path forward and to avoid further conflict among editors. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep A competing song is clearly notable. This whiffs of a WP:POINT nomination. doktorb _words^deeds 09:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Song is notable per participation in Eurovision Song Contest. And per charting in several countries. Per section Songs, points 1, 2, 5, and 7 of WP:NMUSIC. These points trump a consensus about Eurovision articles in general.BabbaQ (talk) 09:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow/strong keep. Nominating user did so after my reverts of part of their months-long campaign of redirecting every Eurovision stub article (so definitely WP:POINTy). A competing entry at Eurovision is notable per Doktorbuk. Ss112 10:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I don't think there is any disagreement about whether the song is notable, as appearing in an international competition such as Eurovision and charting in several countries clearly demonstrates that per WP:NSONG. This is a redirect-focused discussion by the nominator, not one looking for deletion. The focus is much narrower than the above !votes about general notability. I believe we are discussing this caveat of WP:NSONG: "Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album", or, in this case the "Country in Eurovision Year" article is the relevant target. One of the main issues (that prompted this discussion in the first place) was that articles were un-redirected back to their stub-selves with no growth and for some, no growth potential. They are not reasonably detailed articles to any extent. In fact, there's more information about the subject at the redirect target, which I personally find to be the motivating factor here. Readers looking for information about a song should be directed to a location where they can get that information, not a stub article with a few sentences. I find it a disservice to the reader to spread the information out amongst several articles instead of painting the full picture in one place. Perhaps more information such as chart positions and album covers could be moved to the target articles in the promotion section so they are not left out, but that's a discussion for moving forward. As the nominator pointed out, these redirects have potential, and if a willing editor seeks to expand them into something better than a stub with unique information separate from Eurovision, I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. It's just that right now they're not ready to be standalone articles, and this position is backed by the guidelines. Grk1011 (talk) 04:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Song looks notable enough, as it did participate in the Eurovision Song Contest. This may also have WP:POINT involved in it by the mass redirect of articles. Nascar9919 (talk) 06:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 10:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sebi (song)[edit]

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

A group of stub song articles which previously competed at the Eurovision Song Contest, which were blanked-and-redirected following discussion on the WikiProject Eurovision talk page and review of Wikipedia notability guidance, specifically WP:NSONG. A large proportion of the information covered in these articles is cloned from related articles covering all aspects of a country's participation at a given contest, e.g. Germany in the Eurovision Song Contest 2018, and any relevant missing details in these articles were merged before redirection. Redirect articles may be considered notable due to their connection with the Eurovision Song Contest, and redirects were tagged with Template:R with possibilities and Template:R printworthy in order to highlight their potential re-inclusion if recreated and further expanded upon beyond tangible information related to the song's participation at Eurovision. Articles were subsequently recreated with no additional information added and discussion via AfD is required in order to determine a path forward and to avoid further conflict among editors. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Song is notable per participation in Eurovision Song Contest. And per charting in several countries. Per section Songs, points 1, 2, 5, and 7 of WP:NMUSIC. These points trump a consensus about Eurovision articles in general.BabbaQ (talk) 09:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow/strong keep. Nominating user did so after my reverts of part of their months-long campaign of redirecting every Eurovision stub article (so definitely WP:POINTy). A competing entry at Eurovision is notable per Doktorbuk. Ss112 10:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I don't think there is any disagreement about whether the song is notable, as appearing in an international competition such as Eurovision and charting in several countries clearly demonstrates that per WP:NSONG. This is a redirect-focused discussion by the nominator, not one looking for deletion. The focus is much narrower than the above !votes about general notability. I believe we are discussing this caveat of WP:NSONG: "Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album", or, in this case the "Country in Eurovision Year" article is the relevant target. One of the main issues (that prompted this discussion in the first place) was that articles were un-redirected back to their stub-selves with no growth and for some, no growth potential. They are not reasonably detailed articles to any extent. In fact, there's more information about the subject at the redirect target, which I personally find to be the motivating factor here. Readers looking for information about a song should be directed to a location where they can get that information, not a stub article with a few sentences. I find it a disservice to the reader to spread the information out amongst several articles instead of painting the full picture in one place. Perhaps more information such as chart positions and album covers could be moved to the target articles in the promotion section so they are not left out, but that's a discussion for moving forward. As the nominator pointed out, these redirects have potential, and if a willing editor seeks to expand them into something better than a stub with unique information separate from Eurovision, I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. It's just that right now they're not ready to be standalone articles, and this position is backed by the guidelines. Grk1011 (talk) 04:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 10:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replay (Tamta song)[edit]

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

A group of stub song articles which previously competed at the Eurovision Song Contest, which were blanked-and-redirected following discussion on the WikiProject Eurovision talk page and review of Wikipedia notability guidance, specifically WP:NSONG. A large proportion of the information covered in these articles is cloned from related articles covering all aspects of a country's participation at a given contest, e.g. Germany in the Eurovision Song Contest 2018, and any relevant missing details in these articles were merged before redirection. Redirect articles may be considered notable due to their connection with the Eurovision Song Contest, and redirects were tagged with Template:R with possibilities and Template:R printworthy in order to highlight their potential re-inclusion if recreated and further expanded upon beyond tangible information related to the song's participation at Eurovision. Articles were subsequently recreated with no additional information added and discussion via AfD is required in order to determine a path forward and to avoid further conflict among editors. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow/strong keep. Nominating user did so after my reverts of part of their months-long campaign of redirecting every Eurovision stub article (so definitely WP:POINTy). A competing entry at Eurovision is notable per Doktorbuk. Ss112 10:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow/strong keep - Per section Songs of WP:NMUSIC. Charting in several countries.BabbaQ (talk) 10:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I don't think there is any disagreement about whether the song is notable, as appearing in an international competition such as Eurovision and charting in several countries clearly demonstrates that per WP:NSONG. This is a redirect-focused discussion by the nominator, not one looking for deletion. The focus is much narrower than the above !votes about general notability. I believe we are discussing this caveat of WP:NSONG: "Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album", or, in this case the "Country in Eurovision Year" article is the relevant target. One of the main issues (that prompted this discussion in the first place) was that articles were un-redirected back to their stub-selves with no growth and for some, no growth potential. They are not reasonably detailed articles to any extent. In fact, there's more information about the subject at the redirect target, which I personally find to be the motivating factor here. Readers looking for information about a song should be directed to a location where they can get that information, not a stub article with a few sentences. I find it a disservice to the reader to spread the information out amongst several articles instead of painting the full picture in one place. Perhaps more information such as chart positions and album covers could be moved to the target articles in the promotion section so they are not left out, but that's a discussion for moving forward. As the nominator pointed out, these redirects have potential, and if a willing editor seeks to expand them into something better than a stub with unique information separate from Eurovision, I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. It's just that right now they're not ready to be standalone articles, and this position is backed by the guidelines. Grk1011 (talk) 04:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 10:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Viszlát nyár[edit]

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

A group of stub song articles which previously competed at the Eurovision Song Contest, which were blanked-and-redirected following discussion on the WikiProject Eurovision talk page and review of Wikipedia notability guidance, specifically WP:NSONG. A large proportion of the information covered in these articles is cloned from related articles covering all aspects of a country's participation at a given contest, e.g. Germany in the Eurovision Song Contest 2018, and any relevant missing details in these articles were merged before redirection. Redirect articles may be considered notable due to their connection with the Eurovision Song Contest, and redirects were tagged with Template:R with possibilities and Template:R printworthy in order to highlight their potential re-inclusion if recreated and further expanded upon beyond tangible information related to the song's participation at Eurovision. Articles were subsequently recreated with no additional information added and discussion via AfD is required in order to determine a path forward and to avoid further conflict among editors. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Song is notable per participation in Eurovision Song Contest. And per charting at number one in his countries national chart. Per section Songs, points 1, 2, 5, and 7 of WP:NMUSIC. These points trump a consensus about Eurovision articles in general.BabbaQ (talk) 09:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow/strong keep. Nominating user did so after my reverts of part of their months-long campaign of redirecting every Eurovision stub article (so definitely WP:POINTy). A competing entry at Eurovision is notable per Doktorbuk. Ss112 10:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I don't think there is any disagreement about whether the song is notable, as appearing in an international competition such as Eurovision and charting in several countries clearly demonstrates that per WP:NSONG. This is a redirect-focused discussion by the nominator, not one looking for deletion. The focus is much narrower than the above !votes about general notability. I believe we are discussing this caveat of WP:NSONG: "Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album", or, in this case the "Country in Eurovision Year" article is the relevant target. One of the main issues (that prompted this discussion in the first place) was that articles were un-redirected back to their stub-selves with no growth and for some, no growth potential. They are not reasonably detailed articles to any extent. In fact, there's more information about the subject at the redirect target, which I personally find to be the motivating factor here. Readers looking for information about a song should be directed to a location where they can get that information, not a stub article with a few sentences. I find it a disservice to the reader to spread the information out amongst several articles instead of painting the full picture in one place. Perhaps more information such as chart positions and album covers could be moved to the target articles in the promotion section so they are not left out, but that's a discussion for moving forward. As the nominator pointed out, these redirects have potential, and if a willing editor seeks to expand them into something better than a stub with unique information separate from Eurovision, I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. It's just that right now they're not ready to be standalone articles, and this position is backed by the guidelines. Grk1011 (talk) 04:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 10:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We Got Love (Jessica Mauboy song)[edit]

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

A group of stub song articles which previously competed at the Eurovision Song Contest, which were blanked-and-redirected following discussion on the WikiProject Eurovision talk page and review of Wikipedia notability guidance, specifically WP:NSONG. A large proportion of the information covered in these articles is cloned from related articles covering all aspects of a country's participation at a given contest, e.g. Germany in the Eurovision Song Contest 2018, and any relevant missing details in these articles were merged before redirection. Redirect articles may be considered notable due to their connection with the Eurovision Song Contest, and redirects were tagged with Template:R with possibilities and Template:R printworthy in order to highlight their potential re-inclusion if recreated and further expanded upon beyond tangible information related to the song's participation at Eurovision. Articles were subsequently recreated with no additional information added and discussion via AfD is required in order to determine a path forward and to avoid further conflict among editors. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow/strong keep. Nominating user did so after my reverts of part of their months-long campaign of redirecting every Eurovision stub article (so definitely WP:POINTy). A competing entry at Eurovision is notable per Doktorbuk. Ss112 10:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow/strong keep - per user Ss112. Per WP:NMUSIC section Songs.BabbaQ (talk) 10:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. It passes WP:NSONGS due to its appearance on various national charts and its related significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I don't think there is any disagreement about whether the song is notable, as appearing in an international competition such as Eurovision and charting in several countries clearly demonstrates that per WP:NSONG. This is a redirect-focused discussion by the nominator, not one looking for deletion. The focus is much narrower than the above !votes about general notability. I believe we are discussing this caveat of WP:NSONG: "Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album", or, in this case the "Country in Eurovision Year" article is the relevant target. One of the main issues (that prompted this discussion in the first place) was that articles were un-redirected back to their stub-selves with no growth and for some, no growth potential. They are not reasonably detailed articles to any extent. In fact, there's more information about the subject at the redirect target, which I personally find to be the motivating factor here. Readers looking for information about a song should be directed to a location where they can get that information, not a stub article with a few sentences. I find it a disservice to the reader to spread the information out amongst several articles instead of painting the full picture in one place. Perhaps more information such as chart positions and album covers could be moved to the target articles in the promotion section so they are not left out, but that's a discussion for moving forward. As the nominator pointed out, these redirects have potential, and if a willing editor seeks to expand them into something better than a stub with unique information separate from Eurovision, I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. It's just that right now they're not ready to be standalone articles, and this position is backed by the guidelines. Grk1011 (talk) 04:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 10:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Light Me Up (Gromee song)[edit]

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

A group of stub song articles which previously competed at the Eurovision Song Contest, which were blanked-and-redirected following discussion on the WikiProject Eurovision talk page and review of Wikipedia notability guidance, specifically WP:NSONG. A large proportion of the information covered in these articles is cloned from related articles covering all aspects of a country's participation at a given contest, e.g. Germany in the Eurovision Song Contest 2018, and any relevant missing details in these articles were merged before redirection. Redirect articles may be considered notable due to their connection with the Eurovision Song Contest, and redirects were tagged with Template:R with possibilities and Template:R printworthy in order to highlight their potential re-inclusion if recreated and further expanded upon beyond tangible information related to the song's participation at Eurovision. Articles were subsequently recreated with no additional information added and discussion via AfD is required in order to determine a path forward and to avoid further conflict among editors. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Song is notable per participation in Eurovision Song Contest. And per charting in several countries. Per section Songs, points 1, 2, 5, and 7 of WP:NMUSIC. These points trump a consensus about Eurovision articles in general.BabbaQ (talk) 09:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow/strong keep. Nominating user did so after my reverts of part of their months-long campaign of redirecting every Eurovision stub article (so definitely WP:POINTy). A competing entry at Eurovision is notable per Doktorbuk. Ss112 10:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep charts, certification, Eurovision, I think it is notable enough. --Muhandes (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I don't think there is any disagreement about whether the song is notable, as appearing in an international competition such as Eurovision and charting in several countries clearly demonstrates that per WP:NSONG. This is a redirect-focused discussion by the nominator, not one looking for deletion. The focus is much narrower than the above !votes about general notability. I believe we are discussing this caveat of WP:NSONG: "Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album", or, in this case the "Country in Eurovision Year" article is the relevant target. One of the main issues (that prompted this discussion in the first place) was that articles were un-redirected back to their stub-selves with no growth and for some, no growth potential. They are not reasonably detailed articles to any extent. In fact, there's more information about the subject at the redirect target, which I personally find to be the motivating factor here. Readers looking for information about a song should be directed to a location where they can get that information, not a stub article with a few sentences. I find it a disservice to the reader to spread the information out amongst several articles instead of painting the full picture in one place. Perhaps more information such as chart positions and album covers could be moved to the target articles in the promotion section so they are not left out, but that's a discussion for moving forward. As the nominator pointed out, these redirects have potential, and if a willing editor seeks to expand them into something better than a stub with unique information separate from Eurovision, I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. It's just that right now they're not ready to be standalone articles, and this position is backed by the guidelines. Grk1011 (talk) 04:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. For the avoidance of doubt, this does not preclude anyone from taking the normal editorial actions of merging or redirecting, in line with the normal editorial practice. Stifle (talk) 10:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You Let Me Walk Alone[edit]

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

A group of stub song articles which previously competed at the Eurovision Song Contest, which were blanked-and-redirected following discussion on the WikiProject Eurovision talk page and review of Wikipedia notability guidance, specifically WP:NSONG. A large proportion of the information covered in these articles is cloned from related articles covering all aspects of a country's participation at a given contest, e.g. Germany in the Eurovision Song Contest 2018, and any relevant missing details in these articles were merged before redirection. Redirect articles may be considered notable due to their connection with the Eurovision Song Contest, and redirects were tagged with Template:R with possibilities and Template:R printworthy in order to highlight their potential re-inclusion if recreated and further expanded upon beyond tangible information related to the song's participation at Eurovision. Articles were subsequently recreated with no additional information added and discussion via AfD is required in order to determine a path forward and to avoid further conflict among editors. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is an absolutely clueless nomination. This song reached number three in Germany, was certified gold there, additionally certified gold in another country, and charted in a further ten countries. This absolutely meet WP:NSONGS and I would advise the nominating editor to reconsider their views on notability, which are very clearly out of step with the rest of Wikipedia's. Ss112 08:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep As above. A competing entry is notable. doktorb _words^deeds 09:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep - WP:NMUSIC is clear about charting.BabbaQ (talk) 10:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep: Pretty easy decision, an abundance of sources can be found with a simple Google search. I would suggest the nominating editor read WP:NSONGS, as they appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes song notability. The majority of the other songs included in the initial bundled nomination, if not all, appear to match this guideline also. Sean Stephens (talk) 23:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I don't think there is any disagreement about whether the song is notable, as appearing in an international competition such as Eurovision and charting in several countries clearly demonstrates that per WP:NSONG. This is a redirect-focused discussion by the nominator, not one looking for deletion. The focus is much narrower than the above !votes about general notability. I believe we are discussing this caveat of WP:NSONG: "Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album", or, in this case the "Country in Eurovision Year" article is the relevant target. One of the main issues (that prompted this discussion in the first place) was that articles were un-redirected back to their stub-selves with no growth and for some, no growth potential. They are not reasonably detailed articles to any extent. In fact, there's more information about the subject at the redirect target, which I personally find to be the motivating factor here. Readers looking for information about a song should be directed to a location where they can get that information, not a stub article with a few sentences. I find it a disservice to the reader to spread the information out amongst several articles instead of painting the full picture in one place. Perhaps more information such as chart positions and album covers could be moved to the target articles in the promotion section so they are not left out, but that's a discussion for moving forward. As the nominator pointed out, these redirects have potential, and if a willing editor seeks to expand them into something better than a stub with unique information separate from Eurovision, I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. It's just that right now they're not ready to be standalone articles, and this position is backed by the guidelines. Grk1011 (talk) 04:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 08:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aryandra Sharma[edit]

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

Fails WP:N — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 07:09, 25 March 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 March 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and India. ––FormalDude talk 08:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOL as he lost elections. Article unsourced. Venkat TL (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are some sources on the man in question:

https://www.financialexpress.com/elections/uttarakhand-assembly-elections-2017/uttarakhand-elections-angry-over-congress-ticket-distribution-aryendra-sharma-supporters-vandalise-party-office/519445/

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Aryendra-Sharma

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3VWS4Pge3s

https://www.news18.com/assembly-elections-2022/uttarakhand/aryendra-sharma-sahaspur-candidate-s28a017c04/ Rlink2 (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlink2, I checked all the links you shared. Such minor coverage related to an ongoing election is routine. See WP:ROUTINE. We will have to wait till he actually wins an election to satisfy WP:NPOL. Venkat TL (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I do not live in India so I didn't know what coverage is considered major or minor over there. I was thinking that these sources would meet the 2nd requirement, which is Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Rlink2 (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlink2 unfortunately no. While it is true that there are politicians who are popular due to their substantial work, this guy is not one of those. Venkat TL (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People don't get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they did not win, and having a role in a political party's internal org chart is not "inherently" notable either. The thing about campaign coverage is that every candidate in every election always gets some of that, so it isn't necessarily enough in and of itself to hand a person a WP:GNG-based exemption from having to pass WP:NPOL — if that were how it worked, then every candidate would always get that exemption and NPOL itself would be meaningless. So the question is not just "can his name be found in newspaper articles about the election he didn't win": it's "does the campaign coverage show a credible reason why his non-winning campaign should be seen to have much greater and more enduring significance than other people's non-winning campaigns", and those sources listed above don't really do that. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Money habitudes[edit]

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

We seem to have had this article for more than ten years. Ah.... look at it. —S Marshall T/C 17:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 17:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Draftify: Reads almost like an advertisement, ~~doesn't appear to be notable per the table below.~~ Edit: Now appears to be somewhat notable per the comments below, but still appears promotional and shouldn't be in the mainspace like this. Bsoyka (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC) revised 15:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Bsoyka
Money Habitudes		?		✘ No
Association for Financial Counseling and Planning Education	~ Biography of member of board of directors		~	~ Partial
PR.com	Press release	~ Basically self-published		✘ No
The Washington Post	Major newspaper	Highly-referenced source		✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Comment Does one highly notable, one partially notable and other piddly sources give us notability? Oaktree b (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG says, A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I only see one source that's even independent, and GNG generally expects there to at least be multiple. Even if there was another source meeting the criteria, the Washington Post article honestly reads like an ad, sharing a live discussion with the creator of the tool and advertising a giveaway at the end. — ((u|Bsoyka)) ^talk 22:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1 2... And there's more for the BEFORE-ing, various newspaper mentions with varying amount of coverage, but these plus the WaPo source seem to provide enough coverage to meet GNG. Jclemens (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- My position is that meeting the notability guidelines is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for a "keep" outcome. Although I'm not massively impressed with the coverage in the American local newspaper, the other source is a serious academic study which shows that this "card game" is, in fact, a serious assessment tool with useful applications by professionals. Nevertheless we can't retain this content in mainspace because Wikipedia isn't the author's webhost. This is advertising spam and strictly speaking is eligible for speedy deletion under WP:G11. In this case I've chosen to start an AfD rather than tag it for speedy deletion in order to give you or any editors who agree with you seven days to rewrite it as an encyclopaedia article.—S Marshall T/C 12:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep I've not looked at the history, but while I'm seeing an article that could stand a lot of improvement, I'm not seeing it as overly promotional. Notability seems undisputed. 13:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs)
Delete. Only references cited are to their own website, press-releases, or winning an industry award of dubious quality and unknown relevance. Stifle (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Stifle: two awards and the Washington Post is in the article. We also have [7] and similar things. It's not a great article, but it looks quite over the GNG bar. Hobit (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it's in order for me to tag this for G11 speedy deletion during an ongoing AfD. If there are no further comments when this reaches the bottom of the queue, please would the evaluating sysop decide whether to just delete it as marketing spam (with, obviously, no prejudice against re-creation as a proper encyclopaedia article).—S Marshall T/C 13:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's custom and practice (at least) that CSDs apply only to content that it'd be uncontroversial to delete, and so tagging an article for speedy deletion when there are keep !votes on the table is not normally done unless some overriding reason emerges such as a copyvio or the article creator being found to have been banned. Stifle (talk) 11:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your complaint is that the article is in bad shape rather than that the topic is not notable? I get that you hinted at that, but "Ah.... look at it" wasn't as clear as I at least would like. There is a ton of coverage out there, the article from Michelle Singletary, someone I've been reading for decades and respect, is clearly the best. If your argument is WP:TNT or something other than notability, let us know. The article isn't great and does read a bit like an understated press release. But really, I struggle with how I'd write it any better. If the argument is notability, I think the sources are enough to overcome that objection. Beyond that WP article (which is really strong), there are a ton of self-published sources in the pseudo-academic literature, but also some decent ones. Hobit (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reads like advertisement, sources are their website, and the few other sources don't show it's notable. Artem.G (talk) 10:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is notable, and I say this as the nominator. JClemens showed that above. You're correct that it's an advertisement and shouldn't be in the mainspace in that form though.—S Marshall T/C 11:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Washington Post piece is blatant promotion (there is literally a discount code in the article), the other references are either actual Press Release links or their own website. Not a notable game. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 16:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The two Jclemens references do not establish notability. One appears to be an undergraduate student project, the other appears to be a trivial mention (which establishes that the game exists but little more). User:力 (powera, π, ν) 16:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@力: That is nearly a BLP violation. No really. You are accusing Michelle Singletary of what, being paid by the creator? BLP does apply outside of article space. Could you refactor that or provide a source to back it up? Hobit (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability issues aside, the article reads like an advertisement, is poorly sourced even after 3 weeks of AfD, and concerns a WP:MILL topic (a commercial product). The encyclopedia loses little by losing this article. Sandstein 08:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 07:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Henry Lee Johnson[edit]

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

I accepted this from Draft, but I am not sure of notability. We have many similar articles. Is this to be judged as "lack of continuing significance" vs. "part of the historical record". I could justify either position, but I would ideally hope for some consistency. DGG ( talk ) 07:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, History, Africa, and Oklahoma. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as Murder of Henry Lee Johnson. I think that racially aggravated murders, particularly ones where there was no conviction, are probably worth an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It meets the five criteria of WP:GNG. It doesn't perform well against WP:SBST. I found this, but I consider it to be a blog, so I didn't add it in. https://livingbluetx.com/2021/04/the-tragic-murder-of-henry-lee-johnson/ It doesn't perform well against WP:SUSTAINED but in the context of it being a notable murder, a notable race riot and then a notable trial, I take that into account. I find the "historical record" argument compelling, a child, killed for being black in an all white club, sparking a riot, my application of common sense to the GNG is the main influencing factor here. CT55555 (talk) 11:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this, this, and this amount to significant coverage. There are many more sources, wide-ranging in geography. This young man was killed in a hate crime, there was a large protest in which a police officer and another man were killed. I'd also add this Washington Post article, already in the article [8]. The article could certainly use some work (see deletion policy subsection WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page"), but certainly plenty of sources exist to satisfy the general notability guideline. As far as more recent coverage, there is this from 1984 and ~~this from 2022~~, for starters.Jacona (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. a website being a website does not demonstrate notability, nor are there any arguments negating the reasons put forth for deletion. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How-To Geek[edit]

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

No notable Google hits or coverage found in Google News. Google Scholar didn't return any notable coverage either, the only thing I can find there is HTG being cited in a handful of obscure publications. Overall fails GNG. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 00:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 00:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 00:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Current sourcing is abysmal, zero notability is proven by this directory entry and primary source. Toadspike (talk) 02:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete @EpicPupper, Did you check DuckDuckGo and/or Bing? Google is not the only search engine. But I checked there too and couldn't find anything. Rlink2 (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya @Rlink2! Yes, I did (DuckDuckGo’s actually my preferred search engine), just forgot to mention it here. Cheers! 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 20:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only a primary source and a domain lookup. No notability. Gabe114 (talk) 12:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I searched on Google and this website is a website. No need to delete it just because some people are offended and want to “cancel” it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.171.10 (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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