< March 02	March 04 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Testify (Christian band)[edit]

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

Have been watching this develop, but despite early tags for notability and referencing, no refs of any substance have appeared. WP:BEFORE finds very little beyond affiliate refs, I guess they were too early for much social media although Facebook is there with an identical image to the one in this article. A strong suggestion of COI editing perhaps. Without any reliable and independent refs, this fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was going to nominate it for deletion if/when Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brent Swanner was closed as delete. I agree with Velella: I don't see much sign of significant coverage in independent sources. The current references certainly don't qualify: 5 discogs links, 1 Apple Music, two from Tower Records, one CD Universe, two links that don't mention the band (they mention their producer and in fact, one is about the producer's wife!) and a concert announcement in a church bulletin. That's way too thin for WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Pichpich (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Notability Guidelines. Testify (Christian band) has ten major label recordings and is made notable by Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines for music and musicians 113andathird (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brent Swanner for an explanation of why CD Baby is not and should not be considered a major record label. I won't rehash the whole thing here. Pichpich (talk) 04:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that too and have agreed that I was wrong. That still leaves four recording under major label. SonSound/SonSound Masterpiece was a Southern Gospel Label out of Bessemmer City, NC in the 1990s and 2000s. Chapel was out of Brentwood, TN and is now called Spring Hill Music Group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113andathird (talk • contribs) 12:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since this band lacks significant coverage. Pikavoom ^Talk 07:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep as there is possible offline coverage, as discussed over at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brent_Swanner by JSFarman. I think we need to wait and see whether this coverage is sufficient. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 15:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In my experience, Christian/gospel artists receive little coverage in secular media, and non-secular media isn't significantly available via digital archives. I found only four in-depth articles on Testify. However, three of the four are from Louisiana publications and the band is from West Monroe, LA.

"Christian vocal trio sings praises" January 8, 2010, Fort Polk Guardian (LA), Chuck Cannon; Section: entertainment
"Keeping the Faith" February 24, 2000, Times-Picayune, The (New Orleans, LA) Page: 20H3
"Meeting people where they're hurting is ministry of Testify" August 5, 2006, Tribune Business News, Griffin, Pam
"Southern gospel sound uplifts its audience" June 19, 2006, Haag, Diane. The Times; Shreveport, LA D.1.

I'm commenting rather than weighing in because I am truly undecided! JSFarman (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"and non-secular media isn't significantly available via digital archives." I am finding this to be very true. Can you tell me where you found these articles above and can a novice like me access them? 113andathird (talk) 11:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 113andathird, I'll respond on your talk page. JSFarman (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, I have recently made a lot of changes. And there will be more to come. Please let me know how this effects things and would love anymore advice you all would be willing to give.113andathird (talk) 12:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of additional sources found and others have been updated. Recordings on major labels. Sources siting award nominees and a song in a Top 40 Chart of the genres most notable magazine, The Singing News. (if I could find and Archive of The Singing News charts or the above cited source was updated there would be a lot more Top 40 songs listed and cited.) 113andathird (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a large number of reliable regional newspaper sources have been added to the article so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:35, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG: the references mentioned by JSFarman constitute significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.. St Anselm (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:56, 7 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 Digital marketing. If someone wants to merge selectively well sourced content, the history is under the redirect Star Mississippi 15:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Private label rights[edit]

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

Online marketing WP:CRUFT full of original research and hasn't been sourced in over 10 years. If this is a notable concept, could probably just be a sentence in internet marketing. ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Digital marketing. I did find a few sources including a study on the "Impact of Brand Image, Product Quality and Self-Efficacy on Purchase Decisions on Private Label Rights Products" and a Reuters report on the impact of PLRs on Amazon's Kindle marketplace but I couldn't find any other reliable independent sources, mostly just blogs and marketing material. There's not enough coverage to meet GNG for a stand alone article, but there's enough to mention it in the article on the broader topic. With consistently a few dozen page views a day it appears to be a reasonable search term at the very least. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - mainly per WP:TNT. The subject is likely notable. I thought about whether it should just be included in the private label article, but that doesn't quite make sense. I also don't think it makes sense to include in the digital marketing article. That leaves us with a stand-alone article, but the one we have has zero sources, hence TNT. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Digital marketing: Per Qwaiiplayer. It's best to for it to be discussed in the target article. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 04:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No citations, does not appear notable. Gusfriend (talk) 06:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Poorly-written article, but the topic is notable. PLR content has been used to flood e-book stores with titles of low quality; different authors buy non-exclusive PLR, put an original title page on, and sell the books en masse. You can find news coverage about it from as early as 2011. I vote to keep, but because I work for a company affected by PLR books, I will abstain from editing the article. White 720 (talk) 03:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide examples of news coverage? Qwaiiplayer (talk) 04:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ProQuest turns up:
Schiller, K. (2011, 10). Looking beyond the bytes. Information Today, 28, 23. Retrieved from https://ezproxy.spl.org/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/pqrl?accountid=1135?url=https://www.proquest.com/magazines/looking-beyond-bytes/docview/897599855/se-2?accountid=1135

Amazon axes copied content, duplicate kindle store ebooks get the boot (2011). . New York: Newstex. Retrieved from https://ezproxy.spl.org/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/pqrl?accountid=1135?url=https://www.proquest.com/blogs-podcasts-websites/amazon-axes-copied-content-duplicate-kindle-store/docview/883267952/se-2?accountid=1135

Power, D. (2008, 07). Begin writing for internet markets. The Writer, 121, 46-47. Retrieved from https://ezproxy.spl.org/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/pqrl?accountid=1135?url=https://www.proquest.com/magazines/begin-writing-internet-markets/docview/214102504/se-2?accountid=1135
White 720 (talk) 04:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The second source (a short egadnet blog post) I wouldn't count towards GNG. The other two sources, while reliable, are relatively brief mentions that could be utilized if this were merged into another article, but not enough to warrant a stand alone article for this subject. Most of the rest of the ProQuest results on this topic are either press releases or blog posts which don't count towards GNG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough — I will shed no tears if this article gets deleted, as it likely will be. White 720 (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above analysis which indicates insufficient coverage in sources; perhaps briefly mention in a related article. Sandstein 11:43, 11 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 David Manners, 11th Duke of Rutland#Marriage and children. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Eliza Manners[edit]

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

Third daughter of David Manners, 11th Duke of Rutland, with no particular claim to notability. Fails WP:BIO. Was caught speeding once, and a few outlets reported about the fact that she claimed financial hardship in the process, but it remains WP:BLP1E.

I'm going to spare other editors of deprecated/unreliable tabloids at RSP that aren't in the article already, but feel free to check Google News for that. For the rest, source assessment of the sources in the article and other relevant coverage I found follows.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Do Manners Maketh Women at Belvoir Castle?". Countryandtownhouse.co.uk. 21 September 2015. Retrieved 25 November 2017.	value not understood	?	"Eliza is musically talented and has inherited her mother’s voice", and she has a tattoo. Not SIGCOV.	✘ No
Reginato, James. "The Manners Sisters Are Real-Life Crawley Sisters of London". Vanityfair.com. Retrieved 25 November 2017.	value not understood	value not understood	"Eliza helped man the little gift shop", "Eliza is now entering her second year at Newcastle University, where she is studying business management and pursuing her interests in acting and singing".	✘ No
Woodham, Lucy (18 February 2019). "Who is Lady Eliza Manners? The Newcastle student who lives in a massive castle". The Tab. Retrieved 2 July 2021.	value not understood	Student tabloid, buzzfeed-like content ("No seriously you should see this castle")	value not understood	✘ No
"Violet, Alice and Eliza Manners are lacking just that: manners". Afr.com. 26 February 2015. Retrieved 25 November 2017.	value not understood	value not understood	Passing mention: "Lady Violet lives with her sisters, Lady Alice, 19, and 17-year-old Lady Eliza"; "Ladies Violet, Alice and Eliza declined to comment."	✘ No
Turner, Camilla (20 February 2015). "Duke of Rutland's daughters infuriate neighbours with wild 'all-night' parties". Telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved 25 November 2017.	value not understood	Per WP:RSP	Two passing mentions: "17-year-old Lady Eliza", and a quote from a disgruntled neighbour regarding Eliza's apology.	✘ No
"Lady Eliza Manners's 18th-birthday party". Tatler.com. Retrieved 25 November 2017.	value not understood	value not understood	Photo album	✘ No
Kirk, Tristan (28 October 2021). "Duke's daughter fined £50 for speeding due to 'financial hardship'". www.standard.co.uk. Retrieved 29 October 2021.	value not understood	Per WP:RSP: there is no consensus on the reliability of the Evening Standard.	WP:MILL: she was fined for speeding, and she said she was in a financial hardship situation and that the full fine would cause her "cash flow issues".	✘ No
Great-granddaughter of A Very British Scandal's Duchess of Argyll launches interior design business. Daily Record.	value not understood	? See last discussion at WP:RSN; tabloid journalism	4 sentences about Eliza Manners that aren't quotes. Most of the article is about her mother	✘ 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) 22:35, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:39, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to David Manners, 11th Duke of Rutland#Marriage and children per CHEAP, and an unrelated TROUT to the 'royal media' for boring the world with details of her apparently teacup/monocle-breaking driving offense for yet another 'she did this, now let's snoop through her Insta because duke parent' 'story'. Nate • (chatter) 01:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. She is a plausible search term, but we really don't need articles like this. RobinCarmody (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she passes WP:GNG .GorgonaJS (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Pilaz (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to David Manners, 11th Duke of Rutland#Marriage and children as above. Normally this bothers me, especially during Women's History Month, but there isn't enough on which to build a standalone. Star Mississippi 00:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I have gender in mind during AfD discussions (this is actually the first woman bio I nominate for deletion), but I have to admit I totally forgot about Women's history month in the US and elsewhere - it's not observed in my country. I'll try to keep it in mind going forward, though. Pilaz (talk) 01:21, 8 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!} 22:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara Ralph[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Notability is not inherited from employer. Has not improved since previous nom Yogiile (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, United Kingdom, Women, Fashion, and Australia. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The consensus in the last discussion was keep. The fact that the article has not improved is not a reason for deletion: what has changed to make the subject no longer notable? St Anselm (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: In fact, there is lots of significant press coverage of Ralph from 2021. WP:BEFORE has clearly not been followed here. St Anselm (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep By a Googling you can find significant coverage about her from reliable independent sources such as New York Times and others. Ahmed ^(talk) 22:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are ample WP:RS to pass WP:GNG. Cabrils (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources satisfy WP:GNG. MickyShy (talk) 17:55, 9 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Africa Mining Hall of Fame[edit]

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

WP:ADMASQ article on a non notable establishment that fails to meet any notability criteria here as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Two third of all the references in article are primary sources. Furthermore a WP:BEFORE search shows nothing imperative or tangible. Celestina007 (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems utterly non-notable, cannot find a single source providing anything even approaching sigcov. Fails all notability criteria, by some margin. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:20, 4 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!} 22:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flying C Airport[edit]

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

No notability _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 20:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 20:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 20:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 20:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 20:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article includes no citations and I couldn't find any usable sources. I don't see any reason this airport is notable.JMB1980 (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This airport is notable only at the local level.TH1980 (talk) 03:23, 6 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!} 22:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

198 (number)[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NNUM: Per discussion on the article's talk with User:Certes, there are not "at least three unrelated interesting mathematical properties of this integer": there are plenty of notable properties that it has, like being an even number or being a composite number, but because those properties hold for such a large proportion of the integers, it is not interesting that 198 has those properties, and the documentation that 198 has those properties (in passing, among many other numbers with those properties) does not constitute the in-depth coverage required by WP:GNG. I searched for but failed to find Wikipedia-notable properties, or properties labeled as "nice" in OEIS, for which it is among the first five or so examples. If judged non-notable, this would appear to be the smallest non-notable natural number but per WP:SELF that is also not a reason for notability. My earlier PROD was removed by User:Crouch, Swale but without any attempt to provide better content for the article or to justify notability (the removal edit summary cited WP:OTHERLANGS but explicitly noted that was not a justification for notability). So it seems that Crouch, Swale has dragged us into another week of pointless bureaucracy to get rid of a pointless article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think an article with 42 IW links should at least be discussed, I offer no opinion on if notable but I think its controversial enough to need a discussion. Wikipedia:WikiProject Proposed deletion patrolling#Common mistakes with prod, and what to do about them item 6 seems to apply. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, but not speedily. Per Wikipedia:Notability (numbers)#Integers, the number lacks three interesting properties, though it is mentioned in What's Special About This Number? as 198 = 11 + 99 + 88. This discussion is worth having: this is a borderline case, and it's unprecedented for an integer below 260 not to have its own article. There is also no range article in which to keep any content worth saving, in the way that 262 (number) redirects to 260 (number)#262. If the title is to become a redlink, we should also check that no templates are going to break. The current assumption is that all x (number) titles in this range either have articles or redirect to a range article. Certes (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does have properties that one could argue are interesting, like being the number in between a pair of twin primes, but on any such list it's so far down that it's not going to be an example of a number with such a property that would be discussed. Wiki-notability isn't synonymous with "noteworthiness" or "having a nonzero amount of facts that could be said about it"; part of the question is whether the topic is best presented by a stand-alone article. I can't make that case here. XOR'easter (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All of the things that you have been repeatedly removing are also the only things propping up the likes of 147 (number), 148 (number), and 174 (number); namely highways, asteroids, elements, ships, regiments, bus routes, sonnets, psalms, and whatnot. We are actually quite weak when it comes to a strict standard of only the mathematical properties counting. Uncle G (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- 148, at least, looks salvageable. I haven't done the searches necessarily to decide whether I think 147 and 174 can be notable, although I agree that the articles don't make a case for it. I don't actually think that only mathematical properties should count; 666 is notable for non-mathematical reasons, for instance. But I don't think that merely having the number in titles of other articles is worth much; at best, that can go into a "See also" entry with the ((In title)) template. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Update: I edited 147 (number) and 148 (number) to conform more closely to what I think an article like this should look like, in both cases leaving in two non-mathematical reasons why they are notable (they also have enough on the mathematical side). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NNUM. Lkb335 (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I merged it to 190 (number), if not an article it can be the same as 262 (number) and others. The only reason the range wasn't in the article was that they all had separate articles. Of the integers 1 to 1000, 315 are in Category:Integers, the other 685 are all at least redirects to a multiple of 10 or 100 and there is no reason to make this an exception. A865 (talk) 12:13, 10 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn with no remaining deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond H. Thompson[edit]

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

BLP without working references, and not much content Rathfelder (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Literature. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm amused that the deletion sorting says United States and the article says American. That led me completely astray, until I turned up the potted author autobiographies in several of this person's books. This person is a professor emeritus at Acadia University, in Canada. But there's nothing other than author autobiographies, and that university's staff listing WWW page, that I can find. Uncle G (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found 12 published reviews of 5 of his books, only looking at the academic literature (I suspect there may be more in the SF-fanzine world; searching was made a little more difficult by a different Raymond H. Thompson, an archaelogist of the US Southwest). That's enough for WP:AUTHOR. I also fixed his nationality and listed his academic affiliation, sourced to a faculty directory at Acadia U. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. David Eppstein has clearly demonstrated a WP:NAUTHOR pass here. -- asilvering (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - much improved. Happy to withdraw this proposal. Rathfelder (talk) 23:11, 3 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 John Doe#Other variants. Sandstein 19:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Israeli[edit]

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

No sources, unnotable, no added information for ~16 years. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 16:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to John Doe#Other variants, where it's properly mentioned already. Also retain categories as a redirect. Nate • (chatter) 01:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to John Doe#Other variants would indeed be the best solution.TH1980 (talk) 04:22, 6 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 Suremphaa. Sandstein 19:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohanmala Gohain[edit]

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

Currently a lack of consensus in the talk page over this article. Author wants it kept in its current form, and has threatened to re-create the article if deleted. Remaining editors agree it cannot be kept, but aren't sure if it should be deleted while Draft:Mohanmala Gohain is worked on, or redirected to Suremphaa.

Once the copyvio content was removed, we are left with a (initially unattributed) copy-paste of content from Suremphaa. Basically, the subject of this article was the heir to the throne but passed over in favour of the subject of the other article for... reasons. Nothing substantially new is in this article (other than an unreferenced sentence about the cause of death), as it is just a one-paragraph copy-paste from that part of the other article. Personally, I lean towards a redirect, but I can see why some are in favour of deletion while the draft is worked on. Singularity42 (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding a table for compairson:

Comparison of Mohanmala Gohain and Suremphaa
Only substantive content in Mohanmala Gohain	Content from lede of Suremphaa (before Mohanmala Gohain was created)
Mohanmala Gohain couldn't succeed the throne as his face was pitted with smallpox. Because of the norm established after Sulikphaa Lora Roja, that an Ahom prince had to be free from any physical disability, defects or deformities to become a king, His crown was passed to his brother Rajeswar Singha. His brother first act after becoming the king was to exile him to be the Raja of Namrup.	Rudra Singha's third son, Mohanmala Gohain, was considered ineligible for kingship as his face was pitted with smallpox marks. According to the norm established after Sulikphaa Lora Roja, an Ahom prince had to be free from any physical disability, defects or deformities to become a king. The new king was installed with the usual ceremonies. His first act was to exile his brother Mohanmala Gohain as the Raja of Namrup.

Singularity42 (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Singularity42 (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:35, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had edited and make a totally new article about it....I am new to this if I had done something wrong than sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonardondishant (talk • contribs) 17:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and keep draft around We don't need to choose between "redirect and delete the draft" and "delete the article and keep the draft". The article needs work so let's draftify it as there seems to be some potential notability of its own. If the draft ever becomes good enough, we can bring it back to mainspace. In the meantime, there's a meaningful target for redirection so let's use it. Pichpich (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify - my preference for the redirect didn't mean that work would stop on the draft :) Singularity42 (talk) 19:07, 3 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 19:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Las Cruces Academy[edit]

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

The article of this school relies significantly on the school's own website. According to the article, the school has classes until 8th grade, and I'm not familiar with the American education system but I guess that that's until the age of ~12? AFAIK there is a lot of drama going on about whether high schools are notable on their own or if they need a GNG pass, but this educational institution seems to be one level less, so only a general notability guideline pass means that it's notable.

Currently the article does not show a such pass, with the heavy reliance on primary sources. The other one is a database source. A before search results in even more primary sources and coverage mostly related to the school district of the same name. Might be useful as a redirect to Las Cruces Public Schools though? ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 16:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 16:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 16:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 16:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NSCHOOL, a for-profit school must meet WP:ORG. I was only able to find two independent reliable sources with significant coverage[1][2], however both of those are small local media outlets, both are from July 2020, and both are about the impact of COVID restrictions on the school's operations. Although each article provides background information on the school, there is no ongoing coverage or any coverage outside of the local area. Schazjmd (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the creator of this page, just saying that this IS NOT A MEXICAN SCHOOL, IT IS A NEW MEXICAN SCHOOL LOCATED IN THE UNITED STATES. Just clarifying after a user said this was a Mexican school at the top of this page. WikiEditorPublicGood999 (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's a fuck up on my part. Though it doesn't change much since I'm not really familiar with the education system in the US either. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 17:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP as redirect to Las Cruces Public Schools. WikiEditorPublicGood999 (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I conducted a search about this subject earlier today after I interacted with the creator. I found much the same as Schazjmd: some local coverage that provides run-of-the-mill information and/or draws heavily on the testimony of people involved at the school. The subject is not by itself notable under WP:NORG, but could be redirected to Las Cruces, New Mexico#Private schools. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per Schazjmd and Modussiccandi as there is only local, trivial coverage about the school. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing here is not at the level we need for an institution or organization, which is the level articles on schools need to meet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm confused by the sequence of this nomination. Here's why, from Draft:Las Cruces Academy: Revision history: 21:07, March 2, 2022‎ Stwalkerster moved page Las Cruces Academy to Draft:Las Cruces Academy without leaving a redirect: Not ready for mainspace, incubate in draftspace; unsourced except to school's own website (via script). So prior to this AfD nomination, this article was draftified? Aside from that anomaly, we never/hardly-ever keep articles about primary/middle schools, anyway-- at best, they may get a listing on the relevant district page. Nevertheless, shouldn't this article have been deleted in the draftification process? Looks to me like we're wasting brain cells here, and I have none to spare. Good grief. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see this happen daily. Editors move an incomplete article from main space to Draft space and the page creator cuts & pastes the content back into a main space article. So, we have two versions of the article, one in main space and one in Draft space, two page histories. It happens all too frequently and the editors who "draftify" articles that are not ready for main space are simply trying to prevent deletion discussions exactly like this one by allowing the page creator to work on improving the article in Draft space. It's unfortunate that some page creators misunderstand the move to Draft space as a comment on the content and not a way to preserve their work rather than having the page deleted through speedy deletion or AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:08, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Liz, thanks for this insight. Any chance this block might be reinstated with a severe admonishment:
20:11, March 3, 2022 Yamla blocked WikiEditorPublicGood999 with an expiration time of 31 hours (account creation blocked) (Vandalism)

--and both this article and the draft !speedy deleted? Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 05:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The information provided by the sources is not enough for giving a clear idea about some aspects of the school, better citations and sources are required. Foodie Soul (talk) 09:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I originally A7'd this, like an idiot. (A7 isn't allowed on schools.) This article makes no credible claim of significance, which is explicitly a lower bar then notability, notability being what is actually required for an article/ ("There are around 40 children attending the school as of 2020" is kind of a credible claim of insignificance, is it not?) EDIT: On redirect - Las Cruces Academy is not part of Las Cruces Public Schools, and should not be a redirect because someone searching for Las Cruces Academy would not expect an article on a competing school district. casualdejekyll 21:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It turns out the Las Cruces, New Mexico article already has a listing (with 2 secondary sources out of 3 sources!) under the private schools section. No need to list anywhere else-- just leave a redirect to that section. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 23:49, 7 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!} 03:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Overnightscape[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:WEB. The current sources are dead links to blogs and interviews. Being nominated for an award does not contribute to notability, WP:WEBCRIT appears to require winning an award. Even if it did win the award I'm not entirely sure the Podcast Awards is enough to keep a Wikipedia page for something without any coverage in reliable sources. Searching Google, Google News, Google News Archives, Google Books, Google Scholar, and Newspapers.com does not show any significant coverage. The article and a duplicate of the article was previously deleted at AfD here. I attempted to PROD the article and CSD, but was encouraged to go through AfD instead. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find anything besides passing mentions in independent sources. Fails WP:WEB and GNG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:00, 3 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. ✗plicit 14:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Horvath[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. This Sydney Morning Herald article is about her pleading guilty for assault. The Cranbourne News source doesn't even mention her. The article in Sunraysia Daily only has a brief mention of her. Studio Tibor source is primary and unreliable. The only source that provides any real independent coverage is this article from the Life & Style section of The Border Mail, a local newspaper which has very limited circulation. I couldn't find any other source to satisfy the notability criteria. Teemu.cod (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Teemu.cod (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Teemu.cod (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Teemu.cod (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Teemu.cod (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Hungary. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tagged this article for notability a couple of days ago as I couldn't see three good sources (edited to add: under either name). Agree with the analysis above. Tacyarg (talk) 14:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking indepth coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unfortunately I could not find a single RS via Google, Newsbank or the Wikipedia Library. fails GNG. Cabrils (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability, fails WP:GNG. MickyShy (talk) 17:59, 9 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. ✗plicit 14:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Farinet[edit]

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

This biography concerns a person who is, presumably, still alive despite his relatively advanced age (or at least there are no sources to say otherwise). The article is superficially about Monsieur Farinet in his capacity as a composer who self-publishes electronica music on the internet, but the sources concern an occasion on which Nicolas Sarkozy called Monsieur Farinet a "con" (which the article translates as "jerk", although the word in fact refers to the female genitals). In short, what Monsieur Farinet is actually notable for, is being insulted by the President of France. I invite the community to reflect on whether we really ought to be hosting this. —S Marshall T/C 12:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and France. Shellwood (talk) 12:36, 3 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. ✗plicit 12:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

St Paul Biharwe High School[edit]

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

Can't find enough in-depth coverage to show that it meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Uganda. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I was also unable to find supporting sources (searching in English). WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 23:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I could find about the school was a brief mention of it in a government report and a name drop of it in a school listing. Neither of which help for notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom, fails WP:GNG. MickyShy (talk) 18:04, 9 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. ✗plicit 12:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hvnnibvl[edit]

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

This is nothing more than vanity spam. Other than a few shout outs by a popular EDM magazine, there is virtually no meaningful coverage. Searching gives little else and sources like this are anything but reliable. The "releases" on EDM network are not true releases as anyone can write in and have them "release" tehm there. Further, there are no reliable sources reporting is UMG partnership. Sites like EDM sauce, for example require artists to pay to publish their songs, so it's not organic coverage. Cultr doesn't strike me as particularly reliable as there's no insight into their editorial process and the writer of said article doesn't appear to be a member of staff, if they have any. CUPIDICAE💕 17:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I only find the EDM sources as above, nothing notable. Oaktree b (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the above comments and would like to address some things. The UMG partnership can be verified by a read of the comments on the Enter Records homepage which states its' partnership with UMG; this is the label where this artist released the article's referenced UMG release "Wake Up". The EDM Network releases are verifiable as well, as The EDM Network owns Indie Select, previously titled Artist Intelligence Agency, which is where the article's referenced EDM Network releases "Lose" and "No Cover" were released; further, articles on EDM.com / The EDM Network cannot be published by "anyone" as they do have dedicated staff and contributors - for example. The Cultr and EDM Sauce articles can certainly be removed, though I would like to point out that EDM Sauce does not "require" artists to pay for published content on their site - the fact that payment is an option does make the EDM Sauce reference here questionable. This source can also be removed, as it does not mention this artist's contribution to that work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.144.17.177 (talk) 13:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment if we remove EDM as above, I found zero sources. non-notable. Oaktree b (talk)

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz. You deleted this as an expired Prod. Nick has been in the news a lot recently with his new interview series SEEN with the Oscars. He dropped Huff and just goes by Barili now. I'd like to work on the entry. Could you or one of you page watchers please restore it? Thank you Yourculturalscholar (talk) 04:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Huff Barili[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage, promotional. Although there are few mentions in Billboard etc but they are not significant, therefore fails WP:GNG. Kuwatnamuwa (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Argentina. Shellwood (talk) 02:27, 24 February 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 February 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, and England. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a google search for Nick Barili and found articles on him from The Oscars, Deadline, ABC 7, Billboard, Hola, Pop Sugar, Av Club. I'm surprised this page was deleted. Yourculturalscholar (talk) 04:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All I find are articles he's penned for Billboard and the AARP (hip hop is old enough for the AARP to take note? Now I feel old.) No articles about him. Oaktree b (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions argue that universities are automatically notable, but they cite no policy or guideline that says so. They also do not attempt to rebut the argument for deletion that there is insufficient reliable coverage in secondary sources to base a neutral article on. Faced with unrebutted strong "delete" arguments, and weak "keep" ones, I have to find a policy-based consensus to delete. Sandstein 19:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VIT University Jaipur[edit]

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

I didn’t find enough news that will clarify that this university is notable. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 02:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Accredited degree-awarding university. We invariably keep these. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In agreement with Necrothesp. A poor case of nomination. - Hatchens (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOLS. Given sources are either related or listings. A WP:BEFORE did not give any in-depth sources. The Banner talk 13:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Where is it written that all accredited degree awarding universities are notable? WP:school says for profit education organisation are commercial organisations and should follow that. And that would be company related guidelines. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 03:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions have enough coverage to be notable, although that coverage may not be readily available online. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. -Hatchens (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

there is a difference between ‘most’ and ‘all’. May not be readily online means could be elsewhere. But it doesn’t tell us to make assumptions on notability. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 12:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. as per Necrothesp. UA3 (talk) 05:29, 7 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Dilys Buckley-Jones[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD was in 2013. Fails WP:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Searches only found routine mentions confirming she is ambassador but nothing in depth. LibStar (talk) 04:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Canada, and Guatemala. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Africa and Trinidad and Tobago. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ambassadors are not default notable, and the sourcing is not enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ I have started adding in coverage of her work, which covers multiple countries and languages. As of now, the additions are single sentences, but I will expand them to a more coherent set of statements as time allows. If others are interested in searching for sources, she is easily found in the news as Dilys Buckley-Jones. DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Change to weak keep - the 1967 article in the Calgary Herald[3] is an entire article about her. I believe that news article and the many shorter mentions are barely enough for a keep. DaffodilOcean (talk) 18:13, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:59, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Seventeen references have been added, and article has been expanded since nomination - the 1967 article is quite in-depth, along with the 1984 G&M article. Nfitz (talk) 19:24, 6 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 Tornadoes of 2020#April 19–20. At the end of the day we have only one, weak, "keep". Sandstein 19:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado outbreak of April 19–20, 2020[edit]

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

This article contains the exact same information as Tornadoes of 2020#April 19–20 and List of United States tornadoes in April 2020. Seems like an unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK that doesn't add anything to the subject, but merely copies what is available elsewhere. United States Man (talk) 03:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Noting for reference that the article is an article created during the WikiProject Weather/2022 C/B Class Drive and is C-Class. Elijahandskip (talk) 05:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - As the article seems like, with work, it could be improved. Also pointing out that this is not a true WP:CONTENTFORK as majority of the Tylertown-New Augusta, Mississippi section is not listed at Tornadoes of 2020#April 19–20. Also noting that the creator did not mention attribution during a copy/paste at creation. Elijahandskip (talk) 05:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That entire Tylertown-New Augusta, Mississippi section is copied from the tornado table at List of United States tornadoes in April 2020, so yes it is a fork. United States Man (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This doesn't need an article. The section was good enough. All these article for these minor outbreaks is starting to annoy me. I was a newbie back then and if I didn't make an article for it, then I know that it doesn't need one. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand it wasn’t notable, and I only added two sentences, but I did it because I thought people would prefer to see both in one place and has been done before on the article for the August 24, 2016 outbreak. So I am a bit confused on why we’re deleting this article but not that one. 173.251.82.226 (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Courtesy link: Tornado outbreak of August 24, 2016
  - That article seems worse off than this one. I would not be opposed to seeing that one be merged/deleted if this one is. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 12:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - See WP:OTHERSTUFF but yeah, it probably isn't needed. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I requested that for deletion. 173.251.82.226 (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Redirect to Tornadoes of 2020#April 19–20. Most of this article is just a rehash of what can already be found at the yearly article and List of United States tornadoes in April 2020. Information on the Tylertown tornado is already present in the latter. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:58, 3 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Rohatinsky[edit]

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

Non-notable runner. Participated only in collegiate events and failed to qualify for the Olympics. Natg 19 (talk) 07:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 07:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 07:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this appears to be significant coverage of Rohatinsky. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought local coverage of youth athletic achievements was specifically excluded from notability consideration? JoelleJay (talk) 21:53, 5 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!} 05:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:57, 3 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. ✗plicit 12:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ponvandu[edit]

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

Lacks reliable sources, can't find any. All links used here are spam. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:55, 3 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NFTBooks[edit]

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

Contested PROD [4]. Fails NWEB/NCORP - no independent coverage, sourced to press releases and business/crypto listings. KH-1 (talk) 11:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 11:25, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Citations are not acceptable, some are press releases, some are from Crypto sites which are deemed unreliable. Medium is a blogging site, which is also not acceptable. Chelokabob (talk) 22:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftafy Fails GNG. At first glance, the source that appears to have reported, that isn't from unreliable crypto sites, is the yahoo finance article. But looking closer this is just a copy of the GlobeNewswire press release and so can't be called independent (and even if it could one source isn't enough for notability). Additionally I could find no sources through a search on google (apart from the crypto press) and therefore I can't currently see how this can be notable.

I notice that the article had an in creation tag, which I removed as the page hadn't been edited in 2 days. If editors of this article still think it can be developed than I'm not opposed to moving it to a draft. Cakelot1 (talk) 11:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, coverage seems mainly press releases or similar. LibStar (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability criteria, references are mainly relying on primary sourcing. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:56, 9 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The In-Between (musical)[edit]

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

Completed in 2012, the musical has never been put on stage. The only thing that materialized was a CD, but apart from routine reviews at Broadway World and Playbill I do not see anything substantial that would satisfy GNG and/or NMUSIC requirements. No such user (talk) 10:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: at best this is WP:TOOSOON, even though the album has been out for a decade now. The Broadway review article is a review of that album, but everything else are simply press releases and announcements of a musical which doesn't yet exist. If it does eventually go into production and becomes notable, the article can be recreated then. Richard3120 (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I wonder if this article has counterparts that were deleted in the past, because it was created in 2020 for a musical that was last described as "upcoming" in 2012 then never happened. Long after the theater production fizzled, it would make more sense to create an article about the album that could then stand or fall on whether the album is notable (it is not). There could also be an article about composer Laura Tisdale that briefly lists this attempted musical, if Tisdale were notable in her own right (questionable at best, given a shortage of reliable media coverage). I'm not sure which WP policy applies for an article whose existence just plain doesn't make sense, which is the case for this one about the musical. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:28, 6 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 keep. Withdrawn by nom. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Girl Giant and the Monkey King[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:NBOOK. Does not appear to have significant independent coverage.~~ Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 09:59, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and California. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was critically reviewed in Booklist [5] (starred review), [6]; Publishers Weekly [7] (starred review); AudioFile [8]; Kirkus Reviews [9] (starred review, Best Book of 2020); School Library Journal [10]; and The Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books [11]. Passes WP:NBOOK #1 and WP:GNG. DanCherek (talk) 12:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's also this article covering the author's creative process for the novel, through Publisher's Weekly. I admittedly wish that there were newspaper reviews and the like, but so far this seems like it would be enough to squeak by. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a middle grade novel - not a demographic that regularly reads newspapers. So reviews in industry journals is what you'd tend to expect. -- asilvering (talk) 05:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The reviews listed above are enough to pass WP:NBOOK at this point. Rorshacma (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Overwhelmingly a pass of WP:NBOOK -- 7 reviews is much more than "squeaking by", since the requirement is only 2. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. Looks like a WP:BEFORE failure. Jclemens (talk) 08:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yeah, I guess there's enough. I couldn't find any of this when I PRODed it a week ago. Withdrawing. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 10:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reviews given here are more than enough for passing it. Foodie Soul (talk) 09:22, 7 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!} 06:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Made In Baltics singles[edit]

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

All this information was on Made In Baltics which went to AfD and was delete. I question if this article is still needed, if it didn't help the main article pass GNG, does this one pass?? Govvy (talk) 09:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Lists. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of these singles are proven notable by Wikipedia standards. Note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Made In Baltics artists was deleted despite a lot of the bands having their own Wikipedia articles. Anyway, when this article is deleted, Category:Made in Baltics should be deleted also. Dream Focus 10:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NLIST. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:04, 5 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 Altomünster#Municipal structure. Sandstein 13:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xyger[edit]

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

Flunks WP:GEOLAND - German article refers to it as a "de:Einzelsiedlung" or "single settlement" - a single house on farmland. Not a village, not even an unrecognized settlement, just a house. PROD contested because it was recreated after being PROD'd in 2008. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Altomünster - Xyger is considered a village within the municipality of Altomunster, and it is already mentioned there. I was going to redirect the title there myself after reverting the inapplicable PROD but PmC was faster than me and started the AfD. I think it would be fine to withdraw the AfD and redirect the title, unless PmC you oppose redirection? Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 06:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I kind of do. GNIS has it as a populated place, which is beneath a village, and per the nomination, the German article backs that up by referring to it as a "single settlement". The Altomünster article doesn't have a source for the claim that it's a village. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I really should expand Geographic Names Information System. I actually have sources for at least some of the problems with "populated place". See User talk:Hog Farm#GNIS locations. It really is very much not something that has any bearing on whether an encyclopaedia article should exist, because it simply doesn't carry the information needed to make such a determination.
    If we've learned anything from the GNIS mess, it should be that where the GNIS says "populated place", and where Wikipedia editors have translated that into the information-free cop-out "unincorporated community", we need to find out what the thing is. My general approach for U.S. articles is to find an actual decent gazetteer that says what the thing is. For the mainly 19th century names on maps that come up, Lippincott's or Polk's gazetteers are useful, because they actually have consistent terminology such as "post-village" or "post-town", or "township", or "post-office".
    So for this the best bet is to try to find out what the thing is from something better than the GNIS. A decent German gazetteer, for example.
    Uncle G (talk) 07:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, this source from the German article gives its type as Einöde, which is the "single settlement" thing I was referring to. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - I found a gazetteer from 1868 with the nice short title Bavaria: Landes- und Volkskunde des Königreichs Bayern : mit einer Uebersichtskarte des diesseitigen Bayerns in 15 Blättern. Topographisch-statistisches Handbuch des Königreichs Bayern nebst alphabetischem Orts-Lexikon. that says
        Xyger ( Gsieger ) , E. , t . Pf . Wollomoos , 10 Einw . , 6 Geb.
        So it had a population of 10 in 1868 and was near Wollomoos [de]. A quick skim didn't reveal a glossary of terms for "E." or "t.". "E." is likely the same as yours. "Pf." is "Pfarrdorf"/Pfarrdorf, but that's Wollomoos. So now we know what it even is, contrary to the information-free description in the article, the next step is whether it's documented in depth for any reason. Uncle G (talk) 07:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        So far, none of this is contradicting my point. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        But without it, you wouldn't have had your ducks in a row to counter the inevitable arguments to keep because it's a "community". Because now you can say that per sources it's a populated "Weiler" of roughly 10 people, 6 farm buildings, 5 horses, and 22 cattle; with no school, no (Catholic) priest, and no post office; and has been just that for over two centuries. And then you can point to the Wikipedia is not a Verzeichniß policy. ☺
        Gsieger . Einöd · Höfe , Wollomoos
        — Alphabetisches Verzeichniß aller zum Ober-Donau-Kreis gehörigen Städte, Märkte, Dörfer, Weiler und Einöden ... zu Ende des Jahres 1818, p. 65
        
        Xyger, W. , 2. k. Pf. u. Schule Wollomoos 2,5 Kil. z. Post Altomünster 8,5 Kil., 10 Einw., 6 Geb., 5 P., 22 Rv.
        — Vollständiges Ortschaften-Verzeichniss des Königreichs Bayern 1877, p. 13
        Uncle G (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it isn't a re-creation at all. The previous article was about a purported city in a wholly different part of Germany with a population of roughly 37,000; challenged for being a hoax. Creating something else entirely isn't really challenging the deletion of that. Uncle G (talk) 06:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep although it doesn't seem to be a settlement or administrative unit it does appear to have some coverage and a stated population. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Crouch, Swale, "stated population" is not a notability criteria under WP:GEOLAND. Listing in gazetteers & similar is explicitly not considered coverage under GEOLAND. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - It may qualify as being "legally recognized" if the stated population comes from a census as opposed to another website that states it has around a population of X. The exception GEOLAND gives is census tracts which are simply random areas which this does not appear to be. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to municipality, the base level of government. Dewiki says "The place with two farms had nine residents in 2016, all of whom are related" and it should be obvious that this is not notable. Reywas92^Talk 14:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Altomünster as a small village in a larger municipality. Sometimes these villages can be notable, but I'd need more sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:23, 4 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don Martin (journalist)[edit]

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

Non-notable local journalist - no RS about his career that rises to the level of GNG. Juniperesque (talk) 03:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Juniperesque (talk) 03:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Television, Canada, and New York. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails Wikipedia:NJOURNALIST no significant independent coverage. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 10:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Firstly, he's not just a local journalist; he started out that way, but later became a national columnist and a national anchor on a national news channel, which are roles that do satisfy NJOURNALIST. Secondly, this was a more balanced and better-referenced article in the past, which was turned into a primary sourced rewrite of his CTV staff profile only a few months ago by a new editor whose edit history carries hints of "paid public relations consultant" — but I've returned and properly sourced some of the content that got scrubbed last fall. Thirdly, for a person whose career has stretched over 40 years, not all of his best sourcing is necessarily going to Google well, but instead will have to be retrieved from archives, and I've recovered more than enough proper non-CTV sourcing from ProQuest to eliminate the problem. Bearcat (talk) 13:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with thanks to Bearcat for fixing the article up. See WP:HEY. The sources now cited in the article appear to establish notability (particularly when combined with possible offline sources), and while I don't have access to all of them I assume that they provide significant coverage. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:01, 3 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!} 05:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Okunoren Twins[edit]

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

advertising, and non-notable: Ref.1 is a collection of photos of their clothing; ref.2 a mere mention; ref 3 doesn't work; ref 4 a brief PR pseudo-article that resembles a paid advertisement , ref 5, a PR piece made up almost entirely of their own words, 6. another brief PR pseudo-article that resembles a paid advertisement DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Fashion, and Nigeria. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons stated above, looks like an advertisement. Oaktree b (talk) 14:24, 3 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P2pnet[edit]

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

Page is poorly written and structured along with only three sources, one being from the website itself. Most (>70%) of the information seems to have came from the author of the article and is not cited. M4sugared (talk) 04:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. M4sugared (talk) 04:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. M4sugared (talk) 04:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These days, this topic would be dealt with in a niche subreddit, way out-of-date and opinionated writing, and very poorly sourced. Nate • (chatter) 23:08, 3 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 Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Pilaz (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Paulet, 18th Marquess of Winchester[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:ANYBIO. British nobleman with no sufficient significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. All of the sources are deprecated peerage websites (with the exception of Burke's peerage, which is only reliable for genealogy). Peers Magazine, while not deprecated, belongs to that category too. His entry in Who's Who (UK) is also considered generally unreliable per consensus at WP:RSP. Pilaz (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Withdrawn. Meets WP:NPOL, although in my opinion doesn't meet WP:BASIC. WP:BIOSPECIAL would apply here, but it's probably best not to drag it out at AfD. Pilaz (talk) 14:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On balance Delete. I had a look on the Hansard site, suspecting that he went to South Africa under apartheid and therefore wouldn't have contributed much before the 1999 reform, and indeed there were just a few contributions and then nothing between 1973 and just before he lost that right. So not really notable as a politician and, in the modern world, not really notable for his title either. (Whereas there are some post-1999 hereditary peers who are notable for other reasons, such as the current Earl of Shaftesbury for his previous life about as far removed from the hereditary peerage as you can get.) RobinCarmody (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Certainly a member of the House of Lords is notable? He was a member for over thirty years according to the UK Parliament website. And it looked like he actually participated, having made speeches on at least four occasions in 1973. He also has a page entry in Debrett's, which is considered a RS by WP:RSP; and he is the highest ranking marquess in the UK. --Kbabej (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Debrett's is only reliable with respect to genealogical information, and is hardly WP:SIGCOV. And if WP:POLITICIAN was met, a merge under WP:BIOSPECIAL would likely be in order here. Pilaz (talk) 12:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note that I have never known an article on a member of a national legislature, including the House of Lords, to be deleted at AfD. Consensus is very clear on this matter. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Pilaz: LoL, What a WP:IDONTLIKE case. There is not possible to delete the articles about members of the Parliament. I've never seen as my experience. How a joke. 🤣. VocalIndia (talk) 03:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN as a member of a national legislature. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Nonsense AfD. A member of a national parliament is automatically notable on Wikipedia. VocalIndia (talk) 03:45, 4 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!} 03:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Naved Parvez (Music Composer)[edit]

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

Non notable music composer. Article probably contain false info. Article claims the person worked with lots of song and list them but i wasn't able to verify. No WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG, WP:SINGER. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 02:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Television, and Bangladesh. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's an undeclared conflict of interest here. The author of the article has a close professional relationship with the subject and presumably wants to promote his own work. I'm going to block him regardless of the result of this discussion. Deb (talk) 09:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 14:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Deb —MdsShakil (talk) 17:40, 9 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!} 03:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Masha Islam[edit]

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

Non notable singer. Other than some interview, didn't find any sigcov. Fails WP:GNG, WP:SINGER. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 02:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Bangladesh. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, and Television. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 03:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Fails GNG. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 10:00, 3 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!} 01:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rafay Rashdi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This still doesn't show notability for this producer. Most of the credits there, he isn't even the lead producer or mentioned in the infobox. Has been tendentiously moved from draft to mainspace multiple times. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Saqib, Cjhard, Bearian, GauchoDude, Scope_creep from previous AFDs. Has notability improved since then? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 01:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not notable and also fails WP:GNG and WP: FILMMAKER . AAhap³⁶ (talk • contribs) 07:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per previous nominations and deletions. There needs to be some sort of protection to stop this happening. Cjhard (talk) 03:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - it appears, assuming the links are correct, that he's had a few more roles. However, the films have been all made-for-television movies or single episodes of television series. Arguably, he's marginally notable, but based on the past two AfDs, I'm still leaning to delete. Again, I reiterate, that assistant directors are run of the mill. If someone can find a good magazine article about him (not an interview) I would change my !vote. Bearian (talk) 15:23, 4 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.