< April 30	May 02 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Eat Bulaga!. Editors can include any important stuff to the target article. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 06:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Eat Bulaga! segments[edit]

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

Article too large and filled with trivial information; covers non-notable topic Urban Versis 32 (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Urban Versis 32 (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The parent article is notable and although the sourcing isn't great here, it is sourced. The page needs serious trimming, but deletion is not cleanup. Miniapolis 00:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as the contents of the article are not put in context of why listing every single segment in great detail is important for a non-fan. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete irrelevant fancruft info, should be covered VERY LIGHTLY in the parent article or not at all. Dronebogus (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eat Bulaga! as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Important parts of it can be covered in the main article per WP:PRESERVE. SBKSPP (talk) 01:12, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Game Show Network. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Faux Pause[edit]

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

Very short lived show. Only source cited is Time, which gives it a paragraph mention in an article about game shows as a whole. Searching on GNews, GBooks, and Newspapers.com turned up nothing. So obscure that, outside of asking the producer on Facebook, no one knows how many episodes it even had. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Previously listed at AFD in 2007 with result of "no consensus". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: the source-finding wizard on line two. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Game Show Network per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Thank you for the ping. I found one reliable source that provide significant coverage about the subject, one likely unreliable source that provided significant coverage about the subject, and several reliable sources that provided less significant coverage about the subject. Here are the sources I found about the subject:
1. Gerds, Warren (1997-12-12). "UWGB grad's new job: Teasing TV game shows". Green Bay Press-Gazette. Archived from the original on 2022-05-02. Retrieved 2022-05-02 – via Newspapers.com.
  This article provides significant coverage about the subject. The article notes: "The Hollywood saga of plucky Mary Gallagher continues. ... Monday, she will report to work as co-host of a new show being made for the new Game Show Network. ... She telephoned within hours of landing the part, so she didn't have a lot of details about Faux Pause, a play on "faux pas," which is French for "blunder." ... Interestingly, the show is built along the lines of Mystery Science Theater 3000, which had its origins in creator Joel Hodgson's bent way of watching late-night TV in Green Bay. ... Faux Pause will consist of some sketch material written by a small staff of writers and lots of ad-libbing while watching game shows."
2. Seidelman, Robert. "#132 - Faux Pause. A new look at game shows through beer goggles and bad writing". Game Show Garbage. Archived from the original on 2022-05-02. Retrieved 2022-05-02.
  This Game Show Garbage review provides significant coverage about the subject, but Game Show Garbage likely is not a reliable source.
3. Petrozzello, Donna (1998-05-04). "The name of the game. Game Show Network makes a play for MSOs with promotional support and interactive games". Broadcasting & Cable. Vol. 128, no. 19. p. 95. ProQuest 1016956033.
  The article provides two sentences of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Game Show's newest original development takes a humorous approach with Faux Pause. Slated to debut this month, the series is a satiric commentary—akin to Siskel & Ebert—in which comedians perched in lounge chairs criticize B-rated game shows for laughs."
4. Stein, Joel (1998-07-13). "Television: How to Survive Summer. The stars of your favorite network shows may be on vacation. But cable's are still working". Time. Archived from the original on 2022-05-02. Retrieved 2022-05-02.
  The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Game Show Network ... The original programming can be stunningly bad (in particular, avoid the "comedy" show Faux Pause), but the repeats are groovy."
5. Gerds, Warren (1998-06-19). "Tomlin gets Hall of Fame honors". Green Bay Press-Gazette. Archived from the original on 2022-05-02. Retrieved 2022-05-02 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article provides several sentences of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Premiere: Marry Gallagher's prime-time Game Show Network show, Faux Pause, starts Monday. A University of Wisconsin-Green Bay graduate, Gallagher is co-host of the show that teases old game shows. Faux Pause will run at 8 p.m. Monday through Saturday. The relatively new network is available only on satellite in this area. We'll hear more about the stand-up comedian and actress and her show."
There is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Faux Pause to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Game Show Network I agree not notable enough on its own. Can merge without losing much. ContentEditman (talk) 13:22, 2 May 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. No consensus for a redirect, which means that one may be created and then challenged if desired. Sandstein 07:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Boy Meets Grill[edit]

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

Non-notable show. Unsourced since 2009. Previously deleted via PROD in 2006 Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is one of those instances when you can find a plethora of search and news hits over the years, but I don't believe any suitably assert notability. It proves this show exists and that it has broadcasted for nearly 20 years, but I can't see any WP:SIGCOV or reputable reviews (or any for that matter). The PROD was in 2006 and had it not been for this, 16 years ago, the nom's accidental prod would have been enough to delete as it went uncontested (it should be clarified by TenPoundHammer in the statement that it wasn't deleted in 2006, but was a contested PROD). Still, I don't see any merit in the article when searching. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bobby Flay. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 16:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone searching for "Boy Meets Grill" are probably not searching for the host of the show. His own wiki page indicates he hosted up to 2011 and isn't known exclusively for this show, so I am unsure what a redirect achieves. I did also consider suitable deletion alternatives. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taso Mikroulis[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Couldn't find independent sources that even mention him and his IMDB credits don't help. KidAd • SPEAK 23:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDb is not a reliable source, we need to stop treating it as such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of common or similar words in English and Persian[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of common or similar words in English and Persian

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

I've been meaning to nominate this page for deletion for a while and never got to it. Earlier today, IAmNitpicking (talk · contribs) tried to nominate it for deletion but did not do the nomination properly so I'm re-nominating it for deletion. IAmNitpicking's original rationale is given below and my own two cents is given below theirs. Pichpich (talk) 23:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Iran. Pichpich (talk) 23:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale by IAmNitpicking (in italics):

I am nominating this article for deletion for two reasons:

1)It lacks notability. I question whether anyone has a use for this specific list outside the very narrow field of comparative linguistics, and in that case a more scholarly venue would be appropriate. In fact ...

2)It is not encyclopedic in nature. This topic is too specialized to fit a general encyclopedia, as mentioned above. IAmNitpicking (talk) 20:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are multiple problems with this article but the main one is that it's original research. There's quite a bit of wiggle room with a word as fuzzy as "similar" so most of the entries are probably due to chance. The article fails to distinguish between words that are similar because they possibly have a common origin (which is of some interest) and those that just happen to be similar (which is of no interest whatsoever). The article fails to demonstrate that this is a notable topic that's been the subject of rigorous study so there are WP:GNG concerns as well. Pichpich (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pichpich. IAmNitpicking (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I’m lost by all the poorly formatted comments above but this seems like an obvious case of “Wikipedia is not a speculative etymology work” Dronebogus (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. English and Persian are both Indo-European, so of course they'll have a large number of cognates. But this list doesn't stop there, it indiscriminately includes common borrowings (say, from Arabic or Greek) as well as purely coincidental similarities. Even if the list got pared down to some rigorous subset of these and sources were added, it would still not be encyclopedic. – Uanfala (talk) 11:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons @Pichpich quoted above. IAmNitpicking (talk) 18:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A scholarly list based on etymology and genuine cognates (like dokhtar/daughter) might be useful in a linguistics article, but this is just a mishmash of cognates, parallel borrowings, and words that "look similar" to the author. Athel cb (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources haven't indicated how these words are exactly "common" or "similar". Yoonadue (talk) 06:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of plug-in electric vehicles currently available in Australia[edit]

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

WP:NOTCATALOG. Numberguy6 (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Australia. Numberguy6 (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete extreme case of WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia is not an up-to-the-minute purchasing guide. Electric cars are getting common enough that listing WP:INDISCRIMINATE collections of individual vehicles is pointless. Dronebogus (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like a catalog of non-notable examples. desmay (talk) 23:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. It is not encyclopedic to provide a list currently available and upcoming vehicle models for a particular market. Ajf773 (talk) 02:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Both. Per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Only the general article, Plug-in electric vehicles in Australia, is encyclopedic. Electric vehicle ownership in Australia is a spinoff off the main. Needs headers if not condensing and merging back. gidonb (talk) 02:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Pointless. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 02:06, 7 May 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. Star Mississippi 01:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Benner[edit]

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

Highly promotional article that does not meet notability guidelines. All the current sources are either dead links or social media, and a WP:BEFORE search does not turn up any reliable sources. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 21:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and New York. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 21:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 8 sources, one is instagram. not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Institute on the Constitution[edit]

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

No significant coverage per WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Maryland. SL93 (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree there is very little coverage for this group/office. Unless someone can make a much better case for notability it should be deleted. ContentEditman (talk) 13:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A google search found a lot of hits, but none of the coverage seemed significant and independent from reliable sources. I don't see anything that would indicate any WP notability criteria is satisfied. Merely existing is not sufficient grounds for having an article. Papaursa (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Johnel-NG[edit]

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

completely and utterly non-notable sock spam (see Johnel NG - no meaningful in depth coverage to be found, the only sources in the article and in a deep search are press releases/paid for PRAXIDICAE💕 20:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a few Nigerian music sources like Nigerian Tribune,[1] City People Magazine and [2] BellaNaija I don't know any of these but they're apparently notable publications. This seems like enough to meet gng. The page needs some work but I've cleaned it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gusty Guy (talk • contribs) 21:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Anyone who looks at these can easily tell they're not reliable sources - they're silly "wiki bio" entries or outright garbage. PRAXIDICAE💕 21:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominatior's arguments are not convincing. We have two independent publications with reasonably in-depth coverage, and said sources are quality enough to have their own wikipedia pages and are independently notable media. I'm not seeing anything about the publications themselves to indicate they are unreliable, so in the absence of a cogent argument for deletion it's a keep. Just because it was used as a sitelink on wikidata recently doesn't guarantee them non-notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gusty Guy (talk • contribs) 21:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC) (You can only cast one vote, Gusty Guy, I've struck out the duplicate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Keep Nigerian Tribune and BellaNaija are used in many Nigerian Wikipedia articles for verification. Therefore, this subject is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandihub (talk • contribs) 22:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Delete – Fails GNG, author has undeclared COI and evidently does not appreciate our notability guidelines or AFC process. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 23:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per Praxidicae, this is a blatant promotional autobiographical piece that fails to satisfy any notability criteria/criterion. Furthermore I believe socking to be a factor here. I’m moving to file an SPI if one hasn’t already been filed. Celestina007 (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Per Gusty Guy There is no sign of promotion or autobiography piece. The content in this article are referenced strongly on commonly used Nigerian reliable sources. Grandihub (talk) 06:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Socks blocked. MER-C 10:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - not a good faith attempt to contribute to the encyclopedia as evidenced by the sockpuppetry. I would have speedy deleted this spam, but it would be more beneficial to have an AFD outcome on the books. MER-C 10:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — fails the general notability guidelines. S1ources are promotional and paid. Reading Beans ^{Talk to the Beans?} 16:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pure spam Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per the sentiments above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Johnel X has now moved this back to draftspace. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 03:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be moved back. There is no consensus to draftify from this discussion and the discussion should be allowed to reach its conclusion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the article back and readded the AFD tag that had been removed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt not-notable and persistent socking. KylieTastic (talk) 13:41, 8 May 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 06:56, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kovvuri Gangireddy[edit]

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

No indication of notability or significant coverage PepperBeast (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. PepperBeast (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:BIO, has never held elected office or appointed governmental office, so does not qualify as politician.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly does not satisfy Wikipedia’s notability criteria. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 14:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Momma[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously kept in 2017 per WP:SOURCESEXIST, but most of the sources are trivial mentions or 404. Could find nothing better Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very interesting article, but not necessary. ArdynOfTheAncients (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This comment doesn't make any sense. NemesisAT (talk) 11:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ArdynOfTheAncients Your argument seems to be based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:ITSNOTUSEFUL. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Revare, Brad (2006-05-04). "Hey, Wilmer, who's 'Yo Momma'?". The Kansas City Star. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.
  The review notes: "The most brain-dead show on cable television right now is "Yo Momma" on MTV. The show pits the best "clowners" (MTV's word, not mine) from across Los Angeles, representing their districts, battling each other for the title of best trash-talker in the city. Wilmer Valderrama, the host of the show, speaks in a phony Hispanic accent to show how hard he is. ... Wilmer also has help from several judges who rate the contestants on crucial categories such as delivery, energy and the all important sting(!)."
2. Williams, Lloyd (2006-05-12). "POV: Yo Momma!". Jackson Free Press. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.
  The review notes: "Recently, MTV debuted a new reality series entitled "Yo Momma" ostensibly inspired by the sort of braggadocio found not only in 8 Mile, but in the average hip-hop music video. Picture an unplugged version of gangsta rap, trash talk sans samples and beats, where all you hear is the loudmouth shouting. ... Though only on the air for a few weeks, the show has already shot up the charts, and presently enjoys the third highest rating among all cable programs in the coveted teen demographic. Given its sudden popularity, I decided to check out an episode and was frankly quite shocked at the offensive repartee, which struck me as almost deliberately designed to antagonize and inflame along ethnic lines, especially the insensitive barbs aimed at blacks by white participants."
3. Dayter, Daria (2017). "Orality and Literacy in Verbal Duelling". In Mühleisen, Susanne (ed.). Contested Communities: Communication, Narration, Imagination. Leiden: Brill Publishers. p. 31. doi:10.1163/9789004335288_005. ISBN 978-90-04-33526-4. ISSN 0924-1426. Retrieved 2022-04-30.
  The book notes: "I have attempted to overcome the problem by drawing modern data from the TV shows Yo Momma, which ran on MTV in 2006–2008, and ... Yo Momma is a reality television game show which features verbal contests of adolescent boys and girls strikingly similar to those described by Labov and other scholars of the dozens. In its advertising campaign, Yo Momma is marketed as real-life verbal battles among lower-class urban kids, conveniently shot on camera in their traditional hang-out locations in New York, Atlanta, and Los Angeles. The show is brought into an improvised studio in a run-down depot only for the final round. Therefore, producers endow it with almost ethnographic recording-like value."
4. Ogunnaike, Lola (2006-04-03). "Talkin' Trash With Wilmer Valderrama, Creator of MTV's 'Yo Momma'". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.
  The article notes: "As the host and creator of MTV's new reality series "Yo Momma," a no-holds-barred competition that pits Southern California's toughest jokesters against one another, Mr. Valderrama has had to think a lot about such matters lately. "Yo mamma is so fat" jokes are the backbone of his new series, which celebrates put-downs once reserved for schoolyard recesses. ... "Yo Mamma," to be shown weekdays at 6 p.m., has its debut tonight. ... The show's early round resembles an insult battle royal, with contestants verbally destroying one another in a free-for-all, with jokes ranging from the comical to the absurd"
5. Flowers, Shanna (2006-10-31). "MTV-style campaigns drown out real news". The Roanoke Times. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.
  The article notes: "I'm thinking specifically of "Yo Momma," the MTV show on which contestants snipe and hurl nasty insults at each other as the crowd encircling them eggs them on. I caught a snippet of "Yo Momma" last week, and it makes for voyeuristic entertainment for the first few jokes. Then after a few minutes, if you're someone other than an adolescent boy who finds humor in those base "yo momma so fat" insults, you click the remote, knowing there is something more substantial on television you could be viewing."
6. Speight, Kimberly (2005-08-12). "Valderrama, MTV talk some trash in 'Yo Momma'". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 390, no. 23. ISSN 0018-3660. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30 – via Gale.
  The article notes: "MTV has given the green light to "Yo Momma," a trash-talking comedy competition series created and hosted by Wilmer Valderrama. The cable network has ordered 20 episodes of the show, which features Valderrama searching the country for the funniest trash-talkers to battle in each episode for a cash prize of $1,000 and the chance to move forward in an overall tournament. "Yo Momma" will air daily in the afternoons for four consecutive weeks starting in the first quarter."
7. "MTV picks up 'Yo Momma'". United Press International. 2006-10-23. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.
  The article notes: "After the success of its first season on MTV, the TV series "Yo Momma" has been picked up by the U.S. cable network for a third season on the air. The series, which features contestants using mother jokes as a weapon, had been optioned by MTV for a third season prior to Monday's launch of the comedy's second season, said The New York Daily News."
8. Jordan, Harrison (2006-04-27). "MTV Canada: breath of fresh reality". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.
  The article notes: "Yo Momma. Two contestants get to diss one another on this show hosted, directed, and written by Wilmer Valderrama of That '70s Show. This show seems stupid at first, although once you watch it, you can see how funny the disses are, and how competitive the contestants are. Wilmer and his posse decide who wins the $1,000 prize."
9. Brown, Justin (2012-04-11). "Remembering Yo Momma". Times Leader. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.
  The article notes: "At the time, "Yo Momma" was a popular show on MTV hosted by Wilmer Valderrama, where the best trash-talkers across America insulted each other's mother through a series of intense battles that usually took place near a chain-linked fence."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Yo Momma to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:35, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources shared by Cunard establish notability per WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 11:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources provided by Cunard, with more than satisfy WP:V and WP:GNG.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources posted by Cunard. FozzieHey (talk) 17:52, 7 May 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. Broad agreement that there is sufficient sourcing to meet GNG. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Schmidt[edit]

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

Despite having been the writer of several notable hits, it has not resulted in WP:SIGCOV for the individual. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources I already added, which consist of third party coverage. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Which sources discuss the subject at length? Let me help you...

"Industry Interview". The Sound Alarm. Archived from the original on 14 May 2014. Retrieved 9 April 2014. archived interview by: Matt Nistler in a no-defunct online publication
"Quietdrive Recording New EP". Absolute Punk. Retrieved 9 April 2014. - dead
"Sing It Loud (Track by Track)". Alternative Press. Retrieved 9 April 2014. - dead
"The Role Call". MTV. Retrieved 9 April 2014. - dead
http://www.wevolvemusic.com/ - dead
"Florida Georgia Line Members Launch Publishing Company". Music Row. 2015. Retrieved April 30, 2015. "Tree Vibez Music, has signed new talent Jordan Schmidt". That's the only mention of the subject.
https://www.billboard.com/music/country/jordan-schmidt-interview-producer-drunk-me-lil-bit-9603658/ - Good piece that goes into detail
https://people.com/country/country-artist-renee-blair-engaged-producer-jordan-schmidt/ - fluff piece, but lengthy.
"Jason Aldean – Chart history". Billboard Country Airplay for Jason Aldean. Retrieved 2016-07-18. - another artist's chart, no details on subject
"Jason Aldean – Chart history". Billboard Hot Country Songs for Jason Aldean. Retrieved 2016-07-18. - another artist's chart, no details on subject
"Nick Fradiani – Chart history". Billboard Pop Songs Airplay for Nick Fradiani. Retrieved 2016-11-05. - another artist's chart, no details on subject

Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You answered your own question. 7 and 8 are good in depth sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Except I don't know if People is really SIGCOV. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Sammi Brie: and @Caldorwards4: for their expertise. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be sufficient number of sources, as provided above, to meet notability. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 05:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree GNG is met. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:41, 9 May 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. Speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT#1. The nominator has withdrawn the nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Crowell[edit]

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

Despite having been the writer of several notable hits, it has not resulted in any WP:SIGCOV for the individual. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, writer of several #1 hits, producer of several notable albums, two-time Grammy nominee. Biographical info in this source and this source. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why do the Billboard write-ups never come up in my searches? Good finds. Withdrawn. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Star Mississippi 01:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good Entertainment[edit]

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

De-prodded because "obvious merge target", but I don't see a place to merge it to. Stone Music Entertainment and CJ Group do not mention the label at all. No sourcing found. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and South Korea. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would say merge it to a group like Shinhwa but pretty much every artist and trainee under the label is notable. Heck even IU was a trainee there, it's hard to figure out where to put such a redirect. - K-popguardian (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Shinhwa. A merge to the parent company could work, too, but the locus of interest is really the band, who were responsible for more or less everything that the label did. Someone with language/domain expertise may be able to find sufficient media coverage to justify a separate article despite all this, so there should be no prejudice against reconstituting the article in the future. Chubbles (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I find this whole situation odd. Shinhwa and Battle's page both have very specific things about the company, such as Shinhwa's contract not starting with the label till 2004 and them re-signing in 2006. Older revisions of this page mention how specific members of Shinhwa left the label early, also mentioning other artists not currently listed on the page, but none of them have any sources whatsoever. Even versions of this article dating back to the 2000's, there's no sources to back any of these statements. I've tried doing as much digging as possible on Naver but I couldn't find too much there either (I know 0 Korean so there might be someone who could do an even deeper search than me.) There has to be some out there if people got all this information. Question is where? - K-popguardian (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps anyone, I found through Naver that the company went by GOOD EMG in Korea and didn't have a specific Korean name. So that might help ease the search in Korean media. - K-popguardian (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone: @Chubbles: Since this article appears to have traces of articles that can prove its notability but have yet to be unearthed, what if we tried moving this article to a draft space instead? It can be moved there in its current state, we can find sources to verify the info currently on it, and add new notable info as well. I think deleting it may be a bad idea cause in terms of our current research and previous drafts there's a lot of obscure info that's significant to the article, and I don't think it would be a good idea to delete this page and risk losing all that info. - K-popguardian (talk) 22:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No objections to draftification. Chubbles (talk) 02:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as per above. Please note that references must meet WP:NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 07:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Harold and the Purple Crayon film[edit]

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

Future film that has yet to enter main production, does not meet WP:NFF, move back to draft space until filming begins BOVINEBOY2008 16:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per WP:NFF, WP:NYF and WP:CRYSTAL. It’s way too soon for this article to be in mainspace IMHO. The Film Creator (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per WP:HAMMER (been a while since I've gotten to invoke that). Can be restored once more info, like say, the title, is known. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I've seen is the title is "Harold and the Purple Crayon". The article should be moved to Harold and the Purple Crayon (film). StrayBolt (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as per WP:TOOSOON, WP:NYF, and WP:NFF. Kpddg ^(talk) 14:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is in production, shooting in Atlanta.[3][4] StrayBolt (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Last day of location shooting on April 14. StrayBolt (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article shows it has gotten coverage over the years, and it is now in production. Dream Focus 06:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For assessment of the article's recent expansion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sony Pictures showed footage from the film with other upcoming releases at CinemaCon. StrayBolt (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Film in production, meets WP:NFF. Also well covered in the media, so meets notability. Rusted AutoParts 03:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I’m now convinced the article passes WP:NFF. The Film Creator (talk) 09:55, 7 May 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 nominator. No editors currently in favour of deletion. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Firth (actor)[edit]

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

No significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources, or much of any coverage for that matter. Throast (talk | contribs) 17:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator per several new sources provided that now clearly establish the subject's notability. Throast (talk | contribs) 15:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Throast (talk | contribs) 17:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)][reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Throast (talk | contribs) 17:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Theatre. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This person's career was mostly prior to the internet. He was most active from about 1966 to 2007. He appeared in a dozen West End productions, including as John Wilkes Booth in Assassins and M. Andre in Phantom of the Opera and for a year in the 3-person revue Side by Side by Sondheim. He started his career with 3 seasons in the Royal Shakespeare Company. He was later in the Royal National Theatre. He appeared extensively on TV, with recurring roles in Drummonds, Wycliffe, Doctors and Casualty. If we look back at newspaper reviews of shows that he appeared in, we would find numerous reviews. Here is a 2003 Playbill article mentioning some of his roles. See also this, this, this, and this -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does this amount to significant coverage, though? This and this (profiles on websites of musicals he's appeared in) are not independent of the subject, I'd say. I haven't read any hard-copy reviews of musicals he's appeared in, but I'm sure such reviews are more commonly on the side of trivial mentions when it comes to individual cast members, rather than significant coverage. Throast (talk | contribs) 20:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -- the BroadwayWorld article alone is significant coverage. Moreover, we (I mean you) have not bothered to get the coverage from non-online sources. It is lazy and foolish to delete articles of major actors from pre-internet times simply because we have not put in the work to find the sources. Just use the FENS databases, and you will find dozens of sources with significant coverage. Just search for "David Firth" and the names of each West End show that he has appeared in, and reviews will pop right up. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BroadwayWorld.com allows user submissions and edits to bios, and has no corrections/fact-checking policy as far as I can see. So far, this is WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Throast (talk | contribs) 20:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong. BroadwayWorld's editorial board reviews all submissions. It says so right there: "You will receive an email notification when your entry has been approved...." In any case, before trying to delete the entry, why not do the research? You have a long list of the roles he has played, but you haven't looked any of them up, including not even the original reviews for Phantom of the Opera, in which he created a major supporting role in arguably the world's most successful musical in history. WP:INTROTODELETE says: "Remember that deletion is a last resort. ... deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved." -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very well aware of WP:INTROTODELETE. I wouldn't go through the process of creating an AfD without having done some research. I certainly don't appreciate being called "lazy" and "foolish". If you go out of your way to vote keep at AfD, be prepared to be challenged. You're telling me to "just use FENS databases" to find significant coverage, when this what you, who's voted to keep the article, could be doing to substantiate your argument and avoid pointless back-and-forths. Throast (talk | contribs) 21:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, the nominator of an AfD is supposed to think a little bit about whether a person is of encyclopedic importance, and must anticipate being challenged, because deletion is a last resort. Sorry you're annoyed, but I think this AfD is a bad mistake. If this actor is not notable, then 4 million of our 5 million articles are not notable. Obviously, this article was poorly referenced, and some of the references that were originally there have gone dead. A much better path would have been to add some citation needed tags. Also, if you don't want to "back-and-forth", by all means, stop trying to get both the first and last word on your nomination. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per @Ssilvers notices. I wonder if this AFD has come about due to this - https://www.thegamer.com/salad-fingers-david-firth-creator-wikipedia-wiped/ Mark E (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – A quick dip in the online British press archives comes up with numerous detailed mentions of this actor. In the first half-dozen pages of search results I counted 36 separate reviews and articles featuring him in The Stage. He is repeatedly discussed there and in other papers, in a large range of principal roles in the West End and with the Royal Shakespeare Company etc, from Algernon in The Importance, Eisenstein in Die Fledermaus, Sir Joseph Porter in HMS Pinafore to Orlando in As You Like It etc. The BBC's listings show him in a wide range of roles on television and radio. Clearly meets our notability criteria. Tim riley talk 06:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A search shows the following:
- "Around the World", 28 Oct 2013, The Independent, Miranda Kiek, Pg. 46: Review: Firth as Phileas Fogg
- "Lazy charm; The Arts Theatre", 29 September 2001, The Spectator, Sheridan Morley, Pp. 46 48: Review: Firth in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. (Review also republished in The International Herald Tribune)
- "THEATRE / Sondheim scores a direct hit", 01 Nov 1992, The Independent, Irving Wardle, P 20: Review of Assassins, with Firth as John Wilkes Booth
- "Bravado Mikado with a touch too much fertiliser", 03 Aug 1985, Financial Times, Martin Hoyle, P. XI Review of Firth in The [Metropolitan] Mikado

(I saw him in that. It and he were splendid. Tim riley talk 13:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC))[reply]

TV work also listed at the BFI

Although a low-key actor, he is still notable. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:8439:DEA0:C48C:1996 (talk) 09:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per @Ssilvers comments, which all seem to be wholly valid. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that something notable happened, whatever it was, and that POV issues can be addressed by editing and/or renaming the article, subject to consensus. Sandstein 07:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022 Belgorod and Bryansk attacks[edit]

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

Entirely based on Russian Government claims while Ukraine has denied conducting the attacks. Viewsridge (talk) 10:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, History, Military, Europe, Russia, and Ukraine. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to be notable. Volunteer Marek 14:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Klimovo's article; should be documented although the fact that this is its own article fails WP:GNG. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 16:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I presume that means into Klimovo, Bryansk Oblast. The article now covers numerous incidents unrelated to Klimovo. —Michael Z. 16:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there proof that the attacks happened? If so, they're notable enough no matter who did them. Jim Michael (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There were videos of the aftermath of the attack. Of course the Ukrainians are crying false flag rhetoric, but the event did indeed take place, and considering that it pissed off the Russians enough for them to "warn" about further attacks, this article should be kept. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:E84F:38C8:581F:8496 (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to add that the Ukrainian government, backed by Western media by and large, is just as susceptible to lying as the Russian government, and them denying involvement in this border incident is just as spurious as the Russians denying their intention to invade Ukraine last year. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:E84F:38C8:581F:8496 (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTAFORUM. Volunteer Marek 18:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And? My point is that Ukraine denying these attacks, while video evidence corroborates the existence of such attacks, is not grounds to delete this article. Your comment is confusing. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:E84F:38C8:581F:8496 (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who's responsible for the attack is completely irrelevant to the WP:NOTABILITY of this article and whether it should be kept or not. Volunteer Marek 18:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The explosions still happened regardless of who is responsible. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Of course the Ukrainians are crying false flag rhetoric" This statement of yours does not follow NPOV i'm afraid. Due to fog of war there is nothing enough to prove if this is a "false flag" or not. Statements like "Ukrainians are as susceptible to lying as the Russian government" are manipulating users into a political discussion on whether if this a false flag, which is not what this nomination of deletion is entirely about. There are other reasons such as neutrality and notibility. Sgnpkd (talk) 18:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I understand my comment seemed to have angered Volunteer Marek. I am not "manipulating" (rather accusatory?), I was attempting to rebut Viewsridge's point that the attack is just a Russian gov claim and denied by Ukraine, implying the event was nonexistent. It most certainly did happen, and it is notable because this specific attack led to the Russians publicly threatening to hit "decision-making centers" in Kiev, which to my knowledge they did a day or two afterwards, and will continue to do so. This is notable because it led to a direct reaction from Russia, it's not just a random explosion (and Russia so far isn't being shelled every day). Your point about neutrality is curious, since that would relate to the question of responsibility, which you insist is not part of this discussion. I'll go along, but considering the Russian reaction (and from pro-Russian sources there is/was a lot of chatter about this attack in particular), the article is notable. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:D454:650:1A03:EDF7 (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mean to reply to myself but here is a source talking about Russia's reaction/POV:

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/powerful-explosions-heard-kyiv-after-russian-warship-sinks-2022-04-15/ 2601:85:C101:C9D0:D454:650:1A03:EDF7 (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have not "angered me". I only pointed out that who is responsible for this attack is completely irrelevant to whether it's notable or not. Volunteer Marek 00:06, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am actually seeing these attacks covered in a wide range of sources on the article from Reuters to the Times of Israel. If the article has a WP:NPOV problem then it needs to be addressed by adding information from both side's point of view. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have some occasional statements by the authorities of both sides and some news coverage, but nothing durable is left by these supposed incidents, and the sources do not provide any analysis allowing us to write a tolerable article, not a quilt bag of several contradictory claims. Wikisaurus (talk) 01:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With 7 injuries, notability is low. Even if it is proven that Ukraine shelled the village, this would not be the first time it retaliate into Russian territory during this war. The scale of the shelling is very small compared to other operations of the war. Unless this is an important cassus-belli for a significant, future Russian action, otherwise not notable. There is no point for creating an article for each explosions and shelling during the war, otherwise we would have dozens articles a day. Sgnpkd (talk) 18:14, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Casualty estimates do not serve as a standard of notability. WP:NOTBIGENOUGH.

The incident was also followed by Russian shellings of locations in Ukraine, which included an attack on Kyiv even though Russia had previously agreed to withdraw from that city's oblast. The significance of such a decision is rather notable. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 02:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At this point any link between Bryansk etc and the shelling of Kyiv is at best speculative (most sources that comment on it say it's in revenge for the Moskva). Volunteer Marek 06:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that Ukraine has denied conducting the attacks doesn't mean that the event never happened at all. Claims coming from both sides, as well as the supposed video evidence, received notable coverage in the media. I agree that there is no point in creating an article for each explosion during the war, however, cross-border shellings, especially with (alleged) injuries, don't happen every day. VanHelsing.16 (talk) 13:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 1. Doesn't mean it never happened. 2. An apparent spillover regardless of who did it. Dawsongfg (talk) 05:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and rename, first merge into Attack on Belgorod and then rename that to 2022 explosions in Belgorod to create a single article covering all events with a WP:NPOV title. Buttons0603 (talk) 14:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What about Bryansk then? It's a separate region that was also allegedly attacked. VanHelsing.16 (talk) 08:17, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And Bryansk, then. I don't know (or care to learn) Russian regions. Whatever the title, one article is enough to cover it all. Buttons0603 (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The most important attacks happened in Bryansk Oblast, not Belgorod Oblast. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

.."Attack on Belgorod" is NPOV, otherwise like 500 or something articles need to be renamed.. Dawsongfg (talk) 03:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep to be honest, i think its better to keep this the way it is at least for now. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Covered by a number of RS, any NPOV issues can he addressed. EkoGraf (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- We are not in a position to judge whether they were (or were not) real. Even if it was a false flag attack, that would be notable. I would not oppose renaming and merging per Buttons0603. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this poor article and rewrite to sort out the severe NPOV issues to do with dominant narratives. Springnuts (talk) 08:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's concentrate on notability issues - are the events notable?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 09:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Fair point: fwiw my Keep above is for sufficient sourcing for notability of the events. Springnuts (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In dept coverage in secondary sources is now available. See for instance: Zit Oekraïne achter explosies, branden en sabotageacties in Rusland?. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has been reported in the news, and is part of a larger pattern of explosions and fires. There is evidence it was related to the war and the Ukrainian response was not a pure denial but an ambiguous troll. —Michael Z. 22:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Keep -- These are notable incidents. Something certainly happened. I do not think we know for certain who did it. Some of the content may well be subject to POV issues, but the solution to that is to edit the disputed issues out or (at worst) to set out the rival positions. Russia has a motive to stage a false flag incident. Ukraine might have wanted to degrade Russian resources that might be used against it, but want to deny it, just as Russia is denying what it apparently did during its occupation of territoery near Kyiv. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This afd has taken nearly a month's time with a clear consensus against a deletion. Could someone just close the discussion already and move on? Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 17:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Springnuts (talk) 08:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am seeing links to sources saying something occurred, but would like to see discussion of whether those are mere mentions or actual indications of notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Even if it's fake, we can just rename it to "April 2022 Western Russia attacks allegations" although I don't think this is fake. CR-1-AB (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename, to 2022 Ukrainian attacks on Russia or 2022 Western Russia attacks, also merge Attack on Belgorod. GWA88 (talk) 14:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per above, multiple reliable sources cover this, and while comparatively minor to what else has happened it has the potential to be a big event in the war. Rename might be desirable as the truth of the events is revealed, neutral on what that new title should be. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:23, 3 May 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 22:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Tolkien[edit]

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

not sure this guy is notable, he planned to take part in a notable event, but didn't and previously tried to compete in said notable event, but was unable to actually compete. I don't see how he would meet NATHLETE or whatever recreational/sports sailing falls under and the news of his rescue wasn't all that...newsy, at best was a BLP1E, if that. CUPIDICAE💕 15:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable partcipant in a notable event, he is clearly not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assume this is based on the miss assumptions that lead to this request about him not competing in the event. User:Yachty4000 23:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - All 114 sailors that have started the Vendee Globe have a wikipedia page why question one. It was challenged a few days ago after it was edited to have all it reference removed by another user. It has had it content edited heavily again for unknown reasons and now get challenged again. User:Yachty4000 21:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All 114 sailors that have started the Vendee Globe have a wikipedia page why question one. This is patently untrue. He did not start, and in fact, we do not have an article on everyone who has. [5], [6][7]. And the primary difference aside from WP:OSE for the others is that most if not all have multiple competitions where they actually placed or finished and significant coverage. Though, many of these are in fact, written by you and poorly sourced. CUPIDICAE💕 16:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look I only post really about one sport where I am an active historian together with general Olympic Work. But you can easily track on wikipedia that both the statements you made are not correct.

1) Here are all 114 starts and 84 unique finishers Category:Vendée_Globe_sailors (these groups validate the table on the primary vendee globe page)

2) He started and retired on day 29 of the 2000-2001 Vendee Globe a minimal amount of googling would have found that out. He didn't start a later edition because he sank the boat on a qualifing passage.

This page was well sourced and referenced as there are lots of articles about him. It not my fault another editor removed all the referencing. A number of the earlier sailors are started by me this is the wikipedia way it very hard to get huge amounts of reliable sourcing about sailor from the 1980s as these are printed media. Fundamentally wiki "french" also has all these pages. Once I have created these pages they usually get expanded by those closer to the person. User:Yachty4000 18:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am rescuing the one missing sailors who page has fallen foul of this procedure. User:Yachty4000 23:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This BBC article and this Sail World are significant coverage, and though WP:1E applies it appears they have received coverage outside of that incident, such as this article. Note that I do not know whether these sailing websites are reliable sources, and if they are not then my position would be to delete the article. BilledMammal (talk) 10:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The last source is basically a press release from the competition organization, the first is still BLP1E. CUPIDICAE💕 14:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of coverage, for example just from The Times: Tolkien entering a new chapter Author: Steve Acteson Date: Thursday, Apr. 7, 1988 Issue: 63049; Tolkien, lord of the waves Date: Thursday, Mar. 17, 1988 Issue: 63031; Tolkien's turnround Author: Carol leonard Date: Monday, June 27, 1988 Issue: 63118; Tolkien on the crest of a wave Author: Carol leonard Date: Thursday, July 6, 1989 Issue: 63439; Tolkien to lead the challenge Author: Barry Pickthall Date: Wednesday, May 16, 1990 Issue: 63707; Leaks end Tolkien's solo quest Author: Keith Wheatley Date: Tuesday, July 24, 1990 Issue: 63766 Piecesofuk (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2000–2001 Vendée Globe and merge any noteworthy content there. WP:1E applies. Springnuts (talk) 09:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a fundamental difference between a person profile page (contains background, DOB, other achievements etc.) and a general events page. If there wasn't there would not be ten of thousands of athlete pages on wikipedia User:Yachty4000 23:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:57, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At the very least passes the WP:GNG, per sources detected by various contributors above. gidonb (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Eponymous archon. Consensus is that being an archon of Athens in Roman Greece isn't enough for notability, and that the information about this officeholder should be selectively merged to the table in the target article. Sandstein 07:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lucius Vibullius Hipparchus[edit]

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

Obscure Roman who fails WP:BASIC and WP:INVALIDBIO due to absence of any meaningful biographical information aside from family relationships. Pointlessly deprodded under the mistaken belief that a local and probably symbolic officeholder such as this is automatically notable per WP:NPOL (the guideline says the exact opposite). If this office is so important, its holder is already listed at eponymous archon, making this article pointless. Avilich (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and History. Avilich (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Some of the content into the table at Eponymous archon. No indication of notability, as by this point the archonship of Athens was not a significant office and there is no indication that he passes WP:GNG. As an aside, do you have to be so damn condescending all the time, or can you actually dial it back and work collaboratively?? Curbon7 (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

do i even know you Avilich (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone doesn't need to be known by you to notice that you have have a condescending attitude.★Trekker (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant content into Eponymous archon and Redirect to the same. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note that Hipparchus appears to have a column and a half of scholarship about him in Pauly-Wissowa. The just-deleted article about Lucius Vibullius Rufus corresponds with a shorter entry, and in all the immediate family takes up about four pages and eight columns, as well as a graphic showing the family relationships between the various relatives of Herodes Atticus that stretches across the top of two of them. Admittedly most of what I can understand without speaking German discusses the various relationships of this family of Roman aristocrats. But even proceeding from the principle that "notability is not inherited", the amount of space devoted to Hipparchus and his immediate family in the gold standard of classical encyclopedias ought to give one pause about concluding that none of these people are notable. The number of sources that mention them also suggests that they're considered notable by modern scholars, even if most of what is known about them is how they were connected. However, I once again suggest that WP:BEFORE was not followed either before the PROD or before the subsequent nomination for deletion. However, as my caution has already been dismissed as "pointless" in this and several other related nominations by the same editor—as has my insistence that "deletion" and "merger" are not the same thing—I will leave it there. P Aculeius (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Time and time again these shorter entries are shown to contain little more than propopographical trivia and a listing of primary sources (mostly inscriptions), with basically no biogrpahical details. Avilich (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per above.★Trekker (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merger The proposed merge target is one of the worst possible choices: it's a list of people which isn't designed to hold the sort of content the current article has. This article is nothing more than a listing of relatives, which would only be worth something if the topic itself was notable, which it isn't. Wikipedia isn't a genealogical database and such information is no more appropriate in the proposed merge target than as its own separate article. I trust the closer will give less weight to these spurious votes which do not explain why merging to that proposed target is a valid ATD. Avilich (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- You're not supposed to make bolded "votes" when you're the nominator Avilich. Pretty sure I've seen people in AFD say its not even allowed.★Trekker (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That only applies to bolded delete votes Avilich (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2019 United Kingdom general election in London[edit]

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

This article is an unuseful content fork of 2019 United Kingdom general election in England – London has no special status in general elections (it is not a single constituency). There was a similar article for the 2015 election, which was also deleted at AfD. Number 5 7 16:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can sort of see the rationale for having this article as London has tended to behave differently at recent elections to the rest of England (though the same would be true for other cities like Brighton and Bristol). However there are no major London only parties, and there was not a specifically different campaign in London, so I think this can be covered best with in the England article. Dunarc (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see absolutely no reason to delete this as regional election results in a national election provide additional helpful information to readers wanting more detailed information on the overall topic.Rillington (talk) 09:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rillington: An article cannot be kept solely on the basis because you like the idea of having it. The topic specifically would need to be discussed in independent sources, particularly in relation to London but it is not an entity in its own right. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also worth noting that this article actually provides less information than the article it is a fork from! Number 5 7 14:50, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this topic is not covered independently by reliable sources. London is very much part of England and there is no reason to specifically cover this in a separate article. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:24, 8 May 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 00:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dyne-Air Charter[edit]

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

This is a company stub on a charter airline which flies a single, 8-passenger aircraft. It has no references. A WP:BEFORE on Google News, Google Books, newspapers.com, and JSTOR fails to unearth any WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG . Chetsford (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any sources that meet WP:GNG. FozzieHey (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per withdrawn nom/CSD template on page Tawker (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Beh[edit]

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

Subject of this article is a man who owns a small women's clothing store in Monrovia. The article is sourced to a single reference and a WP:BEFORE search on newspapers.com, Google Books, Google News, and JSTOR produces only one additional reference, which is a brief quote from the subject on an unrelated matter [8]. Fails WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was trying to tackle systematic bias by adding Liberian people. I'm happy to speedy db author it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw as nom. Chetsford (talk) 17:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Willis Willard Elliott[edit]

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

Fails GNG and a BEFORE check. Only sources that could be found were genealogy websites (Geni, WikiTree, etc.), mirror websites of Wikipedia and a blogspot post. It appears the creator of this article may perhaps be a descendant of said individual. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Missouri, North Carolina, and Oregon. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own geneological research into primary sources on your own ancestor. That may actually be giving the article more credit for using sources, but even if you fully use primary sources Wikipedia is not the place to publish that. Wikipedia is not another genealogical site where you publish your results.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's nothing that makes the subject notable, and I couldn't find any RS discussing the subject. Seems like this would be better for a family genealogical website. --Kbabej (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sigcov in RS.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 16:46, 4 May 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!} 05:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish secessionism in Israel[edit]

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

Interesting, but all synthesis. Orphaned for ten years. PepperBeast (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this well referenced article. Nominator's claim of synthesis is incorrect. There are many discussions of Jewish states side by side within Israel. Quick example: [9]. Akhzivland is still missing from the discussion! gidonb (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like you don't understand the concept of WP:SYNTHESIS. I'm not claiming that the article lacks referencing. The referencing is (possibly) adequate to verify the individual secessionist incidents listed. I'm questioning the overall claim that Jewish Secessionism in Israel is a notable concept and not just the author's own synthesis. PepperBeast (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No no, I understood you loud and clear. I will add more sources later. gidonb (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sounds brilliant :-) PepperBeast (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sympathetic to the SYNTH argument here; I see no sources which speak of *secessionism* in Israel as against reporting of a tiny number of fringe evocations. However, I'm willing to wait and see given the statement of sources to be added... Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete have looked at this further, no sources added in more than a week, my own searching turns up nothing of relevance. Nothing above or in the article can be said to discuss secesssionism by Jews in Israel. A list of unrelated fringe examples do not constitute secessionism. The article is SYNTH. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 13:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:SYNTHESIS –Ploni (talk) 11:46, 4 May 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 14:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2024–25 AFC Cup[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. The season qualifying is generally begin from spring 2023. Can consider a redirect to AFC Cup or draftify or delete directly Hhkohh (talk) 13:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Asia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - far too soon. Giant Snowman 14:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't know if it will still be a two year thing, far too early, delete straight up in my view. Govvy (talk) 14:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One sentence, no sources, and topic is for an event that will happen in three years. Way too soon. --interstatefive (talk) - just another roadgeek 15:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Qby (talk) 03:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:TOOSOON and it lacks any substance. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 11:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

School Chalo Abhiyan[edit]

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

The content in this de-prodded article, is about a program launched last month by Uttar Pradesh chief minister for which there is absolutely nothing apart from the coverage of his speech. All the references are PR in nature or are extensively written based on minister's comments. (The same CM had apparently "launched" this same program in 2017; which shows the pitfalls of relying on news sources here).

The title, 'School Chalo Abhiyan' is a routine slogan - literally meaning 'Go to School Campaign' in Hindi - used widely as a local term for "Enrollment drive". See for eg, Uttarakhand govt, an NGO, Madhya Pradesh chief minister, another NGO. As an WP:ATD-R suggestion, perhaps a brief line on the usage of the slogan could be added to Education in India and the title could be redirected there. Hemantha (talk) 13:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and India. Hemantha (talk) 13:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How can i improve it. JoyStick101 (talk) 05:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've tagged the article for speedy deletion as the creator has been put back in the stinky sock drawer. – ².O.^Boxing 08:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Mittelmann[edit]

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

I tried to search for a reference to verify whether he has died or not, and I can find almost nothing on him apart from stuff copied from Wikipedia. Probably not notable? Ascendingrisingharmonising (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Ascendingrisingharmonising (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes WP:GNG. What an odd nomination. There are two major reference works already provided in the article in which Mittelmann has an entry: The Canadian Encyclopedia (see here; this source has the date of death and it was included in the article; @Ascendingrisingharmonising did you even bother to look at the sources already on the page?) and Theaterlexikon der Schweiz; both reference works notable enough to have articles on the sources themselves. Additionally, a google books search yields more sources and digging up reviews in major press doesn't appear difficult. For example, in just digging through the archives of The New York Times here are a selection of available reviews just from that one publication that could be used to expand the article: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15] Clearly WP:BEFORE was not followed. Lastly, as a winner of the Metropolitan Opera National Council Auditions (a major singing competition); he clearly passes criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO, criteria 4 of WP:CREATIVE, and criteria 9 of WP:MUSICBIO. Strongly suggest the nominator withdraw this poorly thought through nomination.4meter4 (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep − obviously. No shortage of references to him in opera reviews in The Times. In one (16 March 1965) he gets a much better notice than Pavarotti in Traviata. His Dr Miracle was praised for its sinister quality (15 March 1966) and as Don Carlo at Covent Garden he was praised for "his powerful well-focused voice" and was "rightly cheered" by the audience.(7 May 1975). Clearly notable, and I agree with 4meter4 that the proposal to delete the article is, to put it as kindly as possible, ill considered. − Tim riley talk 19:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - massive before failure by User:Ascendingrisingharmonising - can they withdraw? In seconds I've found 2 encyclopaedia entrances and a detailed 1961 Winnipeg Free Press article. Nfitz (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references are good. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well referenced as explained above --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He has a long and impressive entry in the "Bible" of opera singers, and we should get more from it. I'm busy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt I expanded it slightly and added citations. Much more could be written about the roles he performed and important productions and recording he participated in, but at least it's no longer a stub.4meter4 (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of above. For the love of God, can trigger happy editors do WP:BEFORE and read the relevant guideline before wasting everyone's time? Atchom (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Though given God's trigger happy tendency of smiting first, and asking questions later, perhaps that's not the best deity to invoke, by Frig. ☻ Nfitz (talk) 05:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No-brainer keep.--Smerus (talk) 12:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of One Piece characters#Shanks. This is an exceptionally poor discussion full of bad tempered bickering, accusations of canvassing and multiple policy free personal opinions dressed up in votes. Based on weight of argument we probably merge or redirect but with weak sourcing the merge target needs to selectively pull across material. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Red-Haired Shanks[edit]

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Red-Haired Shanks

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

Just to stop the edit warring at this. Tbf, the article still fails WP:GNG. The majority of it is derived from primary and listicles sources, particularly CBR. As per WP: BEFORE, I can't find some reliable source that talks mainly about character, not only as passing mention or theories. According to Earwig's tool, this article also suffers copyright violation. BloatedBun (talk) 12:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Anime and manga. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I already explained myself several times about how this characters fails wp:notability though. There are little to no sources of the character to write a proper reception section. If the character were more outstanding in the narrative like say a Straw Hat it might be possible. I made a quick google search for possible reviews focusing on his appearances but dvd reviews only mention Shanks as a part of the premise. Same with the movie Red.Tintor2 (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to List of One Piece characters#Shanks and possibly even salt per nom and Tintor2. All the sources here are listicles that just provide two short paragraphs about the character or reviews of the main series that only briefly mention the character. Nothing comes close to significant coverage and a search for refs didn't yield any results. Link20XX (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article passes WP:GNG and uses the same critical sources as articles like Courier (Akudama Drive) or Swindler (Akudama Drive) such as Fandom Post. However those sources were not removed from those articles. Let’s also make be clear that User:Tintor2 was warned with edit warring with multiple users for repeatedly blanking the page and so now is trying to seek deletion even after they were advised to seek consensus on the Red-Haired Shanks talk page before pursuing such drastic measures. However Tintor2 is not the proposer as I originally thought, this was an error. --Plumber (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Again with other stuff arguments. ComicBook was called by another user not to be reliable in contrast to the articles. Fandompost is reliable since it's Chris Beveridge's neverending reliable usage of reviews but there is little to nothing to write about Shanks. Today I've been checking One Piece character third party sources but only found only worthy information for the leads. Shanks is not that notable when compare with the Straw Hats not due to impact but because there is no such sources when I googled today.Tintor2 (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) While the article does use the same sources as the two aforementioned articles, that doesn't mean they are significant coverage. Looking at the sources in the reception section, the reviews from The Fandom Post (which is a reliable source and I can explain why if requested) only mention the character briefly for their involvement in one specific scene in the series, definitely not significant coverage. The ComicBook articles (which is already scraping the bottom of the barrel as-is) are similar; despite mentioning the character in the title, they provide little commentary on the character and just talk about the plot of the series, which is also not significant coverage. Looking at the Swindler article, they have some sources like this, which are all about the character. I assume the Courier article is the same, but I don't feel like looking over it. While I agree that Tintor2 shouldn't have edit warred for as long as he did, he does have a good point regarding the character's notability. Link20XX (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I am curious to know why you think Fandom Post is a reliable source, and not a dubious source that can be cited situationally or sparingly. Haleth (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Fandom Post's reliability was discussed by WP:ANIME. In short, the website's editor-in-chief and most frequent writer, Chris Beveridge, has been interviewed by Anime News Network (link) and they have even written a few articles about his website and even cited it as a source on occasion, like here and here. Additionally, Beveridge has been a guest of honor at Anime Boston (link). The website's other writers have also written for other reliable sources, as can be seen in the linked discussion. Link20XX (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Plumber: If you have been paying attention at all, Tintor2 has not sought deletion at any juncture of their dispute with you, although they should have known better then to edit war. A merge or redirect is not the same as deletion. The editor who started this AfD is someone else entirely. Haleth (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was my mistake. I have corrected the above message and will apologize to @Tintor2: for the error. I’m sorry for my mistake, Tintor2. Plumber (talk) 22:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Plumber, you might also want to retract your allegation in the ANI you filed. Haleth (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Plumber is now sending mass messages on people's talk pages and canvassing [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. BloatedBun (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I am hoping for a proper turnout on this issue. Canvassing is fine if done according to NPOV. --Plumber (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mass canvassing specific users is not fine at all, see WP:CANVAS. Link20XX (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Plumber's response to the canvassing warning is cause for concern. Perhaps a report about them to the administrators' noticeboard for incidents would be appropriate. Haleth (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I only notified “Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article” and "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)“ in a neutral manner as "Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief—the user can always find out more by clicking on the link to the discussion." That is completely in line with WP:CANVAS. Plumber (talk) 22:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - You even notified Nikkimaria, who is a FAC coordinator. BloatedBun (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I also notified you because I did not see your signature here at first and so I didn't know it was you who made this proposal lol Plumber (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of One Piece characters#Shanks. There is a dearth of coverage about the character from reliable and independent secondary sources which are preferably from an out of universe perspective. I have already expressed my opinion about Plumber's mass creations of One Piece characters here. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information about the One Piece media franchise. A wiki specifically dedicated to all things One Piece, however, is this way. Haleth (talk) 22:41, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am giving my support to having the page remain per the suggestion of @Plumber: and the fact that the List of One Piece characters page is getting too long. A discussion about this was also started on that page's talk page. I'm just letting you people know that. --Rtkat3 (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keeep. We have a few sentences of reliablish analysis added from [23]. He will have a major role in he upcomin One Piece: Red movie, and there's alraedy some coverage of this and his potential role: [24]. So here I think we have at least two sources (I discarded a bunch of weaker similar ones), that qualify for SIGCOV, if barely. And as usual - there probably is some more coverage in Japanese that nobody can find, or cares to do so, since for whatever reason I am not seeing Japanese-spekers active in anime and manga AfDs these days, sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to List of One Piece characters#Shanks Not notable enough on its own. Weak coverage to stand on its own. ContentEditman (talk) 13:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as I agree with User:Rtkat3 about WP:SIZE. If this is to be merged then lets have a discussion about how to do it rather than place an AfD merge result at the top of the page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Most of the content duplicates that found at Fandom. — Diannaa (talk) 13:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Taynix (talk) 00:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that this page needs to be remain. Since in the manga the Wano arc will end this year, he will probably be appeared more in the manga as author Oda promised on his message last year. Also, his film will aired this year on August. So most likely, many articles will published about him. If this page will be deleted this month, in a few months later, someone will make a page about him in Wikipedia again. So it is better that this page will be remain so other users can improve it until it meets the standard.--Bint Hafiz — Preceding undated comment added 02:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I want this page need to be remain too. Like what @User:Bint hafiz had said, in few months someone will make page about him again. It is bothersome and we will begin in a scratched again. So it is better this page to be remain so some other users can improve it little by little.Selenne (talk) 02:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notice on the AFD closer that a lot of keeper votes above ignored notability criteria policy, except Piotrus. BloatedBun (talk) 09:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to List of One Piece characters#Shanks per Link20XX. Rin (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of One Piece characters#Shanks as the current reception does not convince me that it is a character meriting their own article, mostly being trivial/fannish coverage. It seems most of the keep !votes are WP:ILIKEIT. Possibly WP:TOOSOON if he gets coverage after the One Piece movie comes out. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of One Piece characters#Shanks per WP:TOOSOON. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 13:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, per WP:GNG. I recognize this is a borderline case, but the bulk of this comes from a couple questionable sources that are insufficient to meet our guidelines and policy. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Notability is WP:INHERITED from the series. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Naqshbandi Golden Chain[edit]

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

Personal work article. It is filled with non-WP:RS citations such as "sufiwiki", 'Ghayb.com", etc. The few WP:RS in this article does not make a single mention of this so called "Naqshbandi Golden Chain." HistoryofIran (talk) 11:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A completely irrelevant article, ofcourse, when we have an article on Naqshbandi tariqah which has the ability to cover the "chain" as well. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 05:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Shah Bukhari[edit]

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

This article is a full promo and there is nothing that suggests notability. According to only one significant article about him in Greater Kashmir, he ran for Legislative Assembly elections several times, but did he even win? I fail to find any sources. This fails GNG, and there is nothing that helps WP:NPOL being met. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 11:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Islam, and India. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 11:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Norm and It has a lot of copyrighted stuffs which I removed. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The editor who created the article says that the newspaper copied the material from Wikipedia and, from what I can see they are correct. Wikipedia's content predates the news report by a couple of years. --RegentsPark (comment) 00:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well RP, then this article has been a blatant OR piece ever since it has existed on this encyclopedia. We do not have any other sources that verify this information, apart from the Greater Kashmir piece, which is interestingly a copy-paste newspaper piece of this very Wikipedia article. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 10:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was only about the copyvio. The rest is ...! --RegentsPark (comment) 12:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of assets owned by The Walt Disney Company#The Walt Disney Company Europe, Middle East and Africa. ✗plicit 06:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Walt Disney Company EMEA[edit]

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

The Walt Disney Company EMEA

Unreferenced article. In its current condition, does not satisfy verifiability and is not ready for article space. It says nothing about the division of the company except that it exists. This page was created in article space and moved to draft space as not ready for article space, but was then recreated in article space with no improvement and no references. Since there already is a draft that the originator can work on, this unreferenced stub should go into the bit bucket. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Disney, Organizations, and United Kingdom. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 13:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral at this time as no longer an unreferenced stub. This appears to be a Heymann case. The editor could have acted in a more collaborative fashion by adding the references to the draft rather than stubbornly creating an unreferenced stub in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to List of assets owned by The Walt Disney Company#The Walt Disney Company Europe, Middle East and Africa More DisneyCorporateCruft that seriously needs to be reined in; outside the asset list, the only other thing that stands out here is its founding date; everything else is just internal corporate milestones the layperson doesn't care about in the least. Nate • (chatter) 20:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to List of assets owned by The Walt Disney Company#The Walt Disney Company Europe, Middle East and Africa per above. Hello6123 (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to List of assets owned by The Walt Disney Company#The Walt Disney Company Europe, Middle East and Africa doesn’t really look like this article is well sourced. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 13:25, 6 May 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 14:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Braven (organization)[edit]

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

This reads as a promotional article for a charity--but, it isn't coi; it's the product of a WP Ed course in promotional writing.: [25] In one sense the course was successful: it taught how to write advertising copy. In another it was altogether misconceived--teaching how to write promotionalism is the worst possible assignment for WP editing. It's teaching people how to destroy WP. DGG ( talk ) 06:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 07:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. The sources mostly fail to be reliable and independent; when they manage that, the coverage they provide is not significant. Fixing this page would amount to starting from scratch, and by scratch I mean "deciding whether the topic warrants an article". Plenty of Wiki Ed contributions are basically fine, and plenty more just need a little fixing up, but the existence of this course was unethical, and its products need to be removed. XOR'easter (talk) 13:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per XOR'easter- who the fuck approved that course? Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 14:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Iacullo[edit]

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

Very questionable this meets WP:GNG and looks really WP:PROMO. One link's a brief quote in an article about retail downturn in Toronto. The other three links actually all go back to the same single fluff piece interview. Woefully undersourced. JamesG5 (talk) 08:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Italy. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Five or six mentions in the Toronto Star, mostly about business in general in the city. nothing notable. Oaktree b (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:11, 1 May 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 14:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kaede Aono[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A CV-type article about an actor, drafted by an IP and then moved into mainspace as an WP:AFC-acceptance the same day by a user blocked last week as a WP:SOCK. A previous article about this subject was deleted at AfD in 2018; I can't compare that previous instance, but most of the subject's work described in the present article would also have been available for consideration in that AfD. Given its creation and approval circumstances, it seems appropriate to bring this instance to AfD. The article text uses "starred in" for the subject's work activity, where she appears to have performed supporting roles. Neither these, nor several recent appearances as a cast member in a "Kei x Yaku: Dangerous Partners" series seem sufficient to demonstrate that WP:NACTOR notability has now been attained. AllyD (talk) 07:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Japan. AllyD (talk) 07:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article, like many other articles for Japanese actors and actresses, have enough coverages, and many editors and anonymous users can contribute more to the article later on. 47.232.204.213 (talk) 13:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's not too much for me to add: my search didn't find anything that clearly satisfies the GNG/WP:BASIC (mostly just passing mentions, plus the occasional interview), and I agree with the nom that she doesn't meet NACTOR's requirement of multiple "significant roles". Unless there's something I'm missing due to the language barrier, Aono doesn't seem to be notable, at least not yet. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not seeing clear evidence of this person having had sufficiently major roles or anything resembling WP:SIGCOV. The last afd was not that long ago and I am unsure what, if anything, has changed since then. The existence of someone and having had some minor roles does not mean they are automatically notable. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dzmitry Chaka[edit]

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

Played 21 mins of professional football but no significant coverage. A Belarusian search yields only Wikipedia mirrors. A Russian search gives us nothing better, more mirrors and a few social media sites thrown in. I also did this search through DDG which yielded nothing on him other than stats databases. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belarus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 12:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG — NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 22:02, 1 May 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Bowerman[edit]

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

Violates the general criteria of WP:NOTDATABASE, and fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT #5. An attempt to find additional sources failed, and WikiProject Cricket was also unable to help.

Prod removed due to them playing first class cricket for a significant cricket club, Somerset County Cricket Club, which may have resulted in significant coverage. BilledMammal (talk) 10:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, Olympics, and United Kingdom. BilledMammal (talk) 10:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - spiritually speaking, I would say there's a difference between playing for W. G. Grace's Chicken Sandwich XI and a County Championship side. (Not in my opinion but that's by the by). The phrase "may have" implies that the nominator hasn't checked to see if there is coverage. (Rationale copied from Montagu Toller). Bobo . 15:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "may have" implies that the nominator hasn't checked to see if there is coverage. - I've checked, and WP:CRICKET has been consulted, but no significant coverage was found. That does not mean significant coverage does not exist, but it does need to be found to keep this article - playing cricket, or appearing in the Olympics, is not sufficient reason to keep the article. BilledMammal (talk) 01:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A first-class cricketer who also appeared in the olympics satisfies GNG for me. @Harrias:, @Johnlp: – do you have any additional sources for his guy? StickyWicket (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as outlined on the Cricket Project talkpage, the first volume of the Somerset Cricketers series will have a section on Bowerman, as on all players from 1882. My copy is not currently with me, and it will take me a few weeks to be reunited with it. Johnlp (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your comment at WP:CRICKET, I don't believe it would count towards GNG; sources that attempt to cover everyone within a group are routine coverage for that group and do not contribute to notability. Further, it is only one source, and we need multiple to meet WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Johnlp and Harrias. It should be worth noting that cricketers from that period in time won't always have widespread coverage, purely because of the age they lived in; however, that shouldn't discount what is written about them. One of my B-class military articles about a British general is largely sourced from a similar essay-based source. StickyWicket (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG is satistifed by sourcing, not actiions. We lack the sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, added a few quick bits from my Somerset books. Only looked in a couple. I don't expect to find tons more, but I think there is enough here to show that he meets the GNG. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 08:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think there's just enough here for a GNG pass, although it is marginal. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there's enough here to satisfy me. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:29, 3 May 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. Withdrawn by nom on the basis of sources provided by Harrias (non-admin closure) BilledMammal (talk) 11:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Montagu Toller[edit]

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

Violates the general criteria of WP:NOTDATABASE, and fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT #5. An attempt to find additional sources failed, and WikiProject Cricket was also unable to help.

Prod removed due to them playing first class cricket for a significant cricket club, Somerset County Cricket Club, which may have resulted in significant coverage. BilledMammal (talk) 10:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, Olympics, and United Kingdom. BilledMammal (talk) 10:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - spiritually speaking, I would say there's a difference between playing for W. G. Grace's Chicken Sandwich XI and a County Championship side. (Not in my opinion but that's by the by). The phrase "may have" implies that the nominator hasn't checked to see if there is coverage. Bobo . 15:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "may have" implies that the nominator hasn't checked to see if there is coverage. - I've checked, and WP:CRICKET has been consulted, but no significant coverage was found. That does not mean significant coverage does not exist, but it does need to be found to keep this article. BilledMammal (talk) 01:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm adding a bit more stuff to the discussion at the cricket wiki project. Gut feeling is that a series of redirects is probably in order, but there are certainly some sources out there in print which could be used to add some details about some of these chaps. I'd argue for some patience and an alternative approach as more might come out and then we'd lose article histories. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have pinged the two cricket editors who did much of the work on Somerset cricket, just waiting for them to reply. StickyWicket (talk) 08:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As above on Bowerman, and as outlined on the Cricket Project talkpage, the first volume of the Somerset Cricketers series will have a section on Toller, as on all players from 1882. My copy is not currently with me, and it will take me a few weeks to be reunited with it. Johnlp (talk) 22:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Based on your comment at WP:CRICKET, I don't believe it would count towards GNG; sources that attempt to cover everyone within a group are routine coverage for that group and do not contribute to notability. Further, it is only one source, and we need multiple to meet WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 00:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ROUTINE does not apply to people. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NSPORT, routine applies to sportspeople. BilledMammal (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But it doesn't say that this kind of coverage is routine. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How does notdatabase apply? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. An article sourced entirely to databases, as this one is, cannot put the data in context. BilledMammal (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong~~ keep for now at least. We're going to need to wait and see what sources Johnlp can get to. I've used this sort of guide regularly to source articles and they are almost always authoritative and generally written by experts in their field. On occasion, however, they end up saying "we know nothing about this bloke". That may be the case here, although I doubt it due to his Olympic involvement. If it is I'm sure we can revisit the article and decide to redirect it to the list of Somerset cricketers. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With the work added by Harrias, there's clearly now enough here for a reasonable pass of GNG - the sum of the parts of the references clearly add up to enough. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:49, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Johnlp is a highly competent editor, so I trust his source will provide a good level of depth for the subject. StickyWicket (talk) 13:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if you don't consider the coverage routine, it is not known whether the source contains WP:SIGCOV of the subject, and even if it does we need multiple examples of SIGCOV. At the moment, we cannot keep the article, per WP:SPORTCRIT #5 and WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - We can keep it for a period of time to see whether sources can be found - that's an utterly reasonable and pragmatic approach to the situation here. Fwiw I imagine the Somerset source does meet the SPORTCRIT point (and GNG obvs); it seems to in other cases. In any case, there are clear ATD here which can be used - there is absolutely no need to delete the article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:23, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - In two weeks, we have found one source that might contain significant coverage. That isn't enough to keep the article, although a redirect would be suitable - if WP:GNG is met in the future, then the article can be restored with that coverage. BilledMammal (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, added some more information, and I think there is enough around to demonstrate notability. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 21:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Harrias: Thank you for adding those sources. I can only access four of them, but none of those include significant coverage - can you provide additional information on the coverage in "Sunshine, Sixes and Cider" and "Somerset Cricketers 1882 – 1914" and whether it is WP:SIGCOV? BilledMammal (talk) 09:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - @BilledMammal: Sunshine, Sixes and Cider is little more than a passing mention, while Somerset Cricketers 1882 – 1914 is a two page biography. I'm having a look through some newspaper sources today, will see what there is. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - @BilledMammal: Added a bit more from some contemporary newspapers. The coverage makes it pretty clear that he was a prominent rugby player in Devon at the time, and he receives a lot of local coverage. Most of it is relatively trivial; mentions of his performance in games for Devon or Barnstaple, but he also receives a good length profile in the Western Evening Herald (this one (subscription required)). There is also a reasonable amount of very local coverage for his role in local politics, but nothing there that really meets SIGCOV alone. All put together though, I think there is enough for GNG. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 10:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think there's just enough here for a GNG pass, although a weak one at that. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:50, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Damoov[edit]

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

This is a small startup. The sources provided are database entries, such as Crunchbase that show just how small this company is, and a press release send out on ANI/PNN. Searching for more sources has yielded little. Fails WP:ORGCRIT. Mvqr (talk) 10:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, Transportation, and Washington, D.C.. Mvqr (talk) 10:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant coverage. MarioGom (talk) 08:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. No WP:SIGCOV, also Wikipedia:NOTADIRECTORY.
Delete: Listings and promotional sources such as the PNN release reproduced by ET Auto are insufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH and my searches are not finding better. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 06:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Al-Aliany[edit]

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

Can't find any evidence of notability. All of the 4 foreign language Wikipedia articles on him are based on his Transfermarkt profile, an unreliable self-published source. Searches of "علي العلياني" have yielded no useful coverage even when adding 'football' (كرة القدم). Soccerway shows 106 mins of professional football and there is clear consensus at recent AfDs that such a brief career in the game is never acceptable grounds for keeping an article on its own. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - evidently "علي العلياني" is an extremely common name in Arabic-speaking countries. I have trawled through pages and pages and not found anything relating to football. I cannot say that my searches have been absolutely exhaustive, though, so, of course, if someone does uncover multiple in-depth sources about this man, I will withdraw this nom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 12:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG— NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 22:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:29, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Signe Carstens[edit]

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

Not inherently notable therefore WP:GNG must be satisfied. I have analysed the sources currently presented in the article as well as those found in DDG, Google News and ProQuest and will present a source analysis below to explain why the sourcing does not satisfy GNG currently. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Denmark. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment fails GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
http://www.fortunahjorring.dk/index.php/dk/11-dansk/660-2-x-carstens-pa-u16-landsholdet	This is a club that she used to play for so not independent	Contains no info on her other than the fact that she has played for Denmark U16 and Fortuna U18	✘ No
https://www.fodboldforpiger.dk/2018/11/signe-carstens-vi-har-stadig-ikke-ramt-vores-hoejeste-niveau/		There are two quotes from her but absolutely no independent analysis whatsoever.	✘ No
https://nordsoeposten.dk/tre-unge-fortsaetter-udviklingen-i-fortuna/		~ Mentioned that she signed in Feb 2018, has a twin (Mathilde) and was injured for one year. No other info can be extracted.	~ Partial
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)).

Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Agree with Spiderone's assesment of the sources. Also did a search but was unable to find anything of significance. Alvaldi (talk) 10:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 12:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've searched in a few places but found nothing of value. Can you please share these sources showing detailed coverage? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:29, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Vella (boxer)[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer that fails WP:NBOX Knightmare 3112 (talk) 08:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 08:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NBOX. LibStar (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NBOX, and unable to find other sources of notability outside the ring. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 02:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with previous comments. Not close to being WP notable with a definite lack of significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 22:18, 6 May 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!} 05:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Sayer Daudzai[edit]

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

Not notable. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 04:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Afghanistan, and United Arab Emirates. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 04:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ambassadors are not inherently notable. Only 2 gnews passing hits. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ambassadors are not default notable. Temporary acting ambassadors even less so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:CSK #4: the nominator is a blocked sockpuppet and all other !votes are to keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GameClub[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Advertisement of a game company. Lack of significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. Twitter is not a reliable reference. DMySon (talk) 04:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Philippines. DMySon (talk) 04:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see any adverts here. The article is quite well written, neutral with no promotional tone, and supported by decent sources. 182.1.91.126 (talk) 08:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:TROUT the nominator for not performing any source check at all. It has a PC Mag review a lengthy Ars Technica article and a mention in VentureBeat which easily proves it passes GNG on its own. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nominator has been blocked for sockpupetry. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 03:05, 4 May 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. Star Mississippi 21:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gyuri Sarossy[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Only source is IMDB. De-prodded without comment Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, Hungary, and United Kingdom. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly lacks sourcing to show it is based on reliable secondary sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has certainly played roles in the top movies and series but they're only minor roles. Like EastEnders, he only appearances in two episodes, same with other movies and lacks WP:SIGCOV to crown it with. Jamiebuba (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there's clearly no WP:SIGCOV largely owing to his limited career, which largely consists of minor roles.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 17:03, 4 May 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 Draftification which was suggest by two participants.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Balen Shah[edit]

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

Balen Shah

Non-notable rapper, engineer, and would-be politician who does not satisfy general notability, political notability, or musical notability. A draft was submitted and declined twice, by different submitters and different reviewers, both of whom said it did not establish biographical notability. This article was then resubmitted by another editor and created in article space by another editor, and the subject still is not notable. Nothing in the article or the draft establishes general notability. As a candidate for Mayor of a large city, the subject does not satisfy political notability. The discography (which has been copied from the draft) does not establish musical notability. An article should speak for itself without the need to check the references, and this article does not, but the references have been checked. Seven of them are about his mayoral campaign, and are all primary coverage or passing mentions. None of them provide the coverage required for general notability.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	Onlinekhabar	About Nepalese rap	Yes	No. Passing mention of subject.	Probably	No
2	Khabarhub.com	Story about filing as candidate for Mayor	Yes	Not really	Probably	No
3	https://myrepublica.nagariknetwork.com/	A press release about filing for Mayor	No	Not really		No
4	Nepalipatra.com	News about the election campaign for Mayor	Yes	Not really	Probably	No
5	Setopati.com	Mention of candidacy for Mayor	Yes	Not really	Probably	No
6	Makalukhabar.com	Release of full election manifesto (Did not translate, but not necessary to translate to determine independence)	No	Yes	Yes	No
7	https://myrepublica.nagariknetwork.com/	About a new television show - Did not find mention of subject	Yes	No	Probably	No
8	https://myrepublica.nagariknetwork.com/	Says he received a stick as his symbol for election campaign	Yes	No	Probably	No
9	theannapurnaexpress.com	Story about May 17 elections	Yes	No, passing mention of subject	Probably	Yes

There may be coordination between editors by his political campaign. This need not be addressed because he does not satisfy notability. Similarly, it is not necessary to inquire whether the editors have conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Politicians, and Nepal. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He is one of the well known musician/rapper from Nepal, which might be the reason other users also tried to create an article of him before. About his discography, no matter who writes about it, it will still be same because he was involved in those projects, so I don't know what different I could have done for that part. One biggest challenge I have gone through with articles related to Nepali people or films is that most of the time sources are considered unreliable. All of those sources which you have considered "probably" in terms of reliability are some of the best sources which covers Nepal related news coverage. Also regarding your comments on "would-be politician", I don't think only office or position holders are considered politician, as much as I know, person running for the office or position is also considered politician. I also do not have any coordination with any of the editors who you mentioned also tried to create this article, although I do agree that most of the references in the article only covers his political campaign, so I will work on finding more sources which covers other agenda as well. I just thought it would be helpful for Wikipedia if I create an article of someone who is well-known personality to Nepali people, any amount of time I get to improve this article would be appreciated. Krishna Dahal (talk) 05:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Not really notable person, just a candidate. Can incubate in draft till he is notable. Less chances of his win.JayMithila (talk)
Delete drafted article would be good option rather then this. Fade258 (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would work for me as well, as long as one of the articles doesn't get deleted. Drafted one or one on the main page, one of them should stay in main space. Krishna Dahal (talk) 23:03, 5 May 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 Calcutta Football League. Discarding the "keep" vote from a certain IPv6 user which cites WP:ITSIMPORTANT. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 15:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1984 Calcutta Football League[edit]

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

Reviewed under New Page patrol. Stats-only article with one source. Does not pass wp:GNG or wp:Nsports North8000 (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and India. Shellwood (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The league happened in the pre internet era and I am sure it's difficult to find the same online. When I created the article, I have mentioned that, the article is based on a page from The Sportstar. I hope sports loving editors will support this page. Rajeshbieee (talk) 09:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Calcutta Football League. No independent notability. Giant Snowman 11:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Asia's oldest football league and it has (should have) independent page for each season. Rajeshbieee (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Calcutta Football League. Doesn't appear to be enough for independent notability for a season article. Only one source provided.— NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 06:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I am surprised to see this article. As an Indian football lover, this page is very much informative and you can't get it from anywhere. It is important to have all seasons updated with these type of info. Benny2409:4072:594:DB0D:6D6B:4414:94FC:C17F (talk) 04:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide multiple sources discussing this season in depth to show a passing of WP:GNG if you want this kept Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Condense and redirect to Calcutta Football League Adding recommendation. Already gave current critique as nominator. North8000 (talk) 11:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Updated two important references and this one ^[1] is very important. Requesting @Titodutta to check the same.Rajeshbieee (talk) 18:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://twitter.com/MB_ELibrary/status/1493184006568828928

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Calcutta Football League - severe lack of sourcing and I'm not convinced by the WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES arguments made. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 6 May 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 Giada De Laurentiis. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Behind the Bash[edit]

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

Unsourced stub since 2009. Zero sourcing found. Prod contested Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per TenPoundHammer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.145.163.110 (talk) 06:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Giada de Laurentiis where this ref can be added. I didn't find anything more substantial. NemesisAT (talk) 08:56, 1 May 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 06:59, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Rhine[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCREATIVE; probably unsalvageable as I'm unable to find much more than salacious and/or passing references to this person; media since the Big Brother show was on air appear to be unusable items like "Big Brother Status Check: Which Couples Are Still Together?" This probably explains why nobody has bothered to expand this since it was tagged ten years ago with a single reference. What should be the BLP's most notable show – co-host or whatever of 3 Guys in a Booth – doesn't even have a Wikipedia article and apparently only played on some US terrestrial digital subchannels. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sourcing is clearly not there to justify an article. Wikipedia is not meant to be a tabloid mirror, and that is what we would have to become to even come close to have enough sourcing to justify this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG due to lack of sourcing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This was supposed to remain a redirect before it was turned into an article with apparent WP:OR and unsourced content. I see there is not enough content or sources to justify a stand-alone article. >>> Extorc.talk 06:08, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amitriyaan[edit]

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

Was CSD for promotional purposes, article does not appear to be hence not a speedy delete. Contested on talk page. Sending to AfD for discussion administratively. Tawker (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tawker (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure in what universe this isn't a raging advertisement, but he also doesn't appear to be notable. He's had a few film roles but nothing that's received particularly significant coverage and most of what is in the article is blatant mass produced Indian churnalism. PRAXIDICAE💕 18:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With more than 8 movies as a lead and parallel lead roles and 2 webseries and still page is being discussed to be deleted is lil strange . Many actors who have not even done even half of Amit Riyaan's work profile are already on Wikipedia . Someone called praxidicae put the point it's ' Indian churnalism ' . It itself sound RACIST and biased with half knowledge . regarding coverage in today's world

almost everything is bought in media world and gets covered. That is real advertisement more than work profile. Someone who has niche fan following and isn't into bought media coverage is being discussed for advertisement issue is not at all logical and fair . Sandeepth2785 (talk) 08:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandeepth2785 The media in India, especially the entertainment media, has a few respected outlets. Those which are not respected rehash PR stories. This is termed churnalism. While Praxidicae might possibly have explained this in more detail it is an unfortunate fact that most entertainment media in India has a less than stellar reputation.

Since churnalism in this class of media is a fact, and 'Indian food' is not a racially unacceptable term, it is a large leap to suggest that the deployment of the term 'Indian churnalism' is racially motivated. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I see WP:ADMASQ here. I have sample checked the references and find interviews with Riyaan, material about some of the things he has been in but not necessarily mentioning him, and nothing to show that he passes WP:NACTOR. I see a jobbig actor who may make it one day. At best it is WP:TOOSOON 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The outcome of the deletion discussion is not helped by a copyright picture having been uploaded to Commons and included (for now) in the Infobox 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And now a further unpermissioned picture added to the article is at Commons 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:15, 25 April 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 April 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the transclusion issue
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first order of notability of a living person is sourcing. The bar is raised higher than with other articles and must follow Wikipedia:policies and guidelines. There should be multiple independent and reliable sources that providing significant coverage to advance notability.

There is no set number but at least three would be enough to "convince anybody". There is a difference in a source that supports content and one that advance notability even though the last can certainly also support content.

The first source I checked, about a feature film titled "Zee5 Movie: Atkan Chatkan; Cast: Lydian Nadhaswaram, Yash Rane, Sachin Chaudhary, Tamanna Dipak, Ayesha Vindhara; Direction: Shiv Hare; Rating", was confusing and disappointing.

I am not up to date on "Indian churnalism" but coud imagine this might be an appropriate discription. I do not think anyone should have to dig around to try to be convinced there is notability. If sourcing is not improvable then notability is absolutetly not proven. -- Otr500 (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note. This AfD was in fact correctly transcluded in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 April 23 when it was nominated, but a subsequent move confused cyberbot and XFDcloser and led to it appearing in multiple daily logs. It is now only listed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 May 1 and can be closed or relisted as normal after 2022-05-08. – Joe (talk) 10:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the explanation! I figured it was listed somewhere given the early votes but wanted to err on the side of caution/full visibility. Star Mississippi 14:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 07:00, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Walker (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Contested CSD, has several notable sources but article does read promotional. Procedural route to AfD. Tawker (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Tawker (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hi there - I removed a couple of moments of quotations that might have been read as promotional. There's a ton of reputable sources about this person and the research done here was comprehensive, not just cherrypicking positive things. It's an account of the things he's done in his career. BubbleBub (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've opened three sources, all substantive features, from USA Today, NPR and CNBC, and this is obviously a notable subject from what I'm seeing. Easily meets WP:GNG. If it's promotional, rewrite, but there's plenty to work with here. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's the latest here? We can wait another week and then I'll remove template? If you think it'd be helpful, Tawker, maybe we could cross-post the discussion a couple other places? BubbleBub (talk) 05:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if there are several sources that establish notability, as the nominator suggests, then the article should be rewritten to be less promotional, not deleted. NemesisAT (talk) 11:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article would benefit from some editing, but that does not change the fact that the subject is notable. The amount of sigcov is not trivial. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 07:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday Pants[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted in 2015 for lack of sources, and I see nothing proving that any sources have come forth since. Tried to prod, but somehow Twinkle did not notice the prevoius AFD. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:55, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Comics and animation. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:55, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No change from my previous vote! on this article; a four-week filler series containing filler itself and sourced to "lost media wikis", and not even notable enough for mention in List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network. Nate • (chatter) 22:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only relevant GNews result is a listicle published on a forum. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Chris Wade (writer). MBisanz ^talk 17:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dodson and Fogg[edit]

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

This is the page for a musical project. While it has had several well-known guest musicians, and has produced a prolific catalogue of music, it doesn't seem to have garnered any media coverage beyond a handful of reviews in minor publications and the occasional play on specialist music shows. I can't find anything that would satisfy the criteria listed at WP:BAND. As an AtD, the page could conceivably be redirected to the page for its founder member Chris Wade (writer), although that page also has questionable notability. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Chris Wade (writer); the band gets a lot of mentions, along the lines of "Chris Wade's eclectic music project" and so forth, but nothing independent seems to be out there. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per TF (above) and ATD. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:09, 1 May 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!} 05:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Scorseses[edit]

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

Non-notable musical group. Lacking significant coverage PepperBeast (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Louisiana. PepperBeast (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd.

Logs: 2011-04 ✗ PROD

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails all criteria of WP:NMUSIC. I was thinking maybe it could pass by virtue of having released two albums on a major label (criterion 5), but it seems that their ungoogleable first album, Magnumopus, was self-released, as on iTunes it is copyright "The Scorceses LLC." I'll note that, by virtue of the name of this band, it is quite hard to find any coverage, particularly WP:RS. Lkb335 (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 07:03, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ralston Cash[edit]

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

Non Notable minor league baseball player Spanneraol (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Baseball, and Georgia (U.S. state). • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG with significant coverage such as this [26][27][28][29] Alvaldi (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a professional athlete he is notable according to WP guidelines.Chris VDR (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no guideline that makes him notable just for being a professional athlete. Spanneraol (talk) 02:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Playing MiLB does not confer automatic notability. Unclear whether Alvadi's sources have been evaluated
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, appears to pass GNG per Alvaldi. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, based on the four articles linked by Alvadi. All four are detailed articles on Cash, and all four are from reliable secondary sources. Hatman31 (talk) 01:27, 7 May 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. I can't see a reason to relist this a third time. Closing as no consensus as there has been zero participation, and taking into consideration the previous AfD discussion. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Python Paste[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural nomination for an IP who prodded the article with the edit summary "Not notable. There are no independent sources". As the article was previously AFD'd in 2010, it is not eligible for prod so I am moving the discussion to AFD. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:37, 1 May 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 02:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G4's Late Night Peepshow[edit]

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

Unsourced since 2007. Found nothing but Wikipedia mirrors in a WP:BEFORE. Prod contested Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --Vaco98 (talk) 03:23, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V, WP:N and WP:GNG.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:50, 4 May 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 02:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Jallow[edit]

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

Article fails notability for sport with lists and databases cited. Article is created by an SPA; suspected this fellow is actually the author of the article. Whiteguru (talk) 02:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, and Africa. Whiteguru (talk) 02:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I personally created this article on behalf of my player Alpha Jallow. I basically used Alphaj97 to create his article because I have many players which am managing and I cannot remember every username. Centric Sports Management is my agency name. Here is the link of my agency name on Transfermarket including all the players I am managing and Alpha Jallow is among them; https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/centric-sports-management/beraterfirma/berater/7062 Alphaj97 (talk) 02:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to make a formal declaration of this. Instructions have been left on your talk page. You are also required to disclose any other accounts that you are operating per WP:SOCK. Please do not carry on editing until this has been done. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not being directly or indirectly compensated for my edits. I would never violate Wikipedia policy. I voluntary created this article and I do not hold or operating under any other accounts apart from Alphaj97, email: socceragentuk@gmail.com Alphaj97 (talk) 11:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This completely contradicts your post just above where you say and I quote "my player Alpha Jallow" and "I basically used Alphaj97 to create his article because I have many players which am managing and I cannot remember every username." In the second sentence you admit to using more than one account and you admit to managing this player. This is a conflict of interest per WP:COI and you absolutely need to declare this. Repeated failure to do so will lead to you losing your editing privileges. You are employed by Centric Sports Management and so have a clear conflict of interest here. I will send you another warning on your talk page. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He is not like Samuel Eto'o or Drogba because he has not play for Barcelona or Chelsea but believe me where he came from he is notable. He is on FIFA TMS because he is professional. Every young talent professional need a chance to be seen on Wikipedia if the sources are verifiable. He's case all the sources on the page are verifiable. I am not here to attack anyone but before going ahead and propose for a deletion, you should how these young talent professionals are working so hard to fulfil their dreams in the higher level. Alphaj97 (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 12:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
seven sources lacks significant coverage? Are you serious? Just because you don't know or have not heard the name of the subject does not mean you have to be judgemental. Alphaj97 (talk) 12:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alphaj97 My prior knowledge of the player is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is if it can be shown that the player has multiple sources of significant coverage over a sufficiently significant period of time. Database links like these[30][31][32][33] do not go towards GNG per WP:NOTDATABASE. Of the other three, none is WP:SIGCOV as they don't address the subject in much detail, they just state that he was signed and then fired 24 hours later. Even if those where significant sources, they are all from July 2019 which is not WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is the point. I am an Intermediary Football Agent based in the United Kingdom, I worked with several many players mainly from Africa and Asia. I have been following this subject since 2015 on his journey. He is listed on Wikipedia under "Foreign players played in India" scrol down to "Gambia"and you see his name under the club name "Prayag United SC".

However, one of the reason I created this article for the subject is because Wikipedia have not created one for him back then when he was eligible for it. In 2020 the subject got an injury (knee fracture). He is still recovering from that trauma was unable to compete for two years. I suggest you know these people and what their going through before making judgments. Alphaj97 (talk) 12:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alphaj97 My opinion and !vote is purely based on the lack of significant coverage about this individual. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information nore is it a place to right great wrongs so while it is sad to hear about his injuries, they don't have any bearings on this discussions. Alvaldi (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
His injury do not have any bearings on this discussion I know that. I mentioned it, so you know his conditions before blindly voting for deletion. All the sources provided here are verifiable and legit. I do not understand why people are so bias. I rest my case. Alphaj97 (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete THe sources cited are entirely insufficient to demonstrate notability according to Wikipedia criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have work in football industry for the past 19 years but I have never seen this type of temperament from public. I often came across with a lot of wikipedia pages with only one or two sources outdated and they have never been deleted. Is it because the subject "Alpha Jallow" does not have an updated sources which makes him ineligible for wikipedia page? It is unfair judgement.

Simply because their not notable in your eyes does not mean where they came from they are not. As an African player abroad, everybody in your native country and environment probably have heard about about you. Is very sad to see this judgements. Alphaj97 (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't complicated. To qualify for an article, it needs to be demonstrated that the subject (Jarrow in this case) has had significant coverage in independent sources. 'Significant' as understood from the relevant policies, as interpreted by contributors with experience of how they apply. Not 'significant' because someone connected with the subject says it isn't fair otherwise. Not 'significant' because someone connected with the subject makes unverifiable claims about 'everybody' knows. This is an entirely routine procedure on Wikipedia. People with conflicts of interest routinely get their attempts at promotion deleted. If you have contributed to Wikipedia before, but have yet to become aware of this, that is unfortunate, but that is how it works. I suggest you stop badgering people here, and let the discussion run its course. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per source analysis below, fails WP:GNG, WP:NBASIC. Not even a case of WP:ONEEVENT as the one event itself that provided routine coverage (him signing for an amateur Turkish club then being swiftly dismissed) is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.playmakerstats.com/player.php?id=675093			Stats page, no coverage	✘ No
https://www.zerozero.pt/equipa.php?id=3548&epoca_id=148			Stats	✘ No
https://soccer.everythingforfootball.com/player/alpha-jallow-1997/	?	?	Stats	✘ No
https://afrinik.com/gambian-footballer-alpha-jallow-fired-24-hours-after-signing/			Not significant. We know that he signed for the club then was dismissed. We know that he is Gambian. No other info about the player is discussed.	✘ No
https://africafeeds.com/2019/07/21/the-gambian-footballer-signed-and-sacked-in-a-day/			Little coverage. Talks a bit about Lamin Jallow but not much depth about Alpha	✘ No
https://www.trtspor.com.tr/haber/futbol/menemensporda-cifte-imza-187002.html			Routine transfer announcement	✘ 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)).

Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The subject only had three years of his career from 2016-2019. He has a brighter future ahead of him, to achieve his dreams. Injury is every athlete's nightmare. I would continue to help him achieve his dream with or without wikipedia page. As soon as he recovers he will get back to the pitch.

You are the wikipedia administrator, whatever you decide I will take it in good faith but I will suggest keeping his page until he gets back on his feet. Thank you! Alphaj97 (talk) 14:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim to future notability is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. If he does indeed carve a successful career later on, then the article can be created again. We shouldn't create articles on the off chance that they might be notable in the future. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not written on off chance basis. He is indeed notable. Alphaj97 (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG at the moment as there is no significant references to his career so far. If as above he comes back from his injury and gets significant coverage then article can always be recreated then but as it stands now, it fails.— NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 22:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why so much hate in here. SMH Alphaj97 (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 2020 Libertarian National Convention#Chair election. ✗plicit 02:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Libertarian National Committee chair election[edit]

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

Merge into 2020 Libertarian National Convention#Chair election. I really don't see this getting over WP:NEVENT on its own with the available sourcing, especially when there exists an article for the broader event. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Libertarianism, Politics, and United States of America. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Per nomination, it can easily be covered in the broader article. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:54, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge no justification for a separate article here, ~~all~~ appropriate material can easily be contained within the LP Convention article. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:08, 3 May 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 02:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The MMO Report[edit]

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

Non-notable podcast, sources are all WP:PRIMARY. Prod contested. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Internet. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per TenPoundHammer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.145.163.110 (talk) 06:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears no effort was expended to demonstrate any sort of notability when the article was made, nor do reliable sources appear to be out there. The DEPROD did not give a legitimate reason or source. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect I've found this [34] but that's it. Timur9008 (talk) 23:03 ,7 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to G4 (American TV network). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pulse (American TV series)[edit]

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

Unsourced since 2009. Only source is an obit on one of the hosts. Zero sourcing found. Contested prod Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did find this though it doesn't have enough coverage on its own to meet WP:GNG, IMO. NemesisAT (talk) 10:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to G4 (American TV network) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. The Associated Press article that NemesisAT found can be used to verify some of the material in the article that can be used for a merge. Cunard (talk) 08:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to G4 (American TV network) per Cunard. Timur9008 (talk) 22:45 ,7 May 2022 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:40, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of reality legal programming[edit]

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

"Reality legal programming" does not seem to be an actual defined term. This list has been completely unsourced since 2010 and has not improved; in fact, until earlier today, "list of" was not part of the article's name due to an against-consensus move. Prod declined without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral(changed vote) I did too give a reason when I removed your prod. [35] I clearly said (valid list article). There was no "against-consensus move", that not making any sense at all. There was no discussion for it, nor needed one, it just a common sense thing. This is a list article, so "list of" should be in the name. Valid navigational list, it linking to Wikipedia articles logically grouped together. Reality television is well known, the article defines its purpose as listing those with "reality-based subjects having to do with law, such as police, crime, litigation". So clear inclusion criteria. Dream Focus 01:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is it valid if "legal reality programming" is not a thing that exists? Lists still need to be sourced, and about a topic that actually exists. You could easily make a verifiable list of "list of TV shows whose titles begin with the letter W", "list of TV shows whose first episode aired on a Thursday", or "list of sitcoms that still use a laugh track in 2022", but that's not an encyclopedic topic. By whose standards is any given show about litigation or crime and a reality series? Both halves of that statement would need to be verified, and sources would need to prove that this is a noteworthy intersection of genres. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article is in the categories of category:Legal television series and category:Reality television. Both of these things exist, the page is dedicated to listing things in both of these categories. Can rename it to List of reality television programs involving the law.

Reality_television#Court_shows has a link to this page. Category:Reality television series by genre has Category:Court_shows in it. A page with just the many court shows in it would be a valid one. Just having similar themed things all in one list makes sense though. Whoops, I just noticed List of court shows already exist.

So does List of reality television programs. It seems everything is already listed elsewhere so perhaps this article is not needed. Dream Focus 17:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article is on a made-up topic, which only exists because the creator of the article says it exists. Isn't that a criteria for speedy deletion? Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 05:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to WP:SYNTH. MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SYNTH WP:OR stub list that would be a category if it was an actual topic anyway. Dronebogus (talk) 22:13, 2 May 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 02:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Totally Outrageous Behavior[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NTV. Found no sourcing whatsoever. Article doesn't even say what show the network was on or who hosted it. Contested prod. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per TenPoundHammer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.145.163.110 (talk) 06:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not meet notability requirements. Ajf773 (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable TV show. AKK700 02:50, 6 May 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.