< May 20	May 22 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as the release date is within reasonable draft incubation Star Mississippi 02:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Babli Bouncer[edit]

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

I cannot determine a reason under WP:NFILM why this article should exist. The film is upcoming. WP:TOOSOON may apply, so I suggest deletion without prejudice to future recreation once notability is established. In addition more than one reference deployed in the article makes no mention of the film, and many others are churnalism 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The release date is not announced and it would take sometime as the filming wrapped up recently. Post Production work wouldn't have started yet most probably. It is said that the movie may release by the end of the year. I created the article as I believe it would satisfy WP:NFF as their is ample amount of sources available which may at some point comply with Wikipedia guidelines WP:NFILM as the principal photography started in February and completed in May. I agree with the reviewer and nominator for looking into it, guiding me nominating per WP:TOOSOON . I would like to suggest whoever close the afd rather deleting it, if you could Move to Draft. Thanks C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 15:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@C1K98V I believe we should interpret your comment as a request to draftify the article, so I am making this clearer to the eventual closer of the discussion. I considered draftifying it myself, unilaterally. The reason I chose not to was precisely the reason you state about potential elapsed time before a full release. The Draft space is not intended to hold material for an indeterminate period, It is intended that the draft be worked on with an end in sight. This is what I have nominated it for deletion without prejudice to future re-creation

References do not "at some point comply", they are either valid or are not valid. Yours are borderline at best. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:23, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify / userify seems the page creator intends to keep working on it, no reason to make them go through REFUND. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:40, 28 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 11:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Condemnation to the mines[edit]

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

WP:DICDEF Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:44, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:44, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is more than a mere dictionary definition. It may be a summary of a single academic article, but that is not a reason for deletion, but for improvement. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And what do you suggest it be improved with? Calling a thing "notable" doesn't make it so. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:10, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep —— clearly a notable topic, well sourced from un-impeachable sources. Like any other article, it can be improved. XavierItzm (talk) 06:41, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources are there: Condemned to Mine Copper (Biblical Archaeology Society), Condemnation to the Mines in the Later Roman Empire (JStor paper), pages 200-203 of Prison, Punishment and Penance in Late Antiquity. You just have to dig it out. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also Condemnation to Hard Labour in the Roman Empire, From the Julio-Claudians to Constantine. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Clarityfiend. St Anselm (talk) 00:38, 27 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. Technicaly ineligible, but I don't see any input forthcoming Star Mississippi 02:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

H. L. Dusadh[edit]

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

Notability and cn-tagged since 2015. I don't see a WP:GNG pass when I look, but there are lots of things complicating the search: his books are in Hindi, he writes on marginalized topics (Dalit/Bahujan empowerment), and he doesn't speak English or work at a university. In principle, he could well be notable - can anyone find sources to prove it?

He's "Dusādha, Eca. Ela." in my library catalogue (at least, I think these are the same person), but that didn't help me find anything for WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK (to get WP:NAUTHOR). Leaving that in case it helps anyone else. asilvering (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Journalism, Politics, and India. asilvering (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:56, 23 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. Star Mississippi 02:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harold C. Washington[edit]

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

I don't think this is a WP:NPROF pass, unless someone in theology has some good arguments otherwise? Does not pass WP:NAUTHOR - the one single-authored book (Wealth and Poverty) has at least three academic reviews, so it passes WP:NBOOK, but it's just the one. The only footnote is "Discussion with Dr. Washington, November 17, 2009." asilvering (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, and Christianity. asilvering (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning move to draft. Google Scholar returns a decent number of hits, but the most cited piece has 95 citations, which seems to be on the low end. BD2412 T 05:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The nature of the publishers indicates that his books are fully academic works. Tag for improvement. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For an arts subject, 95 citations is a high number. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron I'm not sure what this comment is supposed to mean. It's not in dispute that he's an academic. It's in dispute that he meets WP:NPROF. -- asilvering (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF #1. In fact, 95 citations is very high for biblical studies. (I also see a 72 and a 59.) His standing in the scholarly community is best demonstrated by the fact that he is asked to write articles for major dictionaries. (See the list here.) The article certainly needs some cleanup, though. St Anselm (talk) 00:49, 27 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 00:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Numb & Number[edit]

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

Might juuust squak by NMUSIC6, but it's not clear Harrow is independently notable of sigh, and Kawashima redirects there. Unable to find evidence of coverage to meet GNG for this one off collaboration, nor identify a viable AtD. Star Mississippi 20:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Organizations. Star Mississippi 20:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet WP:GNG. While this may meet WP:MUSICBIO #6 as "an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians", my searches have found no coverage in reliable sources for this collaboration, and MUSICBIO does not guarantee notability, simply stating that topics may be notable if they meet some of the criteria there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:49, 29 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 11:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eghosa Nehikhare[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. There's a Yahoo Finance link, but it points to a press release by Multigate. Otherwise, no WP:SIGCOV. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — purely promotional, fails the general notability guidelines Reading Beans ^{Talk to the Beans?} 07:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG requirements for inclusion. Megtetg34 (talk) 05:33, 28 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. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ain't That America[edit]

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

"Pink Houses" is not called "Ain't That America", meaning it is not a valid disambiguation entry. Prod contested because "it may be useful" even though that's not how dabs work. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. However, immediately after the deletion, I recommend moving Ain't That America (TV series) to Ain't That America, and then adding a hatnote there to direct people looking for the John Cougar Mellencamp song to Pink Houses. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:59, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Agree with the above suggested move because disambiguation isn't necessary. Disagree with the suggested redirect because the term isn't even mentioned in Pink Houses. MB 03:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move the TV series to base title. Before making a redirect or hatnote from the term to the song, it would be necessary to add some mention of the term in the song's article - it isn't mentioned there at present. PamD 09:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a useful disambiguation. Someone using this phrase is more likely than not looking for Pink Houses as evidenced by a cursory search. If not for the TV series, this would make a fine ((R from lyric)), but it is ambiguous so we must disambiguate. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, I have added a mention of the phrase at Pink Houses. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Only one direct match, with the other meaning resolvable via hatnote. BD2412 T 03:02, 29 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 Internet censorship in Russia#Instances of censorship or such other article as might be agreed on the talk page. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking of Meta Platforms in Russia[edit]

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

Conceptually, the topic for this article is not an encyclopedia article topic-- it isn't a discrete specific thing (since a meta platform can be blocked from anywhere, not just russia), and this article is essentially a content fork. We don't host articles with titles like "When a car accident happens" or "Politicians sometimes interfere with the lawmaking process" or "A neighborhood that has the best sidewalks" because although references can be found that discuss these things in depth, they aren't themes that belong in an encyclopedia because of what they try to conceptualize. The article might be movable to "Blocking of Meta platforms in Russia during the second Russian-Ukrainian war" or some other longwinded thing like that, or the content can be added into the article on the war itself or to one on Internet censorship such as that practiced by China and other totalitarian regimes. A loose necktie (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTFORUM+ this is enwiki, not zhwiki
首先我個人認為不應該撤除/阻止元平台。基於疫情，俄羅斯，烏克蘭事件而導致的暴亂，所以不該把責任推于任何網絡媒體平台。更何況這疫情，俄國與烏克蘭暴亂期間，這些媒體平台都做出很大的貢獻，報導前線消息，呼籲帶動行善，捐款，最近的全球氣候轉變，尤其元平台的貢獻更不能忽視。而且疫情與戰爭持續，消耗的資源，以及經濟不景，元平台都在供應資源，更帶動科技邁入巔峰，造就更多的就業機會。 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coconut3199 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply] This is the English Wikipedia. I don't think a recommendation here expressed in Chinese will be useful to the participants in this discussion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTFORUM+ this is enwiki, not zhwiki

首先我個人認為不應該撤除/阻止元平台。基於疫情，俄羅斯，烏克蘭事件而導致的暴亂，所以不該把責任推于任何網絡媒體平台。更何況這疫情，俄國與烏克蘭暴亂期間，這些媒體平台都做出很大的貢獻，報導前線消息，呼籲帶動行善，捐款，最近的全球氣候轉變，尤其元平台的貢獻更不能忽視。而且疫情與戰爭持續，消耗的資源，以及經濟不景，元平台都在供應資源，更帶動科技邁入巔峰，造就更多的就業機會。 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coconut3199 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the English Wikipedia. I don't think a recommendation here expressed in Chinese will be useful to the participants in this discussion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Internet, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: relevant content belongs at an article like Censorship of Facebook#Russia or Internet censorship in Russia first, and if it becomes too big for those articles then it can be split into a standalone article. With the sourcing currently in this article, I think something useful can be written within a larger article. The prose, however, may prove too lengthy and not that well-written to transfer. — Bilorv (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've moved the article during this AfD, since its previous title (simply "Blocking of Meta Platforms") was clearly inappropriate. By the way, we already have two articles with similar scopes in Wikipedia, Blocking of Telegram in Russia and Blocking of Wikipedia in Russia. We have precedents for the existence of this page and it is similar in length and comprehensivity to those two. The examples given by the nominator above are not good comparations to this situation. Oppose deletion. Super Ψ Dro 14:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems like this whole article could have been a few sentences in Meta. I don't see the value in keeping the content, it is not well written, but redirect or merge options are not unreasonable. CT55555 (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Shorten and Merge with Internet censorship in Russia#Instances of censorship. Articles Blocking of Telegram in Russia and Blocking of Wikipedia in Russia could also be shortened and merged there. Alternatively, the nominated article and aforementioned two articles can be consolidated into one article with a title such as "Blocking of Internet platforms in Russia". I believe merging these articles either into their own article or into sections in Internet censorship in Russia is preferable to how the articles are laid out now due to guidelines like WP:PAGEDECIDE and WP:PERSISTENCE. ~XyNq^t_c 15:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with one of the censorship articles as described above. Oaktree b (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I don't think it had significant impact because most people in Russia use VK. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 10:13, 26 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?)} 16:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beg, Borrow & Deal[edit]

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

Found only press releases and passing mentions. Prod contested in violation of WP:NPA. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:37, 21 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?)} 22:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Comment~~ - Added a citation to article just for the original name, game format and hosts. Also few sources found on a Wikipedia Library search. below with dedicated coverage. WikiVirusC^(talk) 23:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dempsey, John (October 28, 2002). "ESPN big on 'Beg' after demo gains". Daily Variety Gotham. Vol. 277, no. 16. p. 5.
Reynolds, Mike; Umstead, R. Thomas (October 21, 2022). "ESPN 'Begs' Up Another Reality Season". Multichannel News. Vol. 23, no. 42. p. 54.
Kim, Chuck (September 17, 2002). "ESPN's out player". The Advocate. p. 40.

Two about the ratings and ordering of second season. One that is half about show and half about one contestant and his time on show. Will look for some more sources later in week. WikiVirusC^(talk) 23:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed from just a comment to keep after additional sources mentioned by others, the LA times one I didn't see at all and has good coverage. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Lev, Michael (2002-09-19). "Top of the 2nd: TV-Radio // ESPN reality check might be a winner". Orange County Register. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
  The article notes: "I expected to hate ESPN's new series, Beg, Borrow & Deal (Tuesdays, 5 p.m.). The show is the latest in the so-called reality-TV genre, where "reality" is usually a misnomer. But after watching the first episode, I must admit the show is off to a promising start. ... Beg, Borrow & Deal isn't quite reality as we know it -- unless you're a transient, in which case you probably don't have a TV anyway -- but it's a legitimate struggle, distinguishing it from some of the other reality series I regularly skip. ... At the very least, Beg, Borrow & Deal is a step in the right direction for ESPN Original Entertainment, which also produced the laughably bad A Season on the Brink."
2. Catlin, Roger (2002-09-17). "ESPN's 'Beg': Coast to Coast via Athleticism, Luck and Wits". Hartford Courant. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
  The article notes: "Instead, the sports network is starting its own competition tonight with the reality show Beg, Borrow & Deal. The new show looks like The Amazing Race -- teams compete to get from one place to another for a prize. But while the Race goes globetrotting in pairs of two, with a few bucks in its pocket, Beg stays in the country but strips its teams of money. That means the two Beg teams of four -- two men and two women on each team -- must use their wits, coast to coast, for transportation, food and lodging. ... Beg, Borrow & Deal was originally cast more than a year ago, Mandt said. That's when filming was to have begun, but fallout from the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks delayed the show."
3. Seitz, Denny (2002-09-15). "S.C. Salesman Becomes Reality TV Star - Clemson Fan to Appear in ESPN Series That Starts Tuesday Night". The Charlotte Observer. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
  The article notes: "Starting Tuesday, the 27-year-old Chester native will be among eight contestants spotlighted on the eight-week ESPN series "Beg, Borrow & Deal." After a series of interviews and videos sent to ESPN, the station selected eight contestants. Britton is the lone Southerner among them. ... Teams are required to complete 10 of 40 listed tasks en route to their final destination of Alcatraz Island in San Francisco. Among the tasks: Ride a Zamboni ice resurfacer between periods of an NHL game. Compete in a marathon and not finish last. Catch a 35-yard pass from an NFL quarterback. Play in a prison basketball game. Bike ride for a mile with Lance Armstrong."
4. McGraw, Mike (2003-08-14). "Caught on tape ESPN captures sad, surreal moment with Bulls' - Williams". Daily Herald. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
  The article notes: "Last week's episode of the ESPN reality show "Beg, Borrow & Deal 2" allowed Bulls fans to take a melancholy trip back in time. ... On "Beg, Borrow & Deal," two teams of contestants cross the country trying to accomplish sports-related tasks without money or the use of a vehicle. Porter convinced Williams to rent a limousine that would ferry his team to Wrigley Field."
5. Greene, Jerry (2002-09-17). "Appointment TV: Mascot Washing?". Orlando Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
  The article notes: "Always on the cutting edge, ESPN is doing it's own "reality show," introducing Beg, Borrow & Deal tonight at 8. ... Anyway, the teams can choose from among 40 listed tasks. And to give you a taste of what to expect, we at CSI -- Cheap Seats Investigations -- have listed what look like the 10 most interesting tasks."
6. Kim, Chuck (2002-09-17). "ESPN's out player: Julian Bryce invades cable's butchest network on the reality game show Beg, Borrow & Deal. (Television)". The Advocate. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22 – via Gale.
  The article notes: "As the stereotype goes, queer men aren't supposed to play or follow competitive sports. Openly gay entertainment reporter Julian Bryce hopes to break this image as a competitor in ESPN's first reality-based game show, Beg, Borrow & Deal, premiering September 17. Still, he's the first to admit he might seem to fit the stereotype to a tee."
7. Dempsey, John (2002-10-28). "ESPN big on 'Beg' after demo gains". Daily Variety. Vol. 277, no. 16. p. 5. ISSN 0011-5509. EBSCOhost 7704540. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22 – via Gale.
  The article notes: "A whopping increase in the number of young-adult viewers has helped land a second-season renewal from ESPN for "Beg, Borrow & Deal," its weekly primetime entertainment-reality series. ... The show is averaging a modest 436,000 households for the six weeks since it premiered Tuesday at 8 on Sept. 17, which is only about half of ESPN's average primetime rating, and 26% below the shows in the time period for the same six months in 2001. But outweighing the bad news is the fact that the show is up in three key demographic categories from a year ago: by 135% among adults 18 to 34, by 46% with adults 18 to 49 and by 20% for adults 25 to 54."
8. Reynolds, Mike; Umstead, R. Thomas (2002-10-21). "ESPN 'Begs' up another reality season". Multichannel News. Vol. 23, no. 42. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22 – via Gale.
  The article notes: "Encouraged by the response from new viewers and overall Nielsen Media Research returns from its foray into the reality game show fray, ESPN will order a second season of Beg, Borrow & Deal and is hoping to pair it with a second genre entry next year. ... Through the first five of its eight installments, Beg, Borrow & Deal averaged a 0.5 household rating and a 0.8 among its core male 18 to 34 audience."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Beg, Borrow & Deal to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging NemesisAT (talk · contribs), who removed the proposed deletion. Cunard (talk) 07:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- an additional source from the LA Times: [1]. matt91486 (talk) 15:29, 22 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. I don't see a consensus for a redirect, but if someone wants to make one after the fact, I wouldn't make a fuss. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Lee Williams[edit]

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

This article is about a musician and actor that lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to justify an article on Wikipedia. The only source provided is an interview in which the subject os one of three singers covered. The article itself makes no great claims to notability with the statement of being an actress and providing no information about any major roles. As a singer, she has provided backing vocals and sung commercial jingles. My own search for sourcing does not turn up any significant coverage. Whpq (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Whpq (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although Williams appears to have been in some notable recordings and tv shows, there just isn't the sourcing to pass WP:GNG or verify the claims. Unfortunately, session musicians rarely get the recognition they perhaps deserve. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable person. Not everyone involved in making a production that is notable becomes notable for doing so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: What if that "non-notable" person is involved in many *notable* songs by many *notable* artists? We have pages for the recording engineers. The Black woman who sings? Non-notable. Got it. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page could use more sources, but it is only a "stub" page at the moment and other editors can improve it. This is a musician (a singer) who has a gold record for Hands Up (Give Me Your Heart). That same song was nominated as best single at the Juno Awards of 1989. There are currently about 25 pages that link to Sharon Lee Williams due to her career as a musician and actress. The page should be improved, not deleted. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That certainly helps contrinbute towards establishing notability, but there still remains no significant coverage in reliable sources. I would support a redirect to Hands Up (Give Me Your Heart)#Sway version. -- Whpq (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having a gold record "helps" establish notability? She literally had a top ten hit record in her country. What does the woman have to do to be notable? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 18:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect some for of coverage about her beyond and interview which all that has been presented. I looked and could not find any. If you are aware of such coverage, please present it. notable has a specific meaning on Wikipedia apart of the standard dictionary definition. It is the criteria by which a standalone article on Wikipedia is suitable. -- Whpq (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the first few Canadian singer stubs. So Bec Abbot is notable because unknown Christian blogs wrote about her? And Addictiv is notable because of her record company bio? But Sharon Lee Williams, who has a Juno award nomination, a gold record, a top ten single, and has sung on world famous songs, is not notable because *you* can't find sources? That seems strange. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:Other stuff exists. Wikipedia is not obligated to maintain the loose standards of the past on into the future. Those articles should be improved or deleted. Wikipedia does not engage in advocacy, no matter how noble the cause.--Quisqualis (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious about your reference to "advocacy". Do you mean because I pointed out that Sharon Lee Williams is a Black woman? And that Black people and women are underrepresented on Wikipedia? And that one of the reasons for that might be because Black people and women are underrepresented in the media, so sources may be harder to find? That's not advocacy - those are just statements of well-documented facts. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not because I cannot find sources to establish notability. It's because nobody, including you, the article creator cannot find the sourcing for notability. Whpq (talk) 00:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I haven't really tried to find more sources. I have no doubt about the notability of someone with a gold record for a top ten hit single, and it's just a stub page. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my WP:BEFORE search came up short of GNG. Unless anyone can point me in the direction of some good sources to meet this, we shouldn't retain. Keep !votes are based purely on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect on the basis of sourcing and notability. Entire article appears to be based on a single interview on a one-man-show website. The Web is full of interviews. Somebody needs to check the criteria for a notable musician and find more reliable sources.--Quisqualis (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and frankly I'd back a speedy. The article significantly lacks sources and significant coverage. I did not find anything to the contrary, nor should it be allowed to exist in main space based on WP:WAX arguments. Megtetg34 (talk) 05:49, 28 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 17:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ruevita Iotin[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - fails WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 22:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searched in multiple places but unable to find any significant coverage Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 27 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 Tuvalu international footballers. Clear consensus not to retain a standalone; redirect to list seems a reasonable WP:ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Toua Tueni[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Tuvalu international footballers as WP:ATD. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how redirecting an article that is not notable to a list of more non-notable names makes any sense. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:R#K5: Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. If someone looks up Toua Tueni, they can find out the country he played for, his position, when he played, etc. A redirect has no notability requirements, only the target of the redirect does. -2pou (talk) 21:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - fails WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No independent sourcing of this sub-stub. No evidence of notability. No suggestion that his level of play meets any extant notability criteria. The best way to follow WP:ATD is to supply adequate sourcing for this player. Was that attempted? Ravenswing 00:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose it was attempted, and the attempt was unfruitful. Redirecting is still another valid ATD, as it gets a searcher to a topic that still conveys information about the topic searched for. -2pou (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The attempt being unfruitful isn't an excuse to say "Oh well, the guidelines don't matter, we should have an article on the subject all the same, because reasons." The only possible response is that an article on the subject cannot be sustained. Ravenswing 21:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No one is saying the guidelines don't matter. If the topic is not notable enough to sustain an article, then it can be removed.
How it is removed is an entirely different question. Is the topic worthy of a redirect? There is no guideline saying that a redirect must satisfy WP:GNG. If you're suggesting that a new redirect created at this page name should be deleted at RfD, it should probably fall under something in WP:RDELETE, and I don't see any of those that apply here. -2pou (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is not only not notable enough to sustain an article, it's ridiculous that this is even under discussion. There is a SINGLE source here, a database entry telling us just about nothing, regarding a single match that was played outside of FIFA's aegis. There is zero value to this entry, other than perhaps satisfying some sense of knee-jerk ultra inclusionism. Ravenswing 21:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am so confused... I don't see a single person advocating to keep the article... -2pou (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested by BeanieFan11 per WP:ATD-R for a valid alternative to deletion. It is worth WP:PRESERVEing the work in case sources from this small nation are uncovered. I see no tendentious history that would warrant outright deletion over a WP:SOFTDELETE. -2pou (talk) 21:10, 26 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 17:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sueni Founuku[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - fails WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No independent, reliable sourcing of this stub. No evidence of notability. No suggestion that his level of play meets any extant notability criteria. A reliable source must be independent, AND reliable, AND provide significant coverage TO the subject in order to meet the GNG's standards. Ravenswing 21:47, 26 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Silimai Siaosi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - fails WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No independent, reliable sourcing of this stub. No evidence of notability. No suggestion that his level of play meets any extant notability criteria. A reliable source must be independent, AND reliable, AND provide significant coverage TO the subject in order to meet the GNG's standards. Ravenswing 21:47, 26 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 17:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Papua Ulisese[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - fails WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable football player Emery Cool21 (talk) 11:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No independent, reliable sourcing of this stub. No evidence of notability. No suggestion that his level of play meets any extant notability criteria. Ravenswing 21:48, 26 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 Tuvalu international footballers. WP:ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tafea İoka[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Tuvalu international footballers as WP:ATD. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - fails WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested by BeanieFan11 per WP:ATD-R for a valid alternative to deletion. It is worth WP:PRESERVEing the work in case sources from this small nation are uncovered. -2pou (talk) 20:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No independent, reliable sourcing of this stub. No evidence of notability. No suggestion that his level of play meets any extant notability criteria. A reliable source must be independent, AND reliable, AND provide significant coverage TO the subject in order to meet the GNG's standards. Ravenswing 21:39, 26 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 Tuvalu international footballers. WP:ATD ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leiatu Uoli[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Tuvalu international footballers as WP:ATD. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - fails WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested by BeanieFan11 per WP:ATD-R for a valid alternative to deletion. It is worth WP:PRESERVEing the work in case sources from this small nation are uncovered. -2pou (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No independent, reliable sourcing of this stub. No evidence of notability. No suggestion that his level of play meets any extant notability criteria. A reliable source must be independent, AND reliable, AND provide significant coverage TO the subject in order to meet the GNG's standards. Ravenswing 21:39, 26 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Miller (philosopher)[edit]

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

No independent sources, no substantial improvement since it was created 12 years ago, and tagged for notability since 2018. BD2412 T 18:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 18:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm seeing a marginal case for WP:NAUTHOR. The subject has one authored volume that looks fairly influential: reviews include [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9], and it has a very large number of citations for a philosophy book. An alternative to deletion would be a redirect to a stub on the book. I am brought to weak keep over redirect, because in addition to the notable authored volume, the subject has a large number of edited collections of papers on various philosophical topics (most/all coedited with Ellen Frankel Paul and Jeffery Paul). I'm seeing also lots of reviews of these edited volumes on a jstor search, and I think this might be enough for NAUTHOR. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Russ Woodroofe: Can you explain why this is "weak keep" and why it's a "marginal" case? Dr. Universe (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Universe: Since the one book is such a big part of what the subject is known for, it verges a little bit on WP:BLP1E. Indeed, without such a solid record of edited volumes I would have !voted to redirect to an article on the book. But I also tend to use the "weak" prefix somewhat more often than other editors. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, I'm leaning delete. WP:HEY might change my mind. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 02:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 in this very low cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Keep For Now Well I think this article can be improved Emery Cool21 (talk) 11:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not Notable Emery Cool21 (talk) 12:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep professor at Bowling Green State University passes WP:NPROF. Worldsolarpower (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- No it doesn't. There is no criterion of NPROF that merely being a professor would pass. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - per David Eppstein, i am changing my comment to passes WP:NAUTHOR. Worldsolarpower (talk) 12:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR. His monograph on Aristotle has many reviews, and he is co-editor of many edited volumes each with one or more published reviews. I added the reviews I found to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The citations are very high for the field; Nature, justice, and rights in Aristotle's Politics appears to be a highly cited, widely reviewed classic and other highly cited works on Aristotle show the subject to be considered an expert on the topic. There are also reviews of the edited volumes, which I believe also count towards WP:AUTHOR (though perhaps discounted compared with authored works). Espresso Addict (talk) 05:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards keep: on a brief search, there appears to be at least some significant coverage in reliable sources [10][11][12]. Alduin2000 (talk) 14:06, 28 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 17:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Gopal Puri[edit]

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

Not notable as per WP:GNG, no independent WP:SIGCOV. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable individual with no coverage in reliable sources. This is nothing more than a PR attempt by a paid editor for their client. PRAXIDICAE💕 18:23, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable to be in wikipedia right now. Owlf 📪 19:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Even if it passed GNG, WP:TNT would apply. Edwardx (talk) 19:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Femke (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable personality and according to all the editors above doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nanpofira (talk) 01:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable Emery Cool21 (talk) 11:34, 25 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 2021 Islamic Solidarity Games#Sports. ✗plicit 13:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Archery at the 2021 Islamic Solidarity Games[edit]

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

Empty tables; fails GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:26, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is scheduled multi-event games will begin at 10 August. 2021 Islamic Solidarity Games will begin 9 August 2022 in Turkey. İt is offcial web cite: http://www.konya2021.com/default.aspx . All detailed information have in this web cite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pehlivanmeydani (talk • contribs) 17:46, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've nominated three others out of the total five for the sports events for this tournament which also have the same empty tables and GNG problems. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its empty because it was a future event Emery Cool21 (talk) 11:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pointless articles. Even when the events happen, no evidence the coverage of any specific event will pass WP:GNG, so no need for these separate articles even then. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a summary to 2021_Islamic_Solidarity_Games#Sports Star Mississippi 17:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Kadı Message 14:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (or at the least redirect) per Star Mississippi. Hobit (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2021 Islamic Solidarity Games. Event is not big enough for each individual sport to be notable on its own, so all that's likely to be added here is lists of results, and Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tradigital art[edit]

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

WP:DICDEF. Seems to be mostly tied to promotional material from Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron and one art teacher. Most of the articles cited either don't use the term, use the term but don't define it, or echo-chamber Jeffrey Katzenberg's quote about Spirit. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:03, 21 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My11Circle[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Coverage revolves around trivial stuff such as partnerships, ad campaigns and sponsorships, all of which are insufficient to establish notability per WP:CORPDEPTH. M4DU7 (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Sports, Websites, and India. M4DU7 (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Sources are definitely poor, I believe this fails WP:N. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 17:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete the only major achievement of the company is sponsoring a couple of tournaments. The media coverage is not very impressive and fails WP:GNG. Nanpofira (talk) 01:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:GNG. Notability of the company is WP:NOTINHERITED] by sponsoring major events like the IPL, there needs to be significant coverage of the actual company, which there is not. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:00, 23 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 00:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frank O'Bannon Highway[edit]

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

This is a collection of state highways in Indiana which share a common designation. A Google search turns up only a few articles referring to this road, and various mapping websites prefer the numerical designations over the name. I'm not convinced the name is commonly used enough to warrant a separate article. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:16, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Indiana. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:16, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Other than stating which highway segments make it up and O'Bannon's interest in improving the highways in the area, there's not much in the article than vague generalizations and possible future plans. The actual information could be merged into a few sentences in the legacy section of the Frank O'Bannon article, which currently does not even mention the highway. Indyguy (talk) 16:58, 21 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 00:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of early spring flowers[edit]

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

List of early summer flowers and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of late spring flowers previously deleted. Subjective, undefinable, unhelpful, unsourced, listified prior-cat stub since 2007. Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 15:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, "early spring" is completely subjective, meaning this list is impossible to discern by design. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This works for a Devonshire gardening manual, not an international encyclopedia. Subjective timeframe and impossible to globalize. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the analogy with List of early summer flowers and even late spring flowers is a bit misleading. There is a well-established concept in ecology, the "spring window", referring to the time between when it gets warm enough for plants to do stuff, and before the main vegetation gets its leaves and shades out everything underneath. This is the ecological niche occupied by the early spring flowering plants, so it would be possible to define this list in a way that can be supported by proper sources. The spring window does, of course happen at a different time of year in different places, and not everywhere has deciduous vegetation, but it's a concept that's relevant across a large chunk of the globe. I'm not sure the current list is global enough, or focused enough, to merit keeping, but were it aligned to a well-described ecological phenomenon, it could be. If you want to look into this, beware, google searches are hard to design; there's so much about window-boxes for spring flowers and spring into beauty in your windows, etc., that it's quite hard to get the ecological stuff. I recommend something like 'ecology "spring window"', but good luck! Elemimele (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:31, 25 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Popular Autonomy Movement[edit]

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

A totally unknown party; it seems that it is not possible to find any source on this party. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The MAP did not achieve success in the election it participated in, but it was a real political party and, as such, it is definitely encyclopedic. Every little piece of political history deserves a space in Wikipedia. Articles like this (the nominator proposed a string of AfDs today) should be clearly improved, but not deleted. Of course, the passing of time makes difficult to find more sources and information in the web, but I will do my best to improve the article. I think it should be kept, anyway. At first glance I see proposed deletions as harmful and time-wasting exercises, but hopfully they could become opportunities for improving articles. --Checco (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The claim "definitely encyclopedic" is based on what? On the grounds that it simply existed? You know very well that the page cannot be improved. Your assessment of keeping this page is not about the relevance of the page itself, but a position based on the principle that everything can stay on wikipedia. But is not so.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – There are no reliable third-party sources about this political movement. Actually I cannot even retrieve the archived copy of the only non-electoral source that is given. Also, it looks more like a political current inside other larger parties. Yakme (talk) 08:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not every group of people who come together to run a candidate are notable. We have decided political parties need clear coverage to justify an article, and that is lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:12, 23 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 10:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Jews in Derbent[edit]

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

Mostly unsourced article, including information and pictures that is not even directly related to the topic. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:16, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although some users are seemingly insinuating as if I ever denied the long-standing presence of (Mountain) Jews in Derbent, my main concern is just about the state of the article. I.e. can we say to ourselves "yup this article is ready to be viewed by our readers"? I for one would disagree, and would propose it being drafitied. For instance, lets go through some of the sources listed, one by one:

Ref 1: doesn't cover the claim for the supposed appearance of Jews in Derbent after the "destruction of the First Temple in Jerusalem"

Ref 2: idem

Ref 3: idem

Ref 4: idem

Ref 5: "Most Derbent Jews are immigrants from the mountain and steppe villages of the northern Caucasus.[5]" -- not covered by the Russian-language source (in fact it says Jews appeared in Derbent in the 7th century, which contradicts the supposed post-First Temple destruction claim.)[13]

First 5 refs fail WP:VER. I'm sure there are many more if I were to skim through the rest of the article. Tl;dr; the article clearly passes notability, but it does fail some WP core policies.

- LouisAragon (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear LouisAragon, Thank you so much for your input. I appreciate it. Regarding your Ref 5, I would like to assure you that the sentence "Most Derbent Jews are immigrants from the mountain and steppe villages of the northern Caucasus", I found in [14]. Here is in the Russian language: "Большинство Дербентских евреев - переселенцы из горных и степных аулов северного Кавказа и их потомки." I didn't make it up.

I edited the article based on your remarks - Ref 1. Again, thank you for all your recommendations. Boxes12 (talk) 01:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Judaism, and Russia. LouisAragon (talk) 15:16, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any sourced material to Derbent#Jewish_community as ATD. Mccapra (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I edited the page and added sources. Thank you for your help. Boxes12 (talk) 05:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The article makes clear that Derbent was a significant historical centre for Judaism. I do not think that merging is the right solution, as this would not give the subject the weight it deserves. A lack of sourcing is not a ground for deletion, unless the subject is a hoax or BLP. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The article improved significantly in terms of added sources. There is no reason to delete this article. Tanya82 (talk) 02:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The addition of reliable and verifiable sources about Derbent's Jewish community supports the claim of notability and rebuts the argument for deletion made by the nominator. Alansohn (talk) 02:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The images on the page are relevant and have Creative Commons licences (varia). After ploughing through heaps of Google Translate, I find notability in the additional sources added to the article. It is very clear that Jews have a history in the Caucasus and Derbent. Even if Benjamin spells it as Derbend. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The Jewish community section in the city article is long enough, so legit WP:SPINOFF and rejecting that merge proprosal. gidonb (talk) 17:24, 28 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Henick[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Contested G4. Are nominees actually notable? Post holders, perhaps. Primary sources, previously deleted at AfD as "Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL" by Muboshgu, and I see no reason to differ here. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I fail to see how significant work in diplomacy and within the State Department doesn't meet WP:GNG. How is that a White House nomination that was just made yesterday (used as a source) somehow failed verification from a previous AfD from two years ago? Obviously those same sources didn't exist two years ago, but that's the rationale being used? Makes no sense to me. User:Liz did suggest that "this might change his status as a POL" Snickers2686 (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

well this is an weird argument. Passing GNG means to have been discussed significantly in multiple reliable independent & secondary sources. This isn't found here. Hence the subject fails GNG. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 16:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So draftify until confirmation then? Snickers2686 (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there's consensus to do so, I wouldn't disagree. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 19:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete merely being a candidate doesn't make one notable and I see no coverage of this person outside of press releases. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and NPOL at the moment. A case of TOOSOON as well. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 16:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom. and others. No matter of what... WP:THREE, WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS has to be satisfied on top WP:BIO. And, I've my doubts regarding ambassadors and diplomats qualifying for a page under WP:NPOL. - Hatchens (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hatchens: Well WP:THREE looks like just an essay and not official policy, so I don't see how that applies. Now a WH press release isn't a reliable source? Since when? Snickers2686 (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where did Hatchens say so? Primary sources do not help in establishing notability, though they are reliable and relevant to be cited for facts, whenever necessary. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 19:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Snickers2686 Just try to add some good, credible, significant and independently verifiable citations. Try to bring it to the Heymann Standard. I accept I am quoting essays, not the official policies. Still, somehow they fill in the gaps which are being discovered during the interpretations of basic guidelines, and they provide us an opportunity to generate much-required consensus. We all are here to help you out with this page, and a bit of cooperation from your end will surely add value to this ongoing process. - Hatchens (talk) 03:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most career diplomats are not notable. Being an ambassador does not make one notable. Nothing here comes even close to suggesting notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So what about draftifying until confirmation? Snickers2686 (talk) 22:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even confirmation still wouldn't secure him as "inherently" notable, if you still couldn't get him over WP:GNG on proper media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Diplomats are not automatically notable just because government press releases and staff profiles on the State Department's own website confirm their diplomatic posts — the government, after all, is a diplomat's employer, meaning that government sourcing isn't independent coverage. Diplomats have to pass WP:GNG on media coverage that analyzes their diplomatic work, not just cursory verification that they've been appointed to diplomatic positions in sources self-published by the appointer. He certainly might pass GNG in the future — although there's still no guarantee of that — but nothing here establishes that he would already pass GNG today. Bearcat (talk) 16:51, 28 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 that there is sufficient sourcing to establish notability (and a dose of WP:HEY). (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of female American football players[edit]

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

Seems like an original compilation and thus fails WP:OR (the whole of the prose is also entirely unsourced), and probably isn't quite accurate (for example, this only mentions "About a dozen women have played college football at various levels"; which is well below the nearly two dozen included here). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:46, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Lists of people, and American football. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --Vaco98 (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, due to the amount of WP:TNT that would be needed to turn this into an appropriate list. Lack of citations for the prose leads me to believe that it is largely questionable WP:OR that also violates WP:NPOV; inclusion criteria are entirely arbitrary (the lead says they are notable, but only a tiny minority of those listed have articles); in addition there are sections for non-players and fictional characters – with more blue links than there are for the players! _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:14, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further thought, Women in American football (which currently redirects to this list) is the appropriate subject for an article, and it could easily contain a list of people who are actually notable. Normally I would support a move and cleanup/fix here but, as stated, the prose is completely uncited and TNT is needed. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 07:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Paulmcdonald for finding sources to support the topic as a group, that can be used in citing the prose/writing a new article. However, unless I see evidence of substantial progress in fixing this mess, I am not inclined to amend my !vote. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amending vote to keep. TNT has in effect been applied (much thanks to User:Cielquiparle), although further work remains to be done. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep extraordinarily notable topic with clear passes of WP:GNG and WP:LISTN. For the prose and content, that clearly needs cleaned up. But AFD is not cleanup — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmcdonald (talk • contribs) 18:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Paulmcdonald: Please provide reliable sources that support your assertion, WP:ITSNOTABLE adds nothing. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LaundryPizza03: Do you mean besides the 131 that are already in the article?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which of these sources, if any, does anything more than provide coverage of the individual player(s)? (Specific quotes would be helpful.) _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 21:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

examples this isn't hard. You can read the source please. Here's a few I pulled, but this is undue work.

CBS Sports 2017 "Fuller joins Katie Hnida and April Goss as the only women to play in an FBS game. Hnida kicked two extra points for New Mexico against Texas State in 2003. She transferred to New Mexico from Colorado, where she did dress out but did not play in a game for the Buffaloes. Goss, who played at Kent State, kicked an extra point against Delaware State in 2015."
Tuscaloosa News Sep 12, 2003 "...she is believed to be the first woman to kick a field goal in an NCAA football game..."
KHSAA Oct 26, 2016 "Over the past three decades there probably have been dozens of girls who’ve followed in Bates’ footsteps in Kentucky. This season, for example, Hailey Chappell has booted two field goals and 25 extra points for Owen County, and Ermina Ramic has had a PAT for Southwestern."
CNN April 13, 2017 "According to ESPN, about a dozen women are known to have played college football, though none under athletic scholarship. But Rosenbach said he wasn't thinking about the historical aspect when he offered her a scholarship. It was her accuracy."
Boston Globe, Nov 15, 2017 "Girls gaining acceptance on Eastern Massachusetts high school football gridirons"
Oregon Live, Nov 20, 2013 "It’s not uncommon these days when a high school football team has a female as its placekicker. But two girls in one game? That was the scene last Friday in a Class 4A quarterfinal game, where Scappoose and North Bend each used a female placekicker in the Bulldogs' 21-20 win."

Please do some of your own work. The article is broadly sour sourced, if you want to dismiss all 131 sources, you should actually really dismiss some of them yourself.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please. Of course I checked a few of the more likely candidates, but do not expect anyone to trawl through 130+ sources, none of which are placed in the body of prose (which is where sigcov needs to be demonstrated), with almost nothing but trivial routine coverage. I have to think there are better sources than the extremely poor ones you have picked out (the Boston Globe being the only one that comes close to what we need) - I would have expected at least one good book source for this subject; however, if extremely brief throwaway lines and vague speculation ("believed to be", "probably... dozens", "about a dozen", etc.) are the best there is, it is nowhere near enough to meet notability guidelines. Where is the necessary depth of significant coverage? _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 00:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard anyone argue that there are too many sources in an article as a reason to delete. Here's more from a quick google search--I'm unsure if any of these sources are referenced in the article or not:

Sporting News July 5, 2017 "As part of her role as the NFL's director of football development, Rapoport is tasked with helping ensure females are afforded chances to prosper at all levels in a male-dominated league. The groundbreaking advancements of women in scouting, coaching and officiating this offseason have Rapoport feeling bullish about the progress made in her first full year on the job."
Sports Illustrated Aug 3, 2020 "About 5 years back, Rapoport pitched an idea to NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, with the hopes of building a bridge for women who love football and want to work in football, but don’t necessarily have the resources or connections at their fingertips. That pitch has since developed into the Women’s Careers in Football Forum, which is a two-day event that runs alongside the NFL Scouting Combine."
Share America Sep 1, 2021 "The National Football League (NFL) will open its 2021 season in September with a record 12 women working as coaches. The increase reflects the NFL’s effort to provide greater opportunity for women in a sport played predominantly by men. The NFL created the Women’s Careers in Football Forum in 2017, which recruits women for full-time jobs in the sport."
SB Nation Dec 9, 2019 "51 reasons it’s time to stop treating women and girls in football like sideshows"
The Journal Times May 18, 2022 "The WFA is a women’s semi-pro football league that plays full-contact games, following NCAA rules."
MSN News May 21, 2022 "I think women's sports is something that's growing constantly, especially football," Walter said. "And honestly, there's not a lot of opportunity."
CFL "NINE PARTICIPANTS SELECTED FOR WOMEN IN FOOTBALL PROGRAM PRESENTED BY KPMG"
CBS Sports May 18, 2022 "The NFL is filled with trailblazing women, making history by being the first female to fill their role. Now more than ever, the number of women is increasing in the league."
Toronto Sun May 7, 2022 "In 2019, 104 hopefuls signed up when Andy Castellarin asked who was interested in playing on a girls football team at St. Mark, a Manotick high school already rich in tradition in boys football. The end result was 74 players."
USA Today Feb 4, 2019 "Berg’s decision to include Gordon was not only an acknowledgement of all she’s accomplished but a nod towards the future that equals a more level playing field for women."
Huffington Post Nov 7, 2012 "Given her young age and limited experience, Sam shows much promise and could stand to benefit from a recent trend of female football players breaking down barriers. In October, eighth-grade student Amina Barrett suited up as both a linebacker and running back for her middle-school squad in Houston, according to Yahoo!. Similarly, back in September, Erin DiMeglio made history when she became the first woman to play quarterback for a high school football team..."
KSL.com May 20, 2015 "Twelve-year-old football sensation Samantha Gordon will no longer be the only girl to score a touchdown this summer."

Clearly meets WP:GNG, WP:LISTN... WP:IMPACT... Do I have to keep doing this?--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You know perfectly well no one is making that argument. Why are you listing sources that are about non-players? Do you not understand what is required here? Please read my !vote above if you haven't already. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 07:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I am done addressing the comments from wjemather. I write this for anyone else who comes along and is seeking clarity. Here's a short list of articles about female players discussed as a group and specifically the impact that some individuals have had on the group as a whole.

I am now done with this song-and-dance routine. I don't dance. The facts have been presented multiple times from an abundance of high-quality widely accepted reliable third party sources. Those arguing for deletion are refusing to do the work to support their argument and I'm tired of continuing to provide the detail to support the argument to keep. May the closer do as they see fit.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finally (at least partially) addressing what was being asked (FYI, you should know that the burden of proof is on those advocating to keep). As per my comments above, the sources actually support having a Women in American football article, which could then include the list of notables (since there don't appear to be very many), but what we have at the moment is a long list of mostly non-notables who happen to have been mentioned in passing somewhere. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no case for deletion made. "Seems like an original compilation" isn't a deletion rationale, if you want it deleted for being original research then you need to show it actually is original research, and that does include reading the sources. The fact that one of the sections is unsourced does not make it original research and it not a reason for deletion - per WP:ATD deletion is only for problems which cannot be fixed through editing. The claim that this link shows the article is inaccurate doesn't hold water, it mentions in passing that "About a dozen women have played college football at various levels", so they haven't done a systematic survey or even given a precise figure, and since that page was published in 2017 five years ago it may well be out of date anyway. Several of the examples given have obviously played since 2017. Hut 8.5 12:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Seems like an original compilation and thus fails WP:OR" is a valid WP:DELREASON (no. 6) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually being original research (and irredemably so) would be a valid deletion reason, yes. But I'd expect more of an argument than "seems like it", and at least one of the people supporting deletion admits they haven't read the sources, which is necessary to conclude that something is original research. Hut 8.5 07:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No you don't. Which of the zero citations in the main body of prose, which unquestionably reads like OR, would you have us read? There can be no expectation that any of the other citations (regardless of how many there are) support the prose. Additionally, when claims are as woolly as these are (believed to be, about, etc.) sources will commonly disagree and so the claims must be attributed to the source - for example, above, CNN start by saying "according to ESPN". _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, fixable problems, such as a section being unsourced or claims not being attributed to the source, are not reasons to delete an article. See the deletion policy. Hut 8.5 11:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You contend they are fixable; I disagree and suspect (as they do) that the ongoing work by Cielquiparle (below) will effectively be TNT if successful. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTN and secondary coverage of the group or set, e.g. ‘Here's the football heroine’: female American football players, 1890–1912 (Sport in History 2020), “The first woman football coach...“: A Media Study of Female American Football Coaches, 1888-1946 (Feminist Media Studies 2022), ‘Getting Noticed, Respected, and Supported’: Mediated (In)Visibilities of Women's American Football in the United States (2021, in Bowes, A. and Culvin, A. (Ed.) The Professionalisation of Women’s Sport, pp. 123-139), Psychological factors and performance in women’s football: A systematic review (The Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports 2021). Beccaynr (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Am I supposed to take a laugh at sources like [15] which is clearly about proper football and not the American hand-egg variant? Again, like with the other lists, the sources here would seem to be a far better fit for an article about Women in American football than for a list on the subject. Not every notable topic requires a list about it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We are all fallible, and after reviewing the other sources about "American football", I had noticed that source includes studies of "American football players from collegiate level", etc, but missed the distinction of that overall study. But the other sources help support the notability of the group or set, so a list is permitted per our guidelines, and an online search finds more sources talking about the group, e.g. American football: Sarah Fuller makes history as first woman in a Power 5 game (BBC, 2020), The female American Football coach breaking barriers on and off the pitch (BBC3). Beccaynr (talk) 03:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I will attempt major surgery on this list now, and I'm not sure if I'll succeed. It may indeed be a case of WP:TNT – that's how bad it is – but for now I will try not to let the patient die in the process. Does a list on this topic deserve to exist? Absolutely. But over the years, the list page became a free for all with no oversight, with anonymous editors (and others) adding unsourced content, OR, and non-NPOV, as well as content cut and paste from Women's gridiron football (and probably other places), not to mention non-notable individuals and details that are either irrelevant or don't belong in an encyclopedia list page; and over time, the list page turned into an "article" that has become extremely difficult for anyone to fix. The only way to justify keeping this list is if all the extraneous content is cut, which could be 50% of the current content or more. I will try to temporarily park any information that looks like it could be useful on the Talk page. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck. I will change my !vote accordingly should a suitable article/list begin to emerge. Thanks. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Beccaynr.--Mvqr (talk) 15:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant and inferior to a self-updating category. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it may take some work to rehab this article after its "major surgery", including to discuss the Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists guideline on the Talk page, but earlier versions of this article may be helpful to review for addressing a concern that the article is currently redundant and inferior to a self-updating category, per WP:NEXIST. Beccaynr (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I will add the criteria for inclusion for each section, how we pared down the page so far, and how I suggest to expand moving forward, on the Talk page. The list itself is definitely more than a self-updating category, as the sub-categories are quite different topically, but now at least we also have cross-referenced other compilations like The Women's Football Encyclopedia. (And per your earlier comments on your Talk page, I've tried to err on the side of making sure each entry offers more information rather than less.) I've also tried to move more of the background information to the main Article page Women's gridiron football, though obviously it's still a work in progress. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Stifle I am all for self-updating categories vs. manually updated lists where it make sense, but I don't think this particular List falls into this category. For one thing, the names alone don't provide enough information – there is a huge difference between female players who happened to appear in 1–2 men's football games as a placekicker pre-2000 when it was still pretty rare vs. the women who became career football players in various other positions in the 1970s and then after 2000 (most in female leagues but some in male leagues). In other words, there is value to the curation into sub-sections and to providing more detail/context per list entry. This List page itself receives considerable traffic (644k+ over time, with 12k and 24k spikes corresponding with external events) and has been the subject of media coverage/review (as a source of "facts" but also reviewed along with other pages) (see AV Club article). On a tangential note, I am wondering if you looked at the page quickly using the Vector 2022 skin and if so, did the fact that the Contents index now appears in the margin (left nav) actually obscure the fact that there was more to this List page than just one Section? If so...that is interesting to note and we might consider ways to make clearer what Sections / sub-topics are covered on the page. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, looking at the page again...I think the issue is that there is one large sub-section I haven't reviewed properly yet, which is pretty high up on the page (Players in predominantly female football leagues). It's arguably the most important part of the List page, but I had saved it for last for a line-by-line review and adding citations; the thinking was, at least most of those pages are likely to have plausible notability and sources somewhere, since they already have Wikipedia pages (we deleted the rest for now). Anyway I am working on this section now, so hopefully within the next 48 hours it will be clearer why it's useful to have this on a manually curated List page rather than an automated one. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thanks to everyone who has helped to clean up the page and provided article links, comments, and suggestions. If you are new to this discussion, this is where the page started on 21 May 2022 when it was nominated for deletion, and this is what it looks like now. Below are the sub-sections that have now been removed from this List page, mainly because they aren't female American football players and were cluttering the list (I can't take credit for the deletion, someone else boldly did it for me; perhaps these characters and real-life individuals could have their own List page(s) in the future):

Fictional women in football
Female coaches
Female commentators
Female front office staff
Female owners

In addition, I removed the following section for reasons explained in detail on the article Talk page:

Youth players (Middle school, Grades 7–9)

Another major change was that we tried to move as much of the prose section that used to be on this List page to the main Women's gridiron football Article page as possible. ALL of the prose lacked citations previously and some of it was possibly OR (in which case it was deleted or heavily edited with sources added); some of it simply duplicated the main Article page. In any case, part of the problem with this List page historically was that the Article page wasn't doing its job, making it tempting for people to cram more and more prose onto the List page (without sources). Moving forward, more attention needs to be paid to improving the main Article page itself.

The remaining sections were re-ordered (so that high school players appear last, college players second-to-last). We then went ahead and deleted anyone on the very long list who lacked citations (although I did try to add as many sources wherever we could), as well as anyone who lacked any plausible notability claim. Simply being a female football player and/or having 1–2 articles written about you aren't enough. There are literally over 10,000 female football players listed in the 2016 edition of The Women's Football Encyclopedia and it doesn't make sense to make a list of all of them on Wikipedia. For now. While we're struggling with quality control of the information that is there.

Other than that, I'm still going through each and every single entry on the List page, line by line, checking and cross-referencing and editing and adding sources. It is very much a work in progress. If this List were an easy fix, it would have been fixed by now and wouldn't have landed in AfD. Part of the problem, besides the List page turning into a free-for-all, was that history was literally being made during the lifetime of the List page – it was trying to capture a moving target – so of course the information, the stats, and the criteria for inclusion would change over time. The good news is that there are many great secondary sources now available covering this topic, including many new books and articles published between 2016–2021, which have been helpful in cross-referencing and checking the information on this list. I am committed to continuing to fix the List and Article pages, and am very open to discussion of specific issues and ideas on those Talk pages, but as there is still a long way to go, I thought it would be good to provide my !vote and update in the meantime so there is no confusion. I am happy to support keeping this page now, and am excited to see how it develops in the future – with guardrails. We aren't doing female American football players justice, if we are burying genuinely notable achievements in a sea of clutter and inaccurate information, and leaving it unfindable and difficult to navigate, read, make sense of, and trust. Thanks everyone. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A broad, general topic like this is almost impossible to not meet WP:LISTN: One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. Check. The remaining delete rationales (after a few strikes) are all counter to the WP:ATD policy: Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases..—Bagumba (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some have their own articles, others just have significant coverage so belong on the list. Dream Focus 20:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish astronauts[edit]

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

Trivial ethnicity and occupation intersection, no reliable independent source whatsoever provided to support encyclopedic context about this (individual sources about individual members are not appropriate for a wider list, per WP:NLIST). What there is to be said about the topic is probably already included (or could be without any difficulty) at Religion in space#Judaism. Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism and Science. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Man, we seem to have a lot of these arbitrary cross-categorizations. What's next, List of Catholic Astronauts? List of Vegetarian Nobel Laureats? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If you took 100 things a person could be (Jewish and went to outer space in this example) and intersected each one with each other one you would have 10,000 possible lists, but no new information. A more knowledgeable person could also mention that there is no one absolute definition of what it is to be Jewish, or if a passenger on a space ship is really an astronaut. PopSci (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was cool to learn that William Shatner is Jewish.PopSci (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if Mr Shatner's flight was the inspiration for this list.PopSci (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There would be 4,950 categoriations (100*99/2), but I agree that this is the list equivalent of WP:OCEGRS. These people have nothing in common apart from being Jewish astronauts, and the subject fails WP:LISTN. It is also unclear if Jews is to refer to a religion or an ethnic group, as these are not the same. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:32, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You are right. You could not have a List of Jewish Jews.PopSci (talk) 16:46, 22 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 02:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tuscan Identity[edit]

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

An unknown party, on the web there is only some news about its foundation and nothing more. It does not appear to have participated in any elections. The page, written in two lines, at present does not demonstrate the relevance of the party and is decidedly useless. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Tuscan Identity, formed by a breakaway group of Lega Toscana, was represented for some time in Tuscany's Regional Council and, as such, it is definitely encyclopedic. Every little piece of political history deserves a space in Wikipedia. Articles like this (the nominator proposed a string of AfDs today) should be clearly improved, but not deleted. Of course, the passing of time makes difficult to find more sources and information in the web, but I will do my best to improve the article. I think it should be kept, anyway. At first glance I see proposed deletions as harmful and time-wasting exercises, but hopfully they could become opportunities for improving articles. --Checco (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You know very well that the page cannot be improved. Your assessment of keeping this page is not about the relevance of the page itself, but a position based on the principle that everything can stay on wikipedia. But is not so.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a one-line article about a political movement that has no relevance whatsoever, with no evidence of any popular support – composed of one or two people in the regional council of Tuscany. Yakme (talk) 08:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Topic lacks sigcov and RS. Arguments that it should be exempt from Wikipedia's notability policies just because it was a piece of political history, notable or not, should be reminded of WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Megtetg34 (talk) 06:10, 28 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. Star Mississippi 02:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Welsh Nobel laureates[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Redundant to the category tree and NOT failing and everything; but even more importantly, there is simply no precedent for this kind of list by sub-national division. Doing so would simply be encouraging the proliferation of similar useless lists which would only include a few entries and would definitively be a WP:BADIDEA. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Wales. Shellwood (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wales is a nation. To suggest it is less than a nation, just because it is also part of the United Kingdom is to misunderstand Wales. Wales is as much a nation as the other three UK members: England, Northern Ireland, and Scotland. CT55555 (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reasons outlined at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hungarian Nobel laureates, an extraordinarily similar bulk deletion discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources identifying geography and nationality as it relates to Nobel laureates as a notable group or set, as well as the guidelines and rationale offered in support of keeping the articles listed in the bundled nomination at the List of Hungarian Nobel laureates Afd. Beccaynr (talk) 04:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I commented above already). I agree with the other keep arguments above. CT55555 (talk) 05:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Redundant to the category tree contradicts WP:NOTDUP (a guideline), and it seems like a perfectly encyclopedic topic to me. The constituent countries of the UK have strong regional identities and it's entirely possible for a Welsh person to feel Welsh but not British, or more Welsh than British. If inappropriate lists of people by sub-national division are created then they can simply be deleted. Hut 8.5 11:47, 24 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 Leoluca Orlando. RL0919 (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

139 Movement[edit]

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

Almost completely unknown movement, rarely mentioned in some sources only for its founder. The page reads only "The 139 Movement is a political party in Italy led by Leoluca Orlando": in this state it is a useless page. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 12:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that this political party was launched and led by the mayor of one of Italy's largest cities makes it automatically encyclopedic, in my view. Every little piece of political history deserves a space in Wikipedia. Articles like this (the nominator proposed a string of AfDs today) should be clearly improved, but not deleted. Of course, the passing of time makes difficult to find more sources and information in the web, but I will do my best to improve the article. I think it should be kept, anyway. At first glance I see proposed deletions as harmful and time-wasting exercises, but hopfully they could become opportunities for improving articles. --Checco (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A party is encyclopedic on the basis of its relevance and notoriety, not on the basis of who launched it. In this case, notoriety is almost non-existent. You know very well that the page cannot be improved. Your assessment of keeping this page is not about the relevance of the page itself, but a position based on the principle that everything can stay on wikipedia. But is not so.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Leoluca Orlando, if its notability derives from this person, it can be covered in the context of this person, particularly if, as the article implies, it is only at the local level. Reywas92^Talk 02:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I agree with Reywas92. Mommmyy (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per User:Reywas92. Yakme (talk) 08:28, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This does not have enough notability to be its own article, but it should be merged PaulPachad (talk) 20:03, 24 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 Adult Swim history under the redirect if someone finds the references to spin it back out and/or wants to merge it, but I don't see another relist changing this. Star Mississippi 02:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Young Person's Guide to History[edit]

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

Could only find passing mentions and Wikpiedia mirrors. Prod contested Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:01, 14 May 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?)} 03:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm all for removing articles whose notability can't be supported due to a lack of reliable/independent/secondary sources out there -- when that lack is more definitively established. I infer from TPH's "could only find" comment that (his) search was probably not definitive. There's so much tradition of having articles for any and all TV series that I'd be surprised if there really were only trivial mentions out there. TV series' notability is almost always supportable. It's probably more a matter of having the motivation to go out and find the refs and less a matter of them not being out there. It seems to be a better idea to give a little more time to find out more definitively if righteous sources really can be found (or not). 142.105.159.178 (talk) 06:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Adult Swim per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I did not find significant coverage in reliable sources about the subject. Cunard (talk) 04:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you know a show's not notable when not even Cunard can find anything. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:26, 21 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. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Space Station Tycoon[edit]

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

Non-notable canceled video game. Some sourcing does exist, but it covers two specific events: The game was announced with a few hands on articles, and then subsequently cancelled the next year. There's nothing indicating any lasting importance or significance. -- ferret (talk) 00:07, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that below in the discussion, the suggestion to merge to Outpost Kaloki X was put forward. I agree with that option. -- ferret (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 00:07, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NEXIST. Hands-on articles still count as WP:SIGCOV if they are significant enough to demonstrate the game. GamesRadar+ GameSpot AND IGN all covered it in detail. There is a dev interview also by IGN here and an IGN article about the official character descriptions. The articles about its cancellation demonstrate continuing significance, otherwise it would have been ignored. At worst it should be merged into Outpost Kaloki X of which it is a spiritual sequel, but that would not fall under a deletion discussion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:54, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: What articles cover its cancellation? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 08:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[16] [17] [18] Ironically, there is another game with the same name on Steam, but it does not seem to be notable yet. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The hands-on articles appear to be part of E3 coverage, which is routine trade show stuff. I still do not believe this game holds any significance. NEXIST I don't think is a strong keep vote, because I acknowledged the sourcing from the start. It's about whether those sources indicate actual lasting importance, why the world should record that this game appeared at E3 then quietly never happened. Did it impact the industry? Is it brought up as an example of cancelled games that should have made it? Does anyone at all talk about it following the quiet rumor of demise? -- ferret (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it had importance, as the game that came before it, Outpost Kaloki X, was a fairly popular one. It is clear that fans were disappointed that the game was cancelled. However, in terms of industry impact, I'd wager it was pretty much nil. Then again, I'm not quite sure whether almost anything at Category:Cancelled video games truly had an "impact" besides such rare games as Metroid Dread that got restarted far later. Did something like Maverick Hunter really impact the Mega Man series? Not really, Capcom decided that Mega Man should not go that direction and it was scrapped forever. So if we're using that metric, vast swathes of video game articles would have to be deleted. Still, GNG is GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I so often like to point out, GNG sets guidelines towards presumed notability, allowing that discussions can decide the topic is in fact not notable or significant. More AFDs should be treated from this view rather than "Well there's three sources, must pass." Do you really believe this topic is significant and the coverage indicates such importance? That's fine. I don't. -- ferret (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'm not quite convinced that the sources provided by Zxcvbnm amount to lasting coverage, per WP:LASTING and WP:ROUTINE, but don't know what the standards would be for news coverage of upcoming video games. Are there any sources confirming that it was cancelled? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 09:07, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, there is no confirmation it was cancelled - it was just a soft cancellation into development hell and the closest it gets is an IGN article saying there are "insiders" saying that it was most likely close to being cancelled. Still, considering it's a Wii game, its cancellation is all but certain. Nintendo will not be officially approving Wii releases, in 2022. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to say that hands on coverage is definitely more than WP:ROUTINE coverage, which tends to be "hey this game exists, here's a regurgitated press release". It's essentially as close to a review as you get without being an actual review, which is impossible for a cancelled game. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While video games that were cancelled in development can be notable this does not appear to be one of those games. While there was some previews based on a demo that was available to play at the 2007 E3, outside of one IGN piece based on a rumour that the game was cancelled, there appears to be no other significant or lasting coverage. Complicating this search however is an unrelated game of the same name, developed by Lunheim Studios and currently on early access on Steam. I'll happily reassess my comment should other sources be discovered, but for now I think deleting is the correct choice here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sideswipe9th: And you do not think that at the very least mentioning it in Outpost Kaloki X and redirecting there is worth doing? It is described in several articles as a spiritual successor to it, and the game's very own devs admitted as such. It would make no sense to delete as a valid search term. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sideswipe9th, @Zxcvbnm, I don't think a merge/redirect to Outpost Kaloki X would be amiss. I would support mentioning it there, a paragraph would be easy and cover all relevant points. -- ferret (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: no I do not. First of all I cannot quickly find sources that support the assertion that it's a "spiritual successor" to Kaloki. Of the sources provided here, aside from the interview only two mention Kaloki; GamesRadar and Gamespot, and both do so in less than favourable terms. In fact, I cannot find any sources that mention a spiritual successor to Kaloki. Having tried to find any other sources on this game, I'm tending towards it failing WP:NTEMP, as the only coverage was at a single E3 in 2007, and a single IGN piece from later that year speculating on its cancellation. As I said in my last reply, if other sources can be provided, then I will happily reassess my comment however no such sourcing has been provided as of yet. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Outpost Kaloki X. I do agree with ferret that the coverage falls under routine coverage, and the game has limited long-term significance. This article described the game as the successor to Outpost Kaloki X, and a section over there would be sufficient. OceanHok (talk) 12:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources provided by ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ demonstrate significant coverage. The game had (at least) three hands-on articles, as well as several news stories about its (then-rumored) cancellation. The article itself could be improved based on the sources mentioned in this page, but it passes WP:GNG. Merko (talk) 10:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage pertains to exactly two events: Routine E3 coverage, the only time the game appears to have been seen, and rumors of cancellation, which is also generally routine. This doesn't demonstrate any lasting significance, and it's been long enough that any impact this game did have, it should have been commented on. There's nothing to say about the game in the end that requires more than 2-3 paragraphs, making it a perma-stub that is more than suitable for merge (As a proposed WP:ATD). -- ferret (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how a game's cancellation can possibly be routine - for a game to be cancelled, especially one that appears close to completion, has to be at least somewhat rare. I admit there is a valid target to merge to, but when there's more than enough information to write up a full article on the game in question since it got so far in development, a merge seems unnecessary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the article is merged, it needed some citations so I went ahead and sourced most of the claims in the article (It's far from perfect, but it's better then nothing, and it will help the next editor who comes along from needing to sleuth as much). It's not quite as cut and dry as exactly two points in time.
Here's a rough timeline of coverage:
February 2007 - Announcement, big flurry of press.

March 2007 - Stragglers of press doing the same stuff as in February.

April-May 2007 - Nothing? (Brief mention in The Province on May 27, 2007, Page C3)

July 2007 - Journalists get to play the game at a Namco press event. Additional materials released. Developer interview published later in the month.

August 2007 - The original release date and the discussion of cancellation

September-November 2007 - Nothing?

December 2007 through February 2008 - Brief mentions in various periodicals as a progressively delayed upcoming release.
Though I do understand where ferret is coming from, I'd say there are really 3 or 4 big events here, with a slight trickle in between and following them. Not sure how big of a difference that makes. Mbrickn (talk) 07:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe the coverage establishes notability here. However when sourcing this, some unreferenced parts of the article feel similar to [19]. --Mbrickn (talk) 00:05, 31 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 Alfio Marchini. Star Mississippi 02:36, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marchini List[edit]

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

It was just a personal civic list like hundreds of other civic lists in Italy. I do not see a particular relevance to consider the page on the list as encyclopedic. No specific sources regarding the list on the page, whose name was not even Marchini List. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Italy has a strong tradition of civic lists, reminding the local political parties active in the Netherlands (see Livable Rotterdam) and other countries as well. Italy's civic lists are sometimes just electoral lists with no formal organisation, but in other cases, like this and those of the Civic Coalitions of Bologna and Padua, are actually political parties, despite being only active at the very local level. Marchini List's long-standing activity, two electoral participations and substantial electoral results make it automatically encyclopedic. Every little piece of political history deserves a space in Wikipedia. Articles like this (the nominator proposed a string of AfDs today) should be clearly improved, but not deleted. Of course, the passing of time makes difficult to find more sources and information in the web, but I will do my best to improve the article. I think it should be kept, anyway. At first glance I see proposed deletions as harmful and time-wasting exercises, but hopfully they could become opportunities for improving articles. --Checco (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "Marchini list" is a personal civic list like so many others, following your reasoning we could create thousands of pages of civic lists that run to the municipal ections. This would create a short circuit. You know very well that the page cannot be improved. Your assessment of keeping this page is not about the relevance of the page itself, but a position based on the principle that everything can stay on wikipedia. But is not so.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Alfio Marchini, municipal-level list is not notable, but it can be covered with its leader. Reywas92^Talk 03:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Alfio Marchini, per User:Reywas92. Yakme (talk) 08:04, 23 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. RL0919 (talk) 13:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Göpferich[edit]

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

Football referee with limited coverage. All Google News mentions are trivial. This German source search gives us only stats databases and passing mentions like this one in DFB. Even ProQuest only has one passing match report mention. Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:38, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - fails WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 22:57, 24 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, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Artists' Bluebook[edit]

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

Looks like a dead-end page only with irrelevant external links. A possible candidate for deletion? Abani79 (talk) 11:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Arts. Netherzone (talk) 07:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete AskART might be notable and worth creating, but there's no evidence this book would meet any standards. I can find only limited information, mostly comprising mirrors and library listings, but none indicating it's well collected or cited. Star Mississippi 15:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:PROMO This is an unsourced article for a subscription service. Surprised it has survived this long. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:38, 25 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 Alliance Party of Northern Ireland. Anything worth merging is still available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance Youth Party of Northern Ireland[edit]

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

Any standalone article on an organization needs to meet WP:NORG, but I cannot find such coverage. For example, there are only 9 results on Google news all of which are either op-eds (not RS) or brief mentions. I'm told this article was created as a sizesplit from the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland, but if the info is UNDUE there it can just be removed without creating a separate article that does not meet notability requirements. (t · c) buidhe 23:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very hasty with the nomination. I'm not going to pretend there's lots of sources to choose from however the ones found are WP:RS and does meet basic notability guidelines. I wish this was discussed prior rather than straight to AfD. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also it looks like it isn't formally registered as a separate organisation, like some other youth wings of bigger entities are; they're just the youth of this political party under an informal banner. I don't think anyone can argue that the parent article doesn't meet criteria therefore I see no reason why this fork should be treated differently. All a redirect would do is create a long messy parent article. Abcmaxx (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Northern Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:26, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still don't see any independent sources that provide in-depth coverage, so I don't think GNG is met either. WP:NORG applies to "an organization is a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose", and I don't see anywhere that it requires being legally registered. (t · c) buidhe 12:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's 2 independent newspaper articles about them and they're listed on various international political organisations' websites. It's not perfect but certainly enough to pass. Also the hope is that someone will improve the article and add to it as time goes on. There's also 50 links to the article within Wikipedia. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify the "2 independent newspaper articles" referred to are one that interviews the Alliance Youth leader but fails WP:ORGIND and an op-ed that does not mention Alliance Youth in its text. Both articles are by Rosalind Skillen in Belfast Telegraph. (t · c) buidhe 13:19, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

well it doesn't fail WP:ORGIND because the Belfast Telegraph is an independent Northern Irish newspaper, where's the supposed "vested interest" there? Abcmaxx (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject." The article only covers Alliance Youth leader Luke Patterson for five sentences and just repeats what he says without independent analysis; that's neither intellectually independent nor significant coverage. (t · c) buidhe 14:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's literally how journalism works. The Belfast Telegraph is independent source unaffiliated to the subject and the article is an original piece covering all the NI political youth wings, not just this one. Abcmaxx (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've not looked into this particular case in any detail, but the position that interviews can not count towards WP:GNG was not accepted by users when it was last discussed. A proposal to add a sentence to that effect to notability guidelines was rejected. A number of users specifically stated that interviews conducted in national level news organisations would contribute to WP:GNG. For a Northern Irish political party, I would say that Belfast Telegraph is a national level source. However, from what is being said above, it seems that the subject of the interview is Luke Patterson, and the BT article doesn't talk much about the organisation he leads? Is that the case? If so, it might confer notability on Patterson rather than the Alliance youth group.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Boynamedsue Yes that is accurate. Furthermore, since this article is about an organisation the coverage has to meet the intellectual independence standard quoted above. (t · c) buidhe 17:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at the minute I am leaning towards the idea that relevant parts of the article should be merged into Alliance Party of Northern Ireland. Above user Abcmaxx mentions two news sources giving WP:SIGCOV exist, I couldn't find them in the discussion or article, which were they? --Boynamedsue (talk) 07:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, rereading the discussion I've found it. The Skillen article does not mention Alliance Youth Party by name, it is talking about all Norn Ironish Youth Parties and is an opinion article. The coverage of Patterson is the other one, that's not WP:SIGCOV of the Youth Party. So I'd vote it should be deleted, with whatever important stuff not already found in Alliance Party of Northern Ireland added there. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except if you merge it back you'll have an incredibly long parent article, hence the WP:SIZESPLIT to a WP:FORK. I've already said that this part of the Alliance Party and not a separate organisation, and the former is clearly notable, I cannot see why this isn't a legitimate fork.Abcmaxx (talk) 08:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, in that case I'd say it's just a delete. It would be a legitimate fork if it passed WP:GNG, but as of now it doesn't. I'd keep it as a draft if I was you, it might be that a couple of sources with more coverage turn up, then you could just reinstate it. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have just discovered this page despite its numerous mentions of me. Alliance Youth is the only party youth wing in NI without a seperate wikipedia page- Ulster Young Unionists Council. Ogra Shinn Fein & SDLP Youth all have one. With the anticipation that the mother party page will grow significantly due to electoral strength it is perhaps best they stay separate and this page is developed over time? Pattersonluke1 (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Luke, I created the page. I have no affiliation with any political group or even any ties to Northern Ireland, I merely created the page because the parent article was long, and like you said, most major parties' youth wings already have articles. The only reason you are mentioned is because these were the sources that I found and that is what they said. The issue here is that really there's very little out there describing what the youth wing does, I couldn't really find anything even on the parent party website and the only mentions were in the Belfast Telegraph, and even those weren't that detailed. If you know of credible independent sources that could help the article by all means please add it.Abcmaxx (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update Articles from Trouw, British Youth Council and Irish Times have been added. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:51, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The British Youth Council doesn't actually mention Alliance Youth, Irish Times just mentions that Patterson is a leader of it; all the Trouw article has to say about it is "Op basis van die frustratie werd hij anderhalf jaar geleden lid van de jeugdbeweging van Alliance." (not significant coverage) (t · c) buidhe 10:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that these are not significant coverage, you'd want a paragraph or two. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was not me who added them, the point was the article is being slowly but surely improved Abcmaxx (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland article. There's no significant coverage of a separate Alliance Youth organization that I could find. Some political parties on the island have standalone youth organizations, like Ógra Fianna Fáil, the Connolly Youth Movement, or the Young Unionists, but as far back as I can recall (which is to the early 1980s) Alliance never went past appointing some youth officers and having a couple of branches at the universities. Fiachra10003 (talk) 04:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the parent party, not independently notable. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect not implausible search term, but sourcing does not demonstrate notability separate from the larger party. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect I can't find anything published that gives it a standalone identity. Nothing. scope_creep^Talk 10:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peder Engelstad Pioneer Village[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Local museum. Refs are not independent and/or minor mentions. Lack of in-depth coverage in independent RS. MB 00:58, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Minnesota. MB 00:58, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think the description given on the Thief River Falls, Minnesota page is sufficient given the museum's notability. Happyecheveria (talk) 22:55, 23 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 11:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Public Work[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Many of the refs are to the company website. Most of the others are minor mentions of the firm that primarily discuss projects they are associated with. No in-depth significant coverage of the firm itself. MB 00:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Organizations, and Canada. MB 00:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article, does not meet WP:NCORP. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:26, 27 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 Judo at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's 66 kg. Anything worth merging is still available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indrit Cullhaj[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG AND WP:NOLYMPICS. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Olympics. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:NSPORT, or WP:MANOTE. My search found no significant independent coverage and the article shows none. He is ranked 223rd in the world in his division by the IJF and he lost in the first round (round of 32) at the Tokyo Olympics. Papaursa (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See below for reasoning behind switching to a redirect. Papaursa (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a quick WP:BEFORE found this coverage in Albanian [20], [21], [22], along with a couple of English-language sources [23] and [24]. His bio at Judo Inside shows he's also won golds at two international tournaments as well. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:07, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Balkans championships is not a major tournament (see world ranking and the fact the divisions had few entrants) and the coverage seems to be more like interviews and reporting of results. I'll admit my search was in English so I missed the Albanian references, but interviews aren't usually considered significant independent coverage. I'd appreciate it if you'd explain how that qualifies as significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 23:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and sources identified by User:Lugnuts. gidonb (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete basically per Papaursa. The balkans championship is not a major competition, and the coverage is too much in the style of interviews.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by Lugnuts. I am open to a redirect as well if an appropriate place to redirect to can be found. Adamtt9 (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What about a Redirect to Judo at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's 66 kg? That's what's been done with some of the boxers. I don't think he deserves his own article, but a redirect provides the most significant information about him that might cause people to search for his name. Papaursa (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems clear that the coverage of his activities by the media is well beyond routine match coverage; see [25] and [26] for example. EternalNomad (talk) 05:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't see how an article talking about him being injured in his Olympic loss or an article that is entirely told by him qualifies as significant independent coverage. All coverage about his first round loss seems either like WP:NOTNEWS and/or WP:BLP1E. Papaursa (talk) 02:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep A regional champion and Olympic boxer with tons of coverage. Look at the way John Lambert and Paparusa votes Delete on literally every single AFD nomination and then ruthlessly goes after every Keep voter, they are nothing less than gangsters and saboteurs and their votes should inherently be disregarded with extreme prejudice (I strongly suspect they are sockpuppets). 172.58.160.57 (talk) 05:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:14, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Papaursa. Interviews do not count towards GNG unless they also provide significant independent analysis. From sources mentioned in the AfD: 1. (abcnews.al): pure interview, does not count towards GNG; 2 (balkanweb): a 4-sentence intro blurb in an un-bylined Q&A, does not count towards GNG; 3 (vizionplus-tv): a video interview plus a short 4-sentence summary of the interview, which seems purely descriptive rather than providing independent commentary; 4 (kosovapress): routine injury report from his Olympic match, not SIGCOV; 5 (Albanian Daily News): another 4 sentences reporting the outcome of his one Olympic match, not SIGCOV; 6 (newsport-al): pure interview with very little encyclopedic content in the intro (out of 5 sentences, two are just describing the interview itself: "Albanian judoka Indrit Çullhaj has told a story from his life, where he tells about the difficulties in his beginnings in the sport of judo. ... He has told his story exclusively for Newsport.al, where he reveals some details from his life, from the beginning of practicing this sport..."). None of this is independent, secondary significant coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Don't see anything to convince me that the GNG is met. A redirect makes sense. Sandals2 (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per JoelleJay BilledMammal (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes GNG. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please give the sources that show the GNG is met.Sandals2 (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Papaursa. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deletefor failing WP:SPORTSPERSON and WP:NOLYMPICS. Notability for Olympic competition usually means significant coverage for medal winners but not necessarily for all athletes. Wikipedia doesn't have specific notability criteria laid out for judo competion, but the citations I'm seeing are run-of-the-mill interviews that many news organizations do during competitions. Nice that he recovered well from an injury but is that WP:SIGCOV? Blue Riband► 02:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nights Alone[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. No chart entry, no significant coverage in the media. Binksternet (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not satisfy WP:GNG or the subject-specific criteria WP:NSINGLE. The article has 2 independent sources, the J-14 source is an interview so does not count toward notability; and the other from nerdsandbeyond doesn't look like a great source. All other included sources are primary. A WP:BEFORE search comes up with this from onestowatch.com/blog/, again not a great source, and otherwise I find only generic pages or interviews, rather than independent and reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. When first published, I tried to draftify this so as to give the author a chance to work on it in a safe space, but they insisted on recreating it in article space. I would say redirect to the artist but we only have an article on Niki and Gabi. -Lopifalko (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could not find any more sources to fulfill notability. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 01:47, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sourcing is a mess. Only sources 2 and 3 in the article are reliable since it talks about the EP. Source 6 doesn't mention the EP at all. I also found some reliable sources which talk about the EP: [27] and [28]. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 15:15, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Superastig: What is it about the existing article that suggests to you that it "is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM"? Of the additional sources you provide, both are from Nerds & Beyond, which I doubt is a WP:RS; one is merely an announcement of the track list of the then forthcoming EP; the other is a mere 3-line announcement that the EP has been released; neither are substantial enough for any of the criteria of WP:NMUSIC. -Lopifalko (talk) 07:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I wouldn't count out N&B's reliability so immediately, they do have an about page with an extensive list of staff. QuietHere (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there isn't any consensus yet to determine whether Nerds & Beyond passes WP:RS. Until that happens, it can't be stated that it's a reliable source to support this article. Richard3120 (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think ASTIG️ nailed it. — Ret.Prof (talk) 00:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NALBUM with sources presented by Astig. They're reliable enougn IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to artist: Even with the sources ASTIG found (assuming they're good; has anyone started a discussion regarding that?), it'd be barebones at best, and I'm not convinced that's enough to be worth saving the article. QuietHere (talk) 02:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - one reason albums historically have tended to have their own articles is that they are unwieldy when included in the artist's article. Therefore they were split out per WP:PRESERVE presuming they are a significant aspect of a notable artist's output. (in other words this wouldn't apply to a random compilation Therefore DELETE or REDIRECT are inappropriate, and the material should be MERGED into the artist's article if the community thinks it fits better there. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:20, 30 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. Star Mississippi 15:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Recipe Showdown[edit]

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

ProQuest yielded only press releases and passing mentions. Prod contested Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:37, 13 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?)} 01:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable cooking show.TH1980 (talk) 03:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. McKinnon, Lisa (2009-01-04). "Former cop pursues the 'Ultimate Recipe'". Ventura County Star. Archived from the original on 2022-05-16. Retrieved 2022-05-16.
  The article notes: "When it debuts tonight on Food Network, the season premiere of “Ultimate Recipe Showdown” will feature Simi Valley resident Rick Massa making mac ’n’ cheese under the hot lights of a New York TV studio, the prying eyes of celebrity food dude Guy Fieri, and the constraints of a time limit — with $25,000 in prize money on the line. ... “Ultimate Recipe Showdown” first aired in early 2008, with Fieri and Marc Summers as hosts. The show has since undergone a makeover and now spends more time delving into the lives of each competitor. ... Selected by a panel of judges that includes the director of the Food Network test kitchens, an editor from Family Circle magazine and chef Michael Psilakis of Anthos restaurant in New York, the winner of each week’s competition also may see his or her recipe turned into a “Watch it Sunday, Taste it Monday” special at T.G.I.Friday’s restaurants. ... Still to come in the season are episodes devoted to burgers (Jan. 11), cakes (Jan. 18), hot and spicy dishes (Jan. 25), desserts (Feb. 8) and “hometown favorites” (Feb. 15)."
2. Bassaro, Jonnie (2008-02-12). "Area chef on TV's 'Recipe Showdown'". The News-Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-16. Retrieved 2022-05-16.
  The article notes: "Called "The Ultimate Recipe Showdown," and set in a stadium in Hollywood, the program, like many Food Network programs, will be a cooking contest. Its goal, producers say, is to find the best recipes in America. ... For the March 2 episode, Isacsson is one of nine contestants, four of whom are chefs and five, people who simply love to cook. Three make chili, three make macaroni and cheese and three make sandwiches. All are competing for a prize of $25,000. ... After whittling down entries to 54, the Network decided to divide them into six categories, hence, the six weekly shows. There will be hour-long shows for burgers, chicken, comfort foods, pasta, cakes and cookies. Each week, nine finalists will compete."
3. Hennessy, Christina (2010-03-19). "Stamford resident is finalist on Food Network's 'Ultimate Recipe Showdown'". Stamford Advocate. Archived from the original on 2022-05-16. Retrieved 2022-05-16.
  The article notes: "Fogelman will be vying for a $25,000 prize, along with $5,000 worth of products from Kohl's, when the second show of this six-part series airs on the cable network at 9 p.m. Sunday. ... This is the show's third season, which, when it is over, will have featured 24 contestants spread across six categories. It is hosted by Guy Fieri, a competition winner himself. ... Last week, the series debuted with the finalists in the comfort food category. By the season's conclusion, a winner will be crowned by three judges for a hot and spicy dish, the best burger, the tastiest cake or other dessert, and the top hometown favorite. More than 8,000 recipes were entered into competition, according to the network."
4. Hennessy, Christina (2010-03-22). "Stamford man wins Food Network showdown". Connecticut Post. Archived from the original on 2022-05-16. Retrieved 2022-05-16.
  The article notes: "This is the show's third season, which, when it is over, will result in six winners in six categories. It is hosted by Guy Fieri. The judges, which include Katherine Alford, vice president of Food Network kitchens; chef Michael Psilakis, owner of several New York restaurants; and Rosemary Ellis, editor-in-chief of "Good Housekeeping," determine who will win $25,000, as well as $5,000 worth of Kohl's products."
5. Nguyen, Kim (2010-04-04). "Plano cook to appear on Food Network". Star Local Media. Archived from the original on 2022-05-16. Retrieved 2022-05-16.
  The article notes: "Food Network's "Ultimate Recipe Showdown: Burgers" airs at 8 p.m. on Sunday, April 4. Home cooks nationwide submitted more than 10,000 recipes in hopes of achieving culinary fame in one of six categories: Comfort Food, Party Food, Hot & Spicy, Burgers, Cakes & Desserts and Hometown Favorites. In this six-week series hosted by Guy Fieri, each episode focuses on one category and features the top four contestants who compete in two rounds of competition including a signature-dish round and speed-dish round."
6. Less significant coverage:
  1. Tanasychuk, John (2009-02-18). "Ultimate Recipe Showdown winners on Friday's menu". Sun-Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2022-05-16. Retrieved 2022-05-16.
    The article notes: "The Food Network's Ultimate Recipe Showdown ended last weekend and now five winning recipes are on the menu at T.G.I. Friday's restaurants. Among them is a hamburger from Dr. Harold Cohen, a retired Hollywood plastic surgeon. Four items were judged by a panel of food experts. The Ultimate Recipe Beverage Showdown winner was determined by online voting. In case you missed the show, it was a six-week series which pitted category finalists against each other for a $25,000 prize."
  2. Okun, Janice (2008-03-12). "Prize pasta? Two local women are finalists in a reality TV cooking showdown that airs Sunday". The Buffalo News. Archived from the original on 2022-05-16. Retrieved 2022-05-16.
    The article notes: "Are two local foodies the winners of a round in the Food Network's $25,000 Ultimate Recipe Showdown? ... A few weeks after submission, the women got a call from the network saying that out of 10,000 entries, their idea was now among 4,000 to be further tested."
  3. Johnson, Christy (2009-02-07). "Local man may create a recipe for success on Food Network show". The Daily Record. Archived from the original on 2022-05-16. Retrieved 2022-05-16.
    The article notes: "Standing in front of the judges can be a nerve-racking experience for contestants because whatever dish is the best in the three judges' opinion is the dish dubbed the "Ultimate Recipe" and wins the creator $25,000 and a spot on T.G.I. Friday's menu across the country, Alford said."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Ultimate Recipe Showdown to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although these sources discuss local people who have appeared on the show, they also provide significant coverage of the background and production of the show's episodes so establish notability about the show under Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 09:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources shared by Cunard establish notability per WP:GNG NemesisAT (talk) 21:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:26, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on sources listed above, at the very least it passes WP:GNG. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:33, 21 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 Ala Vaikunthapurramuloo (soundtrack). (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OMG Daddy[edit]

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

In Indian movies, there are many songs in a movie. It would not be a good idea to create an article for each one. This song is from Ala Vaikunthapurramuloo (soundtrack). Unlike the other songs from this movie, this song was not a state wide chartbuster and only received 50 million views on YouTube like hundreds of other songs. Since it did not win any awards, it does not satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (music). See Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Songs. DareshMohan (talk) 08:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and India. Shellwood (talk) 08:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ala Vaikunthapurramuloo (soundtrack) per WP:ATD-R. No independent reliable coverage on the song itself (rather than film/album) to meet WP:NSONG -- Ab207 (talk) 09:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ala Vaikunthapurramuloo (soundtrack) according to Ab207. Nanpofira (talk) 01:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ala Vaikunthapurramuloo (soundtrack) per WP:ATD-R.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:44, 26 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 Rangasthalam (soundtrack). Discarding one "keep" vote from IP user which has no explanation. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 08:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jigelu Rani[edit]

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

5/6 of the article is bad sources. There is not a reason why as to why this article exists nor are there enough references given for the song. DareshMohan (talk) 08:29, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and India. Shellwood (talk) 08:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: All sources in the article are reliable. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. -Ranjith207 (talk) 09:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Ab207 (talk) 07:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Tollywood, YouTube, Gaana, iTunes and other databases are not reliable and they give no extra information. DareshMohan (talk) 10:04, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Who says YouTube, Gaana and iTunes are unreliable sources? I don't believe. They are official sites. 2409:4073:2105:B4E8:0:0:359:C8B1 (talk) 10:27, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    IP, please see WP:BADCHARTS: "Charts pertaining to only one specific retailer should not be used." They shouldn't be even mentioned in the article, let alone using for notability -- Ab207 (talk) 12:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rangasthalam (soundtrack). Does not meet WP:NSONG, as it lacks the sources which are not just reliable but also significant and indepedent with coverage on the song itself (not album or film) -- Ab207 (talk) 09:43, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article meets WP:NSONG independently. 2409:4073:2105:B4E8:0:0:359:C8B1 (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added accolades this song recieved. It also meets WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. DreamDon (talk) 04:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those minor awards do no establish notability, please pick your three best sources which cover the song independently -- Ab207 (talk) 07:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The Zee Cine Awards Telugu that @DreamDon added was for the song "Yentha Sakkagunnave" and not for this one. We don't have an article on Radio City Cine Awards [Telugu]. I presume we don't consider it notable, or is it already notable and that no one has yet created the article ? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for cross checking that. The criteria we are looking at "has won one or more significant awards or honor," so merely being a notable award isn't enough anyway Ab207 (talk) 11:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't "notable award" mean a "significant award" (ignoring one or more counts)? If not, how do we differentiate b/w "notable" and "significant" [award] in this context? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:10, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, being notable means the award is eligible to have an article on Wikipedia. However, the bar of "significant award" is high enough that the winning such award itself confers notability. How high is it is up for debate as no Indian examples are listed but I'd say should be in the league of National Film Awards -- Ab207 (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DaxServer: Can you also cross check the Radio City Cine Awards [Telugu] Award? The source lead to a blank page. It is very likely that the award was for "Yentha Sakkagunnave" given that Chandrabose won the Filmfare and SIIMA awards for that song. Source is hard to find (old source example). DareshMohan (talk) 02:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DareshMohan Here's the correct archive link [29]. The nomination is for "Chandrabose - Rangasthalam & others". No particular song was mentioned and thus I left it alone in the article, but this was in 2019. Your Twitter link with the Award is for 2017, I don't know for which tho — DaxServer (t · m · c) 08:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Ab207. The only reference in the article that could be considered WP:RS is the Firstpost one; but that covers the whole soundtrack, not just the song. Hemantha (talk) 03:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect WP:ATD-R, the references in the critical reception review all the songs and not just this one in particular — DaxServer (t · m · c) 08:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rangasthalam (soundtrack). Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:19, 28 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. Speedy deleted by Bbb23: CSD G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (MeLucifer) in violation of ban or block. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nosh Technologies[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Most of the sources are about Nosh (app) rather than about the company Nosh Technologies, and notability is not inherited. The Enterpreneur source is the only that talks really about the company, but does not satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH, and is not quite independent (full of quotes). A search for additional sources did not find any sources that could count towards notability. Femke (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Femke (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 08:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Most of the news references in Nosh (app) and Nosh Technologies talk about Nosh, which might seem like the news sources are talking about the Nosh app, but India Currents, EU Startups & Outlook (India magazine) mentions that Nosh Technologies is also called as Nosh (company) or referred to as Nosh. Separately, there are several news sources cited in the article that talks about Nosh Technologies' products and services, which are separate from the Nosh (app).

(We should consider the case of DeepMind Technologies that is popularly (publicly) known as DeepMind rather than DeepMind Technologies) IMLone wolf (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Three independent news sources that talk about Nosh Technologies or Nosh (company) as follows. TechCrunch, Outlook (India magazine) & India Currents.

There are several other news sources as well that talks about Nosh as a company, which are already cited in the article. IMLone wolf (talk) 12:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's analyse these five sources one by one. Please read WP:ORGIND: text that is based on press releases is not considered independent either. The amount of quoting in the articles makes me think it's either an interview / heavily interview based or based on press releases.

India Current: mostly quotes, not independent
EU Startups: a directory of companies, no significant coverage
Outlook a mostly quotes and repeating what Nosh daily has to say
TechCrunch per WP:TECHCRUNCH usually not useful to establish notability (possible COI articles). Also mostly about the app, and what it says about the company is mostly quoted to their CEO Dey.
Outlook b This comes closest to what we want, but I don't think it's independent either, with quotes again taking up quite a bit of space.. Femke (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Femke Thank you for sharing the article links and your view on them. I do see your point. However, I would assume good faith. I cross-checked the above articles to see if there are any similar press releases available, however, I was not able to find them. Just to keep in mind, often times news and media platforms also reach out to people in the company for quotes or updates. It might also be the case of that instead of press release. However, we don't have a definitive way to prove this (at least not that I am aware of). IMLone wolf (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still, if an article is mostly made up of quotes, there is little remaining text to satisfy the "significant" criterion. Femke (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G5: IMLone wolf is blocked as a sockpuppet. Femke (talk) 10:42, 22 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 11:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CarReg (company)[edit]

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

Company doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP- coverage is mostly WP:PASSING mentions. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could not find significant coverage. Nothing in gnews. LibStar (talk) 01:16, 26 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 11:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IStorez[edit]

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

Textbook WP:NCORP failure. Short-lived shopping website; most references appear to have been press releases or routine coverage. Declined speedy in 2017 taken down by LionMans Account. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and California. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:19, 21 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 11:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khatija[edit]

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

This fictional character has only one film appearance. Does not meet WP:GNG as it lacks independent coverage in reliable sources including enough real-world/out-of-universe perspective. In addition, the page itself is written like a fancruft. Ab207 (talk) 06:16, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, and India. Ab207 (talk) 06:16, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Provides enough notability towards character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.192.165.207 (talk) 06:27, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fancruft indeed. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) as most of this is original research. Read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Information that cannot be supported by reliable sources should not be included. Info on Khatija vs Kanmani fan war can be added on Kaathuvaakula Rendu Kaadhal main page. DareshMohan (talk) 07:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). It also reeks of WP:COI. -Ranjith207 (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the coverage does seem like WP:COI, and at the very least, is not independent. There are only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs of this subject, which are not enough to provide WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Alternatively there may be value to merging this somewhere, if someone wants to suggest a valid target. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note This article was created by a sock of User:Srinesh.saravanan who is banned.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Pure WP:FANCRUFT. At best, some of this could be merged into the film article, but most of it is something decent for a fandom site, but not Wikipedia. Ravensfire (talk) 18:55, 27 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 Tuvalu international footballers. Sandstein 10:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nelesone Musika[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:39, 21 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, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on references on page, seems to pass GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:38, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain how this article passes GNG? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect - This same user has nominated every Tuvulu footballer for deletion (and a few other mostly Oceania countries). The fact is, the reason we can’t find coverage is that the only major news outlet, Fenui News, is not online (it has a Facebook page but that page only gives summaries). A proper WP:BEFORE would be to go to Tuvalu’s museums, libraries, etc. If there is still no coverage there, then fine, delete. But unless you did such research you are literally wiping out a nation’s sporting history just because they don’t have good internet access, which is unacceptable. A redirect until further research is fine as long as we don’t just wipe out his page. 172.58.110.253 (talk) 06:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop lying. I have not nominated "every" article. This article fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - fails WP:GNG. Available sources are basically passing mentions. --Angelo (talk) 22:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No independent sourcing of this sub-stub. No evidence of notability. No suggestion that his level of play meets any extant notability criteria. And no need of hyperbole-choked hysteria from SPAs who haven't made a single substantive edit to Wikipedia. A proper WP:BEFORE involves going to a country's museums and libraries? Is the SPA deliberately trying to insult our intelligence? Ravenswing 00:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Tuvalu international footballers per WP:ATD-R as an alternative to deletion now that I came across this list thanks to BeanieFan11 in similar AfDs. It is worth WP:PRESERVEing the work in case sources from this small nation are uncovered. -2pou (talk) 20:28, 26 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 11:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Júnior[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about non-notable footballer that was previously kept at AfD in October 2020. The same deletion rationale applies today - this footballer made a few appearances in the Portuguese second level, but the article comprehensively fails WP:GNG. At the time the article was kept under the deprecated NFOOTBALL standard with the idea that it needed and could be improved. 18 months later, NFOOTBALL is no longer applicable and the article hasn't been improved (and a new search for SIGCOV yielded nothing). Jogurney (talk) 03:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Brazil. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:14, 21 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, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - fails WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 22:59, 24 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 11:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looney Tunes Super Stars' Sylvester and Hippety Hopper: Marsupial Mayhem[edit]

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

I found only one reliable source with significant coverage for this DVD release. SL93 (talk) 02:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Comics and animation. SL93 (talk) 02:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable DVD release, minimal sourcing found, unlikely redirect/merge target given the unwieldy title Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:23, 21 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. Insufficient sources to support an article, and no target left to which to redirect this title. BD2412 T 03:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Snake Davis[edit]

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

Doesn't satisfy WP:MUSICBIO; session musicians rarely do. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 11:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zoot and the Roots as a former member. ✗plicit 11:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:21, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Zoot and the Roots may also be a candidate for deletion. I don't seen anything that satisfies WP:BAND. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Zoot and the Roots for deletion too. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, can't find anything to meet WP:NBAND. The two refs in the article are dead. Jacona (talk) 14:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to see how Zoot AfD closes. This could go either way (redirect, delete) at the moment, but there's no point in redirecting if that's going to be deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Snake Davis is undoubtedly highly thought of in the music industry but unfortunately that has not translated into in-depth coverage of the man in high quality sources with which we can write a properly comprehensive and sourced biography nor does he have an entry in Oxford Music Online (via Wikipedia Library) that would have resolved this very quickly. Zoot and the Roots is deleted so there is no redirect there. [Disclosure: I have been to a Snake Davis performance.] --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:54, 28 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. Calling this no consensus vs. an actual keep, despite outcome being the same, as neither keep !votes are policy based. I don't see a 3rd relist bringing input since the first two have not. Star Mississippi 15:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestling at the Islamic Solidarity Games[edit]

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

The tools did not include my message so I'm manually recreating it here. Listed as a part of New Page Patrol review. A "stats only" article about a subset of Islamic Solidarity Games. The 2 sources do not cover it, it has a mere mention or list entry in them. Suggest merging into the Islamic Solidarity Games article— Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think these overview pages should exist in the long run, so I think the page should be improved and not merged or deleted. Simeon (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is an international multi-sport organization organized once every four years. I think also the page should be improved and not merged or deleted. Pehlivanmeydani

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:45, 21 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 White noise. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

White noise (slang)[edit]

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

WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Wiktionary is there for that instead. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems like an article which could use a better title rather than a topic which is outside the scope of wikipedia. White noise does have a social meaning different from the technical one in the main article, but it isn't informal in the way slang words normally are. Some sources suggest that white noise in the technical sense is just an application of the colloquial term to describe a stochastic process (see https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C21&q=white+noise+colloquial&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&t=1651911113743&u=%23p%3DkMRnW-O6lXQJ). The phenomenon/cultural understanding of "white noise" is one that has been written about and likely predates the topic of the main white noise article. I would say this topic merits explanations and context a simple dictionary can't offer. --Middle river exports (talk) 08:16, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a specific suggestion for a better title? ~Kvng (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:44, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to white noise. There are very common non-technical meanings for which there are sufficient sources out there to merit including in the main article. Doesn't seem like it needs a stand-alone article, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Rhododendrites seems appropriate here. Bearian (talk) 20:16, 31 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. Star Mississippi 02:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Word (game show)[edit]

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

Only source in the article is TV Guide, and I could find nothing better Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:26, 21 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?)} 01:26, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Johnson, L. A. (1989-11-01). "Parkland resident gets the last word and wins big in TV game show". The News Tribune. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "It was like something out of a game show dream, complete with the consummate game show host Wink Martindale. Parkland resident Rich Bowen won more than $60,000 in prizes as a contestant on the Fox Network's game show "The Last Word" in October. ... The object of the game, which airs on Ch. 13 at 10:30 a.m. Monday through Friday, is to guess the last word. Each game has three words, all of which are somehow related. For example, contestants might be asked to guess the words Marx, Smothers and Wright. The connection between the words is that all the words are the names of famous brothers. ... In the first game, the male contestant competes against the female celebrity and in the second game the female contestant challenges the male celebrity. In the event of a tie, the male and female contestants go head to head."
2. Beck, Andee (1989-08-23). "Game show will conduct area tryouts". The News Tribune. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Veteran producer Merrill Heatter has taken his newest series, "The Last Word," to Vancouver, B.C., where he's taping 65 episodes for U.S. syndication. And he's hired someone in Gig Harbor to scout for contestants right in our backyard. ... Sinclair says if the program's a hit, it'll become "a resident game show" in the Northwest. "The Last Word," with emcee Wink Martindale, premieres nationally the week of Sept. 18; KCPQ will air it at 10:30 a.m. on Channel 13."
3. Terrace, Vincent (2011). Encyclopedia of Television Shows, 1925 through 2010 (2 ed.). Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. pp. 5169–5170. ISBN 978-0-7864-6477-7. Retrieved 2022-05-22 – via Google Books.
  The book provides 118 words of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "The Last Word. (Series; Game; Syn. 1989–1990). Concept: Two teams compete, each composed of a celebrity captain and a non-celebrity player. A board with three unknown words (indicated by blank spaces) is shown. One player from each team competes. One player begins by asking for a letter. If it is contained in the word it appears in its appropriate place on the board. The object is for players to guess each word (which are related to each other). The first player to identify the last word of the three words that are shown wins the round for his team. The team with the most correct identifications wins the game and merchandise points. Host: Wink Martindale. Assistant: Jennifer Lyall."
4. Less significant coverage:
  1. Kiss, Tony (1988-12-30). "Arsenio Hall returns to tube with late-night talk show". Asheville Citizen-Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article provides 86 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "From the Who Cares file — polyester game show host Wink Martindale is getting a new gig, courtesy of — you guessed it — Ted Turner. "The Last Word," a game created by Merrill Heatter of "Hollywood Squares" fame, will be peddled to stations at the January NAPTE video convention in Houston. Produced in a joint deal with Turner Program Services, the game pits celebs and nobodies in a high-tech computerized format that also involves the audience, for what it's worth. Turner will distribute the series starting next fall."
  2. TV Guide: Guide to TV. New York: Barnes & Noble Books. 2004. p. 357. ISBN 0-7607-5634-1. Retrieved 2022-05-22 – via Internet Archive.
    The book provides 28 words of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "The Last Word. Syndicated: 1989–1990. Host: Wink Martindale. A word game in which contestants teamed up with celebrities, including Jill Whelan, Ted Lange, Susan Ruttan and Gordon Jump."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Last Word to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per citations listed by Cunard. Enough to pass WP:GNG at the very least. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first two sources are human interest stories that barely say anything about the show at all. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:23, 22 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. Star Mississippi 02:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, True & Freaky[edit]

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

Could only find tangential mentions, press releases, and TV Guide listings Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:16, 21 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?)} 01:16, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Review at Common Sense Media is cited in article. Not enough on its own, but a start. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per CSM review, as well as the citations demonstrated by Cunard below. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Ashby, Emily (2022-03-30). "Weird, True and Freaky. TV review by Emily Ashby, Common Sense Media". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
  The review notes: "Parents need to know that, overall, this docuseries emphasizes shock value over education -- while there are some scattered opportunities for families to learn about animal behavior and science, they're usually overshadowed by the greater factor of curiosity. The amount of over-the-top/iffy content varies by episode, but it's safe to say that sensitive young viewers might be disturbed by scenes of mutant animals (a cyclopic piglet and a dog with no front legs, for instance) or stories of animals eating humans."
2. Newsome, Brad (2017-10-18). "What's on TV: Friday, October 27". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
  The article provides 138 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Tonight this watchable animal clip show focuses on animal attacks caught on video. And there's no shortage of those - from a Taiwanese preacher being mauled by a lion after he jumped into a zoo exhibit to evangelise the beast, to a Rwandan tour guide being dragged into the jungle by a gorilla. The most memorable account comes from an underwater cameraman attacked by an elephant seal - the animal engulfed his whole head, making everything pitch black and pressing his whole face into its tongue. Animal experts provide illuminating commentary. At first it's a bummer to see a huge anaconda disgorging a big animal carcass in a bid to get away from humans - but those humans might have saved its life. In cool weather, we learn, snakes' digestion slows and big meals can putrefy, killing them from the inside."
3. Less significant coverage:
  1. Gilbert, Matthew (2010-04-15). "Critic's corner". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "Weird, True & Freaky 9 and 9:30 p.m., Animal Planet. Three-headed frogs, two-headed cats, a six-legged deer, piglets nursing on a tiger, a leg growing on a lamb's head, a snake that swallows golf balls — you can't say the title of this show isn't accurate. There's nothing like a good old-fashioned mutation or genetic defect to keep you on the edge of your seat."
  2. Genzlinger, Neil (2010-04-21). "All Creatures Great and Repulsive". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
    The article notes: "Other shows take a tabloid-headline approach to the odd. Animal Planet’s “Weird, True & Freaky,” for instance, has featured a lobster so big that it was called Lobzilla; a python in Indonesia that measured 50 feet, thought to be the longest snake in recorded history (“handlers feed it three or four dogs a month”); and a 1,091-pound squid caught in Antarctica (“an eye the size of a soccer ball”)."
  3. Shattuck, Kathryn (2009-09-29). "What's On Today". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
    The article notes: "9 P.M. (Animal Planet) WEIRD, TRUE & FREAKY More stories about creepy crawlers, including maggots that live in the scalp and feed on the brain, leeches that reside in the nose and flies that make their homes in the neck. At 9:30 the series moves on to stomach-turning animal births."
  4. Westad, Kim (2009-09-29). "Whatever happened to Wendy the whippet?; 'Double-muscled' pooch found fame after 2007 Times Colonist article". Times Colonist. ProQuest 348395242 – via PressReader.
    The article notes: "And Wendy hasn't let worldwide attention change her, even with recent guest appearances on television shows such as Weird, True and Freaky. (A black Persian cat with gold-plated lower canine teeth, owned by a dentist, and a featherless parrot were her co-stars.)"
  5. "TV: Also worth watching". The Oklahoman. 2009-10-04. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
    The article notes: ""Weird, True & Freaky” (8:30 p.m. on Animal Planet): This episode features a segment on the world’s deadliest spider that was reportedly found in the produce aisle of a Tulsa grocery store in March."
  6. Cutler, Jacqueline (2008-11-09). "Loving orangutans becomes a family affair - Mom's TV log". The Star-Ledger. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
    The article notes: ""Weird, True & Freaky" (Tuesday, 8:30 p.m., Animal Planet). Enough of these scourges of nature are in Australia to serve as an anti-travel commercial. Sure there are the expected dingoes, wild dogs roaming in feral packs, but the king toad, some 200 million strong, that grows to 9.5-inches and 5 pounds, is alarming."
  7. Gross, Joe (2009-11-02). "Austin 360 bets". Austin American-Statesman. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
    The article notes: "'Weird, True & Freaky' 8:30 p.m., Animal Planet: This episode examines the unusual relationships that develop between dogs and other animals. I might not want to watch, depending on just how freaky it's going to get."
  8. Knoop, Doug (2010-06-02). "Season premiere of 'Royal Pains' on USA is a Thursday TV pick". The Seattle Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
    The article notes: "“Weird, True & Freaky,” 8 p.m. (Animal Planet): Italians place snakes on a statue of St. Dominic to ward off snakebites; Indians perform a frog marriage to end a drought; a Kenyan fertility ritual involves goat blood."
  9. Atkin, Charlotte (2009-01-15). "Six-legged deer story to be featured on Animal Planet show; TV crew expected in Rome next wee". Northwest Georgia News. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
    The article notes: "The story of Spyder, a six-legged fawn found in the Rome area in July, continues to fascinate. And now it looks like his story will be featured on Animal Planet's popular show called "Weird, True and Freaky," according to a local veterinarian who examined the young deer when it was discovered. Dan Pate of West Rome Animal Clinic said this morning that TV crews from the show are expected to be in town Monday and Tuesday."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Weird, True & Freaky to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:46, 22 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 appears clear after a strong debate. No active discussions of significance. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarter (talk) 13:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Russian Nobel laureates[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No encyclopedic content whatsoever, and really seems like a category-masquerading-as-an-article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or a simple directory-like listing. This list also appears to be obvious WP:OR: the specific selection criteria seem highly arbitrary and doesn't quite seem to match with either the natural English meaning of the word "Russian" (which is "from Russia", not "from the part of the Soviet Union which is now Russia" [the proper term, of course, being "Soviet", unless this is a list by ethnicity, which this doesn't seem to be], or "from some other part of the Soviet Union" or "spent a few years there at some point in their life"). This is already duplicated by the nationality branches of the category tree, so not even necessary for someone to bother spending the effort to categorify it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Russia. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Russian Nobel laureates: "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." Also qualifies as a functional navigational aid per WP:LISTPURP. For example, over the last thirty days the List of Russian Nobel laureates article received a daily average of 53 page views per day, while the category only received a daily average of 2 page views per day. Articles that would benefit from more sources for verification purposes can have maintenance templates requesting this work added to them. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTSTATS is a much stronger argument than some guideline about that. Lists are in article space and therefore subject to the standards of article space: articles should provide encyclopedic prose and context beyond mere trivialities. data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. Page views are not convincing arguments for notability, much less for failing WP:NOT. If the articles were deleted, the exact same information would be available to the readers via categories (which would likely get a boost), which are the more appropriate way to organise this than some OR/NOT lists. Maintenance templates can't fix this failing WP:NOT or address the fact that by it's very nature (given the ambiguity of "Russian") this list is going to keep encouraging OR and is thus a bad idea. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And since the previous keep argument is almost copy-pasted from elsewhere; so am I going to oblige similarly (quoting J947 from the last AFD nom for this page):

WP:NOTDUP says, as a conclusion: 'When deciding whether to create or avoid a list, the existence of a category on the same topic is irrelevant. This applies to both sides of the argument.

Categories are what are meant to be navigational aids, and WP:LISTPURP says that The list may be a valuable information source. The list is not a valuable information source as its content is already at List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_country#Russia and Soviet Union with more information than this article has. This article consists of no prose. See WP:NOTSTATS—which as a policy surpasses MOS—especially point #3 which states that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Also, page views are not a measure of notability.

Same as above; page views are not a measure of notability.

RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:14, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment – In pinging only one user from the last AfD discussion, rather than all users of the past discusion, you have now directly engaged in inappropriate WP:CANVASSING~~. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My intent was not to ping them to the discussion, but was (very obviously, I can't figure how you missed this) for WP:COPYWITHIN reasons as I quoted their comment. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:26, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~I strongly recommend that you now ping all users from the last AfD discussion. WP:COPYWITHIN does not trump Wikipedia:Canvassing.~~ North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:29, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright attribution is a legal requirement and does trump the rest. I'm not going to ping people whose comments are obviously personal opinion (" I feel this is a valid navigational approach." is WP:ILIKEIT) or provided no valid reasons at all ("for now. We can hash otu minimums at a VPP or a RFC"). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Struck some of my commentary above.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTSTATS is concerning "excessive listings of unexplained statistics", but fact is, this article is not statistical in nature. It does not present averages of sample values, regression analysis, sample sizes, statistical assumptions, statistical inferences, probability distributions, margins of error, etc. The articles provides basic information, as many list articles typically do, but it is not statistical in nature. For an example of what actually comprises statistical content, see Nationwide opinion polling for the 2012 United States presidential election § Two-way race. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The inclusion criteria 'laureates who were citizens of Russia/Soviet Union at the time of receiving the award or in another time of their life are nonsensical, for multiple reasons. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. Keep, I now think this one has enough scope for a stand-alone list. J947 † ^edits 22:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That was never the issue being disputed here. I still think the arbitrary criteria and the lack of further material about the intersection (as opposed to details about individual winners) disqualifies this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Note that the article has been expanded with many more references and citations. Also, the notes section has been expanded compared to the state it was in when nominated for deletion. If the article is retained, then I can likely devote more time to flesh it out more. For now, I'm awaiting the outcome of this discussion, but will still likely perform some work on it here and there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this nomination seems to be based on misconceptions about how lists work. It is absolutely fine to have a list and a category on the same topic, as specified explicitly by the relevant guideline, so the argument that seems like a category-masquerading-as-an-article is invalid. The nominator's argument that articles should provide encyclopedic prose and context is irrelevant because this is a list and not an article. While high quality lists usually have a paragraph or two at the start to set some context, the absence of such a thing is not a reason to delete the list and it usually duplicates the relevant article anyway. It is fine for list entries not to contain significant prose. I also don't agree that the topic is unencyclopedic, Nobel laureates are definitely an encyclopedic topic and nationality is an obvious way to categorise them.
While I agree that the list shouldn't include all citizens of the Soviet Union this is hardly a reason to delete the list. The list also doesn't contain people who spent a few years there at some point in their life, the entries who are not Russian or Soviet nationals clearly have strong connections to Russia, e.g. Andre Geim was born in Russia and seems to have lived there for the first 30 years or so of his life. Hut 8.5 16:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find the WP:NOTDUP reference a convincing rebuttal for the reasons to delete. CT55555 (talk) 20:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep similar to bulk deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hungarian Nobel laureates, the previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Russian Nobel laureates, comments above, and passes WP:GNG, WP:LISTN, and WP:IMPACT. THe article is ver WP:DISCRIMINATE so the WP:INDISCRIMINATE argument in the nomination is quite misleading. And calling this WP:OR is something I just can't seem to understand.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A simple question'. Shouldn't a 'List of Russian Nobel laureates' be confined solely to people who were/are actually Russian? Because as of now,[30] the inclusion criteria are stated to be laureates of the Nobel Prize who were citizens of the Soviet Union or Russia at the time of receiving the award, or at another time during their life. Which, given that the Soviet Union always encompassed more than just Russia, would seem to potentially encompass people who weren't by any reasonable definition 'Russian'. While it may be common amongst the less-educated to conflate the Soviet Union with Russia, Wikipedia certainly shouldn't be perpetuating this misapprehension. If the list is to be kept, we need to come up with clear inclusion criteria which actually agree with the title. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably true, but that is an editing issue on the content, not a deletion issue of the entire article. --Paul McDonald (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but deletion discussions generally revolve around notability of the topic. Which requires some sort of clarity regarding what the actual subject of the article is. How the heck is anyone supposed to determine the notability (as demonstrated through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject) of a topic where the title doesn't match the content? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - If an entry doesn't belong on the list, you can go ahead and edit it during the discussion. Any good-faith edit like that would be valuable to the discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - 'Doesn't belong on the list' according to which criteria though? The title (which just says 'Russian'), or the nonsensical doesn't-actually-need-to-be-Russian criteria the article specifies? If there is a notable topic here, we need to be able to point to sources which discuss it. And give some sort of indication what 'it' is, rather than relying on Wikipedia contributors to decide for themselves how 'Russian' you need to be to merit inclusion in each case - which seems to be the case as of now. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        That would be an editing issue and not a deletion issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Seems that an easy way to address this concern is to create a new article titled "List of Soviet Nobel laureates" and then sort accordingly. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I find this problem easier to navigate in the context of there being currently dozens of AfD proposals for List of <various nation> Nobel Laureates being debated and from what I've seen, close to unanimous agreement to keep every one of them in every discussion. So I don't see the Russian/Soviet/USSR one as an outlier which ever way it ends up being better defined. CT55555 (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Legally Russia is the successor state of the Soviet Union. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 01:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to reasonable decent article with decent references on notable subjects. I can't see any rationale for deleting it. scope_creep^Talk 10:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 02:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really Big Things[edit]

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

Zero sourcing found. Deprodded without comment Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:09, 21 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?)} 01:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Ashby, Emily (2022-02-24). "Really Big Things. TV review by Emily Ashby, Common Sense Media". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
  The review notes: "From trash compactors big enough to chew up a home to a unique NFL stadium, there's no end to the fun that Rogers -- and viewers -- will have checking out the latest and greatest big thing. ... This intriguing series is as big on fun as it is devoid of iffy content, and the charismatic and adventurous Rogers is a great host. Really Big Things offers some really great family entertainment for parents and their kids, especially boys -- who are likely to be most awed by the array of massive vehicles."
2. Ryan, Andrew (2007-12-28). "Critic's Choice". The Globe and Mail. ProQuest 383380190.
  The article provides 196 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Really Big Things provides a rambling road tour of massive man-made wonders located all over the world. Hosted by former American Idol hopeful Matt Rogers, the six-part series is short on concept but long on travel budget. In the first show alone, the energetic Rogers journeys down south to examine the sprawling concrete fixture designed to prevent bank erosion along the mighty Mississippi River; then it's off to Sweden to witness a huge machine called the "Rammer Hammer" break iron ore. ... Really Big Things is undeniably juvenile in tone, but it's still good fun."
3. Mayne, Jane (2008-07-11). "Size really does matter when you're in Sin City". Cape Times. p. 7. ProQuest 430685748.
  The article provides 171 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "... And sometimes it's necessary if you want to watch other things that clash. Like season two of Really Big Things on Discovery (Tuesdays at 9pm). It's really guy stuff, and bigger is better. Size really does count, and all that. In the first episode, host Matt Rogers helped pitch the massive big top for Cirque du Soleil, which was full of interesting factoids and statistics. Most of the inserts are, and answer all the questions you might have about how big, how wide, how deep or how high. There have been man-made white-water rapids which are used for fun and Olympic training, and an impressive military hovercraft. Episode two was my favourite so far, beginning with the dancing fountains at the Bellagio Hotel in Las Vegas. Usually I don't like knowing how these pretty things work because it steals away something of the magic, but going underwater and into the "bat cave" where everything is programmed and maintained was jolly interesting. The window factory and the thing that munches up trees and spits out wood chips - not so much. Like I said: guy stuff."
4. Less significant coverage:
  1. "What to Watch". The Washington Post. 2007-01-07. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
    The article notes: "Waiting for "the big one"? Gigantic, humongous, mammoth items are on display in "Really Big Things." Host Matt Rogers shows viewers the super-size versions of machines, structures and other massive man-made marvels."
  2. Davis, Mark (2007-08-08). "New whale sharks star in 'Really Big Things' tonight". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
    The article notes: "The show, "Really Big Things," takes a close look at how the aquarium moved whale sharks Yushan and Taroko this summer. ... Viewers will follow the host, Matt Rogers, as the aquarium prepares for the whale sharks' arrival. The episode also includes footage from Taiwan and the air transport to Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport."
  3. Shattuck, Kathryn (2007-01-09). "What's on tonight". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
    The article notes: "In this new technology and invention series, Matt Rogers travels the globe to prove that, in some cases, size does matter, starting with the sinking unit that places concrete mattresses along the banks of the Mississippi River to help prevent bank erosion; the rammer hammer used to break ore in the Arctic Circle, and the world's largest paper mill."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Really Big Things to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per citations listed by Cunard. Enough to pass WP:GNG at the very least. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:20, 22 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 Withdrawn. Apparently, in this instance, people do not share my dislike and WP:NOT concerns about intersections like this (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of female Nobel laureates[edit]

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

~~I could go on about how this fails WP:NOT or something, but then that's going to invite round-about arguments about how it supposedly doesn't.~~ So let's go for something simpler, and far less ambiguous: this is patent and blatant WP:OR (being first published on Wikipedia and thus OR by definition) which provides no encyclopedic content except some unsourced statistical trivia about when the last woman to win a Nobel or how many have won x category of prizes (and statistics being correct is not a reason to keep an article). An hypothetical Gender bias of Nobel Prizes or Systematic bias of Nobel Prizes could be a valid encyclopedic article, but that doesn't seem to justify this kind of list.

Update: Also obviously fails WP:NOTMIRROR, as this is a near exact copy of the nobelprize.org page on the same subject; and WP:NOTSTATS/WP:INDISCRIMINATE (as, beyond the OR statistics about how many women have won X category of prizes, or which one was the first one, there is nothing else to this); and the excessive quotes (all copied from the same nobelprize.org page) are also probably WP:QUOTEFARM/WP:COPYVIO issues RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see how this could be described as WP:OR when it seems well cited throughout. CT55555 (talk) 13:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If something is not published anywhere but on Wikipedia, then it is OR by definition; even if the facts in it are correct and "well-cited throughout". We don't have List of female Grammy Award winners nor of any other similar ones, even though one could probably similarly conjure up one which has all the facts correct. If no external source exists to provide valid encyclopedic content about this, then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia (which is supposed to be a reflection of external sources, not an original compilation). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:43, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But lists of women nobel prize winners do appears elsewhere:
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/lists/nobel-prize-awarded-women/

https://www.chicagotribune.com/featured/sns-stacker-women-nobel-prize-winners-20210824-ag6mn4f5hneldbcnjrip6whkai-photogallery.html CT55555 (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In which case I should probably bring up the NOT arguments, then. WP:NOTMIRROR seems to fairly obviously apply; the page, except for the lead, is an exact copy (with different formatting) of the nobelprize.org page. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I have refuted the justification that you included in the nomination, then I'm less interested in starting over with a new justification, it doesn't seem reasonable that I can refute your reason and you can just change the justification when you lose the argument. CT55555 (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The stats are still OR (since no source which comments on their significance has been presented) and without an external source to provide additional encyclopedic content (as opposed to a mere copy of the listing) then this article is still not proper for Wikipedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Featured article; why would any experienced editor think of deleting it? Mathsci (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that just means that whenever it passed FA (which was 14 years ago), standards where less stringent. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And the list obviously fails criteria no. 1 and 2 (Wikipedia:Featured list criteria); as the lead (the only non-quoted prose) is not particularly "professional writing", nor is it particularly insightful or informative... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTN and cleanup as needed. The topic of female Nobel laureates has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, e.g. Gender and Science: Women Nobel Laureates (Journal of Creative Behavior, 2011, "Eleven female Nobel laureates in physics, chemistry and physiology/medicine between 1901 and 2006 were compared with 37 males who received the Nobel Prize in the same area one year prior and one year after the women."), Gender bias in Nobel prizes (Nature, 2019, "In 2018, Professor D. Strickland received the Nobel Prize in Physics as the first woman in 55 years. From 1901 to 2018, the Nobel Prize in Physics has been awarded 112 times to 209 different candidates; among these are only two more women; namely M. Curie in 1903 and M. Goeppert Mayer in 1963."), A Prize for Grumpy Old Men? Reflections on the Lack of Female Nobel Laureates (Gender & History, 2014), Who can get the next Nobel Prize in infectious diseases? (International Journal of Infectious Diseases 2016, "In the future, more female laureates would be expected in the IDR field."), Secret history (Physics World, 2007, "Why have there been so few female Nobel laureates in science – and just two in physics? The usual retort is to blame universities for not allowing women to study there until well into the 19th century."), Iraqi Women and Science: Past, Present and Future (Journal of Medical and Surgical Research 2016, "One simple check of the prestigious Nobel Prize winners since its establishment in 1901 will show that among the 49 female recipients of prize, only 17 of them won the prize for scientific contributions. Among these, 14 female winners shared the prize with male colleagues. Also 12 of these prizes were in the field of medicine or physiology, while only 2 in physics and 4 in chemistry."), Women in physics representation in Malaysian universities (AIP Conference Proceedings, 2021, "As to date, only three women have been awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics out of 51 female Nobel Laureates since 1901. The percentage of women laureates has roughly doubled in the 21st century."), Gender differences in mathematics and science competitions: A systematic review, (Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2019, "Since 1901, Nobel Prizes in Physics, Chemistry and Medicine have been awarded to 604 outstanding researchers. Only 19 of these researchers were women (The Nobel Foundation, 2018).") Beccaynr (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would seem to justify a Gender bias of Nobel Prizes article (all of these sources seem to specifically talk about the bias of it); not an uninformative stats-list like this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think an article about Gender bias in Nobel Prizes could also be created, with greater depth exploring the various research, but it does not undermine the notability of this list, per the sources and the WP:LISTN guideline. The existence of women Nobel laureates as a group or set is notable, and the issue of bias also appears to be notable. Beccaynr (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another example: Gender and societies: a grassroots approach to women in science (Royal Society Open Science 2019, includes the notable group: "Since 2000, there have been seven female Nobel laureates out of a total of 174 in physics, chemistry, medicine and economics", followed by an overview of research, a mathematical model, and a conclusion: "when the stakes are low, efforts to tackle historic gender bias towards men have been at least partially successful, but when the stakes are higher male dominance is often still the norm.") Beccaynr (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But all the sources are specifically about the topic of gender bias, not the wider topic of female Nobel winners / scientists more generally. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From my view, the research and commentary is the secondary sourcing that helps make the list of winners notable, because the winners are the starting point that is worthy of notice. The sources I cited above are from a quick run through results I found on GScholar, and there seems to be a pattern typical to science: observe a noteworthy phenomenon, and then explore why it exists. That is why two articles seem supported by the sources, because there appears to be strong support for finding women Nobel laureates notable, based on the secondary sources that then proceed to analyze and comment on the group or set.

There is also a more straightforward compilation, e.g. The Nobel Prize (1901-2000): Handbook of Landmark Records (2007, e.g. pp. 18-19, 23-26, 33, 42), and additional examples of using the representation of women in the Nobel prize as a starting point for research and discussion, e.g. Women in Neuroscience: A Short Time Travel (Reference Module in Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Psychology 2020, "Female Nobel laureates are not lacking but they are very few indeed. Between 1901 and 2019, the Nobel Prizes were awarded to 21 women (Marie Curie received it in Physics in 1903 and in Chemistry in 1911) out of 615 scientists. However, cases of women who have been denied the recognition they deserved have emerged in recent years."). Beccaynr (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Beccaynr: I'm not sure that coverage of a sub-topic establishes that an article about the larger topic it is part of is ok. Coverage about Gender bias in academia is not coverage about Academia, it is coverage about one sub-part of it (and if there were an article about academia which was solely based on coverage about the gender bias, it would obviously not be a very balanced treatment of the subject and would surely fall foul of several policies). Coverage about Racism in the United States is not coverage about Racism (and if the article about racism focused solely on matters from the US, that would be obviously a bad article). If an article about "Women in science" really only covered the sexism, it really would have to be renamed (as the title would be misleading). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the secondary analysis and commentary on the larger topic of female Nobel winners supports the notability of the group. There also does not appear to only be coverage related to gender bias, and even if there is, the notability of the group of winners still seems supported. These are the women who have, according to many sources, managed to overcome various barriers. Gender bias in Nobel Prizes is not the same as coverage of female Nobel Laureates, it is coverage about one sub-part of it (and if there were an article about female Nobel laureates which was solely focused on gender bias, instead of the facts of representation reported by the various sources, it would seem to need a separate article to manage the large and distinctly notable topic of gender bias). Coverage about bias is not coverage of the women themselves, who are notable as a group or set for their accomplishments. The sources and guidelines therefore appear to support an article focused on female winners, as well as a separate article for some of the context. Beccaynr (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the WP Library, I have found more examples of sources that can support both a list article focused on winners and an article focused on the disparity, e.g.
Nobel Prize Women in Science: Their Lives, Struggles, and Momentous Discoveries - a book that "explores the reasons for this astonishing disparity by examining the lives and achievements of fifteen women scientists who either won a Nobel Prize or played a crucial role in a Nobel Prize", which according to Publishers Weekly "introduces the small pantheon of women leaders in science whose careers and words offer advice and inspiration, if small comfort, to women in science today", and according to Kirkus Reviews "allows the facts-documented in interviews with and in records of the women—to speak for themselves."

"Strickland gets Nobel Prize nod: University of Waterloo scientist first woman to win Nobel Prize for physics in 55 years for work with lasers" Waterloo Region Record Oct. 3, 2018, contextualizing her win as part of the group and includes what appears to be an attempt at humor about her getting promoted to a full professorship. (via ProQuest)

"Nobel Nominations in Science: Constraints of the Fairer Sex", Annals of Neurosciences, Jul2018, Vol. 25, Issue 2 (via EBSCOhost) - begins with the group, including Marie Curie, Maria Goeppert-Mayer, Irène Joliot-Curie, Gerty Cori, and Rosalyn Yalow, and then explores factors contributing to why so few women have won the prize. The article notes, inter alia, "Men's share as professors worldwide was 80–95% even in 1990", and notes in its conclusion about gender disparities in science, "The reasons that can be attributed to such a trend are manifold." Beccaynr (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A list highlighting a well-defined set of 58 out of the 943 notable individuals who have won the prize, a disparity which is the topic of several sources listed above. PamD 09:53, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is a notable topic covered by reliable sources. I agree that we could benefit from a more thoughtful article about bias and Nobel Prizes and I encourage the nominator to start that page. We can discuss a possible merge once the bias article is well established. pburka (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With so many similar AfDs currently running, it is a challenge to manage related discussions, but with regard to a merge (because some of the sources I found were added to a narrowly-titled draft by the nominator) I would like to repeat what I said in the List of black Nobel laureates AfD: From an WP:IAR standpoint, I also think it is not a great look for the encylopedia to only define marginalized groups from within the confines of their oppression (i.e. focus only on bias, systemic or otherwise) without having a place to celebrate what people have collectively accomplished, despite the various biases and other factors that may contribute to disparities but also make the group accomplishment worthy of notice. Beccaynr (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that we're not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. If sources only discuss a topic from a certain angle, even if it's not exactly the most favourable one, then as encyclopedia writers we should be faithfully following the sources. I've always been dubious on intersection (i.e. "A" who are also "B") lists, but particularly if there's coverage only about one aspect of this intersection, then I'm not convinced a list provides that much pertinent information to the reader. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is faithfully following the sources to focus on the notable group, RandomCanadian, and I encourage you to review WP:BLUDGEON at this point. Beccaynr (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a discussion, and well, you made a point, so I answered. If it is "faithfully following the sources", you should be able to find sources whose primary focus is not on the bias but on the group itself. If all the sources you seem to find are mainly about the bias (and they certainly appear to be), well, too bad, we should follow that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry you continue to assert "all the sources" are mainly about bias, when they obviously are not, and as if this would undermine the notability of this list. You began this discussion by asserting there were no secondary sources, and then after sources were produced, have appeared to insist that these women should only be defined as marginalized and oppressed, and that all of the sources discussing their accomplishments should be ignored. I think we should follow WP:LISTN, and recognize that this is a group well-supported in secondary sources as notable, and we can keep this list as a resource for our readers. Beccaynr (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should we merge racism and sexism and ableism into systemic inequality? I think not. And that's probably because they are notable subjects in their own right. Just as this is. I think the notability of the subject has been shown and it seems a bit WP:SNOWBALL in that direction here. CT55555 (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The contrary is that we obviously shouldn't merge Sexism in academia into Academia or Racism in the United States into Racism (or at least, not in whole, as that would greatly unbalance those). And yet here we're seemingly happy with having a list on "female Nobel winners" when in fact all the sources are about "bias against female Nobel winners". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources all tend to mention the bias, but they are not all about the bias, here's some examples that are mostly about the women:
https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/art-books-music/a34328866/nobel-prizes-2020-women/

https://www.statnews.com/2020/10/07/two-crispr-scientists-win-nobel-prize-in-chemistry/

https://uwaterloo.ca/news/women-nobel-prize-physics CT55555 (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Vereckey, Betsy (March 15, 2022). "The 58 women who have won the Nobel Prize". The Telegraph. Retrieved 22 May 2022., that I added to the article during this discussion, as well as the The Nobel Prize (1901-2000): Handbook of Landmark Records noted above, and every source that begins by identifying the notable group as a starting point for secondary analysis and commentary. Beccaynr (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources listed by Beccaynr, and many others exist, this is one of those perennial discussions. If someone were to write an article about (gender) bias in the Nobels that would be interesting but does not invalidate the existence of this useful & interesting list. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep plenty of sources provided, blasts past WP:GNG and WP:LISTN.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:52, 23 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) Goldsztajn (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of black Nobel laureates[edit]

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

Fails WP:V, WP:NLIST, and WP:NOTDIRECTORY (to quote almost exactly: people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X who have won award Y...) The only sources presented are for trivial facts about Nobel Prizes and have nothing to do with this specific intersection of "ethnicity" and "some other thing", thus this probably also borderline fails WP:NOR as a topic which has nothing published about it elsewhere is OR by definition. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. When I read the guidance at WP:NOTDIRECTORY in full: Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories such as these are not considered a sufficient basis for creating an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. I find that less convincing than they way you quoted it. But I'm not sure. It seems to me that this is encyclopaedic, that winning a nobel is very notable, and that racial inequity in winning is a notable topic:

I don't think this article is well cited, and so I see room to improve, but it does seem to be encyclopedic and the guidance that we've both quoted is prefaced by Non-encyclopedic and therefore my reading is that as long as it's encyclopedic, nothing after those words therefore matters. I lean keep, but keen to see what others thing before !voting. CT55555 (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All of that (like with the similar by-religion or even the gender list) would seem to support content for a Systematic bias of Nobel Prizes article (since the only sources about this are indeed about the bias). Notability is not inherited, so even if the Nobel is a "very notable" prize, that doesn't mean every article which discusses some aspect of it is. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:46, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would support the creation of a systemic bias article, but I think this list should get to stay, for the exact same reasons that User:Beccaynr made here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_female_Nobel_laureates CT55555 (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTN and cleanup as needed. This topic has has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, e.g. Towards Producing Black Nobel Laureates Affiliated with African Universities (APS March Meeting Abstracts 2016, presenting the notable group and then adding research and analysis), African Gold: The Story of Africa's Nobel Laureates (2008, e.g. p. 9, discussing 'so few black Nobel laureates'), Abdulrazak Gurnah wins the 2021 Nobel prize in literature (Guardian 2021, "No black African writer has won the prize since Wole Soyinka in 1986. Gurnah is the first black writer to win since Toni Morrison in 1993."), No black scientist has ever won a Nobel – that's bad for science, and bad for society (The Conversation/Phys.org, 2018, "a painful reminder that of the more than 900 Nobel laureates, only 14 (1.5%) have been black and none in science."), The Nobels Overwhelmingly Go to Men — This Year's Prize For Medicine Was No Exception (NPR 2020, "All the attention given to women that year prompted Winston Morgan, a researcher at the University of East London, to check whether any Black scientist had ever won a Nobel Prize for science. He couldn't find one. [...] If a Black scientist or physician won a Nobel Prize, says Morgan, the effect would be profound. It would create "lots of optimism, both within the Black community and wider," he says."). A list of people are notable because of the secondary sources that discuss the accomplishments of the group or set. Separate articles can be created for subtopics based on secondary sources that analyze and comment on the group. Beccaynr (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additional sources that support the notability of the group: The Nobel prizes have a gender problem, but quotas are not the solution, says head of science academy (Washington Post, 2021 "Just over a dozen Nobel Prize winners have been Black, and no Black person, male or female, has won in a science category, according to Smithsonian."), The Nobels honored 4 women this year. But the awards still lack diversity (CNN, 2020, "Of 931 individuals and 28 organizations to have won the prize since the awards began, just 16 are Black. No Black winners were named in 2020.") Beccaynr (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still not convinced a list is the best way to organise this information. The articles you find seem generally to be talking about the topic of the lack of diversity of Nobel awards, which is specific neither to Blacks nor to (to take the other similar AfD) women - in fact many of the articles you cite specifically deal with both topics and not one or the other in isolation, showing again how they aren't really talking about the subject of "female Nobel laureates" or "Black Nobel laureates" but really are talking about the Systematic bias of Nobel Prizes. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From my view, these sources support the creation of multiple articles, including ones that focus on the larger group that has drawn the attention of researchers and the media - a WP list illustrates not just the lack of diversity but also the individuals who are the component parts of the notable group. From an WP:IAR standpoint, I also think it is not a great look for the encylopedia to only define marginalized groups from within the confines of their oppression (i.e. focus only on bias, systemic or otherwise) without having a place to celebrate what people have collectively accomplished, despite the various biases and other factors that may contribute to disparities but also make the group accomplishment worthy of notice. Beccaynr (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep for reasons outlined at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Nobel Prize laureates when the article was under another name among sound arguments above pointing to WP:LISTN, WP:GNG, and I'll add WP:IMPACT. The WP:V argument is reaching quite far--is the nomination really saying that (for example) Desmond Tutu wasn't black or that he was black but didn't win the Nobel prize? The original research argument is clear bunk and the quickest google searches will lay that one to rest.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:V argument is that the only source the article cites for its topic matter is for two trivial sentences in the lead which are not about Black laureates but about Nobel prizes in general. An article which is not based on reliable sources clearly fails WP:V: the rest of the lead is entirely unsourced. WP:IMPACT is an essay and doesn't override either V or NOR concerns. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not cleanup. Discuss the content on the article's talk page rather than attempt to throw out the entire article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Following my comments above) as per Paul McDonald and Beccaynr CT55555 (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These lists have general encyclopedic value. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We are in WP:SNOWBALL keep territory now. Asking the nominator to please consider withdrawing this AfD. CT55555 (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is not a self-maintaining category and has encyclopedic relevance. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm more swayed by the keep arguments. The rarity of the Nobel Prize being awarded to black recipients is notable, and has been noted above in sources as an example of bias. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Latin American Nobel laureates[edit]

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

Fails WP:V, WP:NLIST, and WP:NOTDIRECTORY (to quote almost exactly: people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X who have won award Y...) The only sources presented are for trivial facts about Nobel Prizes and have nothing to do with this specific intersection of "ethnicity" and "some other thing", thus this probably also borderline fails WP:NOR as a topic which has nothing published about it elsewhere is OR by definition. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Latin America. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:10, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Geography is a notable group or set per WP:LISTN and e.g., How the Nobel Prize has favoured white western men for more than 100 years (The Telegraph, 2014, includes "Geographical analysis by the Telegraph has also revealed that western countries have received a disproportionately high number of awards throughout the Nobel's history."), What the Nobels are — and aren’t — doing to encourage diversity (Nature, 2018, includes a general focus on geography), Nobel Prize winners: How many women have won awards? (Telegraph, 2015, includes a list of "Representation among countries with more than five Nobel Prize winners"). Geography as it relates to Nobel Prize winners is a notable group or set per the sources. Beccaynr (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And for Latin America specifically, e.g. The Scarcity of Nobel Prizes in Latin America. A Culturalist Approach to the History of Brain Drain in the Region (Migration and Diasporas: An Interdisciplinary Journal 2020), History of Modern Latin America: 1800 to the Present (2016, discussing Latin American Nobel laureates at p. 13), The Oxford Handbook of Gabriel García Márquez (2021, discussing Latin American Nobel laureates at p. 4). Beccaynr (talk) 03:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial mentions of Latin America Nobels or countries appearing in stats tables, in sources which ostensibly do not dwell upon this subject for very long do not constitute the kind of WP:SIGCOV necessary to justify this kind of listing. The Telegraph is paywalled, but I find it hard to believe that an article ostensibly about wider geographic disproportionality would have significant coverage of Latin America in particular (similarly for the one which is clearly about gender discrimination). The single-page mentions (somehow, Google Books is not giving me access) in the last two sources also seem very much the kind of thing that wouldn't be SIGCOV, based on similar examples cited elsewhere RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the WP:LISTN analysis is that geography as a group or set is notable, per a variety of independent and reliable sources, some of which are additionally cited in other similar AfDs, such as the List of female Nobel laureates AfD, which includes sources that have a focus on geography. I also added further examples in this discussion, including an entire paper about Nobel Prizes in Latin America, and other sources discussing the specific group in a nontrivial manner. The sources support the notability of this list because geography is a notable group as it relates to Nobel prizes, and there is additional coverage by independent and reliable sources about Latin America specifically. I also again encourage you to use the "Search Inside" function or the GBooks link at the top of this page (remove "List of" before searching) to access the book sources before making judgments about sources that you have not reviewed. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 01:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Latin America is a geography, not an ethnicity. Additionally, I think WP:NOTDUP refutes the justification to delete. CT55555 (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And as quoted elsewhere, NOTDUP goes both ways and doesn't mean that we need to have a list. Whether "Latin America" is a geographical group or a cultural/ethnic group doesn't change the fact this is still a cross-categorisation of the kind explicitly discouraged by WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and one whose encyclopedic merit is disputable. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about what we WP:NEED to do--"need" isn't the standard.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hungarian Nobel laureates and others.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:19, 23 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. Sourcing has been found to exist Star Mississippi 02:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vet School Confidential[edit]

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

First source is just a local-interest story in a vet magazine, which is not enough to convey notability. Nothing better found Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:11, 21 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?)} 00:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep more citations in Lansing State Journal [31], South Bend Tribune [32], The Philadelphia Enquirer [33] DonaldD23 talk to me 00:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Local interest story, press release, and press release. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not you think of these sources as enough to pass the TV notability requirements, they are indeed coverage about the article on hand which satisfies WP:GNG. As for the ones you are calling "press release", they are syndicated articles that appear in multiple different newspapers, but they are not press releases. They are attributed to different authors, and do not come from the primary source (makers of the show). The are independent authors working for news service companies and constitute independent coverage. Check out Press release for more clarification. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:05, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They were still commissioned by the show to write about it; ergo, primary source. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:16, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And where did you come up with that assumption? Do you have a citation that shows these were paid articles? Quite a bold statement. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Written by a press company to gush about the show. Not a negative word in sight. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So now the Associated Press is a "press company" that "gushes about the show." I'm sure they would love to know that a 175 year old news agency is just around to write puff pieces. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's just routine run of the mill churnalism. They'll write about my own ass if I pay them enough. Does that make my ass notable? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:26, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You frequently allege that independent secondary coverage meeting GNG requirements are just "press releases" as a strawman argument. While doubtlessly there was a press release that preceded that article somewhere, if a news outlet covers it, it is a secondary source, not a press release. matt91486 (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @TenPoundHammer: Content by the Associated Press ([34]) or Knight Ridder News Service ([35]) or other syndicated content is not necessarily a press release. A WP:BEFORE search for news coverage (I access news databases with a simple library card) includes:

Long, Tom (August 7, 2001). "Dr. Dolittles in training - Series follows Michigan State vet students as they learn to care for the animals". The Detroit News. p. 1B – via NewsBank..
Bergeron, Judy (October 28, 2001). "Vet School Confidential's Cezar brings crew to La. ranch". The Advocate. Baton Rouge, LA. p. 25 – via NewsBank.

As a human interest show, the coverage generally covers the humans, with basic detail of the show's setting and strucutre. While a single season reality show is not likely to have extensive enduring coverage, a better alternative to deletion is redirect to List of Animal Planet original programming. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY DELETE. Just a 3 line article and nothing on Google News search. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 02:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The length of an article is not a factor in determining notability, see WP:ARTN. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Bergeron, Judy (2001-10-28). "Vet School Confidential's Cezar brings crew to La. ranch". The Advocate. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
  The article notes: "Cezar is in her fourth year at Michigan State University College of Veterinary Medicine and is one of the stars of Vet School Confidential. The weekly Animal Planet reality series follows five of the school's students through their daily lives as they apply the knowledge learned in the classroom in a functioning hospital setting or on a farm. Most of Vet School Confidential's footage is shot in MSU's Veterinary Teaching Hospital."
2. Long, Tom (2001-08-07). "Dr. Dolittles in training - Series follows Michigan State vet students as they learn to care for the animals". The Detroit News. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
  The article notes: "Debuting on the Animal Planet network tonight, a 13-week series called Vet School Confidential follows the lives of Cezar and four other Michigan State University students, tracking their highs and lows while simultaneously recording the sophisticated state of medical treatment for animals. There's Casey, a cute little furball of a dog gone blind from cataracts. And there's Kent Vince, the student trying to give Casey his vision back while also flirting with a cute student on her way to surgery. There are tips on how to keep manure from getting in your boots while working on horses, and there are anxious owners waiting to see if their pets will survive."
3. Spreier, Jeanne (2001-10-07). "Shows about animals are the picks of this litter". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
  The article notes: "One of my kids told me Vet School Confidential was "a really good show, Mom, really." It's not a typical kid's show by any means. It's about veterinary students at Michigan State University, airs fairly late on a school night and covers rather arcane vet school topics. In one recent episode, vets were replacing the pacemaker in a dog and trying to get a day-old reindeer to nurse - not events you'd think a youngster would find interesting to watch."
4. "Animal Planet to show 'Vet School Confidential'". Jefferson City News-Tribune. Associated Press. 2001-07-30. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
  The article notes: "Want to see a dog undergo cataract surgery, the birth of a foal or the de-horning of a goat? These medical procedures and more will be featured on a new Animal Planet show, "Vet School Confidential," a 13-part television series filmed at Michigan State University. The weekly, half-hour series is scheduled to begin airing Aug. 7 on the cable channel."
5. Wellons, Nancy Imperiale (2001-08-09). "Cartoon Network's 'Samurai Jack' simply breathtaking". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
  The article notes: "Besides, the animals don't talk on Vet School Confidential. It's the students who do most of the conversing during the offbeat, entertaining new 13-episode Animal Planet reality series, which follows the hectic lives of Mehler and several classmates at Michigan State University's College of Veterinary Medicine. ... Vet School Confidential, at 9:30 p.m. Tuesdays on Animal Planet, was filmed over four months on the MSU campus in East Lansing last winter and early spring."
6. Renzhofer, Martin (2001-08-07). "How Refreshing to See a Dignified Response on Television". The Salt Lake Tribune. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
  The article notes: "For a real close-up taste of what your typical vet goes through en route to making sure your dog or ferret remains healthy, check out "Vet School Confidential" on Animal Planet tonight at 10:30 p.m. ... In an eye-opening first episode, 48 hours into vet student Kent Vince's first opthalmology rotation, he is shocked to discover he is assisting in his first cataract surgery."
7. Hughes, Mike (2001-08-07). "Vet students shine in Animal Planet spotlight. MSU dishes up the dirt for rea-life cable show". Lansing State Journal. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "When "Vet School Confidential opens tonight, it will introduce a fresh supply of local heroes. The show — 9:30 p.m. Tuesdays on cable's Animal Planet — spends the next 13 weeks viewing Michigan State University's veterinary school."
8. Less significant coverage:
  1. P., Kevin (2001-09-14). "Two shows join Animal Planet fold". Arizona Daily Star. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
    The article notes: "Medical dramas have always been a solid bet, and reality programs are now all the rage. Put them both together with an animal angle and you get "Vet School Confidential." This new series follows five real-life veterinary students as they deal with (among other things): a life-threatening auto accident involving a Labrador retriever; a newborn reindeer having nursing difficulties; and an ornery goat that needs to be dehorned."
  2. Handelman, Jay (2001-08-06). "TV Diet". Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
    The article notes: "We've seen medical students learning their skills on a variety of doctor shows, but Animal Planet shifts the focus with "Vet School Confidential." The new series follows a group of veterinary students at Michigan State University as they go through the clinical rotations that will teach them how to care for our pets."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Vet School Confidential to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:11, 22 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.