< May 24	May 26 >

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thakur Deshraj[edit]

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

After closely going through the article, I found almost all references to be from the community mirror site Jatland wiki. One reference of writer Robert Stein which has been quoted here doesn't give single mention of this personality. I am not convinced that this article meets WP:GNG including WP:N, WP:THREE. Considering all this situation, I think this is the best solution. RS6784 (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RS6784 (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person appears to have been a government functionary in a not very important princely state. We do not have the sources to show notability. I also have to admit saying he was from Rajasthan seems odd when Rajasthan was not created for decades after his birth.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not even convinced that he was any govt functionary at all in a princely state as no reference is provided for it. His only contribution seems writing some new claims for his community. RS6784 (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the findings of nominator and John Pack Lambert. No proper citations. Craigwikiman (talk) 15:49, 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 no consensus. and no chance of reaching it per WP:SNOW. Nomination has attracted one keep vote in the three weeks it has been open for discussion, relisted twice already, no need to relist a third time per WP:RELIST and no need to let it run any further as there has been not one comment made in two weeks. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarter (talk) 05:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Imago therapy[edit]

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

Promotional page largely sourced to self-published sources. Mentions elsewhere are trivial or in unreliable sources. Does not meet WP:GNG or any other notability standard. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Psychology. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree this is promotional, but it has many hits in GScholar going back 20 yrs, seems to be an accepted form of therapy. GScholar hits discuss how it works etc. Oaktree b (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Google Scholar is a good place to search for sources for such topics, but the number of hits there is not necessarily indicative of notability. I looked at the first five or six hits and they all seemed to be from unnotable journals and written by the same group of researchers. Is there anything better further down the results? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Google Scholar certainly casts a very wide net, including unpublished and un-peer-reviewed theses. (Note: I'm not saying that any of the articles in question here fall into that category!) I should point out that at least a few of the articles in question appeared first in The Journal of Imago Relationship Therapy. I can't find a lot of information on how independent that journal was from the theory's initial proponents and backers. If anyone else can provide more context for that it would be helpful. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4575684/ I get that one via pubmed, this one in a Turkish journal (less about the therapy itself) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15095118/ Oaktree b (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clicking on "Author information" for the first of those doesn't exactly inspire me with confidence. When it was published both authors seem to have been working for commercial counselling organisations rather than universities or major teaching hospitals. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:49, 18 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, 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 23:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Pegram[edit]

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

Article about a writer, not making any properly referenced notability claim per WP:AUTHOR. The fact that his work exists is not an "inherent" inclusion freebie in the absence of enough sourcing to pass WP:GNG, but there are no footnotes here at all. This was once deprodded on the grounds that WorldCat statistics show library holdings of his work, but that still isn't a notability freebie without GNG-worthy sourcing -- and the closest thing to a potential notability claim, a couple of specific colleges using his work as textbooks, has been tagged ((citation needed)) since 2009 without ever having a citation added, and still isn't "inherently" notable without the sourcing to properly support it regardless. Bearcat (talk) 09:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 09:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only hits are the books by the fellow himself, zero sources found outside of those. Pretty ladies on the cover, nothing notable. 15:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:52, 18 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, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 19:29, 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 delete. ✗plicit 11:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saad Balobaid[edit]

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

Deprodded. Subject fails WP:GNG. Only news coverage is short, routine blurbs, which is unsurprising for a player with only a handful of professional appearances. agtx 14:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Saudi Arabia. agtx 14:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as I do not have the knowledge or the ability to search for Arabic-language sources for this subject, I do not feel informed enough to have an opinion on the subject's notability; however, I would probably lean on keeping it if somebody could provide enough reliable sources on the player (no matter the language), and it would be great if some user with a fluency of Arabic could investigate this further. --Angelo (talk) 00:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 15:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT #5. BilledMammal (talk) 05:44, 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 keep. Not a good article, but that's for cleanup. Randykitty (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joom[edit]

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

The subject doesn't posses enough notability itself to pass WP:GNG, including WP:Reliable sources, etc. Possible COI/WP:Promo Me4ysŁaw (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Latvia. Shellwood (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (on conditions): Seems to be a decently known platform judging by the number of downloads and user reviews in the Play Store and the Apple App Store, however, it could certainly use a heavy overhaul to conform to standards. Shirsakbc (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 15:01, 18 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, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has enough citations and 2 from Techcrunch, which is considered reliable. Craigwikiman (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough reliable sources to count as notable. Newystats (talk) 05:13, 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 no consensus. Minimal participation and no agreement after two relists. RL0919 (talk) 00:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of enterprise search software[edit]

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

i highly doubt that a comparison article is suitable for an encyclopedia. however, i could be wrong, so i'm bringing it to afd to see what others say. 晚安 (トークページ) 05:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 晚安 (トークページ) 05:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this is a perfectly cromulent example of WP:SALAT. PianoDan (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 15:02, 18 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, 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. ✗plicit 23:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Thomas (executive)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Rationale was: no evidence of notability, and the article cites clearly inadequate sources (one profile page, not even a "profile" article, just a bunch of stats). Just a WP:RESUME. User:FieldMarine added some references but they still are not substantial third-party coverage of the dude himself and they don't add up to notability under WP:ANYBIO. WP:BEFORE doesn't come up with anything more substantial either. FalconK (talk) 17:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 17:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 18 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, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was rolling my eyes until the very end of the piece. The awards and their published sourcing sneak this one over GNG, I feel. Carrite (talk) 19:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable enough. Bearian (talk) 14:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that it is notable enough to keep. Craigwikiman (talk) 15:53, 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 delete. ✗plicit 05:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Cousins[edit]

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

No claim of notability and no evidence of same beyond what could largely be garnered from IMDB. Mangoe (talk) 16:26, 11 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) 17:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—On reading the bio I swore I've participated in a deletion discussion about this person, but I think it's just similar circumstances—personnel attached to many notable projects, with very little indication they are notable themselves. I found a smattering of sources, e.g.[1], but none that rise to the level of a significant secondary source from a known publication. Searching EBSCO and ProQuest only turned up glancing mentions that don't tell us anything the liner notes do. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 10:49, 25 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, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is only one credible source cited, this Variety article https://variety.com/2014/film/news/gravity-frozen-game-of-thrones-top-cinema-audio-society-awards-1201117161/ but his name is mentioned in a tangential way and he is not discussed in any length. With a lack of credible independent sources, this fails WP:GNG PaulPachad (talk) 02:57, 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 23:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Henkoff[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, sources cited are clearly either passing mentions or primary sources, such as interviews or podcasts by Bloomberg themselves, the only even remotely promising source is Btob online, which is an obscure trade publication. A search found nothing other than passing mentions. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - writers are not automatically notable, and I don't see how the sources prove that he might be notable. Bearian (talk) 14:49, 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. ✗plicit 23:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William Rea Keast[edit]

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

I don't believe this person is notable enough to warrant a page. All three sources given are from Wayne University. I did not find much when searching his name up either: on the first page, there was this page, some pages from Wayne University, a page from the University of Chicago, and a couple of other pages which were unreliable (e.g. social media) or otherwise unimportant. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In general, he'd meet WP:NACADEMIC criterion 6, as long as we consider Wayne University a 'major' institution. I agree that as the article looks it's pretty bland. Maybe it's a case for WP:HEY - maybe there is notability, we just don't see why as the article stands. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keast is definitely notable under both WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC, though the article is in need of improvement. His academic career at University of Chicago, Cornell and Wayne State includes extensive publication, and he is one of the principal contributors to a highly influential school of literary criticism, all of which is supported by numerous sources. I'll see about adding a few to get a start on improving the article. And, yes, Wayne State (not Wayne University) is a major university. Banks Irk (talk) 10:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the outcome here is a foregone conclusion, but I have now added substantially to the text and sourcing. I think that he meets Criteria Nos 1, 2, 4, 6 and possibly 7 under WP:NACADEMIC Banks Irk (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wayne State is definitely a major university, which is an automatic pass of NPROF C6. JoelleJay (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Per above, Wayne State university is a reliable source for this. Alex-h (talk) 13:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Past President of Wayne State University. We are done. Carrite (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - tenured Presidents at major universities are almost always notable. Bearian (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets WP:NACADEMIC. Sandals2 (talk) 22:57, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:54, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Şevket Yorulmaz[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. No in-depth secondary coverage. Checked Turkish Wikipedia too, no in-depth coverage from sources there either. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He was the top scorer in the Turkish league for two seasons in the 1950s and is commemorated to this day. It would be highly, highly unlikely that there aren’t contemporary/offline sources about him. One just has to look at the right places. This is the sort of nomination where one has to be really, really exhaustive when advocating deletion. —GGT (talk) 00:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've expanded the article with a bunch of sources I could locate, including an encyclopaedia article about him and a bunch of sources from a newspaper archive I could access. I'd say this is sufficient proof of him passing WP:GNG and there are obviously many more sources offline, considering that almost no works about Turkish sports history are digitised. --GGT (talk) 11:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article about a notable footballer (led his club in goal-scoring for multiple seasons) which now satisfies the GNG thanks to offline sources found by GGT. Jogurney (talk) 13:22, 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Gachbar[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:52, 25 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) 21:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - fails WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 23:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:13, 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 23:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Graham[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:46, 25 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) 21:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - fails WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 23:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:13, 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 23:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Major Hassan Mazandarani[edit]

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

Duplicate article - See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M Hassan Mazandarani Article has a declined draft. Whiteguru (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Iran. Whiteguru (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I PROD'd the article, but the PROD was replaced with this AfD, and I'm not sure why. Reasons stated for my PROD: Not ready for mainspace yet. Declined draft already exists at Draft:Hassan Mazandarani. Singularity42 (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Neither this article nor M Hassan Mazandarani is ready for article space as a biography of a living person. This article does not establish biographical notability, and does not have the footnotes that are required for a biography of a living person. The author appears to be spamming article space and draft space with multiple copies of this biography. This biography lacks a proper lede sentence, and so does not establish what the claim of significance is for the subject. There is also a draft at Draft:Hassan Mazandarani. The draft should be left alone for improvement (if improvement is possible, but it's a draft), and this article should be deleted, as should the other version of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC, possible WP:HOAX. Mztourist (talk) 05:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete exact copy of M Hassan Mazandarani, which has it own problems. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 14:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the reasons stated in PROD. Hogo-2020 (talk) 11:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not even close to being notable. Bearian (talk) 14:58, 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Karin Huffer[edit]

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

This article is a bio of a non-notable person. Other than (i) an obituary (ii) a single article by a local newspaper following a booksigning for one of her self-published books (iv) a faculty listing and (iv) another article in a local newspaper by one of her students, there are no reliable, independent, secondary, third party sources that mention her or her theories about "legal abuse syndrome" There are a handful of references to her and her theory (uniformly rejecting them) in some court decisions, but these are all primary sources. Also does not meet WP:NACADEMIC No published papers or articles other than self-published books, and Scholar only shows various listings of conferences at which she spoke, with no secondary coverage of the same. Banks Irk (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Psychology. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is one single hit for her in JSTOR, a footnote in an article by Alan Dershowitz. All the book hits I found through Google Books are from self-published books. The person is not notable as an academic, nor via the GNG. Drmies (talk) 21:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Huffer wasn't ever really an academic, but primarily someone who used journals to spread a theory that, quite incidentally, wasn't bad for business. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, almost a pseudoscientist. Oaktree b (talk) 03:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage found here [2], [3], [4] where it passes the WP:GNG. Fade258 (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are reliable, independent, third party secondary sources. The first is an obit written by her family, posted on her own company's website. The second is a profile, again posted on her own website. The third is an anonymous post on the page of a group blog site "Parent Advocates.org" titled "Stories and Grievances". None of these references constitute "significant coverage"Banks Irk (talk) 15:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh, than redirect would be a good option rather than delete. Fade258 (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing to redirect to. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found this on the academic deletion sorting list, but she does not appear to be an academic (nor to meet any of the academic notability criteria) so I think we need to evaluate her according to our general notability criteria, which require in-depth coverage in multiple reliably-published sources that are independent of the subject. A family-written obituary and a faculty profile do not count as independent or reliably published. The two local news pieces we have do cover Huffer's work in some depth, but the RN&R piece was written by a close associate (not independent) and the LVSun one is basically a publicity piece for her book. I don't think that's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,non notable, fails WP:NACADEMIC, Alex-h (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT per above discussion. Adjunct at a college and professor at an institution of teaching, no independent sources, and self-published fringe books, do not add up to notability. No reasonable place to redirect. Person is deceased, so becoming notable in the future is unlikely. Bearian (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Her self-published books don't make her a notable author, being adjunct faculty doesn't show notability, and there are few citations in Google Scholar. Also lacks the coverage necessary to meet the GNG. She meets no notability standards.Sandals2 (talk) 22:50, 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel E. Johnson[edit]

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

Stats stub that appears to fail WP:GNG. Searches of "Manuel E Johnson", "Manuel E. Johnson" and searches in conjunction with clubs played for (e.g. "Manuel Johnson" + "Katsina") failed to yield any significant media coverage. All of the sources currently cited are indiscriminate stats databases; clear consensus at thousands of AfDs that such coverage does not justify a stand-alone article. No appropriate merge or redirect target exists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - fails WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per the nominator, searches just turnup with stats websites and nothing more to show he's actually played for this teams not even a passing mention in an WP:RS. Jamiebuba (talk) 06:40, 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

M Hassan Mazandarani[edit]

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

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Iran. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment tbh this looks like a hoax to me. No fa.wiki article, no Farsi sources I can find, lots of improbable dates and a dodgy photo. Mccapra (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreed, WP:BEFORE brings nada, zilch. Ditto News (name in title). Poorly constructed article. --Whiteguru (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This was supposed to be the text of the AFD, and didn't get in, so here it is:

M Hassan Mazandarani

Neither this article nor Major Hassan Mazandarani, which has been proposed for deletion, is ready for article space as a biography of a living person. This article does not establish biographical notability, and does not have the footnotes that are required for a biography of a living person. The author appears to be spamming article space and draft space with multiple copies of this biography. This biography lacks a proper lede sentence, and so does not establish what the claim of significance is for the subject. There is also a draft at Draft:Hassan Mazandarani. The draft should be left alone for improvement, and this article should be deleted, as should the other version of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BASIC, possible WP:HOAX. Mztourist (talk) 05:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per possible WP:HOAX. Even if it wasn't a hoax and this person indeed does exist, this article is poorly constructed anyway, with improper sourcing not even distributed throughout the article like they should be, instead clustered all the way at the bottom. Completely meaningless to me. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not even close to being notable. Bearian (talk) 14:57, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dragan Sekaric Shex[edit]

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

No demonstration of notability. Not finding independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online. Fails WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Serbia, and Ontario. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - article has been moved to draft (possibly to avoid the scrutiny of an AfD), I've asked for it to be moved back. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've restored the article and advised the creator not to move it while this discussion is ongoing.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. He has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. Most of his artistic activity is at art fairs and other commercial venues. I am not see any reliable sources covering his career or work. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per WomenArtistUpdates. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW and WP:SPAM. Drafting, posting, and moving it back to draft space are not good signs. In 2007, these actions might have been allowed, but in 2022, everyone knows we are not a free web host. Bearian (talk) 15:06, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill, Illinois[edit]

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

GNIS-only article without even demographics. Dege31 (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, United States of America, and Illinois. Dege31 (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Topo map and Google Maps indicate this is just an old railroad siding. Searching for Churchill with Bureau County, Plank Road, and Chicago and Northwestern has no results in newspapers.com though others may find something with this name. Reywas92^Talk 19:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete The oldest topos show a single rail line at this point, and no name; later a cutoff line appears along with the name, suggesting that "Churchill" was never anything more than a name for the junction, once it appeared. No evidence of a town and not a notable rail location. Mangoe (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm usually ultra-inclusionist about geographic place names, but a search for the name in Newspapers.com for the 19th Century returned bupkis. Carrite (talk) 19:45, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 05:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Brunswick Railway Museum[edit]

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

This article has no sources to corroborate it's notability and thus fails WP:GNG. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and New Brunswick. Shellwood (talk) 18:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep It needs cleanup as it's a copyvio unless that's a mirror. But I think there might be enough sourcing for it to survive. Star Mississippi 19:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC) Upgraded to full keep per the further sourcing NemesisAT identified and added. It's a small museum, but it's definitely notable. Star Mississippi 01:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added various sources. Meets WP:GNG NemesisAT (talk) 11:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have to agree with NemesisAT here. This clears GNG, though the article needs some cleanup. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thanks to several for improvement of the article, but that should not be required. wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP, and we should not kowtow to every random demand. IMO, the AFD nominator should be chastised for not performing wp:BEFORE, and for not being aware that no references at all are required. It suffices that sources exist. And BTW there is a relevant essay, wp:ITSAMUSEUM (an excellent essay, if i do say so myself).--Doncram (talk) 04:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the museum's notability and the cleanup work done to the article.TH1980 (talk) 03:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and previous people have cleaned up/added citations to this article. Clyde (please @ me if replying) (talk) 03:55, 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 keep. ✗plicit 23:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Wars (game show)[edit]

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

<5 results on ProQuest, none about the show itself. No better sourcing found. Prod contested a year ago by article's author Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:32, 25 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?)} 18:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep additional sources found for GNG. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC) ~~Delete~~ Syndicated show, didn't last long. In Broadcasting and Cable I found two instance of coverage: Melissa Grego. p. 82. January 17, 2000, along with a small snip mentioning picked up in 22 of 25 top markets. Joe Schlosser. April 17, 2000. Few mentions found on newspapers.com, but most in a story by Gannett News Service with general coverage of some syndicated shows. Unless other reliable sources found, don't think will pass GNG. WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Brooks, Tim; Marsh, Earle (2003) [1979]. The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows, 1946–present (8 ed.). New York: Ballantine Books. ISBN 978-0-307-48315-7. Retrieved 2022-05-28 – via Google Books.
  The book notes in the broadcast history section that the show is syndicated only, is 30 minutes, was produced from 2000–2001, and was released in October 2000. The book notes the show's emcees are J. D. Roth and Jennifer Cole. The book provides 230 words of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "This noisy battle-of-the-sexes quiz show pitted a team of three women against a team of three men. The first round, Land Mine, consisted of asking the guys “girl questions,” and the girls “guy questions.” Each team was given two questions and four possible answers to each, three of which were correct. Picking a correct answer was worth five points, but picking the wrong answer gave points to the other team. The next round, The List, consisted of two questions that had been asked of visitors to the show’s Web site (For example, “What is your favorite daytime talk show?”). The goal here was to see how many of the top 10 answers they could name. The team with the highest number got 10 points for each correct answer, but if one team stumbled the other could steal points by coming up with one of the remaining answers (shades of Family Feud). The nine questions for the third round were taken from statistics or public opinion polls—all with the answer “men” or “women.” The first eight were each worth 10 points and the last one was worth 25. An incorrect answer gave the points to the other team. Each team gambled at least half its points on the nal question. There were three categories; a team got to pick the category for the other team’s question. The winning team received $2,500."
2. Grego, Melissa (2006-01-17). "Sex Wars". Broadcasting & Cable. Vol. 130, no. 3. p. 56. ProQuest 225305225.
  The article notes: "MGM, which returns this year to the NATPE convention floor after a threeyear hiatus, is bringing out a half-hour game show strip called Sex Wars that pits a team of three men against three women to determine who knows more about the opposite sex. ... Long-time producer Howard Schultz, whose work includes former syndication hit Studs! and USA Network's The Big Date, is executive producing the show. The format includes three rounds mediated by Roth, who cheers on the guys. Co-host Jennifer Cole supports the women. ... During the first round, team competitors are pulled from a studio audience made up of 50 men and 50 women. They must try to answer questions about their competitors, such as, "Does he have a tattoo?" Or "Has she been on two dates in one day?" The second- and third-round questions are based on polls of the entire studio audience. In round two, the teams bid on how many items they can guess correctly from a category, such as women's favorite actors. The third round is all about "Who said it-men or women?""
3. Brennan, Steve (2000-01-10). "MGM strips for 'Sex Wars' quiz". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 361, no. 12. pp. 1, 75. ProQuest 2467928698.
  The article notes: "MGM Television has confirmed that it will unveil its first game/relationship show, "Sex Wars," at the upcoming NATPE program conference in New Orleans. The strip is being produced by Howard Schultz's Lighthearted Entertainment. ... The relationship show is understood to be MGM Television's first foray into the game business. ... The relationship show will involve two sets of competitors — teams of men and women — who will take part in a quiz competition, "Sex Wars" is hosted by JD Roth and Jennifer Cole."
4. "MGM TV declares 'SexWars'". Variety. Vol. 378, no. 9. 2000-04-17. p. 49. ProQuest 1286181701.
  The article notes: ""Sex Wars," a half-hour strip from MGM Worldwide Television Group, is a firm go for broadcast syndication this fall, having been cleared on broadcast TV stations in 22 of the top 25 markets. The sales represent coverage of 70% of the country. WCBS New York, KCAL Los Angeles and WCIU Chicago, as well as several stations from Paramount Stations Group have all picked up the show."
5. Less significant coverage:
  1. Fischer, Raymond L. (September 2000). "Quiz Show Mania: Deja Vu With a Vengeance". USA Today. Vol. 129, no. 2664. p. 66. EBSCOhost 3526379.
    The article notes: ""Sex Wars" will feature three men and three women battling to see who knows more about the opposite sex. Co-hosts J.D. Roth (for the men) and Jennifer Cole (for the women) will ask the questions, and one round will come from a poll of the studio audience."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Sex Wars to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the citations listed by Cunard. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:58, 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. Star Mississippi 01:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Space Station[edit]

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

non-notable band. no significant coverage or charting PRAXIDICAE💕 18:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are hundreds of less notable bands on wikipedia, and Armenian Space Station is a current topic, as the rest of their new album is expected to drop this year. Their albums have not charted, but they have had significant ties with many more musicians. The pianist (Greg Hosharian) has been involved with the band Redemption, which has its own article, and many of his own groups, none of which have and article. The drummer (Barrett Yeretsian) is mentioned in the producer section of many wiki articles, including some of those of Jean Bostic, who also has her own article. the coverage is not only adequate but proves the relevance of the band. AJunior0923 (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE is not a valid argument and you've failed to provide a single source that establishes anything close to notability. PRAXIDICAE💕 18:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Heavy Magazine article seems very notable to me, as well as much proof of the relations between the band members and other notable artists. AJunior0923 (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No legitimate coverage. All the sources are user submitted sites. Heavy Magazine coverage is just a press release and video, on a site that solicits submissions of press releases and promo material for content. ShelbyMarion (talk) 07:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are other various magazines and sources that aren't user submitted that still cover them so that isn't a valid argument. The overall coverage shows significant notability. AJunior0923 (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then please add them to the references. It is the only way to earn a legitimate keep vote. A google reveals promotional and user submitted stuff, but I don't see a single instance of signficant independent coverage. That's different than something that merely proves existence with blurbs about appearances or releases. They were active over a decade ago, so perhaps there is something from back in the day that is escaping research done over the internet? ShelbyMarion (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think sources 4 and 5 fit those requirements. The wikipedia article on notability says that you must have 2 independent people write about the subject for it to be considered notable. AJunior0923 (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Research what constitutes a Wikipedia reliable source. It's not a simple mater of being the subject of something someone writes. You cited a blog (source 4) and a student newspaper (source 5). Neither of those qualify. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Notability unchanged from when I declined it at AfC. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 15:34, 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. ✗plicit 23:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy Bedtime Hour[edit]

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

Notability concerns. This was a public access show which appears not to have attracted any attention outside its local market. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Twinkle somehow failed to notify of previous prod attempts. No attempts have been made to prove the existence of sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failing WP:GNG. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:00, 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) 17:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cezmi Güner Omay[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. Kadı Message 17:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Military, and Turkey. Kadı Message 17:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can’t find any RIS so no basis for demonstrating notability. Mccapra (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 05:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - brigadier generals and adjunct or associate professors are not notable automatically, and I don't see significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 15:09, 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of Singapore[edit]

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

This one is slightly better in that it actually has sources, but it's still horrendously incomplete, un-maintained, under-sourced, mostly red linked, and has far too few page views. There's a massive consensus by now that these "lists of people on the postage stamps of X" lists should not exist. Prod contested on sourcing alone. Pinging @Fram: and @Johnpacklambert: who've addressed similar lists. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Singapore. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can we just destroy "Lists of people on postage stamps"? In reality though I think an AfD needs to be held on the parent category to discuss consolidating most of the categories, such as by broad geographic location (e.g "List of people on the postage stamps of North America", maybe including more granular sections for specific regions who might have a lot of entries for a list, for example United States and Canada, United Kingdom, Scandinavia, Eastern Europe etc.) and maybe list the different countries as headers. I feel like that would work well and would probably better serve the [few] people interested in this topic. ~XyNq^t_c 16:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I would contribute work in consolidating these categories just so I don't have to see this category group on AfD anymore. ~XyNq^t_c 17:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- - Yesterday I removed all the redlinks from the lists article. Today we have 5 more redlinks, because that many articles have been deleted just in a day.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is not adequate enough to justify an article. The problem with consolicdation is that I am not convinced we have adequate sourcing to create such a thing. Plus, these are articles not categories (although maybe in some ways they are categories masquerading as articles). The whole thing is a mess, but consolidating unsourced or badly sourced or 50-plus year out of date articles together will not overcome those specific problems.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- In the particular case of this article, it seems the entries themselves are sourced, but I see no indication that anyone has covered this topic in a way to make us know the list is complete. I have to admit considering how some people get placed on postage stamps for winning what amounts to an art competition for children, I am less than convinced that the sum total of people placed on postage stamps is a notable topic, and unconvinced we need any list articles, maybe just an article that discusses general trends and meanings. A huge percentage of people placed on postage stamps were national leaders, at least if we consider several places that that is the only person they even placed on their postage stamp.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There were another 7 new redlinks removed in the last day by another editor. So just in the last day we have seen 12 of those articles deleted. A third edior went through Lists of people on postage stamps and removed most of the entries that were just redirects to other links on the page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the cleanup of this was started on May 11, 2022 Lists of people on postage stamps has gone from 52,439 bites to 13,555 bites.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know we have a lot of these in deletion process, so the numbers will probably go down again soon. There are 136 entries in Category:Lists of people on postage stamps. That includes the general list, and the odd list of psychologists who appeared on postage stamps. Why do we have an article for that profession appearing on postage stamps but not doctors, military leaders, writers, or any other one? I have no idea. There are a few other odd lists, and a few for defunct places like Saar and the Soviet Union. Some of the lists are also for territories like French Polynesia. So of the 251 countries and territories of the world, we have articles lists for 120. Some of which have been unsourced for 18 years. Some of which may have not been reviewed in nearly that long, but have a huge number of links to articles which there is no evidence that people ever have reviewed to make sure they are linking to the right article. Creating long lists of redlinks is a perfect invitation to end up with lots of links to the wrong article. This whole set up is messy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If nothing else, the whole structure needs some WP:TNT. Hopefully the precedent of AFDs and PRODs in this category should inspire a precedent. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think at best these should be a section of Postage stamps and postal history of Singapore, etc. Even there we should probably just list general trends, not even case. I also think those articles should focus more on the operation history of postal services, which is what is most important, and less on postage stamps.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is something for another kind of project, outside of Wikipedia. BD2412 T 21:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we do keep this article, we need reliable sources. We also need to sort it by year. That is the only way to approach it in a way that has historical value. It also would help emphasize what is more trivial or less trivial.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:54, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) DonaldD23 talk to me 13:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Presence of Mind[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found a review from Variety. Needs one more suitable & reliable review in order to be eligible. The Film Creator (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is another of those articles where trying to find sourcing is like pulling teeth. It looks like this did get coverage but the bulk of it is not easily or readily available online. I'm also getting the impression that there's probably far more Spanish language sourcing out there, per things like this, but isn't in places I can easily find online, assuming it's really online at all. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw this nomination per User:ReaderofthePack’s improvements to the article. Excellent work. The Film Creator (talk) 18:17, 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 01:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Molly Louise Shepard[edit]

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

Fails WP:NWRITER, alongside COI issues. – Ploni (talk) 13:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No opinion on notability, but the subject is a playwright & screenwriter, not an actor. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected, thanks. –Ploni (talk) 02:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article was significantly reduced in size 10 years ago after removing tons of unsourced info (probably WP:AUTOBIO from article's subject). Has remained as a non-notable WP:PERMASTUB ever since. ~XyNq^t_c 16:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CREATIVE. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:47, 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 redirect to List of Kent county cricketers to 1842. ✗plicit 14:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Smith (Kent cricketer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT #5. BilledMammal (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and England. Shellwood (talk) 14:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an extremely weird stub to create for someone who only participated in professional cricket, without any notable events, 200 years ago. WP:GNG. ~XyNq^t_c 15:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless someone can find coverage. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per BST and AssociateAffiliate. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Really, really obvious redirect to the List of Kent county cricketers to 1842 that this page is linked from. I’d have boldly done that myself probably - that list might have more in it anyway. John Goulstone’s books on early Kent cricketers are an obvious potential source. I’m currently sat 200 metres from at least one copy of each but the members library at Canterbury isn’t open tonight. The last time I looked, the cost of a copy second hand was prohibitive so someone will need to access a library copy to see if there’s any detail on Smith in either. But until that point a redirect is clearly a better option as there is clearly the potential for sources. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure why there needs to be an AfD wasting everyone's time. Clearly this is a redirect to List of Kent county cricketers to 1842 and should be WP:BOLDLY done once it has been established that there isn't much on the player (which there isn't!). For the editor saying about his participation being 200 years ago, that isn't really relevant. There is no limit on how long ago a cricketer played, this isn't Wiki-Post-The-Internet-pedia! StickyWicket (talk) 09:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Kent county cricketers to 1842 per my above comment. StickyWicket (talk) 09:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Kent county cricketers to 1842 Per BST and others comments. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Kent county cricketers to 1842 as per all of the above. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:49, 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 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 delete. ✗plicit 14:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Melville Street, Hobart[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG (see also WP:GEOROAD), no claims to notability in the article or found elsewhere. Lithopsian (talk) 13:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lithopsian (talk) 13:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Looking on Google news results only results in one secondary source even talking about this road at all, and it's mostly about events that happened there rather than coverage of the road itself. ~XyNq^t_c 14:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it takes good sourcing to justify a stand alone article on a road, and that does not exist here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GEOROAD. LibStar (talk) 04:32, 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 Germany at the 1936 Summer Olympics#Fencing. with the history under the redirect if enough sourcing is found to substantiate a standalone article. At the moment, consensus is against one existing. Star Mississippi 01:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Schröder[edit]

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

Schroder was a non-medaling Olympic competitor. In fact he was eliminated in the first round. The sourcing here is just a sports table. It looks like the German version of Wikipedia has some more sports table entries on him. I was able to learn there is another Otto Schroder who is a contemporary painter/visual artist, who I believe is from Namibia, who may be notable, and I found a novel where a character was named Otto Schroder, and an Otto F. Schroder who shows up in the report of a congressional hearing, but no sources to pass GNG for this Otto Shhroder, and based on these other finding of the name there is no reason to suppose someone looking for this name would want to find an article on this person, so there is no reason to have a redirect. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG, is likely to remain as a permastub. ~XyNq^t_c 13:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

His German wiki article states he was a top-ten finisher in multiple national tournaments, and was a member of the SS. I guess there should be some coverage of this guy somewhere. In lieu of anything being uncovered, then redirect to Germany at the 1936 Summer Olympics#Fencing per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- In 1944 alone the SS had 800,000 employees. Being part of the SS is not even remotely a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Not in itself, but it could hint towards further coverage... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Unless you have something further to cough up as the creator of this article and many others like it, the argument that "it could hint towards further coverage" isn't useful, especially since this article falls under things like WP:2S, WP:BIO1E, and it doesn't even meet WP:NOLYMPIC. The stat padding you do by making these Olympic articles is not aligned with the objective of Wikipedia, yet you proudly link milestone articles on your userpage that violate the same guidelines as this article. ~XyNq^t_c 20:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm a bit sick of these sort of nominations, to be honest. There's an over-reliance on GNG, and a misunderstanding of what notability means. We presume notability with GNG, but we can presume it in other means. In this case - a German Olympian in 1936 - it's pretty obvious that there will have been a lot written about him, but it's all in German and offline and nobody is particularly interested in putting it online because it's Nazi. StAnselm (talk) 16:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- No we have explicitly decided that being an Olympian is not a presumption of notability at all. Only medaling is a presumption of notability. Verrifiability means we must have sources to have an article, not just an argument that sources exist somewhere. We have specfically decided we do not presume the notability of all olympic competitors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not presuming his notability because he's an Olympian. I'm presuming his notability because he's a German Olympian at the 1936 Olympics. St Anselm (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I note that every single other competitor in both events (Fencing at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Men's épée and Fencing at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Men's team épée) is blue-linked. Which makes me wonder, why this nomination? Is there something else going on? StAnselm (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OLYMPICS seems to have a record of creating low-importance stub articles for any participants in an Olympic event because of WP:NOLYMPIC. Their page lists they have 116,000 low-importance stubs, which is 71% of their total pages in article mainspace. ~XyNq^t_c 17:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- - Most if not all of those other articles are low quality, not backed by reliable sources articles turned out by the same editor in a mass creation campaign with often less than 2 minutes devoted to creating each article, a mass creation campaign that became so disruptive to Wikipedia that that editor was banned from creating any more stub articles. Also before October 2021 there was a presumption that all Olympains were notable, after a long discussion it was decided that instead only medalists were notable. A few editors have been working to remove the huge amount of no longer supported articles since then, but it is gruelling work where you have to do deep database dives on each and every person, since some people are actually notable for other things, but you have no clue when you start because the banned editor was myopically focused only on Olympic matters and did not mention anything else about the lives of these people. Bundled nominations can at times fail just because they are bundled, so they are not involved. I have been going systematically back through every entry in the birth year categories starting in 1927. My main goal is moving the about 100 or so entries in each birth year category that are in the wrong one, but I do other edits as well. I am because of an extremlely old edit restirction (I think it was imposed in 2016), limited to only nominating 1 article a day for deletion. So basically I plow back because my main goal is to but articles in the right birth year category (I am now back to the 1901 birth year category), and I basically nominate whatever article I come across when I hit about 24 hours since I last nominated an article. That is what is going on. There is no other reason than that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Germany_at_the_1936_Summer_Olympics#Fencing. We don't even have a particularly good source for the dates of birth and death. (I believe the date of birth, it is consistent with some SS lists I found, but the German Wikipedia doesn't even have a date of death). The name "Otto Schröder" is unfortunately quite common; there is another SS man (a physician) of the same name, but born in 1903. What I can find is fairly a trivial mention here (Heydrich gave him a Gestapo job in Berlin and allowed him to prepare for the Olympic games) and this cite from a book makes it looks as if he was doing SS/Gestapo/police work in Chrudim during the war (but I can't quite prove this is the same person). No significant coverage, just a few scattered one-sentence mentions. If we don't have anything detailed to say other than "was at the Olympics in 1936" then we should redirect. —Kusma (talk) 09:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is the sort of sports article that was allowed under the too-easy SNG that has been recently trashed. We need these nominations, where there is zero evidence of notability rather than attacking Asian major leaguers and others where common sense and a dash of BEFORE should provide a great clue that the sources are out there somewhere. There should be plenty more like this one! Jacona (talk) 12:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- This one stems from the narrowing of the Olympian guideline in October 2021. It is not related to the more recent revisions related to sports notability in 2022. At least not directly.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At the very worst this is a redirect to Germany at the 1936 Summer Olympics#Fencing. Given that he was a member of the SS pre-war (not in 1944, but by 1937 at the latest) and clearly a prominent fencer in Germany in that period, there's an excellent chance that German language offline sources exist. Given that presumption, there's clearly a valid case to suggest keeping here as well. What I'm not convinced of at all is an argument for delating, with the loss of page history and so on. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the page history is really nothing but the one database entry. Jacona (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; oppose redirect. Lack of significant coverage means this fails GNG. This should not be redirected because other people named Otto Schröder undoubtedly exist who are probably more notable than this one – per de:Otto Schröder there are at least three. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wjemather. Other Fencing at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Men's épée competitors with mass-produced one-liners should probably all be redirected; substantive coverage is expected. Reywas92^Talk 14:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wjemather. No indication of notability. Nigej (talk) 05:10, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarter (talk) 01:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Southlands School[edit]

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

A distinct instance of an article about this school has also been at draft, rejected twice at AfC. Both instances have the same original author, whose editing activity relates predominantly to this school and its operating company. The listings provided as references in the present article are insufficient, but the other draft is more developed than the one moved into mainspace, and should probably be the one used in considering notability; however the references in that draft are also listings. Aside from these, there can be found mention in an Employment Tribunal case and an Inquiry, but I agree with the earlier AfC reviewers [5] and am not seeing evidence of attained WP:NCORP / WP:GNG notability. AllyD (talk) 12:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and England. AllyD (talk) 12:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It could perhaps be merged with Boldre its location. Its not a primary school but per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES there's no longer presumed notability for schools. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep while WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES may no longer make secondary schools inherently notable it is a listed building and while being grade II also generally does not make a place inherently notable, being both listed and a secondary school may. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cleary satisfies WP:GEOFEAT as a listed building. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes the first bullet in WP:GEOFEAT NemesisAT (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete Contrary to comments above, it has been my experience that mere Grade II listing has consistently been held insufficient to confer notability by itself. Without that, I don't see the GNG pass. Mangoe (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a false interpretation of what is clearly laid down in the notability guideline. The wording is fairly unequivocal. It is also very definitely not true that mere Grade II listing has consistently been held insufficient to confer notability by itself. It usually has been held to be sufficient and the guideline clearly states that it should be sufficient. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:12, 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. Missidentification with artist Rolando Peña born 1958. (non-admin closure) scope_creep^Talk 06:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rolando Peña[edit]

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

zero coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 12:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Dance, and Venezuela. Shellwood (talk) 12:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please read the article in Spanish as well as his biography on the Guggenheim site. Do not confuse with Rolando Peña born 1958. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WomenArtistUpdates: I'll check as well. scope_creep^Talk 18:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is a straight mis-identification. Nomination Withdrawn" scope_creep^Talk 19:12, 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. ✗plicit 00:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Ali Iskandarov[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article was draftified after the first AfD. It was then moved back into mainspace after a minor edit [6] that did not address any of the issues raised in the discussion. Still unclear if there is enough here to meet WP:NBIO or CREATIVE. KH-1 (talk) 04:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Uzbekistan. KH-1 (talk) 04:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The issues in the previous AFD have not been addressed. Spokoyni (talk) 08:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify, issues weren't addressed when moved by relatively new user. --The Tips of Apmh 13:06, 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 Zhuz. ✗plicit 12:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakh tribes[edit]

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

This article doesn't keep to an encyclopaedic style and lacks almost all necessary citations. It's also incomprehensible to someone without specialist knowledge. I don't see how this article can be cleaned up, and propose that it either be deleted or redirected to a more well-written article on the same topic. — Jthistle38 (talk) 10:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Kazakhstan. — Jthistle38 (talk) 10:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zhuz -- The article has far too many redlinks, each of which is liable to be used to create a stub article. This is trying to be a main article to a section of Kazakhs, but starts by mentioning three hordes where the articles all link to sections of Zhuz. That seems to be the covering what this article is trying to cover in a more encyclopedic way. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zhuz. Article is completely unreadable -- it's hardly encyclopedic and more just a collection of tables. Zhuz is a more suitable article, but could use more sources. ~XyNq^t_c 13:52, 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 keep. ✗plicit 10:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kowloon Dairy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I am a representative of the company, regard the company as non-notable, and that we want the article to be deleted. Chocoolate Milk (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Hong Kong. Primefac (talk) 10:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note I have created this AFD based on a failed attempt by Chocoolate Milk to do so (see Special:Diff/1089670273). Personally, since I withdrew the previous nomination after a very brief time, I do not see this as an unreasonable request (even if it is doomed to failure), but if an uninvolved administrator feels that this is an inappropriate re-nomination I will not be opposed to a speedy close. Primefac (talk) 11:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there any verification that the nominator is a representative of the dairy? I would have some increased likelihood of supporting the delete request if I understood the motivations better - i.e. if there was a privacy issue or something and if I knew this was a bona fide request from the organization CT55555 (talk) 13:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is a bona fide request. Primefac (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Are you able to share anything about the motivation? i.e. is there any sort of privacy issue or something comparible? CT55555 (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are no privacy issues as far as I am aware; unfortunately I cannot really say much more than that, though the nominator of course is welcome to say more. There were also some accuracy concerns, but as far as I am aware those have been cleared up. Primefac (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In this 01:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC) edit, 125.215.170.225 (talk · contribs) wrote, "the information contained in this page is inaccurate and not completed, as a representative of Kowloon Dairy, we prefer deleting the page rather than confusing the netizen". In this 11:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC) edit, 2001:8003:c08c:5c00:98ce:bfd3:30b3:1bd (talk · contribs) changed some company establishment dates and wrote, "Fixed the facts to be accurate. Facts were provided by Margot Ahwee, the daughter of George Ahwee and last living tensing descendant of the founder George Ahwee". In this 02:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC) edit, 2001:8004:2720:de9b:5c00:7906:3112:dcc9 (talk · contribs) wrote, "Added factual information by the grandson of the original founder and owner George Ahwee - David Lewis". These changes were reverted.
I encourage the company's representatives to make edit requests at Talk:Kowloon Dairy explaining how the page is "inaccurate and not completed" (and backing their requested changes by independent reliable sources) as suggested by Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Paid editing instead of editing the article directly or nominating the article for deletion. Cunard (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many mentions in the South China Morning Post about the company and products. Discussed in law journals, [7]. It's a well-established company, almost 100 yrs old. Oaktree b (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The company has stood in Hong Kong since 1940. Almost every person in Hong Kong knows this company to some extent/ has tried its products. If there is anything inappropriate (e.g. privacy issues), the related paragraphs can be deleted, but not the whole article. Sun8908 _Talk 02:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "香港經典品牌" [Hong Kong classic brands]. East Week (in Chinese). 2007. p. 51. Retrieved 2022-05-16 – via Google Books.
  The article notes: "九龍維記牛奶有限公司自一九四 0 年起,維記牛奶大事記殿堂級品牌南美歸僑 George Ahwee 及本港長大的業餘騎師蔡永禧創辦了。大馬主李蘭生先生投入資本,擴大業務,成為今天的「九龍維記牛奶有限公司」。李氏家族是今日「維記 11941 牛奶」的最大股東及公司決策人。「維記牛奶」一直伴隨著香港人成長,不經不覺已有六十六年歷史,細看這品牌誕生至發展,仿如閱讀香港早期風物誌。單是公司命名過程也饒富趣味,南美歸僑 George Ahwee 及本地長大的業餘騎師蔡永禧先生創辦了「九龍維記」。「維記」這名字竟是源自 George Ahwee 的廣東話暱稱「阿維」,因當時人人愛以「維記」稱之以示親切,再加上當年牧場位於九龍清水灣道,於是「九龍維記」便成了公司的名字了。"
  From Google Translate: "In 1940, Kowloon Dairy Co., Ltd. was founded by George Ahwee, a South American returned overseas Chinese, and an amateur jockey who grew up in Hong Kong. The Malaysian owner Mr. Li Lansheng invested capital to expand the business and become today's "Kowloon Wei Kee Milk Co., Ltd.". The Li family is the largest shareholder and company decision maker of today's "Kowloon Dairy". "Kowloon Dairy" has always been growing up with Hong Kong people. It has a history of 66 years without realizing it. A closer look at the birth and development of this brand is like reading an early history of Hong Kong. The naming process of the company alone is also very interesting. George Ahwee, a returned South American, and Mr. Choi Wing-hee, an amateur jockey who grew up locally, founded "Kowloon Wei Kee". The name "Wei Kee" was actually derived from George Ahwee's Cantonese nickname "Awei", because at that time everyone loved to call it "Wei Kee" to show affection, and the pasture was located on Clear Water Bay Road in Kowloon, so "Wei Kee" "Kowloon Victoria" became the name of the company."
2. 袁仲安 (2014). 香港食材圖鑑 [Illustrated Handbook of Ingredients in Hong Kong] (in Chinese). Hong Kong: Wan Li Book [zh]. p. 136. ISBN 9789621450784. Retrieved 2022-05-16.
  The book notes: "另一生產商——九龍維記成立於1940年,宗旨是為本地市民供應牛奶,由於其鮮奶只供應九龍北部,因而得名。及後因添加另一本地人股東,更易名為九龍維記牛奶有限公司。當時的牧場位於現彩雲村的位置,路經清水灣道時,可在路旁看到一個由水泥倒模做成的大型牛奶瓶,這正是維記的地標。在1972年,政府宣布收地興建公屋,牛場有21萬平方呎,乳牛數目有300至400頭,而現代化設備的改良也自此開始。到了1984年,基於環保要求、土地發展需求增加以及中國市場的開放等因素,維記將牛場全面遷至廣州。但其在新界大生圍,近現錦繡花園的位置仍設置牛奶廠房,繼續生產。 "
  From Google Translate: "Another manufacturer, Kowloon Dairy, was established in 1940 with the aim of supplying milk to local citizens. It was named after its fresh milk only supplied to the northern part of Kowloon. Later, due to the addition of another local shareholder, the name was changed to Kowloon Wei Kee Milk Co., Ltd. At that time, the ranch was located in the current location of Caiyun Village. When passing Qingshui Bay Road, you could see a large milk bottle made of cement pouring mold by the roadside, which is the landmark of Wei Kee. In 1972, the government announced the resumption of land to build public housing. The cattle farm had 210,000 square feet and the number of dairy cows was 300 to 400. The improvement of modern equipment has also begun. In 1984, due to factors such as environmental protection requirements, increased demand for land development, and the opening of the Chinese market, Kownloon Dairy fully relocated the cattle farm to Guangzhou. However, it still has a milk factory in Tai Sang Wai, New Territories, near Fairview Garden, and continues to produce."
3. Less significant coverage and passing mentions:
  1. 田恬 (2014-04-02). "去香港怎么买鲜奶？港人更爱本地品牌" [How to buy fresh milk in Hong Kong? Hong Kong people prefer local brands]. Southern Metropolis Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-05-16. Retrieved 2022-05-16.
    The article notes: "香港华润万家公共处就表示在华润万家集团超市内所售鲜奶均为香港本土品牌，“品牌有维记、牛奶公司、十字牌、维他”，她也说从销售角度来看最受欢迎的鲜奶品牌还是属于维记牛奶，这间1940年成立的牌子全称为九龙维记牛奶有限公司，是香港的一间鲜牛奶及奶制品的制造商，专为香港本地市民供应鲜奶，不少港人从小喝到大，是它的忠实粉丝。"
    From Google Translate (my bolding): "The public office of China Resources Vanguard in Hong Kong stated that the fresh milk sold in the supermarkets of China Resources Vanguard Group are all local brands in Hong Kong. She also said that from a sales perspective, the most popular fresh milk brand is still Wei Kee Milk. The brand established in 1940 is called Kowloon Wei Kee Milk Company Limited. , many Hong Kong people drink it from childhood to adulthood and are loyal fans of it."
  2. "香港4大鮮奶品牌啲奶都係出自屯門牛元朗牛？" [The top 4 fresh milk brands in Hong Kong. All the milk comes from Tuen Mun cattle and Yuen Long cattle.]. Economic Digest [zh] (in Chinese). New Media Group [zh]. 2019-10-28. Archived from the original on 2022-05-16. Retrieved 2022-05-16.
    The article notes from Google Translate: ""Wei Kee" emphasizes that its products are "100% made in Hong Kong every day", but according to its official website, they collect raw milk from farms in Guangdong every day, and send it to the Tunnel factory for "Bard disinfection" and "" It is a matter of opinion whether it is really "Made in Hong Kong" after being homogenized and then packaged."
  3. Kwong, Kevin (2005-05-01). "ad watch". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2022-05-16. Retrieved 2022-05-16.
    The article reviews an ad about Kowloon Dairy.
  4. Lowe, Sandra (2008-07-29). "Slice of Life - From the South China Morning Post this week in: 1948". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2022-05-16. Retrieved 2022-05-16.
    The article notes: "The Kowloon Dairy, whose farm is at Ngauchiwan in Kowloon, behind Kai Tak airport, lost its entire herd of 100 cows during the war. Its new pasteurisation plant looted in the war has now been replaced and is in working order."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Kowloon Dairy (traditional Chinese: 九龍維記牛奶; simplified Chinese: 九龙维记牛奶) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear All,

For verification, I can send you an e-mail with my company domain. Also, heare are the reasons why we want the article to be deleted.

The existing page contains the following false information or half-truth about Kowloon Dairy.

1. The Kowloon Dairy was founded by Ms. Margot Ahwee’s father, Mr. George Ahwee, in 1902.

2. The company expanded after an owner of a horse, Mr. Li Lan Sang, joined the company many years afterwards

3. The Kowloon Dairy continued to be owned by the Ahwee Family until it was sold in 1975 to the remaining partner.

We would like to clarify that:

1. Kowloon Dairy was incorporated in Hong Kong on 21 March 1940.

2. Mr. George Emanuel Ahwee was a former director of our client, he was a minority shareholder until 1 April 1977.

3. Since about 1975, Kowloon Diary’s operation and businesses are managed by the family of the late Mr. Li Lan Sang who is our client’s majority shareholders.

4. The late Mr. Li Lan San was the owner of over 40 horses primarily in Hong Kong.

By showing images of Kowloon dairy products and making references to the copyright materials extracted from our website in the Wikipedia page named “Kowloon Dairy”, the creator/owner of the said Wikipedia page is deliberately misleading the public the public into believing that he publication of the said Wikipedia page was authorized by our client and/or the said Wikipedia page is related to and /or associate with Kowloon Diary.

The false pretenses have damaged our reputation. Chocoolate Milk (talk) 03:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Errors are not a reason to delete. Errors are a reason to correct. Please provide sources to support the correct data and I am sure someone will fix it quickly. Also if there is copyright issues, please tell us where and someone will probably edit it very quickly. The idea that the page is authorised by the dairy is an erroneous conclusion that could only be reached by someone who doesn't understand Wikipedia rules. Pages are never authorised or controlled by the subject, as you are presumably currently painfully learning. CT55555 (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned earlier, points 1-3 of the "wrong information" have already been dealt with. Primefac (talk) 12:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Comments above confirm that the motivation to delete is corporate-reputation based, not privacy based. Notability is demonstrated. CT55555 (talk) 03:30, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evasive Action (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no suitable or reliable sources or reviews to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 10:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --Vaco98 (talk) 12:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not every film that was commercially released is notable. We need to have substantial sources about the film to justify having an article. That is lacking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything to establish that this ever received coverage that would establish notability. It exists and can be watched, but that's about it. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:07, 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 10:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nadeem Ahmad Khan[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Fails WP:BIO, WP:GNG. Is WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT . Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikiabirras for additional information on the various creating editor(s). In view of the sock puppetry interest I suggest Delete and Salt be the outcome. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 08:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: Easy fail for WP:NACTOR, the sources are also mostly junk. A TOI interview puff piece, an obviously promotional "biography", a press release (really?!), another interview puff piece, user-submitted promotional piece, source with a byline of BrandMedia (PR, anyone), clear promotional junk piece, PR/interview puff piece. The roles played are minor. Add in the promotional efforts here and the socking, this article should be deleted and salted. Ravensfire (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above as the actor does not meet the notability guidelines. Sahaib (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ravensfire. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. -- Choose🎵 (talk) 06:30, 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 delete. ✗plicit 10:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ehraz Ahmed[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails GNG. Nothing except the Al-Jazeera piece seems helpful to me. I don't trust TOI sources per WP:TOI. Comments please! ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 07:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 07:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article passes GNG as it already has more than 3 primary links from notable media outlets like CNBC TV18, Aljazeera and Livemint. As far as secondary sources are concerned, it has links from BBC, Moneycontrol, Gadgets 360 (NDTV) and CNBC TV18.

The article is quite similar to other articles of ethical hackers on Wikipedia like Rafay Baloch, Tavis Ormandy and Robert Willis. Most of the ethical hackers have found flaws and security holes in notable applications and the same has been done by Ahmed. In India, he has saved the data of 1 billion users which is huge (as quoted in CNBC TV18) and nobody else has done this in India and CNBC TV18 has recognised him as one of the most renowned ethical hackers in India.

I am attaching the reference links from independent reliable sources. Primary links: CNBCTV18^[1], Livemint^[2], Aljazeera (Arabic)^[3], India.com^[4], The Better India^[5] Secondary links: News coverage on the several security flaws found by him : Airtel – BBC^[6], Justdial – Moneycontrol^[7] , Truecaller – Gadgets360^[8], Nykaa – Economic Times^[9], Pepperfry – Moneycontrol^[10]

Business Insider listed the Airtel’s security flaw discovered by Ahmed as one of the biggest data breaches of 2019.^[11]

Recently, he also busted a cryptocurrency scam being run by impersonators claiming to be Elon Musk through a verified Facebook page.^[12]^[13]

I would vote to keep the article and add all the above links and allow all the other editors to work on it. Previously, I was involved in the first AFD but back then the subject lacked sources but now I think he has enough links to pass the GNG. His achievement of saving 1 billion user data is significant and can pass anybio - Tatupiplu'^talk 10:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Meet Ehraz Ahmed, the white hat hacker who is helping Facebook, Google and Airtel stay secure". cnbctv18.com. 2021-03-25. Retrieved 2022-05-25.
^ "Lounge Heroes | Ehraz Ahmed: The protector of your privacy". Mintlounge. 2020-09-05. Retrieved 2022-05-25.
^ جمعة, عواد. "منها مايكروسوفت وآبل.. تعرف على الهاكر الهندي الذي أنقذ آلاف الشركات من القراصنة". www.aljazeera.net (in Arabic). Retrieved 2022-05-25.
^ Shiraz, Zarafshan. "Exclusive: Ethical Hacker Ehraz Ahmed Spills The Beans on How Safe is Aarogya Setu App And Whether Companies Are Compromising With User Security | India.com". www.india.com. Retrieved 2022-05-25.
^ "Airtel to Truecaller: 24-YO Has Safeguarded the Data of 700 Million App Users". The Better India. 2020-11-30. Retrieved 2022-05-25.
^ "Indian Airtel: Bug meant users' personal data was not secure". BBC News. 2019-12-07. Retrieved 2022-05-25.
^ "Exclusive: Justdial security flaw may allow hackers to breach pay accounts of 156 million users". Moneycontrol. Retrieved 2022-05-25.
^ "Truecaller Fixes Android App Flaw That Exposed User Data of Millions". NDTV Gadgets 360. Retrieved 2022-05-25.
^ Kar, Sanghamitra. "Nykaa fixes a data security bug". The Economic Times. Retrieved 2022-05-25.
^ "Exclusive: Security breach on Pepperfry exposes details of users; now plugged". Moneycontrol. Retrieved 2022-05-25.
^ "Biggest data breaches of 2019". Business Insider. Retrieved 2022-05-25.
^ "Don't fall for the blue tick: This verified 'Elon Musk' page on Facebook is fake". WION. Retrieved 2022-05-25.
^ "Another fake Elon Musk Facebook page pops up". Moneycontrol. Retrieved 2022-05-25.

I'll get back in a day or two analysing all of these sources, most of which are routine, passing mentions and unreliable sources. A subject doesn't need "ref-bombing" to pass GNG but significant geniune coverage in multiple, reliable and independent sources. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 10:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. There are some big claims here, but it feels all very WP:ADMASQ.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any reliable sources discussing him in a significant way. There is a passing reference in BBC, but that needs further scrutiny, The first source here, looks extremely sketchy to me. https://www.cnbctv18.com/technology/meet-ehraz-ahmed-the-white-hat-hacker-who-is-helping-facebook-google-and-airtel-stay-secure-8722211.htm

It looks like a website that picks up press releases. The writing is very strange, looks like it was written with google translate, and is extremely promotional. In my opinion, fails WP:GNG PaulPachad (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i agree AlexandruAAlu (talk) 12:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt fully, per above. Extended history of UPE spamming and sock/meatpuppetry. Creator blocked for spamming. MER-C 18:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt Fails WP:GNG. The only reference in the article that could be considered WP:RS is the BBC News one; but that needs further scrutiny. -- Choose🎵 (talk) 06:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC) (— Choosem (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. )[reply]
Delete and Salt I was checking news articles for the same he is mentioned in articles no independent article has been published on BBC its just a mention and i dont think he is notable. --AlexandruAAlu (talk) 12:21, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sewa Dynasty[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was subject to a prior AfD which closed with no consensus. I am having trouble determining that a legendary dynasty has any form of notability, and suggest that it fails WP:GNG. A thorough search has revealed may sites speaking of the dynasty, but a great many are user generated material, and cannot contribute to verifying any form of notability. I am unconvinced by the current pair of references. I believe that the article merits a correct and consensus based community decision, and request that a "no consensus" close be treated as an unhelpful outcome, and that a full consensus either way be created. It is my intent to notify participants at the prior AfD in a neutral manner that this discussion exists. I am not opposed to a merge to a relevant target as an outcome of this discussion, recongising that folklore has a place in an encyclopaedia. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have now left a neutral message on the talk pages of prior participants, inviting opinions here. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (disclosure, closer of prior AfD). Some of this is undoubtedly a language issue, but my BEFORE returned the same issues Timtrent raised. Unreliable sourcing and nothing in reliable sources to backup the notability of this alleged dynasty. My concern about a merger is how much of this appears to be OR, so do we have a valid and viable merger target? No objection to a merger if sourcing is identified. Star Mississippi 01:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sibi -- Dynasty articles normally consist of a list of rulers, but there is none. This article says nothing much that adds to the reference in that article. I am only not saying "merge" because I do not think there is anything that needs merging. Whether a ruler is notable will depend on what he did and how large an area he ruled. In the case of a dynasty, I would suggest the factors would include the size of the area ruled; and to what extent he was a local ruler under the authority of a higher ruler. The rajah of one village is likely to be NN, but the ruler of 100o villages probably would be. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have nothing to write apart from a line using questionable sources. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:02, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Manisha Kohli[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO, and WP:NACTOR. The article is a stub claiming that she is a model who won a beauty pageant 35 years ago, and acted in a film. There is a sourced claim that she won Miss India in 1987. I doubt that that would be sufficient on its own, but the claim and the underlying source (nothing but a caption on a company PR photo) actually appear to be incorrect. A better source is https://www.timescontent.com/syndication-photos/reprint/fashion/264784/priyadarshini-pradhan-manisha-kohli.html which states that Priyadarshini Pradhan won Miss India in 1987, and Manisha Kohli was the runner up. Our article on the pageant, Femina Miss India, agrees that Priyadarshini Pradhan won in 1987, and that Manisha Kohli was sent to represent India at Miss World as the runner up in the 1987 pageant. She did not place at Miss World (see Miss World 1987).

The article also contains an unsourced claim that she was in a movie. IMDB does mention someone of that name in Avam (1987) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0158477/fullcredits/?ref_=tt_ql_cl and Do Gulab (1983) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0214634/fullcredits/?ref_=tt_ql_cl . It seems likely these were not major roles as IMDB does not even have a picture of her, and has almost no biographical content.

The claim that she is (was) a model is not sourced.

If someone can find sufficient material to show notability I'll happily withdraw this, but I can find virtually nothing but mirrors of Wikipedia's article. Meters (talk) 05:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am also in for deletion. But something to note is, in the cast section of Awam (film), it is given that, the subject has played the role of "Princess Saloni", though I am not sure if it is true or not. But if we consider this article from the notability point of view, then I think, she fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Plus, it also has got false claims about the subject. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 05:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, IMDB does list her in this movie, but it was clearly not a major role. She is listed under "Rest of cast listed alphabetically" rather then under "Cast". Meters (talk) 05:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly we do not have a case of passing GNG here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Fashion, Beauty pageants, India, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Also does not have any WP:RS. -- Choose🎵 (talk) 06:27, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Turkey, Quito[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. This article only has primary sources which just confirms that the embassy exists and who the ambassador is. LibStar (talk) 05:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Turkey, and Ecuador. Shellwood (talk) 08:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Kadı Message 17:10, 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 speedy deleted per WP:G5. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ariyan Mehedi (singer)[edit]

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

Draft page previously deleted via MfD [8], and speedied many times via A7 and G11 [9].

Still a non-notable individual. Ran some of the sources through a translation tool and there doesn't seem to be SIGCOV. KH-1 (talk) 04:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 08:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: CSD G5. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bet365aminul. Jack Frost (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable singer with a handful of youtube songs released. Doesn't have any newspaper covers. Abbasulu (talk) 21:27, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni Battista Meneghini[edit]

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

Giovanni Battista Meneghini

Biography that does not establish notability. It says that he was the husband of Maria Callas, but notability is not inherited (or acquired by dower). It says nothing about his business career. He may or may not have been notable as a businessman, but the article only says, without citation, that he left a lasting impact on Venice, and on his wife's career. Three of the five references are to other Wikimedia projects, and as such as not reliable because they are circular references.

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	Ark of Grace	A biography of Maria Callas	Yes	Not of the subject	Yes	Yes
2	Wikimedia Commons	Pictures of subject and Callas	No	No	No - Circular	No
3	Google Arts and Culture	States that he was Callas's husband	Yes	No	Yes	No
4	Wikidata		Yes	No	No - Circular	No
5	Wikimedia Commons	Pictures of subject and Callas	No	No	No - Circular	No

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Music, and Italy. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!! I'm the creator of this article, i've added more information and i do hope you'll help me keep this article up (pls also note that he was notable in his own right!!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyaytyhyaynyiyeylyluytyeysy (talk • contribs) 04:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sorry, @Nyaytyhyaynyiyeylyluytyeysy:, but despite your best efforts this article clearly still isn't good enough for our standards. Please, just lay off on the article creation until you've actually listened to community advice. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 22:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can provide references to several reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to Meneghini (not his wife). The current references are pretty much worthless and should be removed from the article if it is to be saved. Cullen328 (talk) 01:51, 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Ansermino[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 03:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Italy. Joeykai (talk) 03:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a permastub. Article has existed in mainspace since 2013 and is still a stub with minimal content. ~XyNq^t_c 05:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think being a stub alone is enough justification for deletion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are not enough indepdent secondary sources providing significant coverage to justify this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ping Nehme1499 and Dr Salvus I don't think those delete votes above are helpful and I doubt they done a true WP:BEFORE. My gut is telling me there is far more out there for this Italian player and should easily be passing WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 21:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found his birth and death dates here. But there is barely anything online. It's possible that newspapers at the time might have spoken a bit about him (though, with only a handful of appearances I'm not 100% sure). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Simular to [10], it's more his career, before after. I found [11] transfermarkt, but people don't like transfermarkt, but it seems to be sourced from somewhere, can't see why it's out of the blue! I would have thought contacting the club historians at the club might yield what sources too look into. I've done that with Tottenham Hotspur players. Govvy (talk) 23:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am completely at odds with this nomination there is not a lot of sourcing out there to access online, but the information that is around shows us that Carlo Ansermino played for one of the best clubs in Italy, that being Juventus for one whole season. He played more games for Juventus than that what is recorded on the article and he has mentions from what I could see in two separate published books. One being one on Juve players, the other on Italian league players. Then we have a career where he spent over five years with one club (Alessandria) on two separate spells. That seems harder to find information, but the club were playing in the top tier at the time. I am sure he would of had mentions in a possible book associated with the club, newspapers at the time. WP:OFFLINESOURCES surely exist for this player. I am a true believer in research needs to be done, and I don't think the nominator, or the delete votes above will do any of that. It would be completely unfair to delete this on a whim, that would take away any chance for a future person to come across this article and decide to do the homework to find those sources. But what the hell are stubs for if not for that. This is just stub annihilation. Govvy (talk) 09:47, 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 keep. Renaming discussion should be taken up at the article talk page. RL0919 (talk) 00:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Air Force mutiny[edit]

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

This is an unusual case. This article exists word-for-word within RAF India. No need for the duplication. It has been redirected there several times and repeatedly restored. I don't think proposing a Merge is appropriate as there is nothing to merge. So taking to AFD to establish consensus that this should not exist as a separate article and the content is best covered in RAF India (with a redirect). MB 02:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and India. MB 02:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article has sufficient number of sources and bibliography. The article is on a notable subject. There is an attempt to delete it via backdoor by redirecting it. Though this finds mention in the article RAF India, this article has more bibliography for further research, and more sources too. Also the mutiny extended beyond India, so merging it to RAF India is not appropriate either. Crashed greek (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject seems notable in its own right. I think the title is unhelpfully vague, and sounds like a concept rather than an event, and I think "strike" would be more accurate than "mutiny", but that's not a deletion issue. CT55555 (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and delete, No reason for redundant sub article. Any additional information and cites can be put in the main article and then this one made a redirect to same. Kierzek (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - name is vague and content exists in RAF India article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename Royal Air Force mutiny of 1946 or Royal Air Force strikes of 1946 and trim/summarize what's in RAF India#Strikes in January 1946. As Crashed greek has noted, it wasn't confined to India. The Imperial War Museum and the RAF Museum have articles about it. There's also the book Mutiny in the RAF: The Air Force Strikes of 1946. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some more expansion might be necessary but deletion is not an option. Agletarang (talk) 03:46, 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 delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsey Stirling Summer Tour[edit]

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

Needs significant coverage in multiple independent sources. Doesn't have it. WP:NTOUR — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Events. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SOAP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acousmana (talk • contribs) 19:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:NTOUR, a tour must have received significant coverage as an event in its own right. For this one, there are a few articles about the musician's activities in the surrounding period in which this tour was briefly mentioned, but that's not enough for a standalone article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:39, 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 delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Shea[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:53, 25 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) 01:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - fails WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 23:07, 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)} 02:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Luson[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:48, 25 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) 01:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - fails WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 23:07, 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 keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elisa Chan[edit]

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

Elected official with no significant coverage outside local sources; fails notability criteria for politicians and WP:GNG. – Ploni (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Texas. Ploni (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, the articles of municipal councilors of exceptionally large cities are generally kept, which SanAn would likely fall under. If not, then draftify as she appears to be very likely to win a seat in the Texas House of Representatives. Curbon7 (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:HEY and WP:GNG/WP:BASIC. With an assist from the WP Library and an online search, I expanded the article with a variety of sources, including in-depth biographical and career information, as well as the national attention she received in 2013 and 2014, and information about the election on May 24. Beccaynr (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks notable to me and I think it meets GNG PaulPachad (talk) 23:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good work adding sources. Artw (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks WP:GNG is met. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JK.Kite (talk • contribs) 19:24, 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 Swimming at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metre freestyle. Star Mississippi 02:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sangay Tenzin[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOLYMPICS and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Found this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Swimming at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metre freestyle. Redirects are cheap. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep along with the source found by BeanieFan11, I also found these [12], [13] and [14]. There's also a story about him at The Australian.com.au titled "The Bhutan man who hopes Sun rumours aren't true", but it's behind a subscription paywall. Worst case, redirect per Clarityfiend. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The second source is little more than an announcement, and the third a blog, so I'm inclined to think he doesn't rise, as a novelty, to the level of the Jamaica national bobsleigh team. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete anouncements and blogs are not enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:46, 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 Water polo at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's team rosters#South Africa. Star Mississippi 02:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Stone[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG (only trivial mentions at best for "Ross Stone" and water polo on google search. Also fails WP:NOLYMPICS. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and South Africa. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Water polo at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's team rosters#South Africa per WP:ATD and WP:CHEAP. Adamtt9 (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep found some coverage here [15], [16], [17]. There's a picture of him stating he's (a) team captain too. Worst case, redirect per Adamtt9. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the coverage above is passing and not enoug to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just casually googling him pulled up YouTube video featuring sports coverage. He’s very clearly of note. A stub article at least is merited. 23:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Bookworm857158367 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anjali Gaikwad[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NSINGER having one only one reality music show (of questionable notability). Rest all shows she was mere participant. Article also relies on plenty non-RS sources and trivia. Earlier boldly redirected but now recreated. Hence bringing to AfD. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and India. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As noted by nominator, not enough for WP:NSINGER. Ravensfire (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She had participated in Sa Re Ga Ma Pa Little Champs 2017 and was the winner of the show, In Indian Idol 12 she was among the top 9 contestants, you can search for the articles on google, she is a huge name in Indian Classical. The article is worth and has notability, Wikipedia has various artists and articles which are not worthy and instead of deleting them you guys are deleting the notable persons. Jeetrockkr (talk) 06:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Won a reality tv show and was in the Top 9 in another. Can't vouch for the Hindi? language sources, would seem to be notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Winning reality shows isn't a notability criteria yet. The coverage resulting from the win hasn't amounted to anything more than the usual churnalism content, as far as I can see from the first few pages of search hits and the article references. Discounting the content on hack per WP:BLPCRIME, it appears to me that "notable only for a single event" policy applies. Hemantha (talk) 03:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep won a reality show and has significant coverage as it passes the WP:GNG. Fade258 (talk) 13:49, 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 delete. ✗plicit 12:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of Abkhazia[edit]

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

Yet another "list of people on the postage stamps of X" that has the same faults as most of the others. Three people is hardly a "list", and the "illegal stamps" section is unsourced. The current sourcing appears to be WP:SPS but that's hardly a concern when there are only three things on the list to begin with. Previous AFD in 2010 somehow closed as "keep" Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Georgia (country). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ETA: Previous AFD was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on stamps of Abkhazia and consisted entirely of WP:ATA. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough sources to show the topic as a group is notable as a group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:LISTN. Fram (talk) 07:03, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nakeeme Julian[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources I could find are trivial mentions of the subject. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has appeared in World Cup qualification so passes notability for footballers.--Gri3720 (talk) 11:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is not adequate enough to pass GNG. That is what is required now. Appearing in some match somewhere is not good enough anymore to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - fails WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ortizesp: If you were to link to two independent, reliable sources with significant coverage of this person, that would go a very long way towards bolstering your 'keep' argument, otherwise it’s just an evidence-free assertion . Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I’m not seeing any in-depth, high-quality sources to meet WP:GNG. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:42, 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 no consensus. Further discussion about the article can continue on its talk page, if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Led Zeppelin songs written or inspired by others[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:SALAT. How exactly is "written or inspired by others" defined? Most songs are inspired by something, so there's no clear criteria as to what should be included here. This is just a synthesis of random ideas, and it says nothing that isn't already on the articles for the existing songs. I have never seen "written or inspired by others" lists for any other musician, and I don't get why this one should be here. While the 2015 AFD had a consensus to "keep", none of the votes seemed to be based in policy, instead arguing things like WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:ILIKEIT, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Lists. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Led Zeppelin is an unusual band, insofar as they've had a great many controversies, where they covered another song without crediting it. The title here attempts to remain neutral regarding which were actually stolen, synthesized out of others without credit in an arguably legitimate way, were "influenced" by accident, was convergent evolution with chord progressions, or whatever. If you think it'd be better to say "Led Zeppelin songs with controversial origins and influences", make that case. But it's risible to claim that this is not a noteworthy list. Speaking of which, "it says nothing that isn't already in the articles" is true of every single list on Wikipedia. Don't be part of the unhealthy obsession with removing information and articles on Wikipedia, it violates everything we're supposed to stand for. — Kaz (talk) 03:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What qualifies as "influenced" though? Do any of the sources support the fact that LZ constantly took "influence" from others? Or that the concept of "LZ copied from others" is a topic in and of itself? Literally every musician ever is influenced by another in some way. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then propose changing the words, instead of the bad editorial behavior of wanting to delete all of the useful, organized information because you're confused by the wording. —Kaz (talk) 05:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because "combin[ing] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source" is "bad editorial behavior" where I was just "confused by the wording". How silly and amateurish of me, someone who's been on this site since 2005. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing synthesized anew in this article, Zeppelin's history of problematic song provenance is a well-documented, persistent issue. Meanwhile, deletionism is one of the worst trends and editor behaviors on Wikipedia. That you are a newbie in comparison to myself is no excuse for that behavior. I think even a mere 17 years is long enough for you to know better. —Kaz (talk) 14:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "it's useful" and "it looks good" are not reasons to keep. I could write a useful and good-looking article on my cat; that doesn't make her notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are attempting to argue against all lists. Your cat isn't a famous progressive rock band that has a history of being accused (right or wrong) of attribution problems far beyond what just about any major act has.—Kaz (talk) 14:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That still doesn't give you the right to condescend to me like that. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how it works. When you do something wrong, it's your own fault when someone points it out to you. I have no respect for someone making a deletionist argument that would apply to an entire genre of articles. Especially someone who, while not as experienced as myself, has been around long enough that they should know better. —Kaz (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a notable topic > https://www.rollingstone.com/feature/led-zeppelins-10-boldest-rip-offs-223419/ . I respect the keep arguments made in the first AfD and above. I respect the neutrality motivations for the title, but also think it could be improved, but that's not a reason to delete. CT55555 (talk) 05:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Improved by what? All musicians steal ideas. You could make an article like this for literally every musician who ever existed. That doesn't make it a notable topic just because you synthesized a few accusations of plagiarism together. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The title could be improved by...editing.

I don't know if it's true that all musicians steal ideas, even if it was, it would be a sliding scale with Led Zepplin at one extreme end of it. But I don't think that's important. What is important is if the plagiarism is sufficiently notable as per Wikipedia's criteria. I think it's clear that the extent of plagiarism by most bands is not notable, and inversely that for Led Zepplin it is.

What makes the topic notable is the numerous, independent, reliable sources illustrating that to be the case. I maybe use the word "synthesise" differently from you, so you lost me a bit there, they way I see it is that what I've done is show you a list of articles that illustrate that the topic is notable, which I think is the normal way to illustrate notability in AfD discussions. CT55555 (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's no argument that they stole material. But is the subject of them stealing content a notable subject on its own? WP:SYNTH warns against "combin[ing] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source", and that seems to be exactly what's being done here. The sources are verifying that material was stolen, but not that the underlying subject "Led Zeppelin stole material" is in and of itself a noteworthy topic. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You ask is the subject of them stealing content a notable subject on its own". As I see it: clearly yes, as per the multiple links I've shared, which I think is why you're seeing the WP:SNOWBALL of keeps. It is increasingly difficult reconcile your determination to argue keep with the clear, and well-articulated, support from the community to keep. CT55555 (talk) 13:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "Written or inspired by others" is a neutral way to phrase what is said in the introduction of the article: "songs that consisted, in whole or part, of pre-existing songs, melodies, or lyrics"; an attempt could definitely be made to reword the title. As for its notability, LZ has been taken to court a handful of times over copying without attribution - some cases in favour of LZ, others not. The case over an arguably iconic song, Stairway to Heaven, almost made it all the way to the Supreme Court, but was shut down there. ~XyNq^t_c 05:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Many have plagiarized others but a seperate page to record such instances is unwarranted. Agletarang (talk) 09:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying the topic is not notable?
Keep Valid information, won't all fit in their main article, so a spin off article is justified. Dream Focus 12:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since when did WP:ITSUSEFUL become a proper argument? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not the argument I made. This is information about the band that should be somewhere, and won't fit in their own article. Dream Focus 16:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a notable topic meeting GNG as many sources (including books about the band) discuss that a number of Led Zeppelin songs were based on others, not to mention a number of specific controversies and lawsuits on the topic. There may well be a better name for this list - "written by" could be cover songs, which many bands and singers have, and as the nominator states, many songs are inspired by others but not to the extent of some of Led Zep's controversies. I'll throw out the suggestion "List of Led Zeppelin songs based on songs written by others." But a suboptimal title is not a reason to delete. Rlendog (talk) 12:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or a perhaps more neutral title suggestion could be "List of Led Zeppelin songs alleged to be based on songs written by others." Rlendog (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They plagiarized songs, sure. But is the topic of "Led Zeppelin repeatedly plagiarized songs" covered by this sources? Smells like WP:SYNTH to me. It might as well be "Led Zeppelin wrote a lot of songs that have the word the in them". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is. Just look at the online sources that CT55555 provided. Some are very explicit about their topic being "Led Zeppelin repeatedly plagiarized songs". And off line sources also discuss the topic - far more than most other bands (really far more than any band I am aware of). If this smells like WP:SYNTH to you then you may want to check your sense of smell. Rlendog (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a notable topic. I'm 50+, and I've been floored over the years to learn how many songs Led Zeppelin claimed as their own, but turned out they weren't. I've never heard of a band going through so many copyright issues for "their" work. It's really bold to claim a song as your own when you know you stole it. Dazed and Confused case in point. Cirrus Editor (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is this not a synthesis of ideas though? The sources prove that songs were plagiarized, but every musician has done that. No sources proves that the specific topic of "Led Zeppelin has plagiarized songs" is notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you missed my comment above: https://theconversation.com/plagiarists-or-innovators-the-led-zeppelin-paradox-endures-102368 CT55555 (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's still a synthesis because it's just a grab bag of every plagiarism they've been involved in. Like I said, this is no better than listing every song they had that used the word "the". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you seem not to know how lists work. Or Wikipedia in its original and best mode. EVERY list could be argued a synthesis, insofar as it's gathering information together from various articles into a central clearing house of that kind of detail. I made List of basil cultivars back in 2006, and indeed it was what you are arguing is a synthesis...and it was a Featured List for all of Wikipedia a while later. In reality, gathering non-controversial, verifiable material from other places in Wikipedia into one spot is not synthesis in the context you're trying to trot out here. —Kaz (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If multiple articles covered the issue of every song that used the word "the" then that might be notable too. But unlike the issue of Led Zeppelin's plagiarism and "borrowing", there are no articles discussing how Led Zep used the word "the" in their song titles. Rlendog (talk) 13:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge to the main band article. The notability arguments seem to focus on the various accusations of plagiarism. Indeed, that much seems to be reasonably noteworthy, but I think it would do well to beef up the main article, which contains very little coverage of that. However, trying to make a list out of anything that's been written by others (written how? lyrics? music?), does cross well into WP:SYNTH territory, as already pointed out. Alternatively, I think this list could be salvaged with some saner inclusion requirements, maybe something like "list of songs which were originally published without credit but later included credit". That's a horrible title, but you get the idea. This would knock of stuff that was properly credited from the get-go, as well as unproven allegations, or vague inspiration, like "Stairway to Heaven". But all in all, I think this would do better as prose in the main article. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While it could be true that Led Zeppelin has engaged in plagiarism and also experienced lawsuits over that, I still think that there is no reason to believe that this subject meets WP:GNG. It is just another part of the broader biography of the 2nd most successful musical band in the history. There are some unsourced statements and we need to find a better article where important content from this article can be merged. I think List of songs recorded by Led Zeppelin has a lot of summary where it can be merged but deletion is important largely due to WP:SYNTH concerns. GenuineArt (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With so many fancrufts and trivial lists out there, I really don't believe we can handle another series of "written or inspired" by series which can be disparaging for the subject as the quality of sources is often poor. Jhy.rjwk (talk) 04:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - My library hold on 2021's Led Zeppelin: The Biography has yet to come in, but The New Yorker review of the book devotes more than two columns to the issue, noting both how the well-covered claims have plagued the band for decades, and how perhaps too much has been made of the "theft". Caro7200 (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not an encyclopedic article. Many popular artists have engaged in some degree of plagiarism, but we should avoid covering such trivial info unless it is major, and that is not the case here. This particular band is not all that unique in this regard. desmay (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the article was renamed and trimmed to 'Plagiarism Court Cases involving Led Zep' it would be notable, because the subject is opened wider it doesn't cease to be notable. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-referenced, notable band, notable topic. Why was this listed? Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Snowball. I think there may be a decent case for renaming the article, as a few others have brought up, but I see very little good reason to just delete it altogether. Let's not use a cannon to kill a mosquito here. Sleddog116 (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per all keeps. Snow close. - FlightTime (open channel) 03:14, 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 redirect to Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District. Editors reached a clear consensus that the school itself, independent of the shooting, is not notable. (non-admin closure) ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 19:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robb Elementary School[edit]

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

Per WP:NSCHOOL and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Most of the coverage in the WP:RS provided is for the shooting, not the school itself, so it makes more sense to redirect it to the event it is notable for or the school district in question. It's the same thing that we do for the Sandy Hook Elementary School article. Love of Corey (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Robb Elementary School shooting per nom. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 01:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District as is typical for non-notable schools. While readers may currently want information on the shooting, long-term it makes more sense for the article to redirect to the district. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District. I searched for sources from May 23, 2022 and earlier and all I could find was local news coverage about events at the school. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District. This is a non-notable school. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District. Tragic though the circumstances surrounding it may be, does not meet notability standards. Gnomatique (talk) 02:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just based off Sandy Hook? What about Columbine High School, Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, Army Public School Peshawar, Jokela High School, Albertville-Realschule, etc.? Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 01:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dunutubble: the difference is those are high schools. High schools are generally considered notable under most circumstances, see WP:HS. However, primary and elementary schools are not considered to be notable. For example, Sandy Hook Elementary School does not have its own article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this is an elementary school makes it more notable -- not less -- than a high school. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph A. Spadaro: can you please explain your rationale for such a claim? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Violence, murders, killings, shootings, crime, etc., are a dime-a-dozen in high schools (and colleges). Elementary schools, not so much. Much more rare. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make the school itself notable. That just makes the shooting notable. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 06:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then, for that matter, Bath Consolidated School, Poe Elementary School (Houston), etc. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 02:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF. The mere existence of one article does not justify the existence of another article; what’s important is coverage the specific article topic at issue has received in reliable sources. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well Poe is notable for being a historical site more so than being a school. As for Bath, it seems to be more of an exception to the rule, rather than the rule. In fact, I would support merging Bath with Bath School disaster. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally there is reliable source information on a preschool formerly co-located with Poe, created to support Poe, to where an academic wrote a book chapter about it. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bath was also a K-12 school, not an elementary school, according to that article. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 06:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe at the time of the bombing, Bath was a 1-12 school, not an elementary school. But talking about other articles here is a waste of time. Please stay on topic. 174.212.228.89 (talk) 08:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Sandy Hook Elementary does not have its own page, only the page referencing the shooting, to me puts this into perspective. That, along with the fact that his page is simply rehashing the shooting, I support the deletion. Sheehanpg93 (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dunutubble This school is a poor performing school is a poor area of Texas. I spent way too much time trying to get information to even begin to setup a context for the school's article let alone having some standalone notability. I would deem this as waste and instead move focus to the event. PigSkinsAndComputers (talk) 01:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District per nom. Any important details about the school can be included at that page or at Robb Elementary School shooting as background. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District elementary schools don't get there own pages because of notability and importance. This case is the same, it is notable but the school does not need its own page. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 04:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District for the same reasons. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Redirect to Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District; standard practice to redirect elementary schools to their respective districts. Consensus has repeatedly found there is no reason for a middle school to have its own article, let alone an elementary school. Besides having negligible encyclopedic value, having a page dedicated to the school only to have it dominated by a single, if cataclysmic, event, is totally unfair to its history. Ovinus (talk) 06:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Merge to Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District. There are notable elementary schools, but I think that the material for the article would be better contextualizad within an article on the district as a whole. The coverage of the shooting is great evidence that the shooting is notable, but notability of an organization is not inherited by a tragic and notable event merely having happened on its property. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 06:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to school district article which has some content on the shooting. RECENT explains why not to target the shooting article. 174.212.228.89 (talk) 08:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District per nom. Edwardx (talk) 09:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - redirect to school district. I was going to vote to keep the article since this is a unique situation but unfortunately it's not that unique, and Sandy Hook Elementary School redirects to the district, with a hatnote directing users to the shooting. That seems like the best solution. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 12:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District. The school itself doesn't pass WP:GNG, and it is standard to redirect non-notable schools to their school districts. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This article didn't exist before the shooting, and the article about the shooting is sufficient. Bkatcher (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District per norm. PaienPaien (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just plain extrem presentism. It also inherently violates not news guidelines. Beyond that, much of the article is really talking about Uvalde itself, and not the school.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm a bit distracted at the moment, but searching Newspapers.com (thanks Wikipedia Library!) I was able to find in the 1970s accusations of racism against students, leading to a series of workshops between the "Anglo" (as the article described them) and Mexican-American faculty to ease tensions. They were cancelled after one meeting. Soon after, a Mexican-American teacher being let go while he ran for office as a Democrat. The school board denied the timing of the firing was related, but it sparked first a protest of 100 to 150 at the board office, followed by a walkout of roughly 450 Mexican-American students. These events received coverage in newspapers throughout the state of Texas, thanks to pickup by both the Associated Press and United Press International.

There was also a second lawsuit around the same time, a class action one on behalf of Mexican-American students by the mother of one Robb student.[18][19] Clarityfiend (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend: Thank you for finding these! See if you can write prose about this and put it in the article. It may be possible to use articles to build a case of notability for this school. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing those sources, it appears the case was against the school board for the district, and the school receives only passing mention once in each article. I think it's the type of detail that would be suitable for the school district's page, but it doesn't seem like significant coverage of the school itself. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been unable to find when the school was built, but references appear as early as 1963.
If I wrote this up, and potentially found other widely-covered or elsewise notable headlines, is this likely to save the article? -- Zanimum (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, personally. The school is only notable because of this shooting, and it wouldn't have had an article otherwise. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Probably not; that would still fall under routine coverage, and it doesn't have much lasting notability. Notability for individual elementary schools is extremely difficult to achieve. But if the article is redirected (and it probably will) then it could be included in the school district article. Ovinus (talk) 23:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment can this please be closed as a WP:SNOW redirect? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. We have at least one opposition vote. Not exactly SNOW. Love of Corey (talk) 02:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Checkers, why do you care if this school has an article? Sandy Hook is in the news enough it should have a stand alone article. You don't understand notability at all.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 12:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Things are generally not known for one event. The school is not notable, only the shooting itself. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is there any reason why there is no "hat note" or template at the article, letting readers know of this AfD discussion? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

wrugtrab wrote in their edit summary: "Wikipedia article deletion have been closed?--🐦DrWho42👻 05:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But has it, in fact, been closed? It appears not ... ? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough sources for the school make me think it's noteworthy and worthy of a standalone article. --Bedivere (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as elementary schools are not notable, only high schools. cookie monster 755 05:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Seems like common sense; we very rarely have elementary school articles, and the tragic events don't change the fact that routine statistics about students and faculty don't warrant a standalone article. The district article should be able to cover that and whatever old news articles that could be dug up (just like they could for many elementaries). Reywas92^Talk 15:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Robb Elementary School shooting as this incident above all else is what the school seems to be getting attention for. We can discuss the killings and aftermath there. While I can understand targeting the Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District page instead (and I wouldn't particularly mind that being the outcome), my preference is for the shooting article. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The school seems like a valid topic for an article. I found the article because I am interested in aspects of the school that are not part of the news about the recent event. And why should the "why" of why I look for an article be part of what validates its presence on wikipedia? It should be enough that somebody would look it up in an encyclopedia, paper or otherwise, and for any reason at all. That some, or even much, of the content refers to the event may be grounds for providing a redirect, or to argue that the article needs some work, nothing more. We do not delete the article about Chicago because it also describes the Chicago fire, nor the one on NYC because it dares to mention 9/11. Deletion quite obviously, would seem overtly heavy handed, inappropriate, and a gross disservice to the community DrKN1 (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I recommended redirecting the page. Cwater1 (talk) 03:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being a "valid topic" for an article is not our criteria for keeping an article here. We have notability guidelines and many editors here say that this school does not meet them. Your examples of Chicago or New York City don't make any sense as those topics are clearly notable. Natg 19 (talk) 18:33, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Police Meupep-pep[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage and evidence of notability. Not clear why this single traffic policing initiative would be notable, or what its goals were, or what it accomplished... Possible COI issues with Khairilm12 (talk · contribs) and ADNAN TOKOH MEUPEPPEP (talk · contribs) as well. Apocheir (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Apocheir (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A good local initiative by Aceh police, but not notable. Not much in depth coverage about this initiative. Failed WP:GNG.✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 06:35, 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. ✗plicit 00:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NewsWatch (American TV program)[edit]

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

This is an infomercial masquerading as a news broadcast. WP:BEFORE shows no coverage that meets WP:GNG. Despite existing for over 10 years as an article, it has largely been one editors work and never properly referenced. Please see history for Press releases and other poor references removed before this nomination. Slywriter (talk) 00:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Slywriter (talk) 00:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good catch on this one; they're an infomercial/VNR mill with no N to be found. Nate • (chatter) 01:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Created and kept alive by a few single-purpose accounts. Best I could find on them was inclusion in the Inc. 5000 in 2019 [20], the business equivalent of "most improved player" award, hardly sufficient for an article. Storchy (talk) 06:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I never saw it as an informercial. I was planning to Afd but thought with 1300+ "epiosodes", it was likely notable, some kind of soap series, but obviously not. Excellent work @Slywriter: in identifying it correctly. scope_creep^Talk 14:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The more I came back to clean up, the more I dug on the web, the less it seemed to meet Wikipedia policy. Credit goes to the original editor who raised concern on COIN for putting the article on the radar. The discovery of it being paid programming was the personal deciding factor in bringing to AfD vs boldly stubifyingSlywriter (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the nom. Pahiy (talk) 16:52, 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. RL0919 (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eustace IV de watford[edit]

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

I've PRODded this, but the page author removed it. There are references to the existence of this person, but nothing that could make him be considered anything other than one of millions of random documented people in history who at some point owned land and engaged in business and thus left some paper records. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!! I'm the creator of this article, he held two noble titles, was named in major historical documents (Incl. Cambridge in references) & held relation with the English king. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyaytyhyaynyiyeylyluytyeysy (talk • contribs) 00:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - There is nothing in this article that explains how he was notable. I almost always consider dead people who lived 100 years ago to be notable if there is an adequate account of them, but this account is not adequate. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have removed all but one of the citations - of the seven that were given, two were non-reliable online genealogies, and the remaining five were all referring to the same book, via multiple different library catalogs and repositories, plus one book review of the published primary source - there is just one source here, and it is a primary source. Agricolae (talk) 07:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to be just a minor landholder with no substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. The subject did not 'hold two noble titles', he didn't hold any ('lord of the manor' is just a fancy way of describing the property holder, not a title). Yes he was named, along with a thousand other people, in a listong of people who held land at the time - this does not make someone notable. Agricolae (talk) 07:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless additional sources of notability are presented. "Demonstrably owned some land in 13th-century England" doesn't clear the bar. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When all we can actually say about someone is they owned some land, we do not have enough sourcing to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A minor landowner, at most: clearly NN. Lordship of a manor is not a title of nobility. He certainly existed, but so did 1000s of other gentry, mostly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Elizabeth Parker[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All coverage is about Anea Garcia stepping down. Miss Grand International is not one of the "big 4" pageants, and she is therefore not generally presumed notable, per WP:NBEAUTY. PK650 (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No true reason for deletion (outside one view that it's not a 'top pageant') has been presented, and I have a feeling this is an attempt to delete all articles dealing with Miss Grand International based on 'consensus' for this one article, as has been done for other articles in the pageant area. Stop using this strategy to delete things you personally do not like. NBEAUTY is an essay, not a site guideline. Nate • (chatter) 00:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no such intentions. I am merely trying to pragmatically help tackle the NPP backlog. PK650 (talk) 01:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There seem to be a lot of Vietnamese sources talking about her. Can't tell if they're RS, as I don't know Vietnamese. // Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk 14:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nom. The sources cited do not make her notable and it fails WP:GNG. I find it very odd that there are not Australian sources discussing her, and the one Indian source links to a wayback machine https://web.archive.org/web/20220113152934/https://beautypageants.indiatimes.com/Miss-Grand-International-2015-stripped-of-her-title/eventshow/68125547.cms PaulPachad (talk) 02:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its important to note that several other winners of this pageant have articles, some of whom are less important that Parker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyaytyhyaynyiyeylyluytyeysy (talk • contribs) 01:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not only is Parker not presumed notable per WP:NBEAUTY, the sources cited here are minimal. The article claims that Parker became Miss Grand International when the original winner resigned, but none of the cited sources say that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources are not even remotely close to being adequate to justify having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Beauty pageants, Fashion, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 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.