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

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 13:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stranger Among Bears[edit]

Stranger Among Bears (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No sources found. Prod removed without comment Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:29, 20 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?)} 19:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 20:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Refactor: Nominator evidently can't stand that someone would dare to disturb their dizzying deletionist spree, as they couldn't wait for me to finish writing that comment before taking this to AFD. I read the article and saw that it was really more about Charlie Vandergaw than the television series. I then did a proper BEFORE search and came up with sources from ABC News, Anchorage Daily News, Seattle Times, Bend Bulletin and multiple hits on the personal website of Craig Medred, a credentialed outdoors writer who also wrote the ADN piece linked to above. The ST article was paywalled for me, but everything else appeared to be indepth, even if all of it was centered on one episode (read: potential BLP1E) rather than his life as a whole. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 20:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment on the nomination, not the nominator. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As I noted in my comment when I contested the PROD, I caught wind of this through a WikiProject alert page. This AFD is following the exact same pattern as the recently-concluded Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alaska Wing Men, also initiated by you, and possibly other AFDs I haven't noticed. Wouldn't you expect your fellow editors to be curious why this is occurring? What I found was you engaging in indiscriminate deletion-related activity through Twinkle. WP:TW still begins with a prominent banner stating in part "You take full responsibility for any action you perform using Twinkle". Exposing a pattern of targeting articles for deletion so other editors can find sources for you is highly pertinent to the nomination, especially given the likelihood of how many times it's happened before. Why would you hide behind the notion that every action you initiate exists in a bubble? Special:Contributions exists for a reason. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based on sources identified by RadioKAOS above. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I appreciate the efforts of the nomination to rid Wikipedia of non-notable content. This article however I feel does have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. While meeting WP:GNG does not guarantee inclusion, I consider on this occasion there is insufficient reason to delete this article, because after all it is covered in the below sources (thanks to RadioKAOS for identifying these.

I hope this helps. MaxnaCarter (talk) 07:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, then move to Charlie Vandergaw. there is SIGCOV, meets GNG. Jacona (talk) 08:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#TenPoundHammer: prods and AfDs. Still think it's a good idea to pretend that this exists in a bubble? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 11:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as multiple reliable sources coverage has been identified in this discussion such as ABC news, Seattle Times and Alaska News so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it's notable but needs more inline citations, the lack of which can make it appear noncompliant with OR. We inadvertently get tripped-up thinking we need a large number of RS for a topic to be notable and worthy of inclusion, but that simply is not the case. If it were, we would have fewer articles about academics, women, math equations, literature, etc. Atsme 💬 📧 15:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep enough sources have been presented here to pass WP:GNG, article just need more/better citations. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The sources found by RadioKAOS are independent of the article subject, generally reliable, and cover the article subject significantly. As such, the article subject easily passes the WP:GNG. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will separately note that the article is currently not in great shape. But, per WP:DEL-CONTENT, if editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. The sources I refer to in my !vote above should be sufficient to improve the page, so I don't find the reasons for deletion given above that are based out of the current state of the article to be persuasive. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 23:58, 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 delete. Sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 13:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverie Love[edit]

Reverie Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Contested speedy, concern WP:N and advert - procedural route to AfD Tawker (talk) 21:17, 20 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) 21:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This person does appear to be an underground hip-hop performer who has been on tour, has a YouTube presence, is a clothes designer, etc., judging by the articles I found about her. I don’t know enough about the topic to be able to say much about the quality of the publications or the quality of her work but she appeared notable enough to me to have a stub article that someone more knowledgeable could expand upon. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete one source is not enough to pass GNG. Just because people have a youtube page and go on tour does not mean they are notable. We need sourcing to show that a person is notable and that is lacking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The sole cited source is not reliable per WP:RSDISCOGS. No indication that multiple source of signficant coveage from inependent, reliable sources exists.—Bagumba (talk) 07:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The original version had additional citations that looked legit to me but I don’t know enough or care enough about the subject of underground hip-hop to establish the credibility of those sources that were questioned, so I didn’t add them back. I do think it’s important for there to be more coverage of women in every field and I would hope someone with more interest and expertise would take a look at this rapper and expand on the article. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a speedy would have been appropriate, and draftify, a second option but let's think about why an admin would choose AfD and not draftify. One reason I can see in this situation to not draftify is that it's not notable, and/or unlikely to be expanded because there are no RS to cite, so why not simply go with an A7 and save valuable time. Until the community decides to make Twitter, YouTube and other such online sites RS, this BLP is not notable. Atsme 💬 📧 15:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Waterman (sports)[edit]

Waterman (sports) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Seems to be an ambiguous definition. In dictionaries, the word seems to denote a boatman. In surfing/swimming circles, it takes on another meaning.

Does this fall under WP:NOTDICT, whatever the definition of the word is? Mooonswimmer 19:44, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTDICT. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:38, 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 23:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

American Society of Digital Forensics & eDiscovery[edit]

American Society of Digital Forensics & eDiscovery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Survived PROD by an editor later discovered to be a sock. Could have been deleted as a copyright violation, but that's been cleaned up so we're here. (Note: if it's kept, it will need major RevDel) I am unable to find independent, reliable source based coverage of the association beyond confirmation that it exists. Star Mississippi 20:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Georgia (U.S. state). Star Mississippi 20:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Universities' Council for the Education of Teachers[edit]

Universities' Council for the Education of Teachers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am unable to find evidence of this charity's notability, nor can I identify a viable AtD Star Mississippi 22:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Education, and United Kingdom. Star Mississippi 22:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Plenty of coverage per WP:GNG. Significant organisation in the British teacher education sector. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I fail to find independent in-depth sources about this organisation. The Banner talk 17:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Seaborn[edit]

Dan Seaborn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The only references are to primary sources. A quick Google check comes up with articles and books that they have written but not articles about them from reliable sources. Gusfriend (talk) 23:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Gusfriend (talk) 23:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Christianity, and South Carolina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (1) BLP without adequate referneces (2) This seems to be little more than a one-man ministry, though possibly employing a couple of other counsellors. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, and because (a) we are not a soapbox, (b) we are not a free webhost, and (c) we are not a vehicle for spam. Bearian (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The subject is not notable and the article makes no support for inclusion in Wikipedia. IrishOsita (talk) 03:35, 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 merge to Voice of America Indonesia. Star Mississippi 13:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jurnal VOA[edit]

Jurnal VOA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Deprodded with addition of source, but sourcing is still very thin. This didn't air on a major network and only in a couple markets. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to VOA Indonesia. Also on List of television stations in Indonesia it list it under major network and defines that as viewable across all time zones in country. Has 2nd/3rd most analog/digital affiliates/transmitters of the majors. Cited source says first year they had 30 cities. WikiVirusC^(talk) 00:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to VOA Indonesia. Kind of split between "Keep" and "Merge", this program is definitely aired on major TV network in Indonesia and re-aired on other smaller TV network. But VOA Indonesia itself, is still a stub. So, it'll better to expand on VOA Indonesia first. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:00, 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. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linewatch[edit]

Linewatch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(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 an article from The Hollywood Reporter. Needs more coverage in order to eligible. The link from Reuters doesn't count because it's the same word-for-word article as that of the Hollywood Reporter. The Film Creator (talk) 23:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Second review at CineMagazine [1] DonaldD23 talk to me 00:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I withdraw this nomination since the Cinemagazine review and the Hollywood Reporter article are enough to pass WP:NFSOURCES. Excellent work to User:Donaldd23. The Film Creator (talk) 00:48, 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 23:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Harrington (U.S. actor)[edit]

Adam Harrington (U.S. actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

He has many bit parts such as "Reporter", "Human Researcher", "Gym Manager", and "Paramedic". It's amazing that this article has been around since 2012. SL93 (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As per nom, there are no sources here so it fails WP:GNG PaulPachad (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete IMDb is not a reliable source, and his website is neither secondary nor indepdent. All his roles are bit parts that do not rise even close to the level of significant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - outright fails WP:BLP as having zero reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails Wikipedia:NACTOR. Bgsu98 (talk) 02:53, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) DonaldD23 talk to me 13:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Messages Deleted[edit]

Messages Deleted (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(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) 23:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I've done some major expansion to the article. There was a nice writeup in an academic press book, which is good. I found a review with ReelFilm, but for the life of me I can't remember if the site is usable or not. The other coverage is kind of more in passing to a degree and there are a lot of primary/interview sources. It's an interesting little piece of media in that it was apparently the last thing he wrote (that has been filmed so far) and because it was pirated online before it released, the film failed miserably and ultimately led to the demise of an entire production company since they'd sunk so much money into the movie. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I withdraw the nomination per User:ReaderofthePack’s improvements to the article. The Film Creator (talk) 11:00, 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 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 23:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have Dreams, Will Travel[edit]

Have Dreams, Will Travel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:SIGCOV. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found one review from Variety. Needs one more suitable & reliable review in order to be eligible. The Film Creator (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:15, 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 23:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Beard[edit]

Stephen Beard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No significant coverage and only one major role The sources in the 2012 AfD did not show notability - interviews, a three sentence article about a crime, links to two Google searches, IMDb profile, etc. He did appear in all 18 episodes of a reality series, but it is questionable if it's a significant role and it certainly isn't acting. SL93 (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 22:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the sourcing is not substnatial, and being an actor in a soap opera who has also been in reality shows is not a default sign of notability. IMDb is not reliable and his own website is neither secondary nor indepedent. Wikipedia is to be built on what reliable secondary sources have said about the subject, when we have none we can say nothing and thus should have no article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lacks RS to establish GNG. Megtetg34 (talk) 06:49, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tarantella (1995 film)[edit]

Tarantella (1995 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. There’s a review from TV Guide. Needs one more review in order to be eligible. I found no other suitable or reliable sources or reviews to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Boston Globe review [2] DonaldD23 talk to me 00:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I withdraw this nomination per NEXIST since there are two reviews from TV Guide and The Boston Globe. Excellent work to User:Donaldd23. The Film Creator (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) DonaldD23 talk to me 13:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

F.T.W. (film)[edit]

F.T.W. (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(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 and reliable review in order to be eligible. The Film Creator (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I withdraw this nomination per User:ReaderofthePack’s improvements to the article. The Film Creator (talk) 11:12, 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 23:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Cherney[edit]

Alex Cherney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Moved to draft as 'not ready' but almost immediately placed back into mainspace without any attempt at improvement. Does not meet criteria for NMUSIC or filmmakers; referencing is not to reliable sources with several to results of Google searches, IMDb, Spotify etc. Not been able to find additional SIGCOV via 'naive' search. Eagleash (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete completely non-notable, vanity spam with no coverage in independent reliable sources. PRAXIDICAE💕 13:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lacks reliable secondary sources. Does not pass WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulPachad (talk • contribs) 20:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:RS. Terrible sourcing, except possibly AllMusic. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable topic. Lacks sources and should not be included in the encyclopedia. Megtetg34 (talk) 06:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A few additional sources were added to 'Alex Cherney' page when placing it back into the mainspace.

Several reputable publications have written about Alex Cherney for music, and those sources were included.

Please undo deletion to move back in the draft space so I can further improve the page before submitting to mainspace again. Alexcherney (talk) 19:36, 29 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) Enos733 (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sulaiman Hazazi[edit]

Sulaiman Hazazi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Prod removed on the basis that editor would prefer this to go through AfD. Deletion is uncontroversial because article has zero references to substantial secondary source coverage, therefore failing WP:SPORTCRIT #5. I'll add that I didn't find any. agtx 21:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Saudi Arabia. agtx 21:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:32, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• There seems to be a bunch of results in arabic, the best I could find were [3] [4] [5] and [6], not sure if its enough for a GNG pass. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  In any other area, this would not be close enough to meet WP:GNG. This is a handful of routine annoucements/press release style coverage, plus a single Q&A style interview. I fundamentally don't understand why that's considered enough coverage for a football player. agtx 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes GNG, tons of reference when you search his name spellt in Arabic. Some references listed here 1, 2, 3, 4. Article should be expanded.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ortizesp. GiantSnowman 13:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: GNG possibly / probably met bit minimal discussion. No harm extending to try to get a clearer consensus one way or the other.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The first two references found by Ortizesp seem in particular to be SIGCOV. EternalNomad (talk) 06:09, 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. ✗plicit 23:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Thenee[edit]

Jose Thenee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Cannot find anything like enough in the article or online to pass WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. Edwardx (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Argentina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lack sources giving substantial coverage of him in a way to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, and lack of significant coverage. His works might command a high price, but rich folks got a lot of cash to blow lately, and we are neither advertising space nor a free web host service. Bearian (talk) 18:40, 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 merge to Hal Lindsey. ✗plicit 23:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Hal Lindsey Report[edit]

The Hal Lindsey Report (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Deprodded with source, but there's still not much out there Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:30, 27 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?)} 20:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Hal Lindsey. I created this article more than ten years ago, but I can't remember why. I also deprodded it because it has some notability (a couple of Gnews hits, lots of GBooks results) but doesn't seem to be independently notable of Lindsey himself. I was about to propose a merge, but TPH beat me to it. StAnselm (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as suggested, or just redirect. Nothing to see. Bearian (talk) 18:38, 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 23:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Terra Trevor[edit]

Terra Trevor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article has come to my attention when User:Ppainter, who claims to be Trevor herself, wanted this page deleted for misinformation. An A7 speedy request was declined due to her "publishing multiple works in university press editions". I disagree; I think the article does not qualify for WP:GNG nor WP:AUTHOR. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me • contribs) 20:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me • contribs) 20:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article appears to have been vandalized/nearly blanked. Might as well simply delete it at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 02:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT. Due to the problematic edit history, even if this is a notable topic it would be better to completely start over. That said, I found zero significant coverage of Trevor in my university library search in terms of reviews of her work or works about her; although she does appear to be cited to some extent in the works of other academics. It’s not clear to me that she would pass WP:NAUTHOR, WP:NACADEMIC, or WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG. My university database search turned up some articles written by her, but none about her. My google BEFORE is showing websites with only self-provided information and standard author bios from non-independent entities. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no indication this subject meets notability per Indy bettle's review. Not every academic who has published something is notable. Even without odd edit history and the evident subject wanting this article gone, we have no good reason to keep it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above and WP:SNOW. This is a private person, who has not done anything more than barely become close to notable for some scholarly work. Bearian (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cover Up (1991 film)[edit]

Cover Up (1991 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(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) 20:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:19, 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 00:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Fritz[edit]

Marshall Fritz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. All cited sources are primary. A WP:BEFORE search on multiple search engines found no significant coverage in WP:RS-compliant sources. (FYI, a previously placed PROD tag was removed without comment/explanation). Sal2100 (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Libertarianism and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sal2100 (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable political activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, and more specifically, lack of coverage. Bearian (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Lacks sig RS coverage. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 06:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of school shootings in the United States. Obvious target anyway. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tanglewood Middle School shooting[edit]

Tanglewood Middle School shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This appears to be run of the mill shooting, not much more. A lot of the coverage is WP:RECENTISM. It fails GNG. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep: Easily passes WP:GNG with coverage in large outlets such as CNN, Fox News, Yahoo, USA Today, New York Times, New York Post, NBC News, and even People among the numerous other reputable sources. WP:RECENTISM is an essay, not a guideline as GNG is. GauchoDude (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (events), especially the section about criminal acts. Notability of events needs evidence of lasting impact. The sources listed are standard news cycle coverage concentrated around April 1st. The crime is unfortunate, but it is all too common. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair. I'll share my rationale in response to yours above. Re: WP:NCRIME, "...media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources." In my opinion, above and to follow, I believe this has occurred.

  Re: your statement "Notability of events needs evidence of lasting impact," the event occurred on March 31st of this year. It's May. Per WP:LASTING, "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect." I would contend that this is currently ongoing. A WP:BEFORE search shows that many articles regarding the event are still being written as of May, the current month, such as this, this, this, this, and this among others. Additionally, it's part of the larger topic of school shootings in the United States and has been included, rightfully so, in articles like this, this, this, this, this, this, etc. which in my opinion goes to clearly satisfy all elements contained within both WP:LASTING and WP:GEOSCOPE.

  While you may feel that "The crime is unfortunate, but it is all too common," and I 100% agree with you, my interpretation of WP:EVENTCRIT shows that this incident meets all of the listed out points. GauchoDude (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Schools, and South Carolina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It happened over a month ago and this stub is all the info we have? I'm leaning delete if no other sources come up, one single person shot is tragic, but not terribly notable for Wiki purposes anyway. Oaktree b (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There are plenty of sources out there with much more info as I've listed above. This AfD, as all of them do, debate the merits of inclusion or deletion based on WP:N (in this case, the more specific WP:N(E)), WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOT. If you feel the article should be improved, I humbly invite you to do so and would love your contributions. GauchoDude (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:NEVENT and WP:NCRIME per my comments above. Big splash of breaking news coverage March 31st to April 1st. Strictly routine local coverage after the first 24 hours: arraignment, etc. Sadly, this is the once-a-week kind of shooting on topic at List of school shootings in the United States, where it is already included. • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep May I enlighten and encourage you, Checkers to maybe stop calling yourself a past inclusionist? I feel you never were one. What's next? Delete this and then move down the list of crises? EVERY school shooting (and or those with fatalities) has an article here. You do not understand many of Wikipedia's principles in the right way. You don't have clear concepts of notability. You misused run-of-the-mill and you don't get how one time events matter.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 07:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Gene93k. Coverage completely fell off after the day of the shooting. Love of Corey (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

L of C, the criterion you use is bad. Misconstruing the "coverage" of something as the value is easy to do and you fall into a predilection for it.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 00:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF. Love of Corey (talk) 05:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

agf doesn't apply here. Logic is not bound by principles or theories. Stating that many of the deletionists on here should re-examine how they view editing.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 06:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you two things to consider and from those you may have a change in how you see this. You put covid is the story of the century. That is certainly debatable as pandemics have occurred before. You're inferring that coverage of the covid situation makes it such a story (as well as the level of lethality it has). What you are leaving out is Putin and his invasion could be a larger story. You say that you are new to being here. Take a suggestion and completely evaluate what you think of the news, the coverage of news, and what is important.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 06:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your aggressive attitude isn't helping your cause any. Love of Corey (talk) 04:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is a factually incorrect position per my statement above which lists coverage easily found in a BEFORE that contradicts the assertion of "Coverage completely fell off after the day of the shooting." GauchoDude (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. per Gene93k. Not really well known since all of the media coverage about it lasted less then 3 days. The article does not have much reliable sources besides NBC News. `~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 07:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  A humble request for reconsideration. My previous posts address both of your concerns. They show coverage in major, reliable news sources and that the coverage also spreads to the present day. If CNN, Fox News, New York Times, etc. are not reliable sources, then how would you define them? GauchoDude (talk) 12:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Where is the CNN, Fox News and New York Times citations? The only reliable source in the article is NBC News and Greenville news.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 15:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HelpingWorld: See above posts, I've listed many of them. The article does not include these citations, however that doesn't mean they don't exist as they can also be found through a WP:BEFORE and anyone can edit Wikipedia to include them. If your position is just of those two points (reliable sources and longevity), I've given examples to the contrary above in this AfD. If satisfied, while AfD's are not a !vote, I think it would then make sense to change yours unless I can address any other concerns you may have. GauchoDude (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Pinging the following from Talk:2017 Las Vegas shooting to help stimulate further discussion: @Mandruss: @Objective3000: @Nihlus: @Blysbane: @Fuzheado: @InedibleHulk: @WWGB: @Signedzzz: @Ianmacm: @Hydronium Hydroxide: @FOARP: @Chaheel Riens: @Knowledgekid87: @Natureium: @Cramyourspam: @Pincrete: @Jane955: @RekishiEJ: @FallingGravity: @DonFB: @Dlthewave: @Tutelary: @Elli: @Locke Cole: @Cullen328: @Jim Michael 2: @ProcrastinatingReader: @WikiVirusC: @North8000: @Veggies: @Qwaiiplayer: @ArvindPalaskar: @Kpddg: @Dumuzid: @ThadeusOfNazereth: @Mz7: @TrangaBellam: @Iamreallygoodatcheckers: @Khajidha: @JoePhin: @GenQuest: @Macktheknifeau: @Jayron32: @Joseph A. Spadaro: @Jjjimg: @Chesapeake77: @Amakuru: @Seggallion: Love of Corey (talk) 01:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Event Notability. No indication this is anything other than a personal dispute or drug deal between two people that went bad and just happened to occur at a school. As written, there is nothing indicating any notability. Not sure this should even be titled anything "...school shooting." GenQuest ^"scribble" 01:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of school shootings in the United States. I believe this fails to satisfy WP:NEVENT, particularly WP:GEOSCOPE. The vast majority of the coverage is local. Just having it mentioned in the context of other school shootings does not constitute significant converage and doesn't mean that the event has a significant impact beyond the local community. As with other school shootings that are not notable enough for a stand alone article, this should be redirected to the (regrettably) growing list of school shootings in the US. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 02:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Delete. In the absence of evidence of lasting and enduring significance at a national level, this appears to fail WP:NEVENTS. The sources offered by GauchoDude above in evidence of lasting significance are mostly local news coverage or mention this shooting only in the broader context of school shootings in general. The latter would justify inclusion in List of school shootings in the United States, but not necessarily a standalone article. Mz7 (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of school shootings in the United States per WP:LASTING. The question that should be asked is: what makes this particular shooting stand out among all of the other shootings on the list? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, a notable event with perfectly good sources. A real no-brainer. Joe (talk) 02:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect - No evidence of lasting impact. Minor event of little note. -- Veggies (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• keep - the history of now is history --and no outstanding reason to delete Cramyourspam (talk) 03:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  AND "over 100 deputies" responded? that's historical. KEEP Cramyourspam (talk) Cramyourspam (talk) 03:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:NEVENT and WP:NCRIME, no lasting significance. Strictly routine local coverage after the first 24 hours: arraignment, etc. Sadly, this is the once-a-week kind of shooting on topic at List of school shootings in the United States, where it is already included.. I was ultimately swayed by this event's inclusion in the list article. At present there is no evidence of either any need or merit in the existence of this individual event article. Pincrete (talk) 03:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per GauchoDude. Plenty of sources demonstrated, and not just immediately after the event. Also, notability is not temporary. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This was a single apparent murder of an all too common type. The only unusual thing about this killing is that both the victim and the alleged perpetrator were quite young. Yes, many major reliable sources gave this tragic incident passing mention, but as far as I can see, there has not been any truly significant secondary coverage of this killing. The coverage we now see is primary source recapitulation of the police blotter. Our notability guideline says that A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. We have none of that in this case. There are between 20,000 and 25,000 homicides each year in the U.S., and clearly very high numbers in other countries as well. These one off killings generate hatred and vendettas. Are we actually prepared to accept a flood of new articles about commonplace murders, and to maintain them against disruptive editing and BLP violations for decades to come? Cullen328 (talk) 04:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable event; while this got coverage at the time, the coverage was not sustained to the standard necessary for notability. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as a run of the mill shooting. Not in a school. Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 05:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep lets not become numb to all of this, it was a school shooting. That is reason enough. Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 05:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, Chesapeake77, you seem to believe that every single murder that takes place in a school is inherently notable, but that single murders that take place outside of schools are not inherently notable? Can you please quote any language in policies or guidelines that supports your personal opinion on this matter? Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 06:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider-- Many single murders are on Wikipedia if they are made notable by heavy news coverage-- As per @GouchoDude -- "Easily passes WP:GNG with coverage in large outlets such as CNN, Fox News, Yahoo, USA Today, New York Times, New York Post, NBC News, and even People among the numerous other reputable sources." Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 09:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Counterpoint': Nowhere in GNG does it say events need "heavy" coverage. Consensus recognises that three citations are enough to confer notability in general (and less than 3 can apply in some circumstances). Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a sad event, but it doesn't have enough significant or long lasting notability for a standalone article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Cullen328. The coverage that exists is run of the mill passing news, not significant secondary coverage that would enable this to pass GNG.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - replying here in response to ping. Redirect to List of school shootings in the United States. It's a sad day for humanity in general when the killing of a child in a school is not considered notable, but that's where we are. One death is barely newsworthy compared to other greater events - and the frequency of them. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't fulfill wp:notability and not news. North8000 (talk) 09:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Easily fulfils GNG. The citations are not "routine" coverage as per WP:SBST, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ROUTINE (which calls press releases, public announcements, sports coverage or tabloid journalism "routine"). As per WP:NCRIME, "media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources". This article does that. The quality of the article itself is a topic outside of notability. An article which is notable may only require a short length or even a stub, but that is not a reason to delete it. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just to note I was summoned above, and I find the delete arguments more compelling. This strikes me as something which seemed like it might turn into something more, but ultimately did not (beyond the obvious tragedy). It does not seem to have coverage "legs," so to speak, though I'd also like to say that this one for me is a pretty close call. Cheers, everyone, and be good to one another. Dumuzid (talk) 12:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because of lacking long term significance. --Seggallion (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Cullen328, who sets out a very detailed and persuasive argument explaining why having this article is problematic. That these shootings are so commonplace that individual ones cannot be proven to meet the notability criteria is a problem, but for US government policy, not Wikipedia. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:56, 7 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. Sourcing has been confirmed. If it's not available online, then it fails WP:V is not remotely true. You know better than that, TPH. Star Mississippi 13:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac (talk show)[edit]

Isaac (talk show) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Deprodded with NYT article, but sourcing is still super scant. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:37, 27 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?)} 19:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as noted in my PROD removal text, it was also reviewed by the Baltimore Sun, which is not available online (but appears in Google search results because they just broke their internet archive or something): Baltimore Sun, Dec 4, 2005, "Fashion and fun with irreverent Isaac Mizrahi". Thus, it was reviewed twice, with two independent, reliable sources, and meets the GNG. matt91486 (talk) 03:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If it's not available online, then it fails WP:V. If we can't see the full version, who's to say it wasn't just a one-sentence blurb or PR piece? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia policy very clearly permits offline sources. In an AfD, we are trying to prove that sources exist. matt91486 (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  But we can't verify the content of that source. How do you know how in-depth it is or isn't? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Here is the article [7] DonaldD23 talk to me 17:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Unfortunately their articles auto-redirect to the home page, as they've entirely broken their online archive system. matt91486 (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I read the article. Click on the link DonaldD23 talk to me 17:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, if it works for you that's great -- for me when I click, it just takes me to the Baltimore Sun home page (which is why in the Google search result I could see the short preview, title, etc., but not the article itself). Similar things happen to me with all Tribune Company papers. (Which is annoying because Chicago Tribune, Baltimore Sun, Miami Sun Sentinel, and Orlando Sentinel all have reasonably decent archival TV coverage). matt91486 (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Excerpt: "It's like Cosmo in 3-D and InStyle coming to life in your living room.

  Watching award-winning fashion designer Isaac Mizrahi's new talk show - debuting tonight at 7 on the Style Network - is like watching your favorite fashion magazine unfold on television.

  Those great round-toe shoes you've been looking for? See them on screen - on a real, live fashionista - and get Isaac's opinion about them, too. That burning style question you wanted to write and ask a fashion editor? Isaac answers it right there in his design studio - on camera and off-the-cuff.

  The hourlong mix of celebrity interviews, fashion, cuisine, home design, pop culture and Mizrahi's own bold and bawdy take on life is just the latest step in the famed fashion designer's recent mad dash to the height of his game.

  "Isaac's definitely back on top, and his star is brighter than ever in Hollywood and in fashion," says Kelli Delaney, editor-in-chief of Celebrity Living magazine. "I think he could be the male Ellen [DeGeneres]."" DonaldD23 talk to me 17:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the citations listed in the article. The reviews don't need to be verified by the editor who proposed the deletion, anyone can verify them...which I did. The reasoning of not being able to see the full article because of a paywall is an individual issue. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:56, 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 00:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Finay[edit]

Donald Finay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:18, 27 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) 19:18, 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)} 20:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no evidence of passing WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 10:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not even vaguely close to passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Scraped Google for WP:SIGCOV and it’s not there, with various tags as well. NiklausGerard (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article does not fulfill notability requirements. IrishOsita (talk) 02:13, 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 delete. ✗plicit 00:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suddenly (2013 film)[edit]

Suddenly (2013 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No disrespect to Ray Liotta (may he rest in peace). Article fails WP:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:SIGCOV. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found a link from The Hollywood Reporter. Needs more coverage in order to be eligible. The Film Creator (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Was somewhat excited when 2013 Oscar nominations came up in the search, but it's a song from the Les Mis movie. This is just a forgotten movie he made, even the DVD or Blu Ray review are hard to find. Oaktree b (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Suddenly_(1954_film)#History. This doesn't appear to be independently notable of the original film and honestly, what very little I did find mentioned this in relation to the 1954 film. We could maybe add 1-2 more lines about the crew, release date, and that it was a loose remake, but that's about all that needs to be added. I don't know if there really needs to be a redirect, but redirects are WP:CHEAP and this could help prevent recreation. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Films aren't "inherently" notable just because they exist, or even because of who directed or starred in them — the notability test for films depends on reliable source coverage about the film, such as analytical attention from established film critics. But there's none of that here, and I've been unable to find anything else in the archives either. Bearcat (talk) 14:40, 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 00:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Percy Rasug[edit]

Percy Rasug (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:13, 27 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) 19:13, 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)} 20:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no evidence of passing WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 10:17, 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 00:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NFTi Emporium[edit]

NFTi Emporium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The notability of the subject is very much in doubt, likely fails WP:NORG, and also seems to conflict with WP:WHATWIKIPEDIAISNOT, especially concerning advertising and promotion. HenryTemplo (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Computing. HenryTemplo (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HenryTemplo What sentences exactly shows advertising ?

Can you please quote ?

The page talks first about the company, then it talks about its CEO then at the bottom it talks about some of its

notable works that are known in notable art galleries.

If that would classify as advertising then so would this Crypto.com Ekcs27 (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, generally, it's not a good idea to compare this article with the article on Crypto.com, as that is currently rated stub-class (please see WP:WHATABOUT). Secondly, the general tone of the article is generally written like an advert, as someone with a COI, it may be hard to recognise this, but it is highly likely that a editor who has never heard of NFTi like myself would agree that this article reads too much like an advert (essentially, if I were to give you a quote, it would be the whole article). Regardless, have a great day! HenryTemplo (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HenryTemplo I would have to fully disagree with your sentence "if I were to give you a quote, it would be the whole article", it literally is impossible for the whole article

to appear as an advert, that is because there are descriptions about what the company does, what product the company specializes in,

where and by which other companies the company is notable and recognized by, where the company operates etc.

If you say that writing these information is advertising then I do not know what exactly you are talking about, because most companies if not

all company descriptions are pretty much like that.

If you mean that the word and the sentence selection used in the article is constructed in such a way that it looks like advertising then I understand,

this can be amended and different words and different sentences can be used. But other than that you cannot just accuse the article of being advertising, because

it is not.

But I would have to disagree with you completely, the article clearly is talking about the companies facts and what it does, its not trying to advertise about its products.

If that is advertising then every company's wiki should be prone to be deleted as they are also describing their products and services in their wikipedia pages.

Regarding the article Crypto.com this is an excellent example that I gave as it reflects pretty much how our article is looking like,

it talks about

- what it is

- its products

- where it is operating from

- its board members

- and its sponsorships (i.e. its notability)

And in the same way the article NFTi Emporium is exactly talking about the same thing

it talks about

- what it is

- its products

- where it is operating from

- its board members or executive director

- and its notability (i.e. notable artworks) recognized by other companies

So if you cannot give a difference between these two and just throw some definitions such as e.g. COI, or wiki articles etc at me

and make it sound extremely vague what is exactly wrong with the article and every time just say that it looks like "advertising"

then it just looks extremely unfair and unprofessional to me, and looked like it is a coordinated attempt by users such as yourself

just to close this article for the sake of closing it.

We are a company recognized by many other companies across the blockchain industries and would like

that a Wikipedia page is constructed about us, that is all we are looking for here. Ekcs27 (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ekcs27, an advert can be all the things you have described, what matters is the tone. Subtle and not-so-subtle wording can change the tone from being a neutrally written encyclopaedia article to what looks like a description from the "About" section on a company Website. As I said, whenever editing with a COI, it can be difficult to see that perspective, just as if I tried to edit an article about a hypothetical company that I hypothetically work for, I would probably not word things with a NPOV. In this case, it would be best to see what other editors think about the neutrality and notability of the article. Have a good day! HenryTemplo (talk) 21:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, @Ekcs27, I'm worried that you misunderstand what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is not a platform where companies can publish a page to promote themselves, Wikipedia is a free online encyclopaedia where editors can start articles (note the difference) about notable subjects. If you wish to boost your companies profile, may I humbly suggest you use a different website other than Wikipedia. Also, please also understand that if your article does get kept, it will not belong to you or your company, nor anyone else individually; anyone will be able to edit the article, and you will have no more editorial control then anyone else. Ultimately, if your company is truly notable, then another editor (who is uninvolved) will likely start the article. I'm afraid that's the way things work on Wikipedia, although I will take the opportunity now to wish you a good day! HenryTemplo (talk) 12:43, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, this platform is for knowledge sharing in a neutral fashion, promoting all points of view, so long as the topic is "notable" as described. Oaktree b (talk) 14:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable company, trivial mentions in non-reputable sources or directly from the company. Crypto anything seems to be the flavour of the month now, most of it isn't notable for our purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b If that is amended then I suggest you take down the deletion proposal for this article.

Thank you Ekcs27 (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to do so, that would be up to the admin. We are here to discuss notability. If you can give sources as described, it would help your case for keeping the article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to show media coverage, I get exactly TWO hits in GNews in what look like clickbait sites. You're a long, long way from notability for Wikipedia. A feature review in the New York Times or Forbes, not a paid promotion piece, is what's needed to show notability. I don't see anything like that now. Oaktree b (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b There is Bezinga and Digital Journal, which are extremely notable. Ekcs27 (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources, as here: [8]. Doesn't have to be the New York Times, but you're way off with those sources. Any coverage in national media? Oaktree b (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b We are in here https://www.benzinga.com/ and https://www.digitaljournal.com/ both are reputable in the financial world. As for extremely known companies such as BBC, CNN, or as you mentioned New York Times, we are not there yet as our company is is small at the moment. Ekcs27 (talk) 20:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've mentioned these already, those aren't sources we can use to prove notability. If your company is small, it is likely not notable/needing an article in wikipedia at this time. Not every start-up gets an article here and most wouldn't have the required notability either. Please do not ping me every time, I've made my decision and you've shared the sources a few times already. Nothing notable about the company to warrant having an article in wikipedia, should be deleted. Oaktree b (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable company, I actually PROD tagged this initially but someone took it to AfD, so no notability whatsoever. | Zippybonzo | Talk | 05:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not seem notable. Azuredivay (talk) 08:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While Digital Journal may have some reliability, I don't think the article established the notability of the company. The coverage is not in-depth, and it may even be considered trivial coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH. In conclusion, notability is not established. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 13:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is promotional material and is extremely far from establishing notability. Cite to WP:CORPDEPTH. FalconK (talk) 08:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No notability at all.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No major extended coverage that would allow it to meet GNG. Thriley (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of European clubs reaching European championship finals in both football and basketball same year[edit]

List of European clubs reaching European championship finals in both football and basketball same year (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The only source that I can find on this topic is the Real Madrid website which is not a reliable or independent source. Does not seem to meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG and I can't see an appropriate merge target. This phenomenon perhaps warrants a mention at Real Madrid CF and Real Madrid Baloncesto but an entire list article dedicated to this non-encyclopaedic cross categorisation seems excessive in my view. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball, Football, Lists, and Europe. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 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)} 20:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - apart from the grammatically incorrect title, this is a ridiculous article concept and clearly just a coatrack to "big up" Real Madrid -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This to me is a strong grounds for deletion on WP:SYNTH. Govvy (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - absolute nonsense. GiantSnowman 10:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - One of the strongest trivia I ever came around on Wiki. Shankargb (talk) 03:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 00:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above, and because in 2002, everyone knows we are not a free web host for random stuff. Bearian (talk) 18:55, 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 delete. Recreation of a page deleted by AfD discussion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle for Dream Island. ... discospinster _talk 21:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BFDI (Franchise)[edit]

BFDI (Franchise) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

As it currently stands, article does not meet WP:GNG, lacks use of sources, and appears to be primarily promotional. It is not ready for Main space. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as having no sources and so failing verifiability as well as failing general notability and web notability. This does not even provide enough context to identify to a reader how this is a franchise. Draftify is an acceptable Alternative To Deletion if the author requests it. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG according to my searches Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:45, 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. RL0919 (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rina Rose[edit]

Rina Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable executive/entrepreneur. She is mostly known for one event, Prada Female Discrimination Case, and comes under WP:BIO1E. Fails WP:GNG too. The page has a history of POV pushing by the subject herself (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rina Bovrisse/Archive) and recently by some UPEs Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UralKazan1985/Archive. Delete and redirect (salt) to the event. Yamasato Kyoshi (talk) 16:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 May 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. It appears she did not run in the Tokyo Governor election in 2020 after all, which would have been at least something that gets past WP:BIO1E. LizardJr8 (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  She was going to run, and infact its was announced publicly, tho she long later withdrew for reasons best known to her.... CatLover1 (talk) 12:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - how is her name even Rina Rose? I'm very confused why that's the name for the article. Also fails WP:GNG. Réunion (talk!) 18:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Well if you follow her you will know that her public name has change from Rina Bovrisse to Rina Rose, And i also noticed someone tired changing it but its was reverted... CatLover1 (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Fashion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please note that the subject of the deletion discussion is hiring people on Upwork to save her page and school page. She hired Sonali, Heather and Olivia B. and user CatLover1 could be Olivia B. I can email the screenshots of her posts. Please provide me the email id to send more details with links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.229.49 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong delete Wikipedia is not something you get coverage of by paying for it. The fact that this person has tried to do so is enough to delete the article, regardless of the other problems. There is nothing sugggesting actual notability. Wikipedia is not Who's Who, you do not pay your way in. It is not PR wire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can still entertain draftification from a non-sock account. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:SALT, and ban the paid meat-puppets. We are not a PR outfit, nor a soapbox to argue your cause, nor a web host free or paid. In 2007, you night have gotten away with this argument without being sanctioned, but it 2022, such claims are untenable and must be dealt with in the harshest manner. It also places our charitable status in danger with the IRS. Begone! Bearian (talk) 19:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep lol, a bunch of pissed off users who were not hired on Upwork and saw that poor client seeking help regarding Wikipedia trying their best to delete and defame the subject. See this as well, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Juliusiji_sock_and_Rina_Rose This is very wrong and this needs to be changed. Wikipedia is not a war zone and not a place where a bunch of people deciding the future of Wikipedia. This is wrong to delete a page that was there and right away a new user decides to delete it and all support came in instead of fixing the errors, the editors should remove promotional or other errors instead of deleting it, they are experienced then why they can't help fix articles? Rina passes GNG and all Wiki standards for a notable person. Run a CU on all these accounts commenting a delete and all others that were mentioned in many cases. Yamasato Kyoshi a new person who know everything about Wikipedia what a joke. 103.159.43.187 (talk) 09:05, 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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chateau School[edit]

Chateau School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable private school, COI (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UralKazan1985/Archive, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rina Bovrisse). Fails WP:GNG. Yamasato Kyoshi (talk) 16:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 May 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Normal employment listing, glassdoor reviews of the school in Google; it exists, nothing near notability for our sources here though. Oaktree b (talk) 02:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination. The article is a short stub that does nothing to explain why this school is notable.TH1980 (talk) 03:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - fails every factor that I use for my standards for schools. Right now it's just spam. Bearian (talk) 19:02, 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. The source analysis has been very compelling and addresses the relevant policy NCORP and the keep votes are either assertions, not based on policy, reflecting the wromg policy GNG or, in the case of the single vote providing sources, successfully challenged. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G-Aerosports[edit]

G-Aerosports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I removed the speedy tag because there is a claim that new information has come up from the original deletion over four years ago. It still looks to me like there could be a WP:COI and the subject may not meet WP:GNG or another notability guideline. I'm unconvinced that the sources are independent and enough to meet the notability standards. I believe the article should be deleted but let's have a discussion first. Paul McDonald (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and Greece. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. The sources, listed as "External links/References", are a few photos, a couple of YT videos and an e-book written by (as it appears) the user who created the article (this is an indication of COI, too; please, note that yesterday the same user created the Greek WP article as well). ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 09:28, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a legitimate manufacturer, which, in the meanwhile, has introduced new models and has an agreement for production under license in Canada - definately incrasing its notability. Please do note that there are hundreds of such articles in Wikipedia - there are even articles for makers of a single test sporting aircraft or a single vehicle. I see no reson why such articles should be deleted.Skartsis (talk) 18:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Skartsis "Legitimate manufacturer" has nothing to do with notability; it could have been illegal and notable. The "hundreds of such articles in Wikipedia" is an argument to avoid: the existence of other articles that their subject may lack notability doesn't justify keeping this article. To me the creation of this article by you looks like a product of WP:COI, it has to do with listing you e-book as a source. I might be wrong, but that was the first thing that crossed my mind when you created the Greek article (now deleted). ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Skartsis Also, if notability is met there's still the potential WP:COI issues that would be reason for removal of the article. I applaud your enthusiasm--do you have anything for us to consider about WP:COI?--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Chalk19 and Paul McDonald I removed reference to my book (this was added only to provide additional reference, makes no difference to me - you may have seen that now it is an open access eBook on Academia). Also, I personally asked the manufacturer (through the e-mail in its website) to provide written permission for the images, as demanded by an editor. Was this that lead to the claim of "suspected connection"? You may as well delete the article, if you still believe so. Of course, I will repeat that this approach could lead to the deletion of a big part of Wikipedia. Regarding similar makers, random examples are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganzavia_GAK-22_Dino (a single ultralight aircraft made) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus_EDA_100_Flamingo (incomplete development of an ultralight aircraft). I will not argue further, and respect any decision. Skartsis (talk) 07:36, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep I just added six new RS, including one from a reliable Spanish aviation magazine, one from HuffPo.gr, and another from newsbomb.gr. Now the citations are 10. Ten citations are a lot of citations. What's more, the coverage is persistent and spans from 2011 up to 2022, indicating lasting notability. This company has created a stealth kit aeroplane which is quite popular and notable. One of its founders is a retired policeman with no aviation experience. I will try to expand the article whenever I get some time. This is a very interesting and notable company. I will close by noting that Mr. Skartsis has no COI. His book is freely available online. He doesn't stand to profit from this endeavour. In fact, Mr. Skartsis has resuscitated the knowledge base of the old industrial base of Greece by creating articles on en.wiki. His multitude of Greek automobile and industrial articles on en.wiki is a testament to his extensive knowledge, experience, and dedication. I know that, due to cultural bias, Greek manufacturers are not particularly known in North America. I am pleased that, at least, the article was not CSD'ed. That would be too much cultural bias. Dr. K. 22:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dr.K. At least many of the new references added are not from relable sources (ellines.com, ipop.gr, newsbomb.gr). The coverage on the subject looks like just a reproduction of the point of view of the company, based on YT viedos, company statements etc. For example, presenting this aircraft as the "Greek Stealth bomber fighter" (huffingtonpost.gr), is just ridiculous in my opinion. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 09:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think all 11 sources are reliable. In particular, non-trivial coverage in the Macedonia newspaper, Flyer magazine, Flying magazine, iefimerida.gr, etc., is indicative of the notability of the subject. HuffPo, newsbeast are also very reliable,. despite your objections. Same goes for the Spanish aviation magazine etc. Even if we subtract the sources you think are unreliable, there are more than enough remaining sources to establish the notability of this article, a fact you seem to de facto recognise, since you didn't say all the sources are unreliable. In any case, I get your POV, I think it is faulty, and I do not wish to continue arguing with you, especially since you seem eager to cause this notable article to be deleted using faulty arguments. You put this article for speedy deletion without doing any due diligence. If you had done so you would have discovered the reliable sources that myself and Mr. Skartsis found and you would not have put this article up for speedy deletion. Thankfully, you were overruled by an admin, Paul McDonald, and there is now a good chance that the article will be saved. Since you have a userbox at your userpage that you participate in AfD discussions, I advise you in future to be more careful when you tag articles for CSD. Also thankfully, we live in a wiki. Other knowledgeable users will undoubtedly chime in, so we don't need to continue this back and forth between us. Finally, you do not need to ping me. First, I find pinging annoying. Second, I have the page watchlisted and, if I wish, I respond. Dr. K. 09:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I don't understand why a simple article about an existing, legitimate company with so many references to it, has caused so heated arguments regarding its deletion. It is my turn to wonder why. At some point it even looked like not being familiar with all aspects of Wikepedia, which has tons of articles about individual vehicles or aircraft (even if a single copy was built) - fully corresponding to its spirit and mission. The entire, or most of the Category "Ultralight Aircraft", as well as many other entire Categories, should be deleted according to some of the arguments I read.Skartsis (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr.K. Flyer magazine [9] follows the same pattern as the sources I mentioned: just a reproduction of the company claims based on (a promotional ?) video ("The single-seater, again based on the video, lifts off slowly and needs little room to get back on the ground, all the better for making believe you’re ending the mission by catching the wire. For more info, check out the company’s site, www.aerosports.gr"). Furthermore, the subject of the added sources is a specific model, not the company as a whole. Don't see any really independent coverage on the subject. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 13:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are selectively cherry picking sources while ignoring the rest of the WP:RS that exist in the article. Read my previous response. The RS currently in the article do not cover the Archon Stealth kit only. They cover the designer and his history as well. You can benefit by reading them. Also, as I mentioned before, do not ping me. It is annoying. Dr. K. 16:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment my issue is that I'm not convinced that WP:COI and WP:GNG thresholds are met. I'm not convinced because the sources are in a non-English language on an English encyclopedia. I'm more than willing to be wrong here--maybe it DOES meet those thresholds and I'm just not able to confirm. But to me, if the supporting sources aren't in the language of the encyclopedia, that points to trying another wiki that has alignment with the language.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added one more English language source, and a link to the website of G-Aerosports U.S. Dealer (referring to the Canadian manufacturer that will produce one of its products under license for the North American market). Not notable??...In my eyes, so many sources and such documentation for such a subject, look almost ridiculous... I had said that I would not argue further, but I am puzzled by some of the arguments. It isn't about anybody's promotion (such articles are visited by 1-2 viewers a day, at best). It is about formal inclusion of a decent manufacturer in English WP's database, in exactly the same way so many (similar) others are included - and keep being added. If we favor (for whichever reason) deletion of an article, arguments can always be found.Skartsis (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (edit conflict) WP:TRYANOTHER nowhere mentions that a source must be in the English laguage to be acceptable and, in the absence of an English source, an article must move to the language of these sources. This is a stark misinterpretation of TRYANOTHER. WP:RS does not exclude reliable sources in other languages either. In fact, foreign language sources are widely used in Wikipedia articles all the time, and, sometimes, exclusively. If you don't believe me, ask WP:RSN about that. As far as COI, Mr. Skartsis has removed his book from the article. I don't see any vestiges of COI on his part. Dr. K. 15:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• My comments about trying another wiki are about finding the best home for the information. No, it doesn't talk about languages and such. It's not a policy or guideline, simply an essay of ideas.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• In the age of Google translate, I don't think foreign sources are such a challenge any longer. Thank you for the clarification. Dr. K. 16:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company. Also, unless blatantly obvious (e.g. Blog posts, no attributed journalist, Forbes contributors, etc), I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than just "RS" for establishing notability.

• Since the topic is a company/organization, we therefore require references that discuss the *company* in detail. As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
• "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.

None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company as follows:

• This from makthes.gr relies entirely on an interview with the founder, fails ORGIND
• Leaving aside any discussion on whether this from ellines.com is a reliable source, it also relies entirely on an interview with the founder and fails both ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
• This from ipop.gr is remarkably similar to the makthes.gr reference above and also relies entirely on an interview with the founder, fails ORGIND
• This from transponder1200.com describes one of the planes and does not provide in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
• This HuffPost reference repeats parts of an interview from another article and has no in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
• This from newsbomb.gr repeats information from another article on one of the aircraft from a blog (blogs fail WP:RS) and provides no in-depth info on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
• This from flyinmag.com comments on a video of one of the aircraft, no in-depth info on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
• This from flyer.co.uk repeats information about the same aircraft as the other refs above, no in-depth info on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
• This from all-aero.com fails for the same reasons, no in-depth info on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
• This from SIA Magazine also fails for the same reasons, no in-depth info on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
• This from iefimerida.gr also fails for the same reasons, no in-depth info on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
• Finally, this from makthes.gr relies on an interview, has no information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH

There is possibly a case for an article about the Archon aircraft itself but the topic company fails NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As I have said, the whole issue is about the "right" of a given company to be included in Wikipedia's database (which, through endless categories, tries to include even very small manufacturers). I have added yet one more reference. I suggest we all wait until the JULY 2022 OSHKOSH AIR SHOW, where a company model (Archon SF/1) will be presented, and see whether there is adequate publicity and reference.Skartsis (talk) 09:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The company is clearly notable, having produced some remarkable aircraft on very limited resources. Plenty of coverage in reliable sources also. Khirurg (talk) 22:59, 6 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 Yoga as exercise. Star Mississippi 13:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meditation and Yoga Retreat[edit]

Meditation and Yoga Retreat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

It's unclear what this page is about beyond what is covered in other more specific articles, e.g. Retreat (spiritual). Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 13:57, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 13:57, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.The article has been wrongly proposed for deletion. The subject of the article holds high importance in the current scenario in the public interest. Meditation and Yoga Retreat has been catching awareness of general public due to many benefits. These centres are situated across the world offering many services. Request to remove the tag.Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 04:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ari T. Benchaim. Hope you are doing well.Thanks for your time and suggestions on this. The article Retreat (spiritual) is very vast and doesn't cover the objectives in detail. It is a concept based article than activity based. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 07:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect I see the point about yoga retreats being a Thing - there's certainly sourcing for the topic. But I doubt we need a separate article. Seems to me all facets are nicely covered at the very well-developed Yoga as exercise, or could be covered there. So I'd suggest redirecting to that article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elmidae. Hope you are doing well. Thanks for your time and suggestions on this. The article Yoga as exercise covers many aspects of yoga. However the retreats doesn't include all of these, hence I feel this article is relevant in Wikipedia. Kindly guide. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 07:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect The way this article is constructed, there is not enough for a separate article. Meditation alone is an extremely large topic, and this article covers Yoga as exercise with dot points. Redirect is a sensible outcome. --Whiteguru (talk) 21:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Whiteguru. Hope you are doing well. Thanks for your time and suggestions on this. As replied above, I feel the article Yoga as exercise covers many aspects of yoga which are not covered during retreats,hence I feel this article is relevant in Wikipedia. Kindly guide. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 07:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gardenkur: With Yoga and meditation, you could examine the Spiritual Retreat article which , you will see, is in need of expansion. I would take note of Robert McClenon's good advice rendered below, should you decide to tackle that article. The thing that is most popular among adherents of many faiths is the Vipassana Retreat, which is somewhat along the lines of this article. You could take a look here, here and perhaps, here. We do not have a specific article addressing the Vipassana retreat which combines meditation and some yoga. It is worth exploring, although. The thing is that people from many faiths - and no faith - do attend and attest the value of these retreats. Hope this helps. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Whiteguru. Thanks for your reply. However if I consider as pointed out by Robert below 1. The article in brief highlights in general the purpose of 1.Meditation and Yoga retreats in simple way 2. Writing it focussed on any individual or group will make it promotional. The article has been sourced from various reliable sources to highlight the importance of such retreats organisation in general by any organisation. Kindly clarify. Gardenkur (talk) 10:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There are at least two problems. First, this reads like an essay or class paper rather than an encyclopedic article. It does not report what reliable sources say about the topic. It is not clear whether there would be an article if the views of reliable sources were reported, but this article does not do that. Second, the topic is unfocused, and it is not clear whether it is about retreat centers, individual or group outings to retreat centers, or what. The closer may decide whether to redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert McClenon. Hope you are doing well. Thanks for your time and suggestions on this. If the main concern as pointed out by you is agreed by others too, I will try to address that. However, as the concept of Yoga and meditation retreat is spreading globally, hence I feel this article is important as informational source in Wikipedia. Gardenkur (talk) 07:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:43, 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. Star Mississippi 13:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sarfoa Asamoah[edit]

Sarfoa Asamoah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, lack of WP:SIGCOV, possibly WP:NOTYET? Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 14:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 14:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and Ghana. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable beauty pageant winner.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lack of significant coverage as it fails to show WP:GNG. Fade258 (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2022 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Naesketchie[edit]

Naesketchie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

might be too soon, i dunno but the billboard article was surprising in that it appears to be nothing more than PR spam about Naesketchie and I'm surprised it was published. The rest are PR pieces from paid outlets/contributors/interviews. PRAXIDICAE💕 14:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and New York. Shellwood (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:36, 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 15:28, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oiseau Bay[edit]

Oiseau Bay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NGEO, but more importantly, the article is actually more about a non-notable resort, so also fails WP:NCORP. The "Advert" tag on top of the page has been there for 10 years! P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Quebec. P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As noted, the topic here is a cross between "small river inlet of strictly local notability that hasn't been shown to pass WP:NGEO" and "advertorialized profile of a rental cottage resort located on that inlet", and neither of those things are properly referenced as notable at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above; also, fails my standards for notable places. Every resort claims to be the best or most luxurious. This is barely disguised spam. Bearian (talk) 19:05, 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. Star Mississippi 13:28, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Tanner[edit]

Solomon Tanner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Struggling to see the notability on this one. The sources I've read (either as linked or having googled them) either don't mention the subject or just serve to verify his existence – NOT his notability. I can't see any real claims to notability in the article; perhaps there's something in the 'first mayor of Brownwood', but WP:NPOL says "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" and I can't see significant press coverage... MIDI (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Indiana. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete being the first mayor of a small community is not a sign of notability, and this article is too much built on primary sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - badly fails WP:GNG. Almost all sources are original. Why is this here? Bearian (talk) 19:08, 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 (as withdrawn).

List of census-designated places in Massachusetts[edit]

List of census-designated places in Massachusetts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

It has no context and is merely formatted like a category. More context, such as enclosing municipalities, history, county, etc, would greatly help. Compare it to List of census-designated places in New York (which has lots of info) or List of census-designated places in Indiana (which at least has the counties). Otherwise, there's no "there" there. —GoldRingChip 14:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Massachusetts. Shellwood (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No valid reason given for deletion. It would be great if someone added in the information so it was like the other list, however not required to exist. The rules are clear, you can't delete a list article because you prefer categories, both can exist. See Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. Dream Focus 15:54, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep viable list topic; Deletion is not clean-up. Djflem (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdawn. Good points all-around. I'll withdraw my proposed AFD and hope future editors will improve the list. —GoldRingChip 17:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Electronics in pop music[edit]

Electronics in pop music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Stub (that will become yet another list of genres), unnecessary fork from 'electronic' music, we also have multiple articles that address usage of electronic instruments/equipment etc. in popular forms of music. Acousmana 12:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Acousmana 12:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, is trying to be a dab page and article at the same time and doesn't end up being either. Redundant to other pages on the same topic. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Basshunter discography as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Life Speaks to Me[edit]

Life Speaks to Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NSONG. There are two non-trivial sources (might be a stretch on that too), Aftonbladet (ref #4) and EQ Music (ref #22). The remaining sources are all trivial mentions or lists of new music. The author provided some other sources on the talk page, but all those are also trivial references.

Note: this has previously been discussed at Template:Did you know nominations/Life Speaks to Me and Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Second_opinion_on_Life_Speaks_to_Me. Legoktm (talk) 05:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You did not refer to my last statement from 11:15, 9 May 2022 at Template:Did you know nominations/Life Speaks to Me or 11:23, 9 May 2022 at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Second opinion on Life Speaks to Me so? You have not referred to it above either so why start new discussion instead of referring to new information in previous discussions at Template:Did you know nominations/Life Speaks to Me and Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Second opinion on Life Speaks to Me? At this point this RfD is fake. What are we doing here? Eurohunter (talk) 08:08, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I read it at the time, just didn't have anything new to reply. The sources you mentioned are from reputable/reliable sources, it's just that they're trivial mentions that don't qualify for notability under WP:NSONG. For example, take the NetFan.pl source. It allocates about 3 sentences on the Life Speaks to Me song, spending more time detailing Basshunter's past accomplishments. That it also reads like a press release also gives it less weight it in my eyes. Then there are sources like tophit.ru which are just a list of top songs, don't really establish notability (I believe these don't qualify under WP:CHART, please correct me if I'm wrong). Legoktm (talk) 05:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Legoktm: TopHit is recommanded charts provider and the linked page is a article like in Billboard or Official Charts. Eurohunter (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Legoktm: "It allocates about 3 sentences on the Life Speaks to Me song" - I could say it's whole paragraph but what do you expect from article about new single? I think it's often like that in case of singles. Eurohunter (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. As for the validity of the discussion, deletion proposals and DYK proposals are two different conversations so this "RfD is fake" line makes no sense. QuietHere (talk) 02:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 12:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • @QuietHere: "deletion proposals and DYK proposals are two different conversations so this "RfD is fake" line makes no sense" - I did not refer to two places of discussion. I mean Legoktm just thought refernces are bad so for him it was not enough to notability. So I have checked these sources and provided additional information at talk page. He didn't not look at it and not answered - just nominated AfD - it's like it looks. Eurohunter (talk) 17:45, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should be atleast redirected. Eurohunter (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      That's not even what I was saying, I was saying that you calling this discussion "fake"/illegitimate and dismissing it with a "What are we doing here?" is silly and rude because starting an XfD shouldn't be negated by some other ongoing discussion unless that discussion is about fixing problems with the page that the XfD is also addressing. And besides, Legoktm already said they looked at the sources you provided and that they weren't any good so accusing them of ignoring you is baseless.

      As for redirecting, yes, do that. Dunno why that isn't just the default option anyway. If there's an artist/discography page then why wouldn't you redirect to it? QuietHere (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      @QuietHere: He had his arguments and I provided additional information to explain the situation - so in normal discussion you expect that he will provide any answer negative or positive, whatever. It's easy to say after that he not noticed improvements so he not answered. You expect an answer otherwise it can be considered as ignored. Without answer you don't know if for him nothing changed or he just ignored it. Eurohunter (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      @QuietHere: Let's be precise. "Legoktm already said they looked at the sources you provided" - he did it after I accused him. Eurohunter (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to artist. No attempt has been made to claim the validity of the sources in the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TenPoundHammer: How references are outdated? Eurohunter (talk) 17:45, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should be atleast redirected. Eurohunter (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Basshunter discography. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SBKSPP: What do you mean? Did you checked refernces? Eurohunter (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there not a rule against replying to every single person who responds to an AfD? QuietHere (talk) 19:48, 5 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 List of Hyderabad cricketers. (non-admin closure) — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nizam Yar Khan[edit]

Nizam Yar Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and India. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not even close to meeting GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Hyderabad cricketers. There are alternatives to deletion Mrs Lambert. StickyWicket (talk) 22:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AssociateAffiliate: Mrs Lambert? 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 23:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AssociateAffiliate: Yeah, JPL who seems incapable of voting anything other than delete in any and all AfD's! StickyWicket (talk) 09:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AssociateAffiliate: Nothing in their user page suggests to me they're a married woman. I take it you were trying to be insulting? 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Silly me, must have been a typo. StickyWicket (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Hyderabad cricketers Played 11 FC games in the 1940s/50s, but I'm not sure this would lead to enough significant coverage even in non-English or offline sources. Again a suitable WP:ATD has been ignored, another that could have been BOLDly redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious redirect to List of Hyderabad cricketers. Redirects are cheaper than "deleting" the page, there is an obvious ATD and this preserves the page history and allows the article to be re-created if sources do emerge. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:50, 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 10:23, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asif Akbar (film director)[edit]

Asif Akbar (film director) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not a single source or claim in the article indicate the subject is notable. Promotional toned article on a non-notable subject. Fails WP:GNG. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bangladesh, and California. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Dearest one,

  I tried to find all the notable clues and I found a few. Popular US film news outlets (such as Deadline, Scriptmag, Prnewswire, The Daily Star, Dhaka Tribune) have featured various news articles about him. There is no question about his notability. Atiqul Islam Sakib (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No independent significant coverage to establish notability. The cited sources are interviews without independent analysis by the interviewer, or passing mentions, mostly in regurgitated press releases hyping one upcoming film or another. The deepest, Prothom Alo, contains a scant five sentences about Akbar. The two movie reviews don't blame him explicitly for The Commando being "spectacularly atrocious ... distinguished by an incompetence" and being filled with "egregious implausibilities and cliches" and "pernicious nonsense", but he presumably bears some responsibility. This hagiography cherry picks from the reviews to support the statement that he wrote, directed, and produced the film, but with nary a hint that his effort "will appeal only to connoisseurs of 'how bad can it be?' cinema". --Worldbruce (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]