< November 28	November 30 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shaharon Anuar[edit]

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

There's one decent article, regarding him being a policeman and actor, but the rest are simple mentions. Searches did not turn up enough to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

which decent article, regarding him being a policeman and actor? Normal rookie (talk) 13:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Police, and Malaysia. Skynxnex (talk) 15:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can remove Articles for deletion for this article, because i feel enough sources. Normal rookie (talk) 06:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone reply me? Normal rookie (talk) 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Comment - still does not meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why still not reach WP:GNG? Normal rookie (talk) 11:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:NACTOR through his roles in Gerak Khas and Roda-Roda Kuala Lumpur. Additionally, there is this and this which appear to be SIGCOV. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 02:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Found another article here. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 05:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but It already have the reference you mentioned at the top. Normal rookie (talk) 07:19, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—On top of the sources found, there's a couple other stray mentions. Wasn't able to find another significant independent source to satisfy GNG to my eyes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please eleaborate on how the sources I have listed above are not enough for GNG? Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 13:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as failing notability, especially in regard to GNG and ACTOR. MurrayGreshler (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please elaborate on how he fails GNG despite the sources I have listed above? Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 13:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree that this subject seems to fail notability. Much of the listed filmography does not seem to be notable in of itself Olivierjohnston (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)(sock strike Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Olivierjohnston, you are a brand new editor, how did you find your way to this AFD discussion? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not agree to delete this subject, why already have sources still not to be notable, I don't understand the notable standard regarding this subject. Normal rookie (talk) 13:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources needs to be 1) Reliable (Articles titled "Sample Page Title doesn't really seems like trusty source of information); 2) Independent (No blatant flattering of the subject); 3) Significant Coverage of the subject; and 4) Demonstrate the significance of the subject. Vast majority of the sources cited for this article did not pass these four points. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 14:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes criteria 1 of WP:NACTOR and WP:SIGCOV per the sources provided above by Somebodyidkfkdt. Not seeing a well argued delete vote given the evidence provided which does address the subject directly and in detail. The delete vote above by David Fuchs erroneously claims these are passing mentions (or perhaps he didn't look at these and was referring to sources he himself located elsewhere?) Anuar is the main subject of these publications.4meter4 (talk) 14:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Out of the 13 sources cited for this article, only the first one constitute an independent, reliable and in-depth coverage of the subject. Source 2 is a short article about him still being alive, and seems pretty unnecessary since it did not provide any crucial information that is not given by source 1; The archived version of Source 3 did not mention the subject at all; The contents in Source 4 bears suspicious resemblance to those of source 1; Concerning Source 5, the wording of the title and the inclusion of "Kacak" (Handsome) in the first caption makes me doubtful of this website's reliability, and not to mention the Same exact article was used as Source 8. The same problem happens with Source 6, where the title "Sample Page Title" does not strike confidence in the readers, not to mention that the subject was only referenced once in the whole article. Sources 7 and 12 are straight-up defunct. Sources 9, 10, 11 and 13 are fine, but I'm not sure if the honors are notable enough to pass WP:ANYBIO. I could not find any published biography about the subject, and the news articles that I could find had only trivia mention of the subject. This Wikipedia article needs a major improvement at the very least, and if the quality can not be improved by editors in the next few days, I would suggest Delete. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 14:15, 7 December 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 23:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lapse: Confessions of a Slot Machine Junkie[edit]

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

Article on a non-notable short film, created by an WP:SPA. There are no valid sources in the article, and searches turned up no coverage or reviews in reliable sources, thus it fails the WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. It was WP:PRODed shortly after its creation in 2013, but the article creator contested it, so it must go to AFD. Rorshacma (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 03:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I couldn't find sufficient in-depth sources to show notability. Suonii180 (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Newport[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The only source cited is IMDB, which Wikipedia does not recognize as a reliable secondary source. I could not find any secondary sources about the subject of this article, only a few primary sources; this makes it impossible to write an article about him that isn't sourced exclusively from statements he has made about himself and statements made by people and groups with which he is associated. Furthermore, the article reads like a press release. JMB1980 (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lots of hits in GNewspapers in 1996 about what looks like the movie talked about here in 2005. I think the dates given in the article are wrong. Sort of GNG, depending on what the articles are about. Oaktree b (talk) 23:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Those articles seem to be about the movie and not about him. An article about the movie that briefly mentions him would not qualify as the "significant coverage" required to meet WP:GNG criteria. My understanding is that he wasn't directly involved with the movie, but the screenwriter may have been inspired to write it based on an article (presumably written by or about Jerry Newport); this is claimed in the Wikipedia page about the movie, but no source is cited to confirm it.JMB1980 (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Arizona. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability. -Roxy the dog 09:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Ragusea[edit]

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

Article does not satisfy WP:GNG. Also falls short of WP:ANYBIO, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:ENT. Clarysandy (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Actors and filmmakers. Clarysandy (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete had hope for Slate magazine, but they look like interviews. Oaktree b (talk) 23:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. High-profile YouTubers are not automatically notable, but coverage already listed in the article in Slate, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and WMAZ-TV appears in-depth, independent, and reliable, enough for a pass of WP:GNG. An interview is in-depth coverage. There is nothing in GNG saying otherwise. This "interviews don't count" thing exhibited by Oaktree's comment above is pure superstition with no basis in guidelines or policy. Additionally, coverage in Mashed [1] and Macon Magazine [2] and more interviews on WUOT [3] and PBS [4] may also count towards GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:PRIMARY, interviews are considered primary sources, so they do not establish notability (per WP:GNG: "Sources" should be secondary sources). Also, it seems you linked to the wrong Mashed article. Is this the one you were looking for? ArcticSeeress (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @ArcticSeeress: Except that WP:PRIMARY doesn't note that not all interviews are primary sources. WP:INTERVIEWS is the closest policy here that makes this distinction, and that essay states that interviews can vary in terms of primary and secondary material (like primary material from the interviewee and secondary commentary from the interviewer), meaning they should be evaluated by a case-by-case basis. And some of the interviews posted here have secondary material that establish his notability. PantheonRadiance (talk) 10:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - To be fair though, the first Slate source looks like a Q/A interview which consists mainly of answers from Raguesa himself. The AJ-C article is definitely in line with a secondary source-like interview, and so is the Macon Mag article and this source. While yes, they do include statements straight from him, these sources also add extra commentary from the writer too. It's pretty hard for journalists to write articles about a person without at least adding info from the person themselves - that's the whole point of secondary sources in the first place. PantheonRadiance (talk) 07:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I wrote this article rather prematurely when I was in high school, so, yes, it could do with some work, but the above users have shown that there is a good amount of stuff to work with. Furthermore, his name has become a sort of standard, as this article from Michigan Daily makes clear when it cites him alongside J. Kenji Lopez-Alt as household names. That's certainly notability of a sort. puggo (talk) 14:01, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Internet, and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - technically can keep due to a minimum number of quality sources. Bearian (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:SIGCOV in RS Bruxton (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Integration and Application Network[edit]

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

Unnotable initiative, I couldn't find any info about it on google news or on a google search besides their official page. Fails WP:GNG `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 18:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Websites, and Maryland. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 18:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since the Integration and Application Network is closely affiliated with University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, much of the articles are under UMCES, or under UMCES-IAN. If you search UMCES-IAN on google news, you'll see currently 129 results, mostly where the image library symbols were used and are being cited. Additionally, since IAN allows all of their publications to be available for free download, they host their reports and newsletters directly on their website instead of using a third party. 98.117.199.223 (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, 129 results and almost all of them are from the offical website and the other ones cannot be used as a source, so it is deemed unnotable.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 04:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see enough secondary support Flibbertigibbets (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a bizarre article, so filled with buzzwords and meaningless drab. But also fails GNG. SWinxy (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Lots of discussion here but the only area of consensus I see is that this article could stand a few good editors trimming it down and working on the sources. Please don't take this No Consensus as an invitation to launch a 2nd AFD soon, this discussion has been relisted twice and I doubt there will be a different outcome in the near future. I think editors need to be encouraged to pay attention to the constructive criticism here and work on improving this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sexton Blake bibliography[edit]

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

Simply a list of books with no indication of importance, see WP:NOTDIRECTORY FishandChipper 🐟🍟 13:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Bibliographies, and Comics and animation. Storchy (talk) 13:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point, that may be true for Holmes and Poirot but most of the books on the Hardy Boys' page are not linked to anything.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hardy_Boys_books

The Sexton Blake Bibliography builds on the information provided on the Sexton Blake page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexton_Blake

It expands on the Publication History section of that entry.

It also has ties to Jack Trevor Story, John G. Brandon, Michael Moorcock, Maxwell Scott, Harry Blyth, William Murray Graydon and others who contributed to the Blake saga. Sexton Blake was the most popular detective of the first half of the twentieth century.

A Blake charcter is also listed here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsieur_Zenith

It also has links to several of the key boys' storypapers on Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Jack_(magazine)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funny_Wonder

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boys%27_Herald

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boys%27_Friend

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nelson_Lee_Library

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sexton_Blake_Library

This is the most complete list of Blake titles anywhere. Nml25 (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a discussion about the article Sexton Blake this is a discussion about article Sexton Blake bibliography. I don't care about those other aricles as they only serve to promote the existance of Sexton Blake, which is fine as far as I can tell. You also say that "This is the most complete list of Blake titles anywhere." so you clearly need to brush up on WP:NOTDIRECTORY. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 14:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are correct; there is no indication of importance.

I do not know how to write anything for wiki, but Sexton Blake stories were popular worldwide in the early 1900s. They were distributed worldwide. They were entertaining and educating---I know because I have researched and republished nearly 200 of these stories. (See Lulu.Com and search for " Teed") (G. H. Teed)

'Collectors' Digest' was a magazine by UK magazine enthusiasts. It was in circulation for a couple of decades, circ 1960s. There are probably more than a handful of articles on Sexton Blake (and Teed) and his 'history'. I believe if we can have one Baker Street detective, then we can have a second!

Please remember Blakes history/popularity, predates radio and television. The popularity of these magazines at the time was enormous. I know that Teed authored stories were translated into a number of languages. Frizzled (talk) 14:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again this is not a discussion about Sexton Blake, this is a discussion about the article Sexton Blake bibliography. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 14:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's also extremely suspicious for you to come out of a 4 year long hiatus to randomly comment in defence of this article. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 14:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if these changes are what you are looking for Nml25 (talk) 07:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've just added a discription without giving any indication of notability. It's not at all what I was looking for FishandChipper 🐟🍟 07:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The descriptions are of milestones in the detective's career. They are notable in the development of the charcaters reputation. The addition of Tinker in 1904 helped established the boy sidekick as a key feature in detetctive tales in the boy story papers. The creation of recurring super villains in 1913 brought in the age of master criminals which subsequently influenced super villains in the comic book industry. Nml25 (talk) 10:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand. Notoriety is made by citations and references. You just writing stuff doesn't mean squat if there's no sources to back it up. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 11:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the NOTDIRECTORY, I think you have cited the incorrect Wikipedia guidance. Bibliographies and Lists of Works are another matter.

There is nothing on notability in Lists of works article on wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists_of_works#Bibliographies

Basic list style – examples

Lists of published works should be included for authors, illustrators, photographers and other artists. The individual items in the list do not have to be sufficiently notable to merit their own separate articles. Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged....

Wikipedia also encourages list of works for fictional characters.

Tarzan for example. All of the adventures he starred in are listed on his page. Each entry is linked to an article. (not required by Wikipedia) Tarzan's notability is explained in the main Tarzan article

If you look at the entry for the individual work, entries are often very basic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarzan_the_Invincible

For Tarzan the Invincible.

Plot sumary, publciation date, turned into a comic book.

It seems to me the easiest thing to do is to append the full bibliography to the Sexton Blake page. This meets Wikipedia's aims that "Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged"

The fact that Blake appeared in 4000 tales would make the Sexton Blake entry rather long, that is why I created a unique page for the Sexton Blake bibliography.

The fact that Blake appeared in 4000 tales is notable in its own right as no other detective has reached or surpassed that number of appearances in works of fiction.

I understand your argument, but I think it misrepresents wikipedia policy. Lets bring in some of your colleagues and get their opinion. Nml25 (talk) 13:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my habit or hobby to write Wiki articles. I am retired and follow a number of activities which draw me to Wiki for research. http://ghteed.blogspot.com/ is a site that has both some of G. H. Teed's stories and some of the articles from 'Collector's' Digest' which support and explain the sequencing of the Sexton Blake stories. Frizzled (talk) 18:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For what it’s worth, the book The men behind boys' fiction talks about the list of authors of Sexton Blake, which is closely related to the bibliography. Also, the Blakiana website presumably counts as a reliable case of a self-published source, as the author Mark Hodder is recognized as an established subject-matter expert e.g. by this academic source.

The question I ask myself is, what's the quality of our list here compared to that compiled by Mark Hodder? Should we rather refer interested readers to that list or not? Daranios (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of a mind with Daranios here, I think: this is an interesting topic that should not be lost from memory, but this list seems overly long and detailed. That is, we don't need to know the issue of every story to cover this character/series/phenomenon appropriately... but still, the list looks like a labor of dedication and love. Is there somewhere it can be transwiki'ed? Jclemens (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As cynical as it may seem, it doesn't really matter how long an article is or how much effort someone put into it, so long as it not encyclopedic it has no place here. It would definatly be much better suited somewhere else, but not here. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 18:53, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FishandChipper is quoting the wrong guidance. He should use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists_of_works#Bibliographies

"Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged...."

WP:NOTDIRECTORY does not apply. This is a bibliography related to a character, not a directory of people. Nml25 (talk) 23:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS is for an AUTHOR's bibliography, not a character's. Either way if you look at any other bibliography you'll see that they don't list every single one individually. For example you have every single issued release of a story listed which is overkill. Besides that your "bibliography" doesn't actually give any additional info beyond title, author and publisher, the latter of which is incredibly redundant as there have only ever been two publishers ever as far as I can see. This article needs to be completley rewritten to adhere to standards so rather than delete the article I will place it into a draft such that the issues may be fixed. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 06:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the Wikipedia page for all the Star Trek Novels ever published. Why the double standard?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Trek_novels

Is the StarTrek page overkill as well? 'Overkill' is relative. You don't know what a researcher is going to research.

Wikipedia has no limit on the amount of titles that can be included in a bibliography, whether that's of a character or a real person. If

There is much information to add, links to more authors, debut of key characters etc, but it won't be worth doing if the page is goign to be deleted.

Plus once the list is complete others can co-construct knowledge and add entries on books, publishers etc as they see fit.

Just as a note: there were two Blake publishers up until 1964. After that several more publishers began to publish or republish his adventures. Nml25 (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the record I also think that that Star Trek article has no place being here either. It's completely non-encyclopedic just like this article. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 18:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fascinating bibliography, and thank you for your hard work. Have you considered exporting this to Wikidata and using Listeria for a more robust list linked to the WP of this character? I think that's a cool idea compared to a static Wikipedia page. Cheers! Prburley (talk)
Comment — This page takes up 866,146 bytes, or almost a full megabyte, on Wikipedia. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's currently by far the largest page on Wikipedia, nearly 200,000 bytes longer than the second longest. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 08:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There should be some kind of award Nml25 (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An award for putting strain on the Wikipedia servers? FishandChipper 🐟🍟 21:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strain? This is one page of 57 million.

You still haven't posted your notice to have the List of Star Trek novels deleted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Trek_novels

Once you've done that move to have the List of Doc Savage novels deleted as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Doc_Savage_novels

Be true to yourself. Live your values. Nml25 (talk) 09:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Star Trek novels page is still well sourced and is more than just a bibliography. This page is just a list with nothing else of substance other than a few (unsourced) statements. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 11:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen more than two publisher, so I think including that is not a waste, but takes up a lot of space. I think the size of the article could be significantly reduced through normal editing by just combining identical entries of authors and publishers following each other. Daranios (talk) 12:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, listing every single issue of a single story makes no sense. Instead of putting "Part 1, Part 2, Part 3..." just like all the parts as one. Sorting it by year doesn't really make much sense either I think. Rather sort by "era" or arc. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 12:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FishandChipper and Nml25: I was more thinking of combining adjacent cells with identical content like that, but combining serials makes sense, too. Daranios (talk) 16:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Combining serials is the only correct way to end this. I think. The vast majority of individual books seem to be of little significance but combining every book in a serial into one is ok. I still think they shouldn't be organized by year either. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 17:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work Darianos. I added some sample notes into the tables you adjusted. Check if the content is easily readable.

I think the breakdown by year is important. It visually displays the evolving importance of Blake in popular fiction. It also makes it easier to locate books in the various Blake eras.

1893-1894 Pre Sherlockian

1895-1912 Sherlockian

1913-1919 Age of Master Criminals Begin

1920- late 1930s Golden age

1940s End of Master Criminal Era

1950s -1963 The James Bond Blake Nml25 (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Unsourced' comments relate to content in the story, that one gets from reading the story. They relate to charcaters, plot points etc. They are not opinion. They are fact. They are blurbs with some notes as is the practice with the list of Doc Savage novels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Doc_Savage_novels

Combining serials makes sense as I have done for the first decade of Blake publications

Sorting by year makes sense as this removes the need to type in year of publication for each title. Nml25 (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, obvious repository. Summarising his notable appearances, and important differences between them, may be done on the main article; having a dedicated list to every single one is unnecessary.

JJLiu112 (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nml25:

"1893-1894 Pre Sherlockian

1895-1912 Sherlockian

1913-1919 Age of Master Criminals Begin

1920- late 1930s Golden age

1940s End of Master Criminal Era

1950s -1963 The James Bond Blake"

These are literally a far superior way of organising the books. Look at any other bibliography and they are sorted by era rather than exact year. If somebody were to come along looking for a specific book, it would be a lot easier to find if they were organised like this.

Also, I hate to be rude cause clearly you are a huge fan of Blake, but he's evidentially not as important or well known as you believe he is. Compared to Sherlock Holmes (who gets 150,000 pageviews per month on average), the main Sexton Blake article only gets 1700 pageviews per month on average.FishandChipper 🐟🍟 04:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But some aspects of this page need to be cited or removed. Statements, like this one under 1904: "This year marks the beginning of what will become one of the greatest detective teams in boys' popular fiction." have to be sourced, as well as headings of this nature: "2009 The Era of Anthologies of Classic Tales Begins". Those smack of original research. Lamona (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly every single thing on this page cannot be proven to be true due to the fact that there are no citations for practially anything. I believe this should incubate in draftspace before returning as a real article, at the moment the article has far too many issues. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 04:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works can be applied to this fictional character as the closest analogy we have. The men behind boys' fiction could give some insight into the topic. I am somewhat concerned that this page is duplicating THE SEXTON BLAKE BIBLIOGRAPHY by Mark Hodder, but the notes, such as they are, set it apart. As has been stated above, evaluating comments need secondary sources. On the other hand, plot summaries and publication information can be verified through the primary sources. Pinging @Nml25 and Frizzled: You have argued for the preservation of this article, but not clearly indicated what your opinion is. Maybe you still want to do this? Daranios (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that the content is of public value. Hodder's THE SEXTON BLAKE BIBLIOGRAPHY is of course of immense value to Blake fans and researchers. It does however contain a few gaps and author misattributions. It is also in private hands and should the website be taken offline for whatever reason, as has happened in the past, that content will be lost forever. This bibliography does not attempot to duplicate that work. It does not even come close to the detail. Wikipedia is a departure point for inquiry and research, for both academic and non-academic purposes. It is also the first thing that pops up in a google seach of Sexton Blake. The bibliography seeks to be through and piant a more accurate picture of Blake's impact on popular culture. One cannot predict what researchers intend to research. Providing a complete bibliography, with key characters, blurbs, etc may open new avenues of inquiry. There is of course more character information to add, once the final format/headings of the tables is agreed upon. Why does Sexton Blake matter? Can probably be best answered in Boys Will Be Boys: The Story of Sweeney Todd, Deadwood Dick, Sexton Blake ... available on google books... Nml25 (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like you have the wrong view of what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not a repository for lists with blurbs, nor is it a place of debate. It is an encyclopedia. It doesn't create debate, it records debate. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 16:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
People here have been helpful. Lamona and Daranios have offered ideas and constructive criticsm. Prburley made help suggestions and Frizzle also had positive contributions to say. Thanks!

FishandChipper: Most of your comments are unhelpful, some verge on bullying and others are just stupid.

FishandChipper quote: "Wikipdia is not a place of debate."

Interesting comment on a page created to invite comment and debate. What exactly are you talking about?

FishandChipper quote: Wikipedia is not a repository for lists

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bibliographies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bibliographies on Wikipedia.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia.

The Sexton Blake bibliography is modeled on these bibliographies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Trek_novels Actually called "List of Star Trek Novels" FishandChipper still hasn't posted his notice to have the List of Star Trek novels deleted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Doc_Savage_novels Actually called "List of Doc Savage novels" FishandChipper still hasn't posted his notice to have the List of Doc Savage novels deleted.

The Blake page is longer, much longer, and it's complete, just like the Star Trek page, just like the Doc Savage page.

And I've tried to keep to simple facts.

FishandChipper quote: The article puts "strain on the Wikipedia servers?" One article among 57,000,000 slowed the servers down to a chug did it?

FishandChipper quote: "The main Sexton Blake article only gets 1700 page views a month" The highly referenced page you created on Saoirse McHugh has a lifetime total (3 years) of 12,238 views, which is what Blake does in ten months. I'm not quite sure what your point is... a topic is only of value on Wikipedia if you've heard of it?

It doesn't seem to me like FishandChipper has final say on whether or not the article gets deleted. Too much of what he's written has been justifiably ignored. Maybe someone could clarify that for me. He also comes across as incredibly angry, far too angry for someone who should be impartially evaluating content. Dude, seriously.

Sexton Blake still makes the papers from time to time. Here's a recent mention in the Washington Post dated Nov 2022. https://www.washingtonpost.com/books/2022/11/18/dirda-old-books/ Nml25 (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article, the underlying Sexton Blake article, and the individual articles need to be better referenced. I added some links to Google Books sources on the talk page of the Sexton Blake article. Nml25, I think you should concentrate on adding references ASAP to protect the articles here. I did add a few references to the Blake and the bibliography articles, but I'm far outside my wheelhouse with this topic. Also, do look in various encyclopedias of literature/children's literature/film as inclusion in those can support notability and may be sources of specific facts like dates. Lamona (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arkema[edit]

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

Reads like a non-overt attempt at WP:PROMO attempt at finding a clean reversion to revert back to as per a suggestion at my talk page failed as I can't find one. Article was originally created back in 2008 by a user with the same name as the company thus was originally created in violation of WP:COI and WP:PAID even back then, possibly a large amount of the ips and some of the other accounts were Coi and paid editors, given this history I would say even if notable, delete per WP:TNT. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Science, and France. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, slim down. Unsalvageable promotion is a horse of an entirely different colour. The History section is useful and largely sourced, the Organization section could stand a little removal of management speak but is otherwise also fine. Subsidiaries section needs sourcing and cutting out all the "leading this and that" verbiage, otherwise it should be removed. Worldwide section is generally to the point and factual. Lots of primary sourcing but enough outside coverage to show notability and prevent this from being too much of an in-house production. I don't see anything here that can't be fixed. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Arkema is a constituent of the CAC Next 20. All other companies in this index, bar one, have a Wikipedia article (per the CACNext20 box), so fulfills WP:NOT. Yes, the article likely originated from a company rep or such but much of the promotional blurb was removed soon after, see [5] and later edits. Easier to build on and edit what's already here than start from scratch. Rupples (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to put some effort into improving the article, (and can start work on it now), but loath to do so while under threat of deletion. Would @Lavalizard101 be prepared to withdraw the nomination at this time? I acknowledge the point about starting a new article but don't start new articles myself. ~~If the article, despite my contributions is not up to standard then by all means renominate. I'd be disappointed but hopefully learn something.~~ I've no connection with Arkema - infact, first heard of the company from the AfD nomination page. Rupples (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC) Rupples (talk) 08:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rupples: It's perfectly fine to improve an article while it's at AFD - after all, the best outcome is if we end up with an additional article. Since I don't think anyone is challenging the notability here, a neutral article on the topic would be fundamentally suitable for mainspace. You could also always make a copy and work on it in your user space. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rupples: I would be fine with withdrawing the nomination for you to work on it. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lavalizard101. Thanks for the above. Must admit this is looking more difficult than I first envisaged. The problem is lack of independent sources; most coverage is self-published. I can remove the management speak/promo wording and rewrite in a NPOV the (presumably) factual info, but is that enough to make a decent article? As I haven't previously edited in this area, I'm currently looking at Wikipedia articles on other companies to see what's normally included and the sources used. Rupples (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My view remains keep but after examining the article's history I understand why nominator Lavalizard101 felt the need for a rewrite from scratch. Searches on Google are not that much help in finding independent information. Sources available through the Wikilibrary are, and I'm more optimistic than previously. Arkema being French-based may not have had widespread coverage in English language news sources but I suspect more is available in French. The history section is useful and although some of the presently cited sources no longer exist, there are others which support the accuracy of the timeline as written. One point I've found interesting from the article's history is that one of the apparently 'involved' writers used the term "France's top chemical producer" see [[6]]. Arkema is revamping its image by removing references to chemicals, so now it describes itself as a provider of specialty materials and the Industrial Chemicals segment has been renamed. Losing the article history may not be a good idea. Rupples (talk) 04:11, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addas[edit]

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

No sources included showing WP:SIGCOV in reliable and secondary sources. A WP:BEFORE search also shows no such coverage. BilledMammal (talk) 11:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, Islam, and Saudi Arabia. BilledMammal (talk) 11:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge/redirect~~ to List_of_non-Arab_Sahabah#Assyrian, which contains almost as much the same information. I assume this is a case where nothing else is known of the subject, so that designation as a stub is an invitation to add WP:OR. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Addas is one of the sahaba and this is a real story and person. It’s not a hoax. He’s known for caring for and sheltering Muhammad when he was attacked in Taif. Any seerah is going to have this story, so he does not fail BEFORE. Here, here, here, here, here, here, here in Tabari. There is also Adaas mosque in Taif and this nasheed. Zaynab1418 (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page 99 in Martin Ling’s seerah. Zaynab1418 (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's important that the sources are in the article and not just in this discussion. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 23:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact the article is poor quality doesn’t mean it should be deleted and no one has had time to improve it substantially because it was only nominated today. Zaynab1418 (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found most of those sources in my WP:BEFORE search, but as seerah's they are not reliable sources. BilledMammal (talk) 01:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is a seerah not a reliable source? These are books by established authors and publishing houses. If seerah weren’t an acceptable source we couldn’t have a biography of Muhammad, his wives, his children, family members, etc. Zaynab1418 (talk) 02:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because they present myth as fact; see my response to Jclemens below. BilledMammal (talk) 02:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is mythological or miraculous in this story though. There’s no reason to think the person of Addas was made up. Also, all pre-modern sources are religious and by religious people and will often include accounts of miracles and hagiography. Modern accounts are going to be based on these pre-modern religious accounts, so it would be impossible to have articles about any pre-modern religious figures.

like by your logic the page on Rabia should be deleted. Rabia is presented in sources as performing miracles and all original sources about her are religious and hagiographic. So then these sources can be thrown out and modern sources based on these religious pre-modern sources can also be thrown out. So we should delete the page for Rabia then. Let’s also delete every article about a pre-modern Dalai Llama. Zaynab1418 (talk) 02:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the current lack of development on the article and also the limited amount of information about Addas, I support merging and redirecting to List_of_non-Arab_Sahabah#Assyrian. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 23:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Google Books sources appear RS, even if they're reliably describing a religious tradition. Notability does no depend on the sate of the article, contra A.WagnerC, per WP:NEXIST. I'm not enough of a topical expert to evaluate standalone vs. merging as optimal presentation, so I offer no opinion on that possibility. Jclemens (talk) 01:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Google Book sources recite religious scripture. For example, the first one presents Isra' and Mi'raj in detail as fact, and concludes by describing it as a miracle that is deemed true and solid by all scholars. The messenger of Allah went on this journey with his body and soul., rather than the myth that it is; these cannot be considered reliable sources. BilledMammal (talk) 01:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By this logic maybe we shouldn’t have an article about Muhammad and also Ali, Husayn, Fatima, Abu Bakr, Umar, Aisha, etc because all the original sources are religious. Even secular authors like Karen Armstrong are sourcing their biographies from religious sources (Ibn Ishaq). It would be impossible to have articles on any pre-modern Muslim figures by this standard. Show me where the Wikipedia standards say that a source cannot be religious in nature. Most people follow some religion today and even more in history. Zaynab1418 (talk) 02:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to show you: [7]. We can't use religious texts. We can use scholarly discussions about these texts and elements contained in them, but we can't use them directly. Oaktree b (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain what you mean by religious sources, but the issue is sources that make WP:FRINGE claims, such as claiming that the story of Isra' and Mi'raj is factual. There are sources that cover religious figures without making fringe claims, and we rely on those sources to write articles on figures like Muhammed, Ali, Husayn, etc. BilledMammal (talk) 02:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There’s no miraculous claims being made in relation to the story of Addas. There’s no “Fringe theory” being presented. All the events are totally plausible and non-miraculous. No Fringe theory is being promoted. I also don’t think this is the intention of fringe theory because a fringe theory is a non-mainstream and non-factual claim, like that say the earth is 6,000 years old or big foot is real.

Reliable sources do not have to be unbiased.

” However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context.”

Your personal feelings on these sources are not reflective of Wikipedia policy. Zaynab1418 (talk) 03:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
a fringe theory is a non-mainstream and non-factual claim, like that say the earth is 6,000 years old or big foot is real. Or that the story of Isra' and Mi'raj is factual? BilledMammal (talk) 03:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What does that have to do with Addas and his notability or not? No fringe theory is being promoted and you are arguing now any Muslim writer is an unacceptable source. A source being religiously biased does not mean it is not reliable. These are published books by notable publishing presses.

On the page for Ali, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, a religious Shi'ite is cited numerous times. Tabataba'i, Maria Dakake, Reza Shah-Kazemi, Tahera Qutbudin, Hossain Modaressi, are all religious and conservative Muslims cited. Momen and Lawson who are Baha'is are cited. Should we purge this article of most of its contents because they're fringe theorists for being religious? Zaynab1418 (talk) 04:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The connection is that the sources you are citing promote various fringe theories, making them unreliable.

fringe theorists for being religious no one is saying that being religious makes someone a fringe theorist; promoting fringe theories makes someone a fringe theorist. BilledMammal (talk) 05:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the article substantially and there are no fringe theories being promoted in the article. Addas appears in a massive number of books on Google Books. Again, an author being religious does not make them unreliable. All books have bias in some way. Isra and Miraj has nothing whatsoever to do with this article or the notability of this person or not. The issue with that you are saying is almost all the articles on the sahaba (and every other pre-modern religious figure) should be deleted then and any source expressing a religious belief is a "fringe theory". Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources by Lings is used as a source in numerous articles and he presents miracles as literally happening. When the Moon Split is used as a source many times. Zaynab1418 (talk) 05:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any Muslim then is unreliable and a fringe theorist because they would believe in miracles that occur in the Qur'an and by Muhammad (ex. Isra and Miraj, splitting the moon). Zaynab1418 (talk) 05:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're arguing against a strawman of my argument; my argument, backed by community consensus and policy, is that a source promoting fringe theories is unreliable. BilledMammal (talk) 06:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where does that page say any religious belief is a fringe theory? Isra and Miraj (has nothing whatsoever to do with Addas) and is not a conspiracy theory or fringe science. It’s just a religious belief. There is no consensus that any religious work is automatically unreliable and these works are cited many times. Religious bias does not make a source unreliable which is said in the Wiki policy I quoted.

I have not cited the Sultan of Hearts book you are complaining about at all. You seem to be deliberately misinterpreting Wiki policy to push an agenda. Zaynab1418 (talk) 06:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree bI am not citing religious scripture (Qur'an, the hadith) which is what your link refers to. Modern biographical works about Muhammad are not scriptural, authoritative, or primary sources. Books by writers like Mubarapuri, Lings, Armstrong, Haykal, and Adil are secondary scholarly texts based on primary historical sources. Maybe you should be less condescending since you don't appear to understand this topic and think someone from the 7th century will have works in Google scholar. Zaynab1418 (talk) 05:38, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only hits I find are Gscholar articles where someone with this name studies covid 19, I don't think that applies here. Oaktree b (talk) 03:53, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As above, using religious texts is a no-no here. [8]. You'd need to find scholars talking about these religious items so that we can use them as sources. Oaktree b (talk) 03:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This Addas from Ta'if who was a sahabah. Religious scripture (Qur'an) is not being used as a primary source. The sources I found are secondary sources by contemporary scholars. Modern biographies of Muhammad are not primary sources or scriptural. You appear not to have read the above discussion. Zaynab1418 (talk) 04:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When it gets to be that long, I glaze over it and make my own assessments. Short and to the point please. Oaktree b (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the article and the sources I’ve added. They are not scripture. They are modern biographies of Muhammad. I’ve substantially improved the article. Zaynab1418 (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment -- I approach this as a Christian, with little interest in promoting issues relating to Islam. WP:V requires potential verifiability, not actual detailed citations, though they should ideally be added. I voted above to redirect, because I had concerns as to the subject's notability. If a story has been past down within Islam from the time of Mohammed, it is safe to assume it is verifiable, quite as much as anything from the ancient world is. My concern was whether Addas was notable. As I look at the article now, there is probably too much content to merge into the list, but my concern as to notability remains. If the article contains as much as we can know about him, please remove any "stub" tag, as this is an invitation for WP:OR. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have read the debate above and I find it quite baffling. Those arguing that the page should be deleted appear to be saying that the sources are religious and therefore not reliable. That's a bogus value statement - plenty of pages on Wikipedia are about religious figures that other people think are mythical. The fact is that this character has commentaries written about him, therefore he is notable. He doesn't have to exist to be notable. One doesn't have to agree with the religious commentaries for the character to be notable. Keep. JMWt (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JMWt: The sources aren’t unreliable because they are religious, they are unreliable because they make fringe claims. Sources that make fringe claims are unreliable, regardless of whether they are religious or not.

For example, a source that claims the world is 6000 years old is probably religious, but it is unreliable because it is making fringe claims. BilledMammal (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not relitigating this ridiculous idea with you again. You are holding Islamic texts to a standard that Christian texts are not held to. "Fringe claims" have zero meaning when we are discussing religious texts. JMWt (talk) 06:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are required to base all articles, including articles covering religious topics, on reliable sources. There is also no exception that allows us to treat an unreliable source as reliable because it is on a religious topic - if it would be unreliable for secular topics, it is unreliable for religious topics.

You are suggesting that we should consider sources that treat the following claims as fact - rather than as religious beliefs - as reliable:

Why we cannot do this is obvious. If there are reliable sources that discuss Addas then we can keep this article, but in their absence we must delete it. BilledMammal (talk) 06:53, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you think you are proving. To take just one of your examples, Lazarus of Bethany is literally a page on WP, as is Thetan What's the difference? JMWt (talk) 07:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are discussed by reliable sources - sources which treat those beliefs as religious beliefs, rather than as fact. If you can find sources that cover Addas and don't treat beliefs like Isra' and Mi'raj as fact then are likely reliable and would count towards GNG, but so far no one has found such sources. BilledMammal (talk) 07:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well sorry your anti-Islamic bias doesn't work on me. I'm tired of this discussion. JMWt (talk) 07:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A minor folkloric figure with little evidence of notability. The available sources are either primary or more interested in storytelling (reciting scriptural accounts) than describing the topic properly as a character of folklore or religion. The fact that the article contains only a "biography" section reinforces that conclusion, and even if that were assumed to be 100% established fact, we would still be talking about a person known from only one event. I can't seem to find those "religious commentaries" mentioned above; do they exist at all? Avilich (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if rewrite somewhat. The story of Addas is in al-Tabari's History of the Prophets and Kings (GBooks link), which appears to be what everyone else is quoting in a roundabout way, so if nothing else, he is a minor character there. It would be nice to have a genuine scholar discuss if al-Tabari is the first place Addas appears in writing or if there are attested sources of the story earlier, but I suspect that even minor mentions in such a major work are Wikipedia-notable worthy of articles. Even from a strictly secular perspective, we correctly feature even minor characters in sufficiently old stories (pre-printing press) as potentially worthy of articles (e.g. David of Doncaster or the like) due to the general paucity of sources, meaning that what did survive is probably relevant. SnowFire (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated David of Doncaster for deletion for failing GNG, and because there is no SNG that supports keeping articles on characters who appear in major works but lack SIGCOV. BilledMammal (talk) 07:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To the extent this is meant as an argument on this particular AFD, the point was that there are thousands of other minor folklore characters who have excellent and well-sourced articles, and tens of thousands with at least the potential to do so. Again, from a strictly secular perspective, because many religious legends are studied so thoroughly, you can go to the library and pick up sources hypothesizing about random name-drops of a single unclear person referred to in one fragment somewhere. The odds of there being some "Encyclopedia and commentary of hadith" that covers even minor characters like Addas is basically 1, just with the added facet that some of these sources will be in Turkish/Arabic/Farsi/etc. (hence why I specifically picked a minor English folklore character). Wikipedia's coverage here of Islamic folklore is quite incomplete; I'm *agreeing* with you that it would be nice to have more scholarly sources, but the existing sources are certainly close enough for clearly demonstrating that GNG is met, and using more scholarly sources is more a way to make the article C or B class rather than Start class, rather than a cause for deletion. SnowFire (talk) 06:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the existing sources are certainly close enough for clearly demonstrating that GNG is met For GNG to be met, we need to have multiple sources that contain significant coverage of the subject and that are reliable, independent, and secondary. So far, we don't have any.

If suitable (probably scholarly) sources exist, and if they can be found, then the article can be kept or recreated - but until then keeping the article will introduce WP:NPOV and WP:OR issues. BilledMammal (talk) 06:11, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. The overall argument against the sources appears to be coming not from any valid scholarly critique, but one of anti-religious bias. Writers in the area of religion and theology are not automatically dismissed as unreliable RS, and claiming WP:FRINGE here is a stretch.4meter4 (talk) 14:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to have a problem here in which one side claims the sources are not scholarly, and the other claims they are and that the opponent is biased, but without providing evidence for either assertion. Which sources do you think are scholarly? Avilich (talk) 14:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem here, just an obvious double-standard which means some editors can claim things about Islamic sources that would never stand about literally anything else on Wikipedia. Take Glastonbury Thorn as yet another example. It's a story about Joseph of Arimathea which is entirely bogus and made up. And part of an English Christian folk tradition for which there are no sources other than repeats and reimagining the story. Or Balthazar_(magus) which is important tradtion to various Christian churches but for which there is no evidence that the name is anything to do with anything that actually happened 2000 years ago. So you tell me, what's the difference between 99% of WP pages about religious figures from hundreds of years ago, which may-or-may-not be entirely fabricated and this specific page about an Islamic character? There is objectively no difference. Addas is a well-known character from the Islamic religion. It's not a fringe idea. It's not something anyone here made up. It's a story which is important to the religion and goes back a long time. How is that not enough to satisfy the RS stipulation of the GNG? This whole discussion continues to mystify me given the very clear precedence with thousands of religious pages on enwiki. JMWt (talk) 15:47, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Being "important to the religion" and going "back a long time" carries no weight. The suggested sources simply retell scriptural narratives or are so old that they are barely secondary, and so cannot verify the claims of the article (see FRINGE again) or confer notability, just as nonreligious fictional characters don't get notability from plot recaps and are routinely deleted or merged. Avilich (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, have you started a RFC to remove *all* WP about minor religious characters on the basis that none of them have independent sources outwith of religious scholars? Of course not, because that would be an epic and probably pointless task. There is no reason to single out characters from Islamic tradition in this way. JMWt (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those article appears to have some reliable sources that don’t make fringe claims, but instead discuss what people believe. For example, see our article on modern flat earth beliefs. (Note that I’ve only skimmed those articles and their sources; if the sources aren’t reliable, then please nominate it for deletion.) BilledMammal (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No one is automatically dismissing writers in the area as unreliable. Instead, I am dismissing writers that make fringe claims, such as claiming that the Isra' and Mi'raj journey actually happened, rather than saying that Muslims believe it happened.

If you believe that this isn’t a fringe claim can you explain why you believe it isn’t, because it appears clear to me that claiming any religious miracle actually happened is a fringe belief, regardless of whether that miracle is related to Islam, Christianity, Scientology, or any other faith. BilledMammal (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BilledMammal, just wondering, if billions of people believe that a religious miracle actually happened, is it still "a fringe belief"? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Yes; fringe isn't based on the level of support the belief has, but on the level of support the belief has in reliable sources. For a non-religious example, consider holocaust denial. This is a fringe belief, and it is given as an example of a fringe belief on WP:FRINGE. However, the number of people who hold some holocaust denial beliefs is in the billions. BilledMammal (talk) 07:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is nothing like holocaust denial. It is exactly like every other page about religious character that appears on Wikipedia. The only difference is that apparently you discount Islamic scholarship as biased whereas you don't appear to weigh Christian scholarship in the same way. JMWt (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only difference is that apparently you discount Islamic scholarship as biased whereas you don't appear to weigh Christian scholarship in the same way

Please provide a diff supporting this claim. BilledMammal (talk) 08:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In [9] this diff you say that anyone believing in the Isra' and Mi'raj (ie a Muslim) is an unreliable source and therefore cannot be cited as a RS. In fact you go even further than that and claim that believers in a mainstream belief of Islam are promoters of "fringe" beliefs and are not RS even about the things they say they believe in including foundational stories and myths. JMWt (talk) 08:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BilledMammal according to you, Islamic pages about their beliefs can not only be written by people who don't believe them, they must use sources who don't believe them. This is madness. I move that we proceeduraly close this AfD as we are clearly never going to agree, and you go ahead and try to justify your view in a WP:RFC. JMWt (talk) 06:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't said any of that. All I have said is that articles must be written by reliable and secondary sources, and that sources that promote fringe theories - such as claiming that religious miracles actually occurred - are not reliable. BilledMammal (talk) 07:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are trying to tell us that there can never be sources that are anything other than fringe because according to you believers in these miracles can't be cited. This isn't a discussion about the current state of the page, it's an assertion by you that there can never be RS about this topic. JMWt (talk) 08:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I said. I've already had to ask you to strike personal attacks in this discussion; please don't add to that by falsely representing my position. BilledMammal (talk) 08:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Your position, which you've made repeatedly in this AfD to anyone who disagrees with you is extremely clear. JMWt (talk) 08:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a diff supporting this claim. BilledMammal (talk) 08:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that you've replied to everyone !voting keep? With the same points? No. JMWt (talk) 08:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My position is only that sources that make fringe claims are unreliable. Given your repeated misrepresentation of my position, and inappropriate and disruptive personal comments, I'm not going to engage with you further. BilledMammal (talk) 08:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of non-Arab Sahabah#Assyrian. I'm not exactly sure why previous editors who oppose to keep this article kept focusing on the reliability of religious writings, because with the sources currently provided there were still too little information to justify a separate articles. Unlike the articles of other Sahabah, none of the sources provided ever did a closer examination into the subject's life, instead they each only presented one variation of the same story. Unless the contents of the article can be expanded, for example if there're scholarly research into the subject, or if there are more details on the subject other than those currently presented, I see no need for a separate article. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

West Germany v France (1982 FIFA World Cup)[edit]

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

This article consists primarily of several paragraphs of badly cited game description. Even if the missing citations were added, there is nothing that couldn't be covered as a section in 1982 FIFA World Cup knockout stage (which is threadbare anyway). Compare similar sections which exist for eventful and controversial games such as South Korea vs Italy at the 2002 FIFA World Cup and Spain vs South Korea at the 2002 FIFA World Cup.

It may have contained the "most horrific challenge in World Cup history" (and it probably was, I am not disputing that) but that part can also be covered in (at most) a section of the tournament's knockout stage and in the respective player biographies. There is no need for a separate page for every game that includes a horrific challenge.

Platini's personal description of the game can likewise be covered adequately in his biography.

That it is "regarded as one of the best football matches of all time"? This may be so, but it is a very strong claim for only one citation.

There is no need to have separate pages unless the article is of the length and detail of, for example, Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup) – which this most definitely is not. I would also suggest that, since there have now been three World Cups since this page was created, there appears to be little interest in improving it, even when the attention of the football world is on this tournament and its history.

Note too that one of the sources used for this game refers to the challenge on Battiston as a World Cup "stunning" moment. Yet there are many such moments. Down that page (on the left side) there is another "stunning" moment involving teeth, namely Luis Suárez eating a piece of Italian footballer. Wikipedia does not have a separate page for "Italy v Uruguay (2014 FIFA World Cup)" - it is covered adequately at 2014 FIFA World Cup Group D#Italy vs Uruguay (munch of it focusing on what Suárez did with his teeth - which, it says, led to the longest ban in World Cup history.) The Middle E 🐫 (talk) 21:31, 29 November 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 November 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, France, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks as if the only policy/guideline deletion concerns raised in this nomination concern notability. It seems to me that the references already in the article are sufficient for GNG.[10][11][12] Is that no longer relevant for football matches? Thincat (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nom points to three other matches in fairly recent World Cup competitions as reasons NOT to have this article, but WP:OSE cannot be a valid argument (something I myself was recently reminded of in a content dispute). The 2014 Italy–Uruguay match was significant only for the Suárez incident, and the 2002 matches had questionable officiating, for which I am shocked and/or appalled! Questionable officiating at the World Cup? Le gasp! This match as a whole is notable for having been the first World Cup match decided by penalty kicks as well as the flurry of goals in extra time. Could the article be improved? Absolutely, but the match clearly meets WP:GNG. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This game appears to have above ordinary coverage, especially over the other matches mentioned by the nominator. On top of the refs listed by Thincat, there are numerous sources that cover the match in depth, see [13], [14], [15], [16] [17] and that's before the Battiston incident only refs. I think WP:GNG is comfortably met here. Kosack (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources above clearly show notability. Giant Snowman 19:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although, to me the article is a little bit underwhelming, it could be expanded easily. This game easily passes WP:NSPORTSEVENT in my opinion. This feels like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT for some reason. Govvy (talk) 09:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination focuses on references (which they call "sources"), not on sources per WP:NEXIST. There are vast amounts of potential sources for this article. If nominator wants to improve the article, AfD is not the correct procedure per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. WP:N is no concern for this article. WP:SNOW does apply. gidonb (talk) 19:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Vorhaus[edit]

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

Article does not seem to credibly establish notability (WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR) - some sources are missing a link and searching yields no results, and others are PR releases Benboy00 (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Businesspeople. Benboy00 (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, all the edits of the original page creator are either to this page, or to other pages to add information about Robbie Vorhaus or (the presumably related) Connor Vorhaus, and this page reads like a puff piece. Benboy00 (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hard to evaluate the quality of the coverage as almost every source is paywalled. The article in its current state is probably eligible for G11. Lean delete.-KH-1 (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing for this person, may hits connected to the chocolate maker Russell Stover for some reason. Very promotional, flowery tone to the article as well, might need a rewrite if it is kept. Oaktree b (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am Robbie Vorhaus. I'm not familiar with the process, however, what is written here is true. I'm not sure what I need to do to make it more to your standards, however, I will, of course, honor the rules and regulations. If I understand correctly, I am not able to make the corrections myself, however, if you inform me what is required, I will search for an appropriate Wikipedia editor to make all your changes and requests. Please don't delete my page. 136.49.148.212 (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is one of notability. This topic does not seem to meet the standards laid out here. A cursory search of the internet does not seem to reveal enough sourceable material to meet these standards. If you can find some sources that credibly indicate notability and post them in this discussion, that would be helpful (the sources already on the page do not appear to meet this threshold). Benboy00 (talk) 02:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Sir. I've always been honored to have a Wikipedia page, but I've never focused on it because it's true. I understand everything you are saying, and I've asked an editor I know through my wife to make some immediate changes. May I request that you take down the "deletion" notice and give me time to find an independent approved editor to make the changes that meet your standards? Connor Vorhaus is my son, however, he assures me, has not and does not know how to make changes here. Finally, although I counsel famous people, I cannot discuss or name them. I suppose that makes it difficult to validate my notability. Thank you for this opportunity to meet your standards and thresholds. 136.49.148.212 (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Benboy00, I am the author of what was a best-selling book, (ISBN - 978-0-9914658-0-4) and as a crisis management expert, I have appeared many times on network and cable TV, along with being quoted in major media. Again, I'm not quite clear how this process works, but if someone will inform me of exactly what Wikipedia needs for my entry, I will find an appropriate independent editor and make sure that happens. Please don't delete the Wikipedia entry about me. Thank you. 136.49.148.212 (talk) 02:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can find more about the process at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, but basically we are discussing whether the article should be deleted. During the discussion, it would be best to not edit the page, and stick to this page for discussion. For this sort of discussion (notability) it is best if you can provide sources to show that the noatbility criteria linked earlier are met. For example, for author notability, one criteria is:

The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); Note that sources for "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" must be provided. You can find other criteria for authors at Wikipedia:Author. Benboy00 (talk) 06:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia,

Thank you for this opportunity to reply to this discussion. Please consider NOT deleting my Wikipedia article and allowing me to find an editor to correct the errors, and edit to perfectly fit your standards.

Although I can not discuss this publicly, two things took me out of the public eye over the past six years. First, after appearing on FOX and being the first person on major TV to predict Donald J. Trump’s ascendency to President of the United States, the media shifted to a 24-hour political mechanism, and my specialty is mostly consumer and leadership issues. Further, because I was not able to promote/support Mr. Trump, I was not invited back on FOX. Also, COVID limited my TV appearances.

Also, as it’s stated in the article about me, ALL of my famous/notable clients wish to remain private, and not publicly recognized. I understand for these purposes that’s problematic, and I don’t have a solution to that issue.

Below I’ve listed and linked major television appearances, major articles about me, and significant articles that quote me as a notable expert.

Again, as I’m new to this process, I request you give me the opportunity to find an independent editor who will edit, fix, and format the article about me to your standards. Thank you.

Fox Business w/ Maria - Discussing Defense Secretary Ash Carter - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMZUI8ZaBpk

Fox Business w/ Maria - Discussing Hillary Clinton - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzJSLhbKaBE

Fox Business w/ Maria - Discussing Bernie Sanders

Fox Business - First person on a major media outlet to affirmatively pronounce Donald J. Trump would win the U.S. Presidency - https://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4779268969001#sp=show-clips

Fox Business - Can Apple Become a Growth Company Again? https://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4865611573001#sp=show-clips

CNBC Blog - Do What You Love - https://www.cnbc.com/2008/07/16/robbie-vorhaus-do-what-you-love-and-the-money-will-follow.html

The Game Changer Network - https://thegamechanger.network/robbie-vorhaus-one-less-one-more-follow-your-heart-be-happy-change-slowly/

CNBC and NBC News - Boeing’s Dreamliner - https://www.nbcnews.com/video/dreamliners-bumpy-path-48836675514

CNBC and NBC News - Discussing Oprah and Lance Armstrong - https://www.nbcnews.com/video/branding-redemption-48836163679

Forbes - Peter Himler, The Test - https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterhimler/2011/11/29/oh-that-test/?sh=1b12e18d2682

Logo Designer - Creating the logo for OLOM

ABC Australia - Quoting RV from CNN appearance on why BP boss, Tony Hayward should resign - https://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2010/s2964291.htm

Los Angeles Times - Expedia Glitch, quoting RV and also mentioning me as CNN contributor - https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2005-nov-27-tr-internet27-story.html

Slate - Discussing Dan Rather, quoting RV, and mentioning that I am a media strategist and a former CBS News producer - https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2005-nov-27-tr-internet27-story.html

Good Reads - One Less. One More - https://www.logo-designer.co/pearlfisher-creates-identity-logo-design-for-lifestyle-movement-one-less-one-more/

HuffingtonPost - https://www.huffpost.com/author/robbie-187 - Over 20 posts and quoted many times as Founding Contributor 136.49.148.212 (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Oaktree b. There's also a strong argument the article can be deleted per WP:TNT. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion was that the page is not edited while there is a discussion open. The suggestion was made that I produce resources and references to my stated notoriety, I complied. I understand this article has been edited by one person, and that looks suspect, I agree. I have read all the rules and your comments and feel strongly this article can be fixed for your standards. I'm grateful you've given this your attention, and I ask you one more time to please consider keeping it up and allowing me to find an independent editor(s) to address your issues. If you review the links I provided you will see that I am one of the leading crisis management professionals in my field. You seem intent on wanting to delete this article, and if that's true, I'm grateful at the very least for this process. 136.49.148.212 (talk) 22:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please review this article again and consider NOT DELETING. I attempted to edit to be closer to Wikipedia's standards for a notable person. I am new as a Wikipedia editor, and many of the major media citations appear behind a paywall. I am not aware of how to present Mr. Vorhaus's quotes when they are behind a paywall, although there are many major media examples that quote Mr. Vorhaus as a notable media/political strategist and crisis communications expert. Thank you. Austin2805Mueller (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be a man doing his job. Puff piece. No indication of being notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 08:12, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is both negatively personal and punitive. The issue is whether this article meets Wikipedia standards or not. My intention is demonstrating that I do in fact meet your standards and be considered to remain on the platform. I did, indeed, write a relatively successful mass market book (that was endorsed by many famous and notable people). I have appeared on a regular basis as an expert and notable authority on crisis communications and reputation management on major network and cable television, and there are also references to articles either being written about or including me. Oaktree b, Benboy00, and others have been helpful in learning this process, and if Wikipedia still feels this article fails to meet the threshold for your standards, then please, take it down. However, please keep the comments to the article and it's level of permissibility here on Wikipedia, and not conjecture or sarcasm about me personally. Thank you. 136.49.148.212 (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What is needed are resources *about* this person, not *by* this person. What we have here instead are video clips of him and some quotes in articles about various topics. I am unable to find any reviews of his book, and as listed on Amazon it appears that it might have been self-published (publisher is listed as Storytelling, Inc.). There are only about a dozen libraries that have it, so the statement that it was a 'best seller' is hard to accept. That the person himself is so involved in this discussion is a red flag. The person should read Wikipedia:Autobiography to understand why writing about oneself on Wikipedia is greatly discouraged. Lamona (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia, please make a decision and either allow this article about me to remain, or delete it. I'm new to this and hearing about how I've involved myself in this process is a "red flag," or that the book appears to be self-published (it was published by a small, now out of business, independent publisher) or that calling it a best-seller is "hard to accept," when for a short time it was a best seller in the self help category, is not helpful. Make a decision. Leave it up, take off the notice, and allow independent editors to make it better, or take it down. Thank you. 136.49.148.212 (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted G3. (non-admin closure) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Hellraiser[edit]

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

I came across this Welsh heavy metal band on Wikipedia. I decided to listen, but I didn't find anything. Not a single album, not a single review. I can't find anything about them on YouTube and Metal Archives at all. Adding fuel to the fire is the fact that there is not a single source on the page. I think this page should be deleted. The only thing I found were the following three things:
• 1) A Russian thrash/heavy metal band that has nothing in common with the Welsh band mentioned above.
• 2) A page on the Heavy Metal Rarities website where a person asked about this band. But no one answered him.
• 3)A page on Bandcamp that has nothing at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeez Vaxon (talk • contribs)

Yes, I didn't find anything about them either. Crystallizedh
Procedural note I fixed the malformed discussion and speedy deleted it as a hoax per WP:CSD#G3.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cartazini Art Award[edit]

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

Can't find any reliable independent coverage about this bi-annual art prize, in English or French. Wikipedia article is only cited to the gallery that awards it. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Sionk (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and France. Shellwood (talk) 21:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a non-notable award. Notability is not inherited from artists who received the award. An online BEFORE search reveals a few hits that are about the artists themselves, but not about the award. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAWARDS. Netherzone (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Bearian (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Noise FM[edit]

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

A band that does not appear to be notable. The sourcing currently in the article is not adequate for establishing notability, and searches did not turn up any significant coverage in reliable source, thus it fails the WP:GNG. The only reason I did not simply WP:PROD this, is because the claim that their music was used in a few pieces of media may possibly pass point 10 of WP:NBAND. However, even that guidelines suggests that point may not be sufficient for establishing notability, and the lack of any kind of coverage on the band leads me to believe that it should be deleted. Rorshacma (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. Rorshacma (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All good points. This isn't notableCleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable band Andre🚐 20:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Levteev[edit]

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

Non-notable businessperson - fails WP:NBIO. Per WP:NBUSINESSPERSON this could redirect to an article on the company, but one doesn't exist. There's a draft, but it is PR cruft translated from ru:IBA Group and is what led me to this old orphan article. The coverage is mostly about the company - the only in-depth coverage of Levteev are interviews. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Belarus. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom, nothing found for this person, all sources are related to the IBA Group. Long way from GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 01:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP concerns, due to his alleged associations with Russian mafia. Bearian (talk) 14:37, 6 December 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 Companion (Doctor Who)#Fifth Doctor. As an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kamelion[edit]

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

A lot of Dr. Who characters are notable, but this one seems to be rather WP:FANCRUFTy, failing WP:GNG. A robot that appeared only in one to four episodes, depending on how we count and how generous we are with recap footage. No reception section, my BEFORE failed to find anything significant. What little coverage I could find is a plot summary, and the reception, well, to quote [18] "due to his lack of screen time... we never fot to see any real growth in Kamelion". I suggest redirecting to Companion_(Doctor_Who)#List_of_companions_on_television. Another redirect option would be one of the episodes they appeared in (this resembles very much the case of Craig Owens (Doctor Who), another DW side character who appeared only in two episodes). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and United Kingdom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly all the sources listed are just lists of Dr. Who characters and is not about the robot specifically. So I am leaning Delete. Roost^T_C(Please ping me) 15:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources appear to be passing mentions that fail WP:SIGCOV, or heavily plot details that fail WP:NOTPLOT. Jontesta (talk) 03:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment sourcing cannot fail WP:NOTPLOT, which reflects only on how we present articles about fictional topics. Jclemens (talk) 06:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment sourcing can fail WP:NOTPLOT if there are no reliable sources that provide any significant non-plot information. That is the case here. Jontesta (talk) 23:26, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Comment - The claim Kamelion "appeared only in one to four episodes" is misleading. The character first appears in the two part story The King's Demons, though it is episode two before we discover that the character we assumed to be King John is actually Kamelion. Kamelion is then a major character in Planet of Fire which is four episodes long and features the character's death. However in episode four of The Caves of Androzani Kamelion makes a cameo appearance when the Doctor is dying. This was not a flashback, but new audio recorded by Gerald Flood. This makes 7 episodes the character was in, as well as also featuring in a deleted scene (available on the DVD release) of part one of The Awakening. This is actually more episodes than some companions, notably Katarina. The character also plays a major role in a couple of the spin-off novels and other expanded media and is covered in a number of Doctor Who reference works. In addition at the time there was press interest in a "real" robot being used in Doctor Who. Much of the reference coverage relates to this (and to the failure of this experiment to work). Dunarc (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dunarc Can you provide reliable sources that meet SIGCOV and back up your claims? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can dig out. Dunarc (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a start there is some coverage in David J Howe and Mark Stammers book "Doctor Who Companions" Virgin Publishing, 1995, Howe, Stammers and Walker "Doctor Who The Eighties" Virgin Publishing, 1996, Peter Haining "The Nine Lives of Doctor Who" Headline, 1999 and Calvin Scott and Mark Wright "Whoology" BBC Books, 2013. I am sure there is more in other Doctor Who reference books that I do not have to hand presently, as I have definitely read about press coverage.

It is worth noting as an aside that his two main stories were released as BBC DVD box set entitled "Kamelion Tales Box Set: The King's Demons / Planet of Fire" and a Big Finish story named after him "The Kamelion Empire"

He turns up in most newspaper articles that mention Doctor Who companions eg is listed and briefly described in this recent Radio Times article on all the Doctor's companions https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/sci-fi/doctor-who-companions-in-order/ this from the Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2014/feb/25/doctor-who-male-companions-samuel-anderson-danny-pink and this from the Telegraph https://s.telegraph.co.uk/graphics/projects/doctor-who/ but this is probably not enough for significant coverage although would perhaps suggest the character as wider awareness than might be assumed. Dunarc (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is whether the coverage is enough for stand-alone article? As all I saw were mentions in passing, few sentences here and there, I think redirecting to the list would be best. Maybe merge, since there are now some refs for the "Behind the scenes" (about the robot breaking, etc.). Although if anyone can cobble something more, particularly about reception, that's better than what I found (quote from OP: "due to his lack of screen time... we never fot to see any real growth in Kamelion"), maybe we could save this. But right now all we have is analysis saying he has not been analysed, and some semi-trivia about the robot breaking down on the set. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:40, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I fully appreciate what you are saying. I'll have another little dig to see if I can find anything else, but if nothing turns up, I would not be strongly opposed to some sort of redirect as you suggest, particularly if some detail of the character from the above coverage could be included there. Dunarc (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is some other web stuff, but not really reliable sources. I understand there was a 15 minute mini-documentary on Kamelion made for The King's Demons DVD release which includes the story of how the robot was created and pitched to Doctor Who, but I do not have access to it. Dunarc (talk) 23:55, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dunarc One could also question whether such a documentary would be independent; GNG requires independent sources. In-house/official documentaries etc. don't really help in estabilishing notability (although they are of course fine to cite for particular facts; they are reliable, just not independent). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is a fair point given that it would be made to attract people to buy the DVD. I only wondered if it might give an idea of sources for media coverage. Dunarc (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dunarc Given the relist, just wondering if you are still on the keep side, or would you prefer a redirect as suggested below? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus The consensus seems to be for redirect and as I do not strongly disagree and no other sources have turned up, I think that is the best way forward. Dunarc (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dunarc True, but I do wonder if we could save some content by merging it somewhere? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do wonder if in the list section at Companion (Doctor Who) we could add something under the Fifth Doctor box? Dunarc (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dunarc Probably the best idea. Would you give it a stab? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:59, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give it a go Dunarc (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus I have put something there now which I think covers the main points. Feel free to edit or suggest changes. Dunarc (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus - It was reverted so I think it's case of back to the drawing board. Dunarc (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Companion (Doctor Who)#Fifth Doctor. I agree that it doesn't appear Kamelion has significant coverage outside of the context of being one of many companions in the show. I think this is the most suitable redirect target because it has a link to the two serials that he features in (plus a footnote mentioning his cameo in The Caves of Androzani). The only important out-of-universe info in the article is about how they couldn't get the prop to work, and that info is already included in the articles for the relevant serials (The King's Demons and The Awakening). Open to changing my !vote if more sources come up. OliveYouBean (talk) 10:01, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see significant coverage for this that would pass the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for a clearer consensus. BD2412 T 19:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey Flat, Arizona[edit]

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

Every source I've come upon that says anything at all about this place refers to it as a group of summer home/cabins. As they are in Coronado National Forest most of those references are about forest fires. This isn't a settlement, and doesn't seem to be notable for what it is. Mangoe (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect. Concur with nom, an area with 70, 75, or 90 summer cabins although the Forest Service is ending their permits so at some point there may be none left. This is a plausible search term, so it would be nice if this redirected somewhere. Pinaleño Mountains#Swift Trail is one possibility although there is no current mention. Arizona State Route 366 is another where it does say the road changes direction there. MB 01:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

H. Scott Hughes[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a filmmaker, not properly referenced as having a strong claim to passing WP:CREATIVE. The main notability claim here is that one of his films won an award at a minor film festival that isn't internationally prominent enough to clinch a free pass of "film notable because award" in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about the film -- the award-winning criterion in NFILM is looking for major film festivals on the order of Cannes, Berlin, TIFF, Venice or Sundance, not just any film festival that exists on earth. But as in the film's article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Food for the Gods), the footnoting here is leaning far, far too heavily on primary sources that aren't support for notability, such as IMDb, Amazon, his own website and the self-published websites of organizations he's directly affiliated with, and after that there isn't nearly enough genuinely reliable source coverage being cited to claim that he would pass WP:GNG. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Texas. Bearcat (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Poorly sourced BLP. IMBd's are not reliable sources. Certainly doesn't meet WP:GNG. Jamiebuba (talk) 09:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NACTOR and WP:CREATIVE. We've been over this issue many times: that producers and composers are not automatically notable and are run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Food for the Gods[edit]

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

Very long article about a short film, not properly referenced as having a strong claim to passing WP:NFILM. The main notability claim here is that it won an award at a minor film festival that isn't internationally prominent enough to clinch a free pass of "film notable because award" in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about the film -- the award-winning criterion in NFILM is looking for major film festivals on the order of Cannes, Berlin, TIFF, Venice or Sundance, not just any film festival that exists on earth.
But the sourcing here is leaning far too heavily on primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as IMDb, the film's own self-published production website, Facebook posts, television schedule listings and unpublished information apparently gleaned from private conversations with the cast and crew -- for reliable sourcing, what we have is glancing namechecks of the film's existence in (a) the local newspaper of the city where the Route 66 Film Festival is held announcing the film festival's overall lineup, and (b) the local newspaper of the small town where the director shot a later film three years after this one, which doesn't add up to enough.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this film from having to have better sourcing than this. Note that the filmmaker's separate BLP is also problematic for the same reasons, but will be listed for discussion separately. Bearcat (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination. It is indeed an excessively long, detailed, and poorly sourced Wikipedia article, for a 10 minute film. A large part of the article is about sequels, so off-topic. The article was started in the 2000s so I'm sure if any substantial coverage was available at the time, it would have been mentioned. Time for it to go. Sionk (talk) 20:35, 29 November 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. Consensus is sourcing exists but is insufficient for N:CORP Star Mississippi 15:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Airsynergy[edit]

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

The included link to company website is dead and a search within reasonable means does not show any sources for the same Airsynergy company described in the article. It's likely the company has ceased to exist since the creation of the article. I don't foresee any objection to deletion but since there was an opposition to speedy deletion on the article previously (9 years ago) I'm creating an Article for Deletion discussion per the guidelines. Ayumi98 (talk) 18:22, 29 November 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 November 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is some coverage of a funding announcement "Airsynergy completes €2million funding round", Irish Times (2014) and more recently "Award-winning clean-tech company to be wound down: Longford-based Airsynergy had accumulated losses of more than €23m at the end of 2019", Irish Times (2022), though neither of these pieces of announcement-based coverage counts towards WP:NCORP, nor do the industry awards mentioned there seem notable in themselves. AllyD (talk) 07:53, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When I first came across this article in 2020, I found it to be amongst the most blatant pieces of COI/PROMO I'd encountered in some time. And culled it and tagged it accordingly. The reason I didn't open an AfD discussion at the time (and the reason I do not support deletion now) is because there appears to be a breadth of coverage (of its founding, activities and subsequent demise) in national news sources in Ireland (including in The Irish Times, in (granted less volume) in The irish Examiner, on RTÉ, and the Irish Independent stable) as well as some outside Ireland (Times UK). The subject has therefore "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". And so WP:GNG is met. Guliolopez (talk) 11:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks Guliolopez, I hadn't come across these sources before when I was searching for information on the subject. I think you're correct that there may be enough applicable information to consider the company notable in its own article. I'll withdraw this nomination for deletion if an agreement is reached with these sources.Ayumi98 (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC) Edited 19:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listing raw search urls and then using that as evidence that somehow the article is notable is nonsense and the kind of disengenous tricks that gives Afd a bad name. Most of the references on this articles comes from press-releases or PR or interviews with the director, all of those kind of coverage is explicitly disallowed by WP:NCORP and specifically WP:SIRS as not being independent. Even the raw search url on the times, listing five stories, two of them is funding news failing WP:CORPDEPTH, one is a passing mention and one is about an actor where the term is used and one is about a footballer where the term is used, giving a lie to the absurd use raw urls as valid coverage. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 17:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hiya. I'm presuming the "raw search urls" comment was referring to my own contribution above. It wasn't, as you appear to state, intended as a "trick" or "disengenous [sic]". (Which, in my dictionary FYI, gives "insincere" and "deceitful" as synonyms). And you would ideally avoid describing other AfD contributors (or their contributions) as "disingenuous". In any event, my intent, in linking the search results, was as a shorthand. And to show the breadth of results. (And, as such, could perhaps have been described as "lazy". But "disingenuous"? Seriously?).

Otherwise, in terms of the sources that are returned, in order to spell them out, in the:

Irish Independent stable we have: "Airsynergy inks new deal to sell wind turbines" (2013), "Wind turbine maker appoints distributor" (2014), "Airsynergy looks for funding ahead of plc status" (2014), "Airsynergy raises €4.5m in funding" (2015), "Airsynergy sets out to solves the riddle: how to get more energy for less" (2016), and others.
The Sunday Times (UK) we see: "Enrights take a breath of fresh Airsynergy" (2017), "Airsynergy powers up €3.2m for global push" (2019)
Irish Times we find "Airsynergy recruits Setanta CEO" (2012), "Morgan blows back into town with Airsynergy" (2013), "Airsynergy completes €2million funding round" (2014), "Longford renewables company Airsynergy builds US presence" (2017), "Cleantech firm Airsynergy scoops major technology award" (2017) , "Award-winning clean-tech company to be wound down" (2022), etc.
RTÉ News outlet we have: "Airsynergy to launch new sister brand and new products" (2015) and "Airsynergy set to change corporate status" (2014)

All of which are reliable sources which deal with the subject as a primary topic and which (as much as any business news coverage can be) independent of the subject. And which chart the subject's formation, growth (at least in terms of funding) and demise. In a way that meets WP:ORGDEPTH. Otherwise, and to be clear, I'd have quite happily seen this article deleted as overtly promotional claptrap years ago. But the sources would appear to support notability. That is my sincerely (if grudgingly) held belief. Not disingenuously held or represented. As implied. Guliolopez (talk) 13:15, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is a review of sources per WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND:

source review
Airsynergy inks new deal to sell wind turbines (Independent.ie, 2013) - this is trivial coverage of a product line launch based on "Airsynergy said", "chief executive Jim Smyth said", "Adrian Kelly, business development director for the company, said", "said Jim Smyth, chief executive officer", "he said", "Mr Smyth said", "Mr Kelly said", without an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization, so there is no WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:ORGIND - this article just repeats an announcement from people connected to the company. Wind turbine maker appoints distributor (Independent.ie, 2014) - this is trivial coverage of an expansion, based on "Airsynergy said", "said Obelisk Networks managing director Padraig Brady" and a brief mention of a capital transaction, such as raised capital. Airsynergy looks for funding ahead of plc status (Independent.ie, 2014) - this is trivial coverage of a a capital transaction, such as raised capital, based on "Airsynergy co-founder Adrian Kelly said", "Mr Kelly hopes", "Mr Kelly said", "Airsynergy intends" and a brief mention of a product line launch. Airsynergy raises €4.5m in funding (Independent.ie, 2015) - this is trivial coverage of a a capital transaction, such as raised capital and includes a mention of "The Co Longford energy firm expects" hiring [...] of personnel and an expansion "chief executive Jim Smyth confirmed", as well as a mention of other hiring [...] of personnel and plans to "change its status to a plc" with a one-sentence explanation of what this would allow the company to do differently. Airsynergy sets out to solves the riddle: how to get more energy for less (Independent.ie, 2016) - at first, this looks like an overview of the company, but by the third graf shifts to "The company says", "Airsynergy says", "says Smyth", general descriptions of expansions and possible expansions, funding and descriptions of personnel, and concludes with "The company says", "says Jim Smyth" and brief commentary from the writer. Enrights take a breath of fresh Airsynergy (The Sunday Times, 2017) and Airsynergy powers up €3.2m for global push (The Sunday Times, 2019) - I am not able to fully access these articles, but the 2017 report includes "Through a series of audacious acquisitions and big contract wins, the private equity-backed company has ballooned in size and value", so it does not sound focused on Airsynergy or more than trivial coverage of a a capital transaction, such as raised capital, and the 2019 article begins with an announcement of "has raised fresh equity funding of €3.2m". Airsynergy recruits Setanta CEO (Irish Times, 2012) is four grafs of trivial coverage of the hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel. Morgan blows back into town with Airsynergy (Irish Times, 2013) is trivial coverage of the hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel, based on "Airsynergy, which reckons", "Morgan and Jim Smyth, Airsynergy's founder and chief executive, gave us a sneak preview", "they claim" and "It plans". It might as well be a press release. Airsynergy completes €2million funding round (Irish Times, 2014) - this is trivial coverage of a a capital transaction, such as raised capital and the hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel, and based on "Airsynergy said", "Airsynergy said", "The company also announced", but does mention some awards, including one from the Irish Times. Longford renewables company Airsynergy builds US presence (Irish Times, 2017) - this is brief trivial coverage of an expansion, based on "Gerry Butler, the company's chief executive, said". Cleantech firm Airsynergy scoops major technology award (Irish Times, 2017) - this is a 7-graf article that begins with an announcement of the company winning the Renewable Energy Technology of the Year at the annual Energy Awards in London and then includes a brief overview of the product, expansion activities, and previous honors, without directly relying on statements by people connected with the company. Award-winning clean-tech company to be wound down - this is trivial coverage of the closure of the business, based on "a spokesman said", "company secretary James Healy said", "Mr Healy said" and "[the directors] said". Airsynergy to launch new sister brand and new products (RTE, 2015) - this is trivial coverage of a product line launch, based on "Airsynergy also said", "company also said" and "Airsynergy chief executive Jim Smyth said". Airsynergy set to change corporate status (RTE, 2015) - this is trivial coverage of a capital transaction, such as raised capital based on "The company said" and "the company said".

source review

- Airsynergy inks new deal to sell wind turbines (Independent.ie, 2013) - this is trivial coverage of a product line launch based on "Airsynergy said", "chief executive Jim Smyth said", "Adrian Kelly, business development director for the company, said", "said Jim Smyth, chief executive officer", "he said", "Mr Smyth said", "Mr Kelly said", without an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization, so there is no WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:ORGIND - this article just repeats an announcement from people connected to the company.
- Wind turbine maker appoints distributor (Independent.ie, 2014) - this is trivial coverage of an expansion, based on "Airsynergy said", "said Obelisk Networks managing director Padraig Brady" and a brief mention of a capital transaction, such as raised capital.
- Airsynergy looks for funding ahead of plc status (Independent.ie, 2014) - this is trivial coverage of a a capital transaction, such as raised capital, based on "Airsynergy co-founder Adrian Kelly said", "Mr Kelly hopes", "Mr Kelly said", "Airsynergy intends" and a brief mention of a product line launch.
- Airsynergy raises €4.5m in funding (Independent.ie, 2015) - this is trivial coverage of a a capital transaction, such as raised capital and includes a mention of "The Co Longford energy firm expects" hiring [...] of personnel and an expansion "chief executive Jim Smyth confirmed", as well as a mention of other hiring [...] of personnel and plans to "change its status to a plc" with a one-sentence explanation of what this would allow the company to do differently.
- Airsynergy sets out to solves the riddle: how to get more energy for less (Independent.ie, 2016) - at first, this looks like an overview of the company, but by the third graf shifts to "The company says", "Airsynergy says", "says Smyth", general descriptions of expansions and possible expansions, funding and descriptions of personnel, and concludes with "The company says", "says Jim Smyth" and brief commentary from the writer.
- Enrights take a breath of fresh Airsynergy (The Sunday Times, 2017) and Airsynergy powers up €3.2m for global push (The Sunday Times, 2019) - I am not able to fully access these articles, but the 2017 report includes "Through a series of audacious acquisitions and big contract wins, the private equity-backed company has ballooned in size and value", so it does not sound focused on Airsynergy or more than trivial coverage of a a capital transaction, such as raised capital, and the 2019 article begins with an announcement of "has raised fresh equity funding of €3.2m".
- Airsynergy recruits Setanta CEO (Irish Times, 2012) is four grafs of trivial coverage of the hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel.
- Morgan blows back into town with Airsynergy (Irish Times, 2013) is trivial coverage of the hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel, based on "Airsynergy, which reckons", "Morgan and Jim Smyth, Airsynergy's founder and chief executive, gave us a sneak preview", "they claim" and "It plans". It might as well be a press release.
- Airsynergy completes €2million funding round (Irish Times, 2014) - this is trivial coverage of a a capital transaction, such as raised capital and the hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel, and based on "Airsynergy said", "Airsynergy said", "The company also announced", but does mention some awards, including one from the Irish Times.
- Longford renewables company Airsynergy builds US presence (Irish Times, 2017) - this is brief trivial coverage of an expansion, based on "Gerry Butler, the company's chief executive, said".
- Cleantech firm Airsynergy scoops major technology award (Irish Times, 2017) - this is a 7-graf article that begins with an announcement of the company winning the Renewable Energy Technology of the Year at the annual Energy Awards in London and then includes a brief overview of the product, expansion activities, and previous honors, without directly relying on statements by people connected with the company.
- Award-winning clean-tech company to be wound down - this is trivial coverage of the closure of the business, based on "a spokesman said", "company secretary James Healy said", "Mr Healy said" and "[the directors] said".
- Airsynergy to launch new sister brand and new products (RTE, 2015) - this is trivial coverage of a product line launch, based on "Airsynergy also said", "company also said" and "Airsynergy chief executive Jim Smyth said".
- Airsynergy set to change corporate status (RTE, 2015) - this is trivial coverage of a capital transaction, such as raised capital based on "The company said" and "the company said".

From my view, this company was successful in obtaining promotional coverage, but does not appear to have received sufficient significant independent coverage to support notability per WP:NCORP and WP:PROMO, so the article should be deleted. Beccaynr (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets have a look at them@

"Enrights take a breath of fresh Airsynergy" (2017) That is a single paragraph, stating it raised £12million from their investment vehicle. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: f a capital transaction, such as raised capital
"Airsynergy powers up €3.2m for global push" (2019) Raised €3.2m. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH
"Airsynergy recruits Setanta CEO" (2012) Fails WP:CORPDEPTH standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: of employees, officers, directors, owners, or shareholders
"Morgan blows back into town with Airsynergy" (2013) Fails WP:SIRS. A profile. Not significant.
"Airsynergy completes €2million funding round" (2014) Raising £2 million pounds. standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: f a capital transaction, such as raised capital
"Longford renewables company Airsynergy builds US presence" (2017) Opening a US Office. Press-release Fails WP:ORGIND. Interview with the founder.
"Cleantech firm Airsynergy scoops major technology award" (2017) Another press-release. Non-notable trade award.
"Award-winning clean-tech company to be wound down" (2022) A routine report of insolvency, for a dead business. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
"Airsynergy to launch new sister brand and new products" (2015) This is a press-release. Fails WP:SIRS
"Airsynergy set to change corporate status" (2014). Raised £5million. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: f a capital transaction, such as raised capital

The majority of these new references are effectively NON-RS as they press-release driven, mostly funding news or interviews with the founder. Even the insolvency notice which must be printed in the local paper of record is useless as reference. The profile fails WP:SIRS. All of the comes from this dead company. User:Guliolopez The notability standards for a company were updated in 2018 to reflect the massive amount of paid editing that was occuring and are now know as WP:NCORP. They old WP:ORG and so on didn't have the weight to stop the reams of startup like this. They are much tighter in terms of what is acceptable. Content generated from startup like this stuff, is not acceptable references. They are all in one form or another press-releases from the company. When you see funding news, annoucements saying they expanding, or taking on a person, opening a new office, its all press-release and all non-rs. I hope that helps. scope_creep^Talk 15:37, 2 December 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 23:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Butcher (journalist)[edit]

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

Nothing on the face of this one-line one-source article speaks to encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 18:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 18:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added some more content, including his being awarded the MBE and the founding of Techfugees. - Fuzheado | Talk 20:06, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Sourced, it seems, to the organization itself (not independent), and to Forbes, which is lately questionable as a source providing a basis for notability. BD2412 T 20:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is enough to satisfy WP:GNG and coverage of Mike Butcher is WP:SUSTAINED over time. (Almost TMI...and this is a BLP...but these are reliable sources, so...) Covering Butcher's every move for a few years was Amy Vickers for The Guardian (see "New Media Diary" from 2000 and 2001), followed by Jemima Kiss who covered the whole saga of Butcher abruptly quitting TechCrunch UK in 2006 and then re-starting it again in 2007. There is a ton of coverage about the TechHub in Silicon Roundabout, and a lot of it is TechHub-centric rather than Mike Butcher-centric, but the one piece that jumps out is the academic journal article in European Planning Studies 2021 which devotes several paragraphs of analysis to the role of Butcher in helping to popularise the whole "Digital Hub for the UK" concept starting in 2008. Added a few other sources as well...like the 2016 Sutton & Croydon Guardian article about Kingston local Mike Butcher receiving his MBE. If you want more, we can keep looking...but maybe this is enough for now? Cielquiparle (talk) 18:14, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Bass Bolch[edit]

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

A non-notable singer. The sources in the article are press releases or user generated/blog content. I've searched for additional sources and there is not significant coverage here. A probable previous version of this article was deleted in 2021 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Bolch (musician). Mvqr (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, and Georgia (U.S. state). Skynxnex (talk) 17:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another routine singer. Limited coverage, hasn't charted on Billboard, nor anywhere else. Not at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The singer is notable as per given sources, coverage is enough and reliable as per guideline. Gross8090 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with reasons in the nomination. Disagree with the above "Keep" vote's characterization of the quality of the sources, as inspecting them one by one finds them promotional or user generated. The LA Weekly, for example, may appear at a glance to be reliable, but the byline cites it as "Branded partner content." ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

V415 Muscae[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NASTRO. It is hard work finding anything published on this object, just a few discovery announcements. Expanding beyond the current two short sentences is going to be very difficult. Lithopsian (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Lithopsian (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: With the increasing number of high cadence all-sky survey projects, countless faint (not visible to the naked eye) novae and supernovae will be discovered. We don't need Wikipedia articles for each one. PopePompus (talk) 16:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable. The SIMBAD entry shows the discovery notice and not much else.[19] Praemonitus (talk) 20:43, 30 November 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 2022 Pacific hurricane season#Tropical Storm Javier. Star Mississippi 15:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Javier (2022)[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NEVENTS or WP:NWeather guidelines. Caused minimal damage and no fatalities. Can be merged into 2022 Pacific hurricane season. Drdpw (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Exactly what nominator said plus creation by a now blocked sock, which may qualify the article for speedy deletion under WP:G5. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elijahandskip: G5 doesn’t apply as the socks weren’t banned at the time the article was created. Drdpw (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Science, and Mexico. Skynxnex (talk) 16:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To 2022 Pacific hurricane season#Tropical Storm Javier per WP:ATD. 47.21.192.218 (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 Pacific hurricane season#Tropical Storm Javier The article contains minimal information that can be merged into the larger article. (WP:NOPAGE) HurricaneEdgar 02:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 Pacific hurricane season#Tropical Storm Javier per all of the above, the storm had no fatalities, and it had a minimal amount of damage. GDFilbert03 (talk) 15:01, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 Pacific hurricane season#Tropical Storm Javier. No fatalities, minimal damage, none of this passes WP:NWEATHER. Also, Baja California Sur experienced heavy rain and gusty winds as Javier passed offshore. The effects of the storm there were minimal. Some roads were closed in a few locations due to washouts and landslides. There were also some isolated temporary power outages. No fatalities were reported. Minimal damages, isolated power outages doesn't establish enough notability, and "experiencing heavy rain and gusty winds as Javier passed offshore" all meet WP:NOPAGE criteria. Sarrail (talk) 14:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who What Wear[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Refs are routine business news and PR. scope_creep^Talk 15:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NCORP, there is insufficient WP:CORPDEPTH with WP:ORGIND. The article is supported by trivial coverage of a product or a product line launch [20] (with substantial reliance on quotes from co-founders Power and Kerr and Target's senior vice president), an acquisition [21] (with substantial reliance on quotes from the company acquiring Who What Wear and co-founder Kerr; churnalism of a press release [22]), inclusion in lists of similar organizations ("most innovative", per FastCompany), an interview with the founders [23], a promotional blurb related to a book written by the co-founders [24], a post by a WP:FORBESCON, an announcement of participation in [an] industry event that substantially relies on quotes from a co-founder [25], and an article built around an interview with co-founder Power, e.g. "Here's her playbook", "Power says", "Power believes", "she says", "Power has found", "Power says", "Power credits", "Power says", "she says". An online search finds more trivial coverage and overt press releases. Beccaynr (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the analysis above by Beccaynr which shows the sources rely entirely on promotional information provided by the company, failing ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even the RS references appear to be PR churnalism. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:03, 30 November 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 Asian Nobel laureates. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Burmese Nobel laureates and nominees[edit]

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

Burma/Myanmar has had only one Nobel laureate to date, who is well covered by List of Asian Nobel laureates and other laureate lists. So Burma/Myanmar is probably not the best country for a special list. Being a nominee is not all that important and even here the list is short. The references support the data in the article on a case-by-case basis and do not support WP:LISTN. No objection to a redirect to List of Asian Nobel laureates per WP:ATD and WP:CHEAP. gidonb (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Awards, and Myanmar. Skynxnex (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete microscopic list, only one true entry and a small handful of “almost” entries which isn’t the point of the article and is just undue padding in a list this short. Dronebogus (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Asian Nobel laureates as suggested by the nomination. I agree that nominees do not belong on the list, and a single entry obviously doesn't warrant a separate list when one with a broader scope exists. If anybody finds any high-quality sources that actually analyse this subset of Nobel laureates in-depth (cf. List of Jewish Nobel laureates), ping me and I'll reconsider. TompaDompa (talk) 00:57, 30 November 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. If someone wants to create a redirect, they're welcome to. Star Mississippi 15:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ernst Jager Junior Secondary School[edit]

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

Disputed draftification. Schools must now pass WP:NCORP.This fails. A "junior secondary school" was unlikely to pass our previous criteria, now strengthened. Text is also advertorial 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Africa. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draft and SALT. Any draft that has any "needs work" type comments should not be moved to main article space until the work is fixed and re-reviewed. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:57, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We commonly Redirect schools to the school district article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG, and my very long standing standards, or redirect as suggested. Bearian (talk) 14:42, 6 December 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. Consensus is sourcing is of insufficient reliability/quality and depth Star Mississippi 15:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prem Dhiraal[edit]

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

The subject has sung 6 songs in 4 non-notable films. The subject fails all the criteria of notability guidelines for singers.
The subject has also acted in two non-notable films, which appear to be trivial roles, failing notability criteria for actors.
All the coverage is in the form of press releases, or seemingly paid articles. I couldn't find any significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Thus making them fail general notability criteria as well. —usernamekiran (talk) 11:01, 22 November 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 India. —usernamekiran (talk) 11:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't find much for coverage of this person, beyond confirmation that they exist and the songs are as noted. Oaktree b (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:N and WP:GNG. MurrayGreshler (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below are two independent sources that provide significant coverage:

"Prem Dhiraal is going to become a hero from zero in Bollywood". Ahmedabad Mirror. Retrieved 29 November 2022.
Staff Reporter (21 May 2021). "Prem Dhiraal, singer-turned-actor from Chandrapur, takes a big leap". The Hitavada. Retrieved 29 November 2022.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For consideration of the newly provided sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:46, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Agree that these two sources are not enough to establish notability. Olivierjohnston (talk)~~ 15:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC) (sock strike Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:04, 3 December 2022 (UTC))[reply]

The sources above look like significant coverage, I had come across Hitvada in my WP:Before. However, Ahmedabad Mirror seems to be gossip/tabloid-isq, and I have doubt it may be PR/paid work. Anyways, these two sources are not enough to establish notability. —usernamekiran (talk) 12:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As above mention two sources are not enough, but if we search in details with the name of Prem Dhiraal found there are available more articles, as per links we found Dhiraal worked as lead more than 2 films with notable references, my openion is we have to keep this article on based of their works and references, If we look at Wikipedia Pageviews Analysis of last month it's the large number of pageviews counted means people are visiting and searching his name that's showing he is a notable person; many times the references are not parameter to judge the notability, as per wikipedia policy wikipedia is encyclopedia that's helps people to give knowledge of article based on their search, on the google search Prem Dhiraal showing as notable person based on their lot of work, knowledge panel, all websites search listing, so my suggesgion is keep this article and help to expand it. — Sams321 (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: — Preceding unsigned comment added by MurrayGreshler (talk • contribs) 10:18, 6 December, 2022 (UTC)

note: Sams321 is creator of the article, and has been blocked for UPE. Before being blocked, and after the AfD, the editor tried to add misinformation by claiming the subject started his career in 2012. The tables in article mention 2018 for film debut, and 2019 for singing career. Also, the Hitvada claims "his albums were released by reputed music companies like T-Series, Shemaroo, Ultra Bollywood." and later quotes him "Ultra Bollywood owner Jayesh Veera encouraged me to try my luck in the field of acting[...] The claims of his albums can not be verified at all. Furthermore, the source claims that Dhiraal holds Guinness World Record for 815 hours of singing continuously. That is nothing but falsehood. Apparently, Hitavada has been compromised as well. —usernamekiran (talk) 06:20, 6 December 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 Page move and Redirect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fauna of southeast asia[edit]

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

Stub article with poor coverage of a topic already covered well by Southeast Asia#Environment. Created by a now-blocked user judged not to be a competent editor. The article itself has multiple issues.

Propose deletion, or page move to "Fauna of Southeast Asia" + redirect to Southeast Asia#Environment. — Jumbo T (talk) 10:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — Jumbo T (talk) 10:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move & redirect per Jumbo T's suggestion. Invasive Spices (talk) 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and create another redirect for the proper capitalization. Both are reasonable search terms. Dronebogus (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect with proper caps, seems ok. I'm not terribly fussed if it gets merged either as above. Oaktree b (talk) 18:06, 29 November 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 13:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2020–present Eastern Mediterranean crisis[edit]

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

There doesn't seem to be some crisis that started in 2020, even the one source discusses ongoing issues, not some new crisis (e.g. "Since early 2019 the combined impact of all these factors has been to turn the Eastern Mediterranean crisis into a perfect storm. " shows that the crisis predates 2019, not that it started in 2020). Greece-Turkey tensions are ever ongoing, and the Cyprus situation goes back decades as well. Fram (talk) 12:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Greece, and Turkey. Fram (talk) 12:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The Aegean dispute has not reached crisis level yet. StellarHalo (talk) 03:19, 5 December 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 13:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orderliness[edit]

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

Appears to be WP:OR; other sources might exist using the word "orderliness", but any such article would likely be WP:SYNTH. Searching for sources is difficult as it simply produces dictionary definitions, but there's no sign that a unified topic exists. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 12:16, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 12:16, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and the fact that it contains the sentence "Orderliness could mean being considerate at events and functions, due to a desire for symmetry." -Roxy the dog 09:12, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 13:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Valencia[edit]

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

No significant online presence. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 12:06, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Visual arts, and Texas. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by "No significant online presence". Seems like plenty of sources for a start to an article to me. — Chris Capoccia 💬 14:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the sourcing and sustained coverage over the years. I've slightly expanded the article and some additional sources still appear usable on searches. Skynxnex (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She is in two collections, and has at least one work of public art, which is a pass of WP:NARTIST; she may also meet WP:GNG per the sources added by Skynxnex. BTW, this article was created by a student editor for coursework this semester. I really wish people would wait to nominate these WikiEdu articles until after the semester is over. While student editors are to be treated the same as any other editor, I imagine that it must be a huge buzz kill for someone's article to be deleted before they receive a grade. Student editors are people too; it may be worth looking at the article creator, and in some instances the article talk page for this information. That's not policy, but IMO, it's kindness and helps retain editors. Netherzone (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- No idea even looking at the revision where it was nominated for deletion why this would merit deletion. — Chris Capoccia 💬 18:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to meet artist; I'm still unsure about having students create articles, they should go through the normal AfC process with a draft review (if they don't do this already, I don't know). Many of them end of here in AfD that I've seen over the last year. Oaktree b (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment M.Ashraf333, there are many articles of notable people here who have no "online presence". That shouldn't be the deciding factor in nominating an article for deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per comments. "No significant online presence" doesn't seem to be a cause for deletion on Wikipedia (although it's an interesting term). Randy Kryn (talk) 10:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NARTIST with works in collections and public art. Biography is appropriately sourced. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:35, 1 December 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

William Bachovchin[edit]

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

he has no real claim to notability and seems promotional 2006toyotacorrola (talk) 12:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Article was 2 minutes old when you nominated it, doesn't seem like you did of a WP:BEFORE search to base your opinion on. Fram (talk) 12:06, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ah, ok can i cancel an AfD? 2006toyotacorrola (talk) 13:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can see the advice at WP:WITHDRAWN. Fram (talk) 13:46, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Massachusetts. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: per Fram, and I strongly advise that the nom slow his roll. Ravenswing 13:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per above. No real evidence that a WP:BEFORE has been performed. I suggest the nom withdraw this AFD. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per above. AFD nominator really needs to slow down on AFD. WP:BEFORE applies to this as well. Sarrail (talk) 15:07, 29 November 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 13:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Numecent[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. References are a mix of PR, Press-release driven news, profiles, interviews. Brochure article. UPE. scope_creep^Talk 12:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and California. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Seems it was founded by a military contract/project, I assume there would be documentation from that end of it. The current state of the article seems rather PR-ish. Oaktree b (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NCORP - sources include a 2012 Fast Company puff piece based on so many quotes from Numecent CEO Osman Kent, it is essentially a press release; a three-graf announcement of an acquisition reprinted in as a 2000 LA Times article from Bloomberg News; a press release announcing an acquisition; an announcement not related to Numecent [26]; brief commentary not directly related to Numecent [27]; announcement of a product launch [28] (also promoted by VentureBeat and Business Insider with interview-based articles); another press release; a 2013 VentureBeat puff piece based on an interview with the founder; a WP:FORBESCON [29] post; something cited as Forbes to announce a product launch and partnership but leading to a website with a security warning; a name change announcement from an apparent non-RS; announcements of personnel hiring; an announcement cited to the company website; a 2009 "case study" of Prime Liberty, a Toronto-based outsourcer of medical savings programs [30]; an announcement based on quotes from the founder published in "A repository of old GigaOm and paidContent posts" [31]; more announcements sourced from the company website; a blog; "partner content" from Wired; more stenography from Venture Beat; a non-notable award sourced to a dead WSJ link with PR in the url; and funding announcements. An online search finds similar promotional content, e.g CNET (based on quotes from the founder) and press releases. There appears to be insufficient WP:CORPDEPTH with WP:ORGIND to support this article, which should be deleted as WP:PROMO. Beccaynr (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not draftify, per analysis of sources by Beccaynr. Note: the page creator is indeffed for sock/meatpuppetry, but there appears to be a suggestion of WP:UPE as well; this page certainly has every appearance of that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: I've reverted some promotional/copyvio edits by an obvious (but quite different) WP:UPE account apparently connected to the company. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Beccaynr's analysis. The article fails WP:NCORP outright and what sources there are do not appear to be independent in the way that WP:GNG requires, or are otherwise insubstantial. - Aoidh (talk) 12:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Room Service (2007 film)[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about a short film with no obvious claim to satisfying WP:FILM. The only notability claim being attempted here is that it had notable actors in the cast, which is not an inclusion freebie in the absence of any WP:GNG-worthy sourcing -- but all I can find on a search for other sources is a glancing namecheck of this film's existence on one page of a biography of its most famous cast member, and an article on film lighting tips written by the film's own cinematographer, which is not the kind of sourcing it takes. Bearcat (talk) 07:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 07:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no claim of notability, no relable refs, does not seem to be anything out there to justify keeping.TheLongTone (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Westside Park (Chehalis, Washington)[edit]

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

A small-town local park with no significant coverage outside its immediate area, failing GNG and GEOLAND. Sounder Bruce 07:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Sounder Bruce 07:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG appears met, GEOLAND does not apply. Well sourced for what it is, no clear rationale for deletion has been articulated. That is, would Wikipedia be better off without this article? I see no reason at all why it would. Jclemens (talk) 08:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there appear to be multiple sources discussing the park. GNG doesn't require coverage "outside the immediate area". No merge target identified by the nominator and it's unclear how merging this would benefit Wikipedia. Garuda3 (talk) 08:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seriously? I thought articles on local restaurants/businesses/places required at least 1 mention from a source that's "outside the immediate area". Trying to run pages on purely local sources is what got a couple of my local business articles deleted. Americanfreedom (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not surprising, businesses tend to be held to higher standards and there is the WP:NCORP guideline that is often used to get business articles deleted. There's no reason to hold articles on city parks to such high standards. Garuda3 (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
obvious redirect to Parks and recreation in Chehalis, Washington#Parks The coverage of a postage stamp of a city park by its small city newspaper is not going to get past any reasonable standard of notability. Mangoe (talk) 05:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I vote keep per GNG. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Henderson Park (Chehalis, Washington)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A small-town local park with no significant coverage outside its immediate area, failing GNG and GEOLAND. Sounder Bruce 07:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Sounder Bruce 07:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing has changed since the last "no consensus" AfD by the same nominator earlier this year. I don't see how stuffing the sourced content here into Parks and recreation in Chehalis, Washington would benefit Wikipedia. Nominator has also nominated some other parks in the area. Garuda3 (talk) 07:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There are tens of thousands of parks like this in every small town in the United States. Do all of them need articles? Merging them into a listicle would be easier to manage and the loss of useful content would be minimal. Sounder Bruce 08:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG appears met, GEOLAND does not apply. Well sourced for what it is, no clear rationale for deletion has been articulated. That is, would Wikipedia be better off without this article? I see no reason at all why it would. Jclemens (talk) 08:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It does not meet GNG, as there is only one independent source being cited (The Chronicle) with only two sources that provide significant coverage (criteria 2). As Wikipedia is not a directory, we should be pruning entries like this. Sounder Bruce 08:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The 1916, 1961, and 2018 articles constitute significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, such that the topic meets WP:GNG. Coverage outside its immediate area is required only for companies, organizations, products, and services, not for places of local interest. Meeting GNG doesn't necessarily mean the topic should have a stand-alone article, but no other rationale for deletion has been put forward. An alternative to deletion would be a merge to Parks and recreation in Chehalis, Washington. But as they stand now, the articles are well sourced, well written, and well structured. I don't see an advantage to merging this one out of existence. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- A merge would be acceptable. There's no reason to have standalone articles on every park in a town of under 10,000 people. Sounder Bruce 08:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I vote keep per GNG. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation Park Complex (Chehalis, Washington)[edit]

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

Collection of local parks with no significant coverage outside its immediate area, failing GNG and GEOLAND. Sounder Bruce 07:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Sounder Bruce 07:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG appears met, GEOLAND does not apply. Well sourced for what it is, no clear rationale for deletion has been articulated. That is, would Wikipedia be better off without this article? I see no reason at all why it would. Jclemens (talk) 08:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as of writing there are 32 cited sources so we're going to need a bit more reasoning here. Regardless, I don't see how merging this content would benefit Wikipedia. Garuda3 (talk) 08:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I vote keep per GNG. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5. All of these articles were created by a user in violation of a previous block, and all of these articles have no substantial edits from others. Mz7 (talk) 08:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rajib Bhattacharjee[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages by the same creator:
Deepesh Thakorbhai Tandel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Phunchok Stanzin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ernest Mawrie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Vanlalhmuaka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

K. N. Kasmikoya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:52, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: President of state wing of an major party doesn't establish notability. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk} ! 07:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have also nominated many non notable articles created by this user. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ranglal Halder, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gopal Chhettri and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harmohinder Singh. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk} ! 07:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - meet neither WP:GNG or WP:NPOL.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:05, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Presidents of state wings of political parties are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability — but none of these pass that test at all, and instead they all just single-source that the person exists, which isn't enough. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G11 by Kuru. (non-admin closure) Shellwood (talk) 11:52, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmi Jaiswal[edit]

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

Following this being speedily deleted User:Kuru, this was quickly recreated, with my CSD tag removed by an IP, but this is flagrantly promotional and IMO requiring G11. The content is also extensively copied needing G12, see Earwig. On notability: Ref 1 is a promotional puff piece (e.g., He is also the most searchable Indian Artist), advertising to Jimmi's external links, being non-SIGCOV. Ref 2 is similarly a non-SIGCOV promotional routine announcement by an unnamed contributor in a questionably reliable source. Ref 3 is interview-like, e.g., On asking about his motivation behind, but on asking, and uses similar promotional wording compared to previous refs. Ref 4 is another blatantly promotional, non-SIGCOV minor news story linking to Social Media Links. Note that ref 3 and 4 use similar language in stating that the artist is verified (?). Then Live Hindu, which is another promotional announcement having little editorial policies to meet WP:NEWSORG. A WP:BEFORE search revealed many routine announcements from this questionable website. Therefore, I purpose a speedy deletion giving the obvious promotion, but given this is contested standard deletion might be necessary. VickKiang (talk) 05:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 08:52, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; I usually respect the AFD process and let these play out, but the sporadic copyright vios (snippets of previously published materials) noted make this a mandatory CSD. As for the rest - this is just an obvious very poorly written COI spam piece, supported by known SEO sinks. There's just no need to waste time on it. I've re-deleted under G11 + G12.Sam Kuru (talk) 11:35, 29 November 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 Damon Santostefano. This is not a forever decision. If a third good review for this film is found, this redirect can be reverted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Last Man Running (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE except for a single review from eFilmCritic.com which could be usable, but at least two reviews are required per NFILM. 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 04:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:15, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found a review from Variety. I'm still not entirely happy with the amount of coverage since the only substantial coverage would be those two reviews. I get kind of a Spidey sense that there are probably more reviews out there but I can't find any concrete evidence of this. This could probably redirect to the author's page with history so that if/when we do find that coverage, it can be restored. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ReaderofthePack: To clarify, is eFilmCritic a reliable source? I couldn't find significant editorial policies, the be a critic guideline doesn't seem to indicate a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It is on Rotten Tomatoes but per WP:RSP Reviewers tracked by Rotten Tomatoes are not automatically reliable for their reviews, while there is no consensus on whether their "Top Critics" are generally reliable, and it is also not a Tomatometer-approved organisation. I also didn't find substantial WP:USEBYOTHERS or any RSN discussions, so if it is non-reliable then I agree with your suggestion. However, I think your expanded reception section should be preserved by merging, so if EFilmCritic is unreliable, I support a Merge. VickKiang (talk) 02:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider redirect proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to author's page. Not enough found in a search to warrant keeping and redirect seems more appropriate than outright deletion DonaldD23 talk to me 19:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no author listed on this article page. Did you mean the director? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@VickKiang: AFAIK it's usable as it's been used as a source in academic and scholarly texts like this, but I typically try to judge it more based on who is writing the review. I suppose it's good that you mentioned this since I admittedly hadn't looked terribly close at the person in question. A search shows that Erik Childress would be a RS since per his rt bio he's written for places that are RS, like RogerEbert.com and Film Threat, and is a columnist for Rotten Tomatoes. According to this he is/was the VP of the Chicago Film Critics Association. That means that we have two good reviews for this, which is technically enough per guidelines but I do typically prefer more. If there was a third review or more coverage of the production then it'd be more solid on my end. I'm somewhat leaning towards keep but I'm not really solid enough to make a firm argument either way. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. There's a suggest to Redirect this article but no designated redirect target. Please specify an article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. IMO it would be best to merge/redirect to Damon Santostefano, the director. VickKiang (talk) 00:26, 6 December 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 Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

D. Roy Kennedy Public School[edit]

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

On the Wikipedia:All high schools can be notable, it states that a elementary school needs to be notable, or have a notable event to stay or become a article. This one is clearly not notable, its just a regular public elementary school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL as well. It was also created by someone who works at the school, from the infomation I could find from User:Spuds McGoo who created the page.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 04:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Canada. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 04:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. BogLogs (talk) 07:29, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Ottawa-Carleton District School Board, per ATD and the longstanding practice outlined at SCHOOLOUTCOMES. 174.212.228.83 (talk) 21:30, 29 November 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 Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. It was pointed out to me that there was a mistake in this closure. The correct redirect is to Ottawa Catholic School Board. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Corpus Christi School (Ottawa)[edit]

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

On the Wikipedia:All high schools can be notable, it states that a elementary school needs to be notable, or have a notable event to stay or become a article. This one is clearly not notable, its just a regular public elementary school. This article also fails WP:NSCHOOL.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 04:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Canada. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 04:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. BogLogs (talk) 07:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Ottawa Catholic School Board per ATD and the longstanding practice outlined at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. 174.212.228.83 (talk) 21:34, 29 November 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 Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alta Vista Public School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

On the Wikipedia:All high schools can be notable, it states that a elementary school needs to be notable, or have a notable event to stay or become a article. This one is clearly not notable, its just a regular public elementary school. This one was also AFD'ed in 2008, but had no consensus. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 04:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Canada. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 04:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as with several others, not notable. BogLogs (talk) 07:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Ottawa-Carleton District School Board per ATD and the longstanding practice outlined at SCHOOLOUTCOMES. 174.212.228.83 (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Markus Schmidt-Märkl[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Not a big director and has only directed small shows and movies. No results on google or news besides his IMBD page. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 04:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Germany. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 04:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Despite his filmography, doesn't seem notable. Also article as it is contains next to nothing beyond a list of his works. BogLogs (talk) 07:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. There are news articles which mention or quote him but nothing more than that. THe credits in the article are all soaps so that may be why. Hut 8.5 18:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr Kapuściński[edit]

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

The subject does not appear to be notable (WP:NBIO) - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:15, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Poland. Shellwood (talk) 10:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. I asked Polish speakers to check Polish news sources prior to 2022 to verify multi-event news coverage.Yug (talk) 🐲 12:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
👍 - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:24, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. When I checked, I didn't see anything signifanct coverage in Polish outside of the recent notoriety, so WP:ONEEVENT remains a concern. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Still no opinions here besides a tentative nomination statement. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:ONEVENT. LibStar (talk) 00:27, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Again, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. They also fail WP:GNG.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 04:30, 29 November 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. I think there is a clear consensus in this discussion to Keep this article. And considering that I started the first AFD on this article 9 months ago, I think we've come full circle. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IShowSpeed[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Over the course of the last 7 months there has been a well defined push to get this article out into the mainspace. It appears it was cleared at AFC today, however I confess I still have reservations about the article. First, for the purpose of recreation, the GNG states that, "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"; however there remains a question of whether or not there is signification enough coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject for the article to be on here. The article alleges that he has amassed more followers than anyone else in history, but that suggests that the subject fails WP:ONEVENT as being someone who is arguably famous but not necessarily notable. Read in a marco sense and not a micro sense, this article is essentially a massive collection of indiscriminate information on the subject, much of which appears to have no bearing being being important to a limit few who follow the man (take for example his test cheating, its a 10 question test, not the collage admission exam, therefore it is of no significance to the article). Of particular note here though are the repeated attempts made by those unfamiliar with the site to get this article into the main space. Under the circumstances, that could be interpreted as a conflict of interest for the article and its contributors, however the more relevant aspect of this appears - based on those who believe he should have an article here - to be an issue with self-promotion and publicity, which bumps up against WP:NOT, specifically "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion". Of particular note is point #3: which concerns "Scandal mongering, promoting things 'heard through the grapevine' or gossiping: when looked at from a macro sense this article appear to do more to promote the subjects notoriety then his fame. In relisting this article, I cite the second sentence of the General Notability Guideline for the term presumed: "A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", and request that the community judge whether this new version should remain or whether it should once again be deleted and/or salted. Alternatively, this could be considered a candidate for redirection to a relevant list (such as List of most-subscribed YouTube channels) if the community feels that would better represent the article's subject at the current time. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the source table on IShowSpeed's talk page showcasing evidence of his notability per coverage in independent reliable sources. Even if by miracle all the sources are not reliable, IShowSpeed still meets criteria number 2 of WP:SINGER with his song "World Cup" ending up on 4 different national charts. A little digging could've easily avoided this entire nomination, was this AfD really necessary? Célestin Denis (talk) 03:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Célestin Denis: Yes it was. There have been ongoing issues here with people persistently trying to publish the article and consensus at the time from the community being "not yet". On top of that, there are lingering G4 issues here in that there are only so many ways to say something until its been said. To cover the bases, this is being relisted to gain the community's input on the matter. I've made my case, you've made no case per se, and others will weigh in as well. Ideally, this will end either as a clear case of keep or no consensus, but in either of the cases with community support any immediate attempt at CSD G4 based deletion will be avoided and importantly others will see that the current/most recent consensus is to retain the article or that there was no consensus to delete the article. Otherwise, you've going to have trigger happy people who will keep coming after this article until it gets deleted. I've waltzed this waltz before, I know this tune and these steps, so believe me when I say that this is the best course of action for the article at the present time. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CSD G4 deletion would probably not even have been in question considering the heavy support of administrators. By creating an AfD you are preventing the indexation of the IShowSpeed article in search engines for 7 days at perhaps one of the times where he is most sought after. His song is currently peaking on the charts and his name is starting to gain immense traction with the ongoing World Cup. Célestin Denis (talk) 04:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Admin support doesn't make the article notable, admins have disagreed with each other before and ultimately we are agents of the contributors and editors charged with ascertaining and implementing consensus and with upholding site policies and guidelines. Keep that in mind. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article perhaps went through one of the most thorough examinations, countless reviews and a deletion review in the past months. I think it's fair that it is finally ready for main-space. IShowSpeed's entire brand relies on being controversial so it is easy to understand why a large proportion of the coverage would be around this aspect. The question of the significant coverage in reliable sources has already been discussed in the past and the consensus was pretty clear, like I said please refer to the talk page. The WP:ONEEVENT does not apply here and I don't understand how you could possibly think so as the sources do not cite a single particular event. You seem to be making a lot of unsubstantiated claims in your arguments that are not backed by the contents of the article. Not to mention that the question of redirection seems to be completely absurd. Are are suggesting to erase the entirety of the verifiable content forming IShowSpeed's B-Class article into a single mention in a list? Célestin Denis (talk) 03:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing only sources, I'm arguing other points as well. We are not an indiscriminate collection of information, we are not a publication website, and we are not part of the social media circle. You can have excellent sourcing and still fail other measurements for article retention. You've made your point with sources, but haven't taken up the other points per se. Of particular note, despite claiming the subject is notable, you've yet to cast a !vote for keep, which is particularly telling. Either it hasn't occurred to you to do so yet, you've decided to simple refute the charges here in commentary, or you yourself have doubts about the article's inclusion on site. If you have faith that whats been written is worthy then it would be best to officially commit to one side of the discussion. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While I do agree that he fails multiple wikipedia notability guildlines, I would argue that he passes WP:ONEVENT since he has been in the press recently for his sucsess with music and social media, he has created songs. I am leaning towards delete due to the notability guildlines like the nominator has states. But since of the information of what @Célestin Denis gave to us, since the article has been through large discussions and reviews, its a crossroad.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 04:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In what way does he fail any of the Wikipedia notability guidelines that directly apply to him, especially with the numerous reliable and detailed coverage he has garnered over the past year? As a YouTube personality, he passes WP:WEB because numerous sources exist for him that have described the multitude of videos he has posted over the past year, both with and without controversy. He also meets WP:BASIC through multiple notability-granting sources about him as well, alongside WP:NMUSIC with his current single appearing in several national music charts. Every other notability criteria he supposedly fails doesn't even apply to him anyways - of course he obviously isn't a corporation, a registered athlete or, let's face it, even remotely close to a scholar. Not to mention, it is extremely erroneous to assert that a YouTuber that received coverage for making misogynistic jokes and tirades leading to bans on websites and games, lighting a firework inside his room, being swatted, and popularizing a once-obscure mobile app comes remotely close to WP:BLP1E, or even WP:BLP2E. The only legitimate aspect that could perhaps justify IShowSpeed as non-notable is that he may be a "run of the mill" e-celeb. There is nothing new under the world wide web, and YouTubers with controversies come a dime a dozen. But I don't think even the biggest of YouTubers received this much significant coverage from reliable media outlets in just a short period of time. That's something reserved only for the top of the top of e-celebs, which by and large separates him from average internet creators with moderately sized fanbases AND paltry media coverage.

As for TomStar81's arguments over what Wikipedia is not, I'm going to post a lengthy argument later tonight that proves he does meet WP:GNG and doesn't violate what Wikipedia is not. See response below. PantheonRadiance (talk) 05:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I was sincerely hoping that I wouldn't have to write any more bytes of data about IShowSpeed on Wikipedia anymore, but with this AfD posted less than A DAY after it was accepted via mainspace, it's clear that the sheer mention of IShowSpeed elicits nothing but vitriol no matter what website his presence lingers.

Collapsed for readability
First off, we had the recent Deletion Review where consensus agreed that IShowSpeed proves to meet the notability guidelines. Ironically, TomStar81, you participated in this discussion and advocated for recreation via AfC. In that discussion I created a source table which demonstrated the best sources in accordance with Robert McClenon and SmokeyJoe's suggestions, all of which are present in the article now. I feel like I'm living in Termina having to reiterate this, but simply put, from a quantitative standpoint IShowSpeed EASILY meets WP:GNG through a multitude of reliable sources. Not only this, but I want to apply the concept of intersectionality to IShowSpeed, mainly because he fits multiple criteria. Of course he meets WP:BASIC as a living person. However, seeing as how he's primarily a YouTuber that creates web content, WP:WEB must also be considered - multiple outlets have described the nature of IShowSpeed's content separate from his controversies. Second, as someone who wrote a counterargument about his notability, I no longer believe most of the points I wrote. While IShowSpeed is controversial, I don't believe his controversies should deter him from obtaining his own article anymore. Using the WP:NOT argument, Wikipedia is not censored - so long as the material is encyclopedic, we should feel free to add such controversial information. And most, if not all, of his controversies are referenced solely from sources Wikipedia considers reliable in accordance with WP:BLP. Also, you claim that a large portion of the article violates what Wikipedia is not. Judging from your initial post, I assume that the policies you're mostly referring to are WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:SOAP and WP:NOTNEWS/WP:NOTGOSSIP. Your claims of indiscriminateness are in my opinion flawed. Reading the guideline, it asserts that "data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources," which is what many of the sources do - they contextualize many of the events he has been embroiled in within the context of internet controversies and other larger themes and ideas. For brevity's sake, I'll focus on two examples: his Valorant ban, and the quiz he took. In the last few paragraphs of a Kotaku article about the incident, the author used the event as a branching off point to discuss gaming toxicity, misogyny and the moral dilemma regarding how we treat adolescents when they say bigoted messages. This goes far beyond a routine announcement of "hey, X YouTuber did Y thing! Here's how he did it!" It's something that would appear in a scholarly journal about hate speech online, or how online gaming cultivates toxic spaces. The Yahoo News source discussing the quiz he took, while admittedly a bit trivial, starts off with an adage that discusses how the internet can be used to mislead others. This of course relates to the larger issue of misinformation via social media, which the article partially explores using Speed's stream as an example. In general, both sources don't just merely break the news; they describe their significance as well. This is a common pattern with a large portion of the sources in that they synthesize the events he's been involved in with background info of him as a person/his content, while using such events to articulate more significant ideas. So not only does this prove reliable sources deem him and his content significant, their analysis of said videos proves it's more than just indiscriminate or trivial gossip or simple routine news coverage. Not to mention, it doesn't qualify as gossip because the sources aren't based on unconfirmed rumors - they're based on actions IShowSpeed actually did and were verified. As for your point that "Wikipedia is not a means of promotion" and that this article "promotes the subject's notoriety then his fame," I'm pretty sure that's more of a neutral point of view issue rather than promotional issues. While ultras have thwarted the article before, that doesn't mean all other editors want to promote him in any way - whether to tarnish his reputation or garner him more viewers. Honestly, I never heard of him until shortly after the Valorant incident, and saw that so many media outlets have covered it that I thought it would make a fair article. I'm sure that there were good faith editors who also had the same thought, not to mention people who discovered him through news outlets reporting on it. This article doesn't intend on promoting him because reliable sources more or less already have fulfilled that role. We're just printing this knowledge on a page of a never-ending encyclopedia. Finally, if there's one lesson I've learned these past few months of knowing IShowSpeed, it's to take a step back from my biases and see the bigger picture, especially when it comes to identifying notability. What one person deems important may seem meaningless to another person, and vice versa. But from a Wikipedian standpoint, what matters the most isn't how we feel about a person or idea. What truly matters here is what sources from experts say about said topic. That should be the key to notability, and IShowSpeed has unlocked it in so many ways. Regardless of our feelings towards him, at the end of the day we can't deny that he has had a huge impact in such a small amount of time, and that's something worth documenting in any encyclopedia in the world.

Collapsed for readability

First off, we had the recent Deletion Review where consensus agreed that IShowSpeed proves to meet the notability guidelines. Ironically, TomStar81, you participated in this discussion and advocated for recreation via AfC. In that discussion I created a source table which demonstrated the best sources in accordance with Robert McClenon and SmokeyJoe's suggestions, all of which are present in the article now. I feel like I'm living in Termina having to reiterate this, but simply put, from a quantitative standpoint IShowSpeed EASILY meets WP:GNG through a multitude of reliable sources. Not only this, but I want to apply the concept of intersectionality to IShowSpeed, mainly because he fits multiple criteria. Of course he meets WP:BASIC as a living person. However, seeing as how he's primarily a YouTuber that creates web content, WP:WEB must also be considered - multiple outlets have described the nature of IShowSpeed's content separate from his controversies.

Second, as someone who wrote a counterargument about his notability, I no longer believe most of the points I wrote. While IShowSpeed is controversial, I don't believe his controversies should deter him from obtaining his own article anymore. Using the WP:NOT argument, Wikipedia is not censored - so long as the material is encyclopedic, we should feel free to add such controversial information. And most, if not all, of his controversies are referenced solely from sources Wikipedia considers reliable in accordance with WP:BLP.

Also, you claim that a large portion of the article violates what Wikipedia is not. Judging from your initial post, I assume that the policies you're mostly referring to are WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:SOAP and WP:NOTNEWS/WP:NOTGOSSIP.

Your claims of indiscriminateness are in my opinion flawed. Reading the guideline, it asserts that "data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources," which is what many of the sources do - they contextualize many of the events he has been embroiled in within the context of internet controversies and other larger themes and ideas. For brevity's sake, I'll focus on two examples: his Valorant ban, and the quiz he took.

In the last few paragraphs of a Kotaku article about the incident, the author used the event as a branching off point to discuss gaming toxicity, misogyny and the moral dilemma regarding how we treat adolescents when they say bigoted messages. This goes far beyond a routine announcement of "hey, X YouTuber did Y thing! Here's how he did it!" It's something that would appear in a scholarly journal about hate speech online, or how online gaming cultivates toxic spaces.
The Yahoo News source discussing the quiz he took, while admittedly a bit trivial, starts off with an adage that discusses how the internet can be used to mislead others. This of course relates to the larger issue of misinformation via social media, which the article partially explores using Speed's stream as an example. In general, both sources don't just merely break the news; they describe their significance as well.

This is a common pattern with a large portion of the sources in that they synthesize the events he's been involved in with background info of him as a person/his content, while using such events to articulate more significant ideas. So not only does this prove reliable sources deem him and his content significant, their analysis of said videos proves it's more than just indiscriminate or trivial gossip or simple routine news coverage. Not to mention, it doesn't qualify as gossip because the sources aren't based on unconfirmed rumors - they're based on actions IShowSpeed actually did and were verified.

As for your point that "Wikipedia is not a means of promotion" and that this article "promotes the subject's notoriety then his fame," I'm pretty sure that's more of a neutral point of view issue rather than promotional issues. While ultras have thwarted the article before, that doesn't mean all other editors want to promote him in any way - whether to tarnish his reputation or garner him more viewers. Honestly, I never heard of him until shortly after the Valorant incident, and saw that so many media outlets have covered it that I thought it would make a fair article. I'm sure that there were good faith editors who also had the same thought, not to mention people who discovered him through news outlets reporting on it. This article doesn't intend on promoting him because reliable sources more or less already have fulfilled that role. We're just printing this knowledge on a page of a never-ending encyclopedia.

Finally, if there's one lesson I've learned these past few months of knowing IShowSpeed, it's to take a step back from my biases and see the bigger picture, especially when it comes to identifying notability. What one person deems important may seem meaningless to another person, and vice versa. But from a Wikipedian standpoint, what matters the most isn't how we feel about a person or idea. What truly matters here is what sources from experts say about said topic. That should be the key to notability, and IShowSpeed has unlocked it in so many ways. Regardless of our feelings towards him, at the end of the day we can't deny that he has had a huge impact in such a small amount of time, and that's something worth documenting in any encyclopedia in the world.

PantheonRadiance (talk) 09:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty of non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. Definitely not a WP:TNT case, but it does need some cleanup, e.g. some WP:NPOV issues and WP:CSECTION. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 15:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The article has certain notabilities considering a large number of subscribers that he have on Youtube, but a reliable source in the main problem about this page. -- B-MIKE -(Talk) 02:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Subscribers doesn’t assert notability. You need reliable sources in order to assert notability as well as verifiability. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 13:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well considering all the news article about him, He do have nobility while there is reliable sources like The Sun B-MIKE -(Talk) 20:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Sun is a deprecated source per WP:RSP so this is not a good example. However, there are articles in reliable sources such as Kotaku, Dot Esports, Insider and Inven Global which are all considered reliable by the community. Célestin Denis (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well Yes I agree that cheating on a 10 question quiz is not notable, I suggest that the pokemon firework event should be moved to the Controversies chapter. B-MIKE -(Talk) 02:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's enough coverage here for an article. Ss112 00:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was willing to accept this AfC submission before Ingenuity did so themselves. The article's sources proves it meets WP:GNG, and I disagree with your assessment of WP:ONEEVENT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DatGuy (talk • contribs) 12:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the middle: Sure there are reliable sources and some notability but almost half of the references are primary which is concerning for an article on a living person. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 13:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please cite some examples of unreliable and primary sources being used in the article? The presence of such sources should also not be enough for deletion if there is presence of enough reliable non-primary sources asserting notability. Wikipedia is a not finished product and the article should instead be improved and not completed erased on such a basis. Célestin Denis (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I admit, the unreliable sources bit was sort of an exaggeration as there was only like 2 or 3 unreliable sources but still, almost half of the references are primary sources. Besides my vote probably won't matter in the end anyways. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 22:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see like... 3 primary sources. One for his YouTube views, one for his singles (which can be removed, not even needed), and one for his birthday. Where are you getting "almost half"? – Pbrks ^(t • c) 17:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due to the reliable sources found above, The notability of the subject in question, and the contents of the article. I do not see any reason to destroy this article. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 16:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — There is enough non-trivial mentions in reliable sources that sufficiently cover iShowSpeed to suffice an article. Commenting on content, the article needs some cleanup. Harobouri ^{T • C (he/him)} 00:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I didn't know who this guy was; I only knew he had 13.8 million subscribers. Came to Wikipedia to find out more about him. Why in the world would this helpful article be deleted? Marc Yu 04:12, 3 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcyu (talk • contribs)
Keep Llacb47 (talk) 05:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Alexysun (talk) 16:33, 5 December 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 Athletics at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Women's marathon. As at ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Riga[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOLY and WP:NTRACK. LibStar (talk) 03:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Greece. Shellwood (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 103rd place at the olympics is not notable. BogLogs (talk) 07:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A 12th place in the Berlin Marathon is perhaps the highest accomplishment, but the career has not been very distinguished, bringing with it a lack of coverage. 80.203.59.161 (talk) 04:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Athletics at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Women's marathon as an alternative to deletion. --Enos733 (talk) 02:42, 2 December 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 11:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mater (Cars)[edit]

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

There isn't WP:SIGCOV for this topic. This article is sourced to unreliable sources such as blogs, or promotional sources affiliated with the subject. WP:BEFORE only revealed brief coverage that does not support a stand-alone Wikipedia article. Jontesta (talk) 03:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 03:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not sure what was used in the WP:BEFORE search: I searched for "Tow Mater" in Google Scholar, and I got 3 pages of discussion of Mater's accent in Stigmatized on Screen: How Hollywood Portrays Nonstandard Dialects. There is also significant coverage in academic work regarding the way Mater is dubbed in French (Colleen Montgomery, "Double Doublage: Vocal Performance in the French-Dubbed Versions of Pixar’s Toy Story and Cars," in Locating the Voice in Film: Critical Approaches and Global Practices, Oxford University Press, 2017) and Italian (Vincenza Minutella, (Re)Creating Language Identities in Animated Films: Dubbing Linguistic Variation). So, the subject passes WP:GNG. St Anselm (talk) 04:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@StAnselm Good finds, I can confirm the first source meets (my subjective view of) SIGCOV, i.e. I see 2+ paragraphs with some analysis that goes beyond plot summary. I am not sure about the other two, which are about paragraph long if not shorter (few sentences within a larger paragrph). As such, I call borderline for now and abstain from the vote vote while I think more. However, I'd oppose hard deletion here, a redirect to List of Cars characters is the most deletionist view I would support (particularly if nobody bothers to expand this). If the analysis Anseim found above is added, then of course this would be merge at minimum if not weak keep. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NYT, OC Register, AJC … and that’s not even leaving the first page of Google News findings when I add “larry” (as in, Larry the Cable Guy) to the search term. Jclemens (talk) 05:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Cars characters. Move the Characterization and other real-world content into the list, and trim the plot summary. --LoЯd ۞pεth 18:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Cars characters, you can spout sources until you are blue in the face but if they are all trivial coverage, the subject should not have a standalone article. Obviously, it should not be hard deleted as the major character in a major franchise. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are six sources listed in the AfD; three each from StAnselm and myself. Which five (or six) do you believe constitute trivial coverage? Jclemens (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Jclemns' sources, seems to be sufficient for an article. DecafPotato (talk) 07:17, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We just went through this debate with Sally Carrera, another Cars character, a week or so ago.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: Sally Carrera was deleted via PROD and restored. Jclemens (talk) 06:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, I handled the deletion and restoration. Maybe I should have been more specific. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per the sources StAnselm and Jclemens has provided. This source may also be of some use. MoonJet (talk) 06:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kerching (online casino)[edit]

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

A seemingly non-notable and now defunct online gambling website. None of the current sources are valid, as they are all primary sources from the various companies that owned the business. Searching for sources brings up listings in databases of online gambling and coverage in non-reliable sources, but there is not really any significant coverage in reliable sources. The article was nominated for deletion some years ago, but the AFD was closed as No Consensus, due to nobody participating in the discussing. Thus, it needs to go back to AFD. Rorshacma (talk) 02:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Companies, and Internet. Rorshacma (talk) 02:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the fact that no one has bothered to update it in the past five years to suggest that it has closed is pretty damning. Jclemens (talk) 03:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - defunct and no consensus due to no participation previously really should have led to a search for more participation or a deletion at the time. BogLogs (talk) 07:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No interest to man nor beast. scope_creep^Talk 17:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Mia[edit]

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

Non-notable producer. Mooonswimmer 02:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Theatre, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 08:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have to disagree that the producer is non notable. Was behind the first ever Dolby Atmos/Immersive commercial audio releases (REM and INXS) and was also behind the flagship immersive remix of Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club band.

"Ray Mia is an immersive audio producer and director with over 150 mixes to his name, as well as various credits as the founder of numerous successful production studios."

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/binaural-sound-hearing-in-3-d-with-ray-mia-tickets-392300991827 Iainsbruce (talk) 17:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Santos[edit]

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

Non-notable sports agent. Very little in-depth coverage. Mooonswimmer 02:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Journalism, and Uganda. Shellwood (talk) 08:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. His arrest almost makes this WP:ONEVENT. LibStar (talk) 05:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Naumov[edit]

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

I can't find any significant coverage of this individual, in english or in Russian (though the commonness of their name makes it difficult to know if I've been comprehensive) ruwiki version doesn't have any better sourcing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Russia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm also unable to find any significant coverage of this person in reliable sources in english or russian --Tristario (talk) 01:29, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Russian athlete fails WP:NBIO with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, like the logician with the same name. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Close, but utimately fails WP:NTRACK, WP:NSPORT, and WP:NBIO.Stoarm (talk) 04:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per users above. BogLogs (talk) 07:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also was unable to find significant coverage, and this person appears not to be notable for our purposes. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WeLink[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Routine annoucements, funding news, PR, press-releases. Fails WP:SIGCOV. UPE scope_creep^Talk 00:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NCORP - the most-cited source in this article is the Arizona Business Journal, a product of American City Business Journals, which describes itself as offering "business leaders many avenues for making connections and gives them a competitive edge locally, regionally and nationally. ACBJ is the premier media solutions platform for companies that target business decision-makers", so appears to generally lack independence from the subjects of its coverage. The source also substantially relies on quotes from WeLink President Luke Langford and focuses on trivial coverage of an expansion [...] of the business, a mention of a raised capital, and a brief synopsis of personnel, so does not provide sufficient WP:CORPDEPTH with WP:ORGIND. The next source in the article is Light Reading, which has trivial coverage related to hiring of personnel, and there is trivial coverage of raised capital published on the inaccessible Fierce Wireless website (but a press release was published several days earlier, also covered by the TechCrunch source in the article). Light Reading is also cited for coverage substantially based on statements by Langford and founder, chairman and CEO Ross about the expansion to Las Vegas and Phoenix. There is also a brief mention of the company in an announcement related to Washington, DC implementing internet subsidies. The remaining sources in the article are similar or worse in terms of supporting notability with WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND in reliable sources, and an online search finds more press releases and apparent churnalism of trivial coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 22:38, 30 November 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.