Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 May 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< May 26	May 28 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

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

Stranger Among Bears

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

No sources found. Prod removed without comment Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 20:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Refactor: Nominator evidently can't stand that someone would dare to disturb their dizzying deletionist spree, as they couldn't wait for me to finish writing that comment before taking this to AFD. I read the article and saw that it was really more about Charlie Vandergaw than the television series. I then did a proper BEFORE search and came up with sources from ABC News, Anchorage Daily News, Seattle Times, Bend Bulletin and multiple hits on the personal website of Craig Medred, a credentialed outdoors writer who also wrote the ADN piece linked to above. The ST article was paywalled for me, but everything else appeared to be indepth, even if all of it was centered on one episode (read: potential BLP1E) rather than his life as a whole. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 20:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the nomination, not the nominator. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted in my comment when I contested the PROD, I caught wind of this through a WikiProject alert page. This AFD is following the exact same pattern as the recently-concluded Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alaska Wing Men, also initiated by you, and possibly other AFDs I haven't noticed. Wouldn't you expect your fellow editors to be curious why this is occurring? What I found was you engaging in indiscriminate deletion-related activity through Twinkle. WP:TW still begins with a prominent banner stating in part "You take full responsibility for any action you perform using Twinkle". Exposing a pattern of targeting articles for deletion so other editors can find sources for you is highly pertinent to the nomination, especially given the likelihood of how many times it's happened before. Why would you hide behind the notion that every action you initiate exists in a bubble? Special:Contributions exists for a reason. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on sources identified by RadioKAOS above. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Source assessment
Source	Reliable	Independent	Significant coverage?
ABC News	Yes	Yes	Yes. The sources covers the subject in detail.
Anchorage Daily News	Yes	Yes	Yes, the sources covers the subject in detail.
Seattle Times	Yes	Yes	Yes, the sources covers the subject in detail.
Bend Bulletin	Yes	Yes	Yes, the sources covers the subject in detail.

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 13:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverie Love

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Shellwood (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Waterman (sports)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete per WP:NOTDICT. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

American Society of Digital Forensics & eDiscovery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Universities' Council for the Education of Teachers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dan Seaborn

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Gusfriend (talk) 23:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Christianity, and South Carolina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (1) BLP without adequate referneces (2) This seems to be little more than a one-man ministry, though possibly employing a couple of other counsellors. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and because (a) we are not a soapbox, (b) we are not a free webhost, and (c) we are not a vehicle for spam. Bearian (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is not notable and the article makes no support for inclusion in Wikipedia. IrishOsita (talk) 03:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Voice of America Indonesia. Star Mississippi 13:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jurnal VOA

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

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

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

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linewatch

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found an article from The Hollywood Reporter. Needs more coverage in order to eligible. The link from Reuters doesn't count because it's the same word-for-word article as that of the Hollywood Reporter. The Film Creator (talk) 23:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Adam Harrington (U.S. actor)

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

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

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

Delete: Fails Wikipedia:NACTOR. Bgsu98 (talk) 02:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) DonaldD23 talk to me 13:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Messages Deleted

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no suitable or reliable sources or reviews to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 23:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have Dreams, Will Travel

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Beard

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 22:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is not substnatial, and being an actor in a soap opera who has also been in reality shows is not a default sign of notability. IMDb is not reliable and his own website is neither secondary nor indepedent. Wikipedia is to be built on what reliable secondary sources have said about the subject, when we have none we can say nothing and thus should have no article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks RS to establish GNG. Megtetg34 (talk) 06:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tarantella (1995 film)

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

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

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

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

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

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

F.T.W. (film)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP: NFSOURCES. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found a review from Variety. Needs one more suitable and reliable review in order to be eligible. The Film Creator (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw this nomination per User:ReaderofthePack’s improvements to the article. The Film Creator (talk) 11:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Cherney

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sulaiman Hazazi

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Saudi Arabia. agtx 21:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:32, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a bunch of results in arabic, the best I could find were [3] [4] [5] and [6], not sure if its enough for a GNG pass. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In any other area, this would not be close enough to meet WP:GNG. This is a handful of routine annoucements/press release style coverage, plus a single Q&A style interview. I fundamentally don't understand why that's considered enough coverage for a football player. agtx 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG, tons of reference when you search his name spellt in Arabic. Some references listed here 1, 2, 3, 4. Article should be expanded.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ortizesp. Giant Snowman 13:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep The first two references found by Ortizesp seem in particular to be SIGCOV. EternalNomad (talk) 06:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Thenee

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Argentina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack sources giving substantial coverage of him in a way to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and lack of significant coverage. His works might command a high price, but rich folks got a lot of cash to blow lately, and we are neither advertising space nor a free web host service. Bearian (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Hal Lindsey. ✗plicit 23:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Hal Lindsey Report

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

Deprodded with source, but there's still not much out there Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hal Lindsey. I created this article more than ten years ago, but I can't remember why. I also deprodded it because it has some notability (a couple of Gnews hits, lots of GBooks results) but doesn't seem to be independently notable of Lindsey himself. I was about to propose a merge, but TPH beat me to it. St Anselm (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested, or just redirect. Nothing to see. Bearian (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Terra Trevor

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cover Up (1991 film)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no suitable or reliable sources or reviews to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Fritz

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tanglewood Middle School shooting

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

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

Speedy keep: Easily passes WP:GNG with coverage in large outlets such as CNN, Fox News, Yahoo, USA Today, New York Times, New York Post, NBC News, and even People among the numerous other reputable sources. WP:RECENTISM is an essay, not a guideline as GNG is. GauchoDude (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (events), especially the section about criminal acts. Notability of events needs evidence of lasting impact. The sources listed are standard news cycle coverage concentrated around April 1st. The crime is unfortunate, but it is all too common. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair. I'll share my rationale in response to yours above. Re: WP:NCRIME, "...media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources." In my opinion, above and to follow, I believe this has occurred.

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

While you may feel that "The crime is unfortunate, but it is all too common," and I 100% agree with you, my interpretation of WP:EVENTCRIT shows that this incident meets all of the listed out points. GauchoDude (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Schools, and South Carolina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It happened over a month ago and this stub is all the info we have? I'm leaning delete if no other sources come up, one single person shot is tragic, but not terribly notable for Wiki purposes anyway. Oaktree b (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of sources out there with much more info as I've listed above. This AfD, as all of them do, debate the merits of inclusion or deletion based on WP:N (in this case, the more specific WP:N(E)), WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOT. If you feel the article should be improved, I humbly invite you to do so and would love your contributions. GauchoDude (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NEVENT and WP:NCRIME per my comments above. Big splash of breaking news coverage March 31st to April 1st. Strictly routine local coverage after the first 24 hours: arraignment, etc. Sadly, this is the once-a-week kind of shooting on topic at List of school shootings in the United States, where it is already included. • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep May I enlighten and encourage you, Checkers to maybe stop calling yourself a past inclusionist? I feel you never were one. What's next? Delete this and then move down the list of crises? EVERY school shooting (and or those with fatalities) has an article here. You do not understand many of Wikipedia's principles in the right way. You don't have clear concepts of notability. You misused run-of-the-mill and you don't get how one time events matter.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 07:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gene93k. Coverage completely fell off after the day of the shooting. Love of Corey (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete. per Gene93k. Not really well known since all of the media coverage about it lasted less then 3 days. The article does not have much reliable sources besides NBC News. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 07:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A humble request for reconsideration. My previous posts address both of your concerns. They show coverage in major, reliable news sources and that the coverage also spreads to the present day. If CNN, Fox News, New York Times, etc. are not reliable sources, then how would you define them? GauchoDude (talk) 12:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment - Pinging the following from Talk:2017 Las Vegas shooting to help stimulate further discussion: @Mandruss: @Objective3000: @Nihlus: @Blysbane: @Fuzheado: @InedibleHulk: @WWGB: @Signedzzz: @Ianmacm: @Hydronium Hydroxide: @FOARP: @Chaheel Riens: @Knowledgekid87: @Natureium: @Cramyourspam: @Pincrete: @Jane955: @RekishiEJ: @FallingGravity: @DonFB: @Dlthewave: @Tutelary: @Elli: @Locke Cole: @Cullen328: @Jim Michael 2: @ProcrastinatingReader: @WikiVirusC: @North8000: @Veggies: @Qwaiiplayer: @ArvindPalaskar: @Kpddg: @Dumuzid: @ThadeusOfNazereth: @Mz7: @TrangaBellam: @Iamreallygoodatcheckers: @Khajidha: @JoePhin: @GenQuest: @Macktheknifeau: @Jayron32: @Joseph A. Spadaro: @Jjjimg: @Chesapeake77: @Amakuru: @Seggallion: Love of Corey (talk) 01:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Event Notability. No indication this is anything other than a personal dispute or drug deal between two people that went bad and just happened to occur at a school. As written, there is nothing indicating any notability. Not sure this should even be titled anything "...school shooting." GenQuest ^"scribble" 01:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of school shootings in the United States. I believe this fails to satisfy WP:NEVENT, particularly WP:GEOSCOPE. The vast majority of the coverage is local. Just having it mentioned in the context of other school shootings does not constitute significant converage and doesn't mean that the event has a significant impact beyond the local community. As with other school shootings that are not notable enough for a stand alone article, this should be redirected to the (regrettably) growing list of school shootings in the US. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 02:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Delete. In the absence of evidence of lasting and enduring significance at a national level, this appears to fail WP:NEVENTS. The sources offered by GauchoDude above in evidence of lasting significance are mostly local news coverage or mention this shooting only in the broader context of school shootings in general. The latter would justify inclusion in List of school shootings in the United States, but not necessarily a standalone article. Mz7 (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of school shootings in the United States per WP:LASTING. The question that should be asked is: what makes this particular shooting stand out among all of the other shootings on the list? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a notable event with perfectly good sources. A real no-brainer. Joe (talk) 02:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - No evidence of lasting impact. Minor event of little note. -- Veggies (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep - the history of now is history --and no outstanding reason to delete Cramyourspam (talk) 03:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AND "over 100 deputies" responded? that's historical. KEEP Cramyourspam (talk) Cramyourspam (talk) 03:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NEVENT and WP:NCRIME, no lasting significance. Strictly routine local coverage after the first 24 hours: arraignment, etc. Sadly, this is the once-a-week kind of shooting on topic at List of school shootings in the United States, where it is already included.. I was ultimately swayed by this event's inclusion in the list article. At present there is no evidence of either any need or merit in the existence of this individual event article. Pincrete (talk) 03:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GauchoDude. Plenty of sources demonstrated, and not just immediately after the event. Also, notability is not temporary. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was a single apparent murder of an all too common type. The only unusual thing about this killing is that both the victim and the alleged perpetrator were quite young. Yes, many major reliable sources gave this tragic incident passing mention, but as far as I can see, there has not been any truly significant secondary coverage of this killing. The coverage we now see is primary source recapitulation of the police blotter. Our notability guideline says that A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. We have none of that in this case. There are between 20,000 and 25,000 homicides each year in the U.S., and clearly very high numbers in other countries as well. These one off killings generate hatred and vendettas. Are we actually prepared to accept a flood of new articles about commonplace murders, and to maintain them against disruptive editing and BLP violations for decades to come? Cullen328 (talk) 04:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable event; while this got coverage at the time, the coverage was not sustained to the standard necessary for notability. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The result was keep. Sourcing has been confirmed. If it's not available online, then it fails WP:V is not remotely true. You know better than that, TPH. Star Mississippi 13:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac (talk show)

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

Deprodded with NYT article, but sourcing is still super scant. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as noted in my PROD removal text, it was also reviewed by the Baltimore Sun, which is not available online (but appears in Google search results because they just broke their internet archive or something): Baltimore Sun, Dec 4, 2005, "Fashion and fun with irreverent Isaac Mizrahi". Thus, it was reviewed twice, with two independent, reliable sources, and meets the GNG. matt91486 (talk) 03:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not available online, then it fails WP:V. If we can't see the full version, who's to say it wasn't just a one-sentence blurb or PR piece? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia policy very clearly permits offline sources. In an AfD, we are trying to prove that sources exist. matt91486 (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But we can't verify the content of that source. How do you know how in-depth it is or isn't? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the article [7] DonaldD23 talk to me 17:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately their articles auto-redirect to the home page, as they've entirely broken their online archive system. matt91486 (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I read the article. Click on the link DonaldD23 talk to me 17:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, if it works for you that's great -- for me when I click, it just takes me to the Baltimore Sun home page (which is why in the Google search result I could see the short preview, title, etc., but not the article itself). Similar things happen to me with all Tribune Company papers. (Which is annoying because Chicago Tribune, Baltimore Sun, Miami Sun Sentinel, and Orlando Sentinel all have reasonably decent archival TV coverage). matt91486 (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

"Isaac's definitely back on top, and his star is brighter than ever in Hollywood and in fashion," says Kelli Delaney, editor-in-chief of Celebrity Living magazine. "I think he could be the male Ellen [DeGeneres]."" DonaldD23 talk to me 17:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the citations listed in the article. The reviews don't need to be verified by the editor who proposed the deletion, anyone can verify them...which I did. The reasoning of not being able to see the full article because of a paywall is an individual issue. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Finay

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of passing WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even vaguely close to passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Scraped Google for WP:SIGCOV and it’s not there, with various tags as well. NiklausGerard (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not fulfill notability requirements. IrishOsita (talk) 02:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suddenly (2013 film)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Was somewhat excited when 2013 Oscar nominations came up in the search, but it's a song from the Les Mis movie. This is just a forgotten movie he made, even the DVD or Blu Ray review are hard to find. Oaktree b (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Suddenly_(1954_film)#History. This doesn't appear to be independently notable of the original film and honestly, what very little I did find mentioned this in relation to the 1954 film. We could maybe add 1-2 more lines about the crew, release date, and that it was a loose remake, but that's about all that needs to be added. I don't know if there really needs to be a redirect, but redirects are WP:CHEAP and this could help prevent recreation. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Films aren't "inherently" notable just because they exist, or even because of who directed or starred in them — the notability test for films depends on reliable source coverage about the film, such as analytical attention from established film critics. But there's none of that here, and I've been unable to find anything else in the archives either. Bearcat (talk) 14:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Percy Rasug

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of passing WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NFTi Emporium

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

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

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

@HenryTemplo What sentences exactly shows advertising ?

Can you please quote ?

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

notable works that are known in notable art galleries.

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

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

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

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

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

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

all company descriptions are pretty much like that.

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

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

it is not.

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

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

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

it talks about

- what it is

- its products

- where it is operating from

- its board members

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

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

it talks about

- what it is

- its products

- where it is operating from

- its board members or executive director

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball, Football, Lists, and Europe. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - apart from the grammatically incorrect title, this is a ridiculous article concept and clearly just a coatrack to "big up" Real Madrid -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This to me is a strong grounds for deletion on WP:SYNTH. Govvy (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - absolute nonsense. Giant Snowman 10:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One of the strongest trivia I ever came around on Wiki. Shankargb (talk) 03:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 00:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above, and because in 2002, everyone knows we are not a free web host for random stuff. Bearian (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Recreation of a page deleted by AfD discussion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle for Dream Island. ... discospinster _talk 21:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BFDI (Franchise)

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rina Rose

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

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

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 May 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It appears she did not run in the Tokyo Governor election in 2020 after all, which would have been at least something that gets past WP:BIO1E. LizardJr8 (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She was going to run, and infact its was announced publicly, tho she long later withdrew for reasons best known to her.... CatLover1 (talk) 12:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - how is her name even Rina Rose? I'm very confused why that's the name for the article. Also fails WP:GNG. Réunion (talk!) 18:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you follow her you will know that her public name has change from Rina Bovrisse to Rina Rose, And i also noticed someone tired changing it but its was reverted... CatLover1 (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Fashion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note that the subject of the deletion discussion is hiring people on Upwork to save her page and school page. She hired Sonali, Heather and Olivia B. and user CatLover1 could be Olivia B. I can email the screenshots of her posts. Please provide me the email id to send more details with links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.229.49 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong delete Wikipedia is not something you get coverage of by paying for it. The fact that this person has tried to do so is enough to delete the article, regardless of the other problems. There is nothing sugggesting actual notability. Wikipedia is not Who's Who, you do not pay your way in. It is not PR wire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can still entertain draftification from a non-sock account. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:SALT, and ban the paid meat-puppets. We are not a PR outfit, nor a soapbox to argue your cause, nor a web host free or paid. In 2007, you night have gotten away with this argument without being sanctioned, but it 2022, such claims are untenable and must be dealt with in the harshest manner. It also places our charitable status in danger with the IRS. Begone! Bearian (talk) 19:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lol, a bunch of pissed off users who were not hired on Upwork and saw that poor client seeking help regarding Wikipedia trying their best to delete and defame the subject. See this as well, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Juliusiji_sock_and_Rina_Rose This is very wrong and this needs to be changed. Wikipedia is not a war zone and not a place where a bunch of people deciding the future of Wikipedia. This is wrong to delete a page that was there and right away a new user decides to delete it and all support came in instead of fixing the errors, the editors should remove promotional or other errors instead of deleting it, they are experienced then why they can't help fix articles? Rina passes GNG and all Wiki standards for a notable person. Run a CU on all these accounts commenting a delete and all others that were mentioned in many cases. Yamasato Kyoshi a new person who know everything about Wikipedia what a joke. 103.159.43.187 (talk) 09:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chateau School

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

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

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 May 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Normal employment listing, glassdoor reviews of the school in Google; it exists, nothing near notability for our sources here though. Oaktree b (talk) 02:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. The article is a short stub that does nothing to explain why this school is notable.TH1980 (talk) 03:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - fails every factor that I use for my standards for schools. Right now it's just spam. Bearian (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The source analysis has been very compelling and addresses the relevant policy NCORP and the keep votes are either assertions, not based on policy, reflecting the wromg policy GNG or, in the case of the single vote providing sources, successfully challenged. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G-Aerosports

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and Greece. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. The sources, listed as "External links/References", are a few photos, a couple of YT videos and an e-book written by (as it appears) the user who created the article (this is an indication of COI, too; please, note that yesterday the same user created the Greek WP article as well). ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 09:28, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a legitimate manufacturer, which, in the meanwhile, has introduced new models and has an agreement for production under license in Canada - definately incrasing its notability. Please do note that there are hundreds of such articles in Wikipedia - there are even articles for makers of a single test sporting aircraft or a single vehicle. I see no reson why such articles should be deleted.Skartsis (talk) 18:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Skartsis "Legitimate manufacturer" has nothing to do with notability; it could have been illegal and notable. The "hundreds of such articles in Wikipedia" is an argument to avoid: the existence of other articles that their subject may lack notability doesn't justify keeping this article. To me the creation of this article by you looks like a product of WP:COI, it has to do with listing you e-book as a source. I might be wrong, but that was the first thing that crossed my mind when you created the Greek article (now deleted). ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Chalk19 and Paul McDonald I removed reference to my book (this was added only to provide additional reference, makes no difference to me - you may have seen that now it is an open access eBook on Academia). Also, I personally asked the manufacturer (through the e-mail in its website) to provide written permission for the images, as demanded by an editor. Was this that lead to the claim of "suspected connection"? You may as well delete the article, if you still believe so. Of course, I will repeat that this approach could lead to the deletion of a big part of Wikipedia. Regarding similar makers, random examples are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganzavia_GAK-22_Dino (a single ultralight aircraft made) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus_EDA_100_Flamingo (incomplete development of an ultralight aircraft). I will not argue further, and respect any decision. Skartsis (talk) 07:36, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I just added six new RS, including one from a reliable Spanish aviation magazine, one from HuffPo.gr, and another from newsbomb.gr. Now the citations are 10. Ten citations are a lot of citations. What's more, the coverage is persistent and spans from 2011 up to 2022, indicating lasting notability. This company has created a stealth kit aeroplane which is quite popular and notable. One of its founders is a retired policeman with no aviation experience. I will try to expand the article whenever I get some time. This is a very interesting and notable company. I will close by noting that Mr. Skartsis has no COI. His book is freely available online. He doesn't stand to profit from this endeavour. In fact, Mr. Skartsis has resuscitated the knowledge base of the old industrial base of Greece by creating articles on en.wiki. His multitude of Greek automobile and industrial articles on en.wiki is a testament to his extensive knowledge, experience, and dedication. I know that, due to cultural bias, Greek manufacturers are not particularly known in North America. I am pleased that, at least, the article was not CSD'ed. That would be too much cultural bias. Dr. K. 22:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr.K. At least many of the new references added are not from relable sources (ellines.com, ipop.gr, newsbomb.gr). The coverage on the subject looks like just a reproduction of the point of view of the company, based on YT viedos, company statements etc. For example, presenting this aircraft as the "Greek Stealth bomber fighter" (huffingtonpost.gr), is just ridiculous in my opinion. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 09:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was redirect to Yoga as exercise. Star Mississippi 13:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meditation and Yoga Retreat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 13:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sarfoa Asamoah

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Naesketchie

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oiseau Bay

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 13:28, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Tanner

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Indiana. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being the first mayor of a small community is not a sign of notability, and this article is too much built on primary sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - badly fails WP:GNG. Almost all sources are original. Why is this here? Bearian (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (as withdrawn).

List of census-designated places in Massachusetts

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

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

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

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

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

Electronics in pop music

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

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

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

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

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

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

Life Speaks to Me

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- @QuietHere: "deletion proposals and DYK proposals are two different conversations so this "RfD is fake" line makes no sense" - I did not refer to two places of discussion. I mean Legoktm just thought refernces are bad so for him it was not enough to notability. So I have checked these sources and provided additional information at talk page. He didn't not look at it and not answered - just nominated AfD - it's like it looks. Eurohunter (talk) 17:45, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - It should be atleast redirected. Eurohunter (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not even what I was saying, I was saying that you calling this discussion "fake"/illegitimate and dismissing it with a "What are we doing here?" is silly and rude because starting an XfD shouldn't be negated by some other ongoing discussion unless that discussion is about fixing problems with the page that the XfD is also addressing. And besides, Legoktm already said they looked at the sources you provided and that they weren't any good so accusing them of ignoring you is baseless.
    
    As for redirecting, yes, do that. Dunno why that isn't just the default option anyway. If there's an artist/discography page then why wouldn't you redirect to it? QuietHere (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @QuietHere: He had his arguments and I provided additional information to explain the situation - so in normal discussion you expect that he will provide any answer negative or positive, whatever. It's easy to say after that he not noticed improvements so he not answered. You expect an answer otherwise it can be considered as ignored. Without answer you don't know if for him nothing changed or he just ignored it. Eurohunter (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    
    @QuietHere: Let's be precise. "Legoktm already said they looked at the sources you provided" - he did it after I accused him. Eurohunter (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to artist. No attempt has been made to claim the validity of the sources in the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @TenPoundHammer: How references are outdated? Eurohunter (talk) 17:45, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - It should be atleast redirected. Eurohunter (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Basshunter discography. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @SBKSPP: What do you mean? Did you checked refernces? Eurohunter (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Is there not a rule against replying to every single person who responds to an AfD? QuietHere (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Hyderabad cricketers. (non-admin closure) — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nizam Yar Khan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:23, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asif Akbar (film director)

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

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

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

I tried to find all the notable clues and I found a few. Popular US film news outlets (such as Deadline, Scriptmag, Prnewswire, The Daily Star, Dhaka Tribune) have featured various news articles about him. There is no question about his notability. Atiqul Islam Sakib (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent significant coverage to establish notability. The cited sources are interviews without independent analysis by the interviewer, or passing mentions, mostly in regurgitated press releases hyping one upcoming film or another. The deepest, Prothom Alo, contains a scant five sentences about Akbar. The two movie reviews don't blame him explicitly for The Commando being "spectacularly atrocious ... distinguished by an incompetence" and being filled with "egregious implausibilities and cliches" and "pernicious nonsense", but he presumably bears some responsibility. This hagiography cherry picks from the reviews to support the statement that he wrote, directed, and produced the film, but with nary a hint that his effort "will appeal only to connoisseurs of 'how bad can it be?' cinema". --Worldbruce (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has directed a globally known superstar Mickey Rourke. Abbasulu (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - has directed a globally known superstar Mickey Rourke. Abbasulu (talk) 21:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that you can only !vote once in a deletion debate. ✗plicit 00:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Worldbruce comment. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 00:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Worldbruce's explanation of why the sources here aren't enough to satisfy the GNG, and my search didn't find anything that wasn't either a non-independent interview or a passing mention in a review of one of his films. I'm not seeing a strong case that Akbar meets any of the WP:DIRECTOR criteria and no possible alternatives to deletion come to mind, so without higher-quality sourcing, deletion is appropriate. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of programs broadcast by MTV. ✗plicit 12:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch and Burn

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

Only found a couple fleeting mentions in unrelated articles on ProQuest. Prod contested Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've found minimal coverage, so a plausible redirect to either List of programs broadcast by MTV or The Bomb-itty of Errors might be in order. The most in-depth coverage I've found is:

Are you looking for something different to watch on TV? Are you tired of the same old formula television? Then tune in to MTV's newest series, "Scratch & Burn." A combination of sketch comedy, rap and hip-hop, "Scratch & Burn" is an entertaining half-hour of music and laughs.

The show stars Jaq, Dragon, GQ and Red Dragon, otherwise known as the Bomb-itty boys. This talented troupe writes and performs its own material. They have a unique comedy style and irreverent take on everything from pop culture to politics, bringing a welcome freshness to television comedy and to MTV, which, until the success of "The Osbournes," was beginning to look like a parody of itself.

"Scratch & Burn" is new, creative and entertaining. It's like a "Saturday Night Live" for a new generation. When you are home on Saturday night and wondering what to watch, flip over to MTV and try on "Scratch & Burn" for size. The show airs Saturday nights at 9:30 and repeats Sundays at 11:30 a.m. and Fridays at 6:30 p.m.^[1]

There is also a brief mention in an article about the creators of The Bomb-itty of Errors: "That is where the story went a little off the tracks; their MTV show, an attempt to translate Bomb-itty to a televised sketch comedy format, did not take off. Called Scratch and Burn, it crashed and burned, lasting just five episodes."^[2] So a plausible redirect to The Bomb-itty of Errors might be warranted, with an added sentence or two on the legacy and spin-off. But List of programs broadcast by MTV might be more appropriate if the TV show is substantially different from the play, which seems likely. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Spar, Mindy (November 3, 2002). "TV stations gearing up for big night". The Post and Courier. (Charleston, SC). p. E1 – via NewsBank.
^ McKinley, Jesse (13 June 2004). "The 'Bomb-itty' Team Sends in the Nerds". The New York Times.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs broadcast by MTV. Show doesn't pass GNG. WikiVirusC^(talk) 14:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Maharashtra cricketers. (non-admin closure) — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Atharva Kale

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

Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --Vaco98 (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Maharashtra cricketers. StickyWicket (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Maharashtra cricketers Obviously has played a few FC/LA games, but there doesn't appear to be any GNG coverage here. As usual though there is a WP:ATD that has been ignored. These are the sorts of pages that should be BOLDly redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious redirect to List of Maharashtra cricketers. It's not unreasonable to suggest that there may be coverage in non-English language media and/or offline media in their home country. I can't access that, but it's a totally reasonable thing to assume. So, we redirect for all the normal reasons, including the technical efficiency overheads saved by redirecting rather than deleting Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is clear the article needs improvement, not deletion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heinz Winkler (chef)

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

Unsourced BLP The Banner talk 17:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Germany, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not unsourced, but incorrectly sourced. Found an interview, a third party bio, and a bunch of junk about the hotel, but there may be more. Huggums537 (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 08:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article is terrible, but person is clearly notable. (one source in German). —Kusma (talk) 12:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:45, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- there appear to be a large number of sources on the German language version of the article. Not all of them are independent by any means, but there are a few that are. To satisfy the immediate BLP concerns, I am adding a source to a DW video about him, but there readily appear to be more sources in German. matt91486 (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the the person is notable per references provided in the German version, but the article needs to be rewritten. Merko (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is currently a mess, but the German article shows that sufficient sources are available. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has a large number of recognized sources and the article is referenced.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 20:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Barrelhouse. Clear consensus not to have a standalone about the company, no reason not to restore the redirect per Chubbles. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barrel House

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:COMPANY. Seems promotional in creation, but aside from that, it does not meet WP:GNG. – DarkGlow • 09:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, United States of America, and Iowa. – DarkGlow • 09:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --Vaco98 (talk) 11:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was expanded from a redirect to Barrelhouse, and that redirect should be restored if delete prevails here. Chubbles (talk) 05:33, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a little difficult to do a good search, as the restaurant's name is a common term, but I can't find evidence it's notable. valereee (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin - please redirect to Barrelhouse rather than delete. I would appreciate it if I don't have to go to DELREV to restore that redirect. Chubbles (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete showed nothing close to notability.Myna50 (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason why all !voters are ignoring me here? Chubbles (talk) 06:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. References were added to the article since its nomination, no subsequent participants supported deletion, and the nominator suggested that they might withdraw the nomination if references were added. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Coalition for Fiji

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

Without any reference, an Admin created the page. If references are added, the nomination might be withdrawn. My !Vote for DELETE for now. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 11:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Oceania. Shellwood (talk) 11:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a couple of references, just to show that they do exist. The RNZ source is good; not sure about the Political Handbook. This isn't at all my area of expertise, so I'm not planning on working further on the article.-gadfium 19:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since the article now has five references. There is no doubt that the subject existed, and although the article is weak at present a few hours spent looking at archives of Fijian newspapers would undoubtedly provide rich sources. Such archives may only be available in Fiji, in print copies or microfiche. The online archives for e.g. Fiji Sun only go back to 2008.-gadfium 21:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added some sources. What bothers me about this article is the lack of explicit connection to the 2006 Fijian coup d'état, and leading up to it, this other page lacking citations: 2005–2006_Fijian_political_crisis. It's all notable and important, just definitely needs better sourcing. Barring that, it may make sense to just cut the article(s) down to what is verifiable and/or merging some of these pages. That said, searching for Oceania sources can be tricky depending on your geographic location, so you do have to try every search engine, every geo domain, etc. And/or borrow/acquire some books. (Some of the politicians' pages seem to have good sources listed.) Good luck. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Article has 12 sources now and many more inline citations. It turns out Fiji Times archives are easily accessed via Wikipedia Library. The article also quotes heavily from Fiji Village and Fiji Sun, and those citations still need to be added, but for the most part the actual copy within the article points to specific publications on specific dates (so there are clues about where to look and when). (It's unfortunate that those article links weren't added earlier; then we would have had archived versions of those pages.) I also edited some copy which was written in present tense; it looks like the page was first created and updated as events were unfolding. And finally, to address my previous concern, I added the "History of Fiji" template to the page, so at least there is some context as to where the story of this (short-lived) coalition fits in historically.
Cielquiparle (talk) 09:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rimas Music

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

Music company doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP- coverage is largely WP:PASSING mentions. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 10:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SOAP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acousmana (talk • contribs) 18:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Page was draftified early into AFD creation. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish Fika

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

Not confident that this meets WP:GNG. The last three sources out of five given mention Swedish Fika in passing in a general ranking of Swedish gingerbread cookies (note slight misrepresentation of that in the article text). The second source is not independent. The first source is of dubious reliability and independence; I can't find contact info for the organization other than socials, and it advertises and organizes industry events (e.g. [https://www.stack3d.com/expo/

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of South Korea

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

Fails WP:LISTN. Largely abandoned since its creation in 2007, one source for one entry (not working any longer), not of interest to our readers (19 pageviews in the last 90 days), just like the vast majority of similar lists Fram (talk) 08:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and South Korea. Fram (talk) 08:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ridiculous to have such a list here anyway. Nwhyte (talk) 09:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to admit I am 100% not convinced this is a list worth having. The fact that it has been unmaitained for 15 years, is not back by comprehensive reliable sources, and other problems are big ones. Beyound that, A-why are leaders of Malaysia being pictured on South Korean stamps? A useful article would explain this (unless it is false information, which with the level of sourcing is possible). I especially say that because One entry on this list is put as "Baginda, Seri Paduka" who is said to be the president of Malaysia. Any national leader link that is a redlink is highly suspicious. This is all the more so when we are dealing with a country that was formed after World War II. I did a search in Wikipedia for "Seri Paduka Baginda" and was lead to the article Malay style and titles. There I found this text "The Sultan and the Queen of Brunei are styled as Kebawah Duli Yang Maha Mulia Paduka Seri Baginda (KDYMM PSB) (literally "his/her most glorious majesty who is raised most high");" This is not a name but part of a title. So either the Koreans have no idea what these names mean and are just putting them on their stamps to try to get Malaysians to buy them, or more likely whoever wrote this page misinterpreted something to mean something else, or was just making things up out of thin air. The fact that such jibberish can persist on the list for 15 years is not a good sign, and a strong sign that having it is a net disservice to Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Korea is one of the countries that frequently depict visiting dignitaries on a stamp issued to coincide with their visit. Most countries have done it at least once; Child's Miniature Messages discusses the politics of the practice in Latin American countries. In this case, the error is compound; "Seri Paduka Baginda" is just a part of the long title for the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, but that is exactly what the Scott catalogue uses as description; Stanley Gibbons has "king of Malaysia", which at least is a little more intelligible, and the KPC catalog for Korea has "Yang di-Pertuan Agong". I suspect the person who added that entry probably didn't understand the situation, although I don't think they can be faulted too much for following the sources so precisely; traditionally a wikignome comes along, figures out who it should be and quietly fixes the link. Stan (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- - The upshot of your edit is 1-the sources are junk, and should not be used as reliable sources to build an encyclopedia. 2-if stamps are being issued to recognize a visit, this is a trivial reason, showing appearing on stamps is trivial, and that ultimately a list is not a collection of notable things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well the third take away is based on the sources we have no clue who the person being depcted on the stamps are. All of these points show exactly why we should delete this huge list of trivia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can however fault them for using a source without attributing it. There is no listing of the source. It is also probably a big sign of why philatelycruft is so bad, because people pretned that just because they have looked at a few stamps from a country they can say anything coherent or culturally relevant about a country, which in this case is show to be totally not the case. Wikipedia should not be repeating the mistakes of people who wrote about cultures other than their own without understanding those cultures.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Can we dial it down a bit please? If, as is repeatedly claimed, if "nobody looks at these lists" and "nobody maintains these lists", how is there any harm being done? I grant that these are not in a great state, and I am to some extent personally responsible for that. I am also interested in the possibility of doing something better here, and I think an encyclopedia that sees fit to include lists of shopping malls and TV episodes can also manage to fit in some stamp-related lists. But, if they are always going to be deleted as "philatelycruft", at the very least the philately project needs to document that these kinds of lists are not allowed. Stan (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - Harm? Because a) they all require maintenance, most have more edits for maintenance (categories, short description, ...) than for actual content, b) many contain errors, and c) for the few people who do arrive, they are often nothing but a disappointment. Fram (talk) 08:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the other "List of people on the postage stamps of X" AFDs. Almost all of them have been closed as delete. There is no evidence that this is a widely sourced or appropriate topic. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- When a false attribution of a title as the personal name of a president of Malaysia can stand for 15 years, there is a true problem.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article existed 9 years with no sources. The one source that does exist was added in 2016 and exists only to fix on particular link. Letting rubbish like the one I mentioned above stand for 15 years is just bad policy for Wikipedia. These articles are inherently a magnet of bad policy and clearly a net negative for Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is something for another kind of project, outside of Wikipedia. BD2412 T 21:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now I'd say the page is notable, and I'm willing to try to find sources for the article if you all would give me some time Haiiya (talk) (contribs) 02:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- You removed the proposed deletion after two days without making any improvements, and haven't done so in the days since either. You haven't even provided a single source which would start to indicate that this might be a notable list subject. Just saying that the page is notable isn't sufficient. Fram (talk) 08:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Easley High School

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

A quick search failed to turn up any good sources for the school apart from lists, etc. Perhaps creating a page for School District of Pickens County and merging into that page could cover this and the other schools in the district. Gusfriend (talk) 07:41, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools. Gusfriend (talk) 07:41, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is not even close to enough sourcing here to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think we should delete this school even though it's 113 years old and the original building is on the National Register of Historic Places? Jacona (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
JPL votes delete at every AfD he comes across, it could be the most notable thing in the whole wide universe and he'd still vote 'delete'. StickyWicket (talk) 21:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have written a note on their talk page inviting them to review their !delete vote. Jacona (talk) 01:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily enough sources available to satisfy WP:GNG, as with any American high school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I found this article on Newspapers.com after only a couple minutes. Many other newspapers covered this story. I haven't even checked for local or state coverage. [10] A Google search is rarely enough to find sources on High Schools. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They are mostly local newspapers. I just looked it up. Hemanth Nalluri 11 (talk) 03:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE and my standards for high schools. There are, according to reliable sources, in grades 9 - 12, 1,710 students, and 86 teachers, at this public high school. There are almost assuredly notable alumni. Bearian (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 1909 building is on the National Register of Historic Places [11]. For that matter, it's been around since at least 1909, or 113 years. There are now a bunch of sources in this article. I think there are 113 reasons to Keep. Jacona (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As proposer I would like to request that this AfD be closed with Keep and thank everyone for their improvements to the page. Gusfriend (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Johnpacklambert, in light of the nominator's request to withdraw, are you willing to strike your !k vote so that this nomination can be closed? Thanks! Jacona (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Less Unless (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Noise (game show)

AfDs for this article:

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

Zero sourcing found. Previous AFD closed as "keep" due to addition of a single source which turned out to be a press release combined with a dash of WP:ITSNOTABLE. No better sourcing found anywhere. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable game show which lasted one season.TH1980 (talk) 03:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Conway, Polly (2022-03-16). "The Noise. TV review by Polly Conway, Common Sense Media". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.
  The review notes: "It's fun to watch the kid teams work together to make the least amount of noise -- they take it very seriously and it's a premise that hasn't really been used on any other game show. There's a good amount of tension, making the show suspenseful, but not too much that younger kids can't handle it. The Noise is a simple idea, but it's a lot of fun and kid viewers will see how focus and teamwork can bring about success."
2. Robbins, Caryn (2017-10-12). "Fremantle Brings Two New Game Shows Created for Kids to Universal Kids". Broadway World. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.
  The article provides 222 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Silence will be golden as FMNA premieres The Noise, a new high-tech game show that will challenge kids to be quiet. In addition, the company will premiere a kids' version of the cherished game show format Beat the Clock. The Noise, premiering on Universal Kids on Monday, October 23 at 7pm ET/6pm Central with back-to-back episodes, is based on a popular game show format stemming from FremantleMedia Asia's partnership with Fuji TV in Japan. Hosted by Faruq Tauheed (BattleBots), kids will be challenged to complete various tasks without making a sound. Two teams comprised of two kids each will compete against each other with the ultimate sound detector, the "Noise-O-Meter," constantly listening. Each challenge involves the kids completing a task, such as opening a bag of chips or hanging a set of wind chimes, as quietly as possible. ..."
3. Less significant coverage:
  1. Goff, Leslie Jaye (2017-10-12). "FremantleMedia N.A. Sells Two Game Shows to Universal Kids". Broadcasting & Cable. Archived from the original on 2022-05-15. Retrieved 2022-05-15.
    The article notes: "The Noise, premiering on Universal Kids Monday, October 23 at 7 p.m. ET/6 p.m. Central with back-to-back episodes, is based on a format stemming from FremantleMedia Asia’s partnership with Fuji TV in Japan. Hosted by Faruq Tauheed (BattleBots), kids will be challenged to complete various tasks without making a sound, with the “Noise-O-Meter” constantly listening. The less noise they make, the more points they earn. FMNA’s Mullin and Joni Day are executive producers and Michael Dietz is the showrunner. A Noise-O-Meter app on iTune and Google Play allows families to keep the silent challenge going after the show ends."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Noise to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kadı Message 22:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on sources listed above, at the very least it passes WP:GNG. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the sources found and detailed in this discussion such as Commonsense Media review, Broadway World article and others so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Omotunde E. G. Johnson

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

Does not meet WP:SCHOLAR, no WP:SIGCOV, the sources do not appear to substantiate notability. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's a few well-cited works (336,122,91) and a clutch of respectable ones (59,55,51,40); most date from c. 1970–1995 when citation density was considerably lower, particularly given that the topic isn't all that citation heavy, afaik. The subject looks to have multiple books, which should be checked for reviews; one is held by 1,294 libraries. Will try to do more research on this in the morning. ETA He wrote the (long) entry on the African Union in The Princeton Encyclopedia of the World Economy which doesn't speak directly to our guidelines but suggests he's regarded as an expert. ETA2 I note our article on h-index states that Google Scholar has "limited coverage of pre-1990 publications". Espresso Addict (talk) 02:59, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, In addition to echoing what Espresso Addict mentioned above, I have added a number of books which are authored by the subject. It appears that the subject comfortably meets criteria 1 of WP:NACADEMIC. Cirton (talk) 12:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC for me as the citation count is low. Chance of meeting WP:AUTHOR is weak. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 03:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, In agreement with Espresso Addict and Cirton above, it appears the subject comfortably meets critera 1 for both WP:NACADEMIC and WP:AUTHOR. For the latter, only an important or authoritative figure on African Economics would write the entry on the African Union in The Princeton Encyclopedia of the World Economy.User:Inamo11 (talk) 11:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify five of the ten reference are by him, 3 are profiles, one is a press-release and one is a book from a reputable publisher; doesn't give me confidence he is notable. He might meet N-Author. The books are well cited, but all IMF publications are cited, which doesn't give me confidence either. I couldn't find reviews. I was currently in the process of reviewing at npp and planning to draft it once I read the read the references, and noticed the Afd tag. Currently he fails WP:SIGCOV. They references are real mess. scope_creep^Talk 11:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Going with a formal keep, per my comment previously. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment Based off my search of my university database, I'm finding stuff he has written, not stuff written about him or his books (the portal has a "book review" search parameter). Same with Google searches. The Sierra Leone Telegraph likes to pull him for quotes, for what it's worth. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eartha (musician)

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

While she was nominated for a Grammy, I couldn't find any reliable sources whatsoever. No reviews of her albums, no biographical information, nothing. Her AllMusic entry is completely blank, and World Radio History yielded nothing either. The page's creator broke a 3-year editing hiatus just to contest the prod, which is puzzling. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:SINGER says Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy. She got two nominations with one win. Just from cited sources, she had USA Today coverage [12] she has had coverage in Billboard in 2000, and a bit coverage in 2002[13]. Also Jet magazine coverage[14]. A lot of coverage from Black Radio Exclusive and other lesser known publications. WP:GNG passes as well. WikiVirusC^(talk) 11:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, this is a stupidly hard name to Google. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage found and it passes the WP:GNG. Fade258 (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep won a Grammy and has coverage in reliable sources such as US Today, Billboard, books and others so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thierry Noritop

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

This article is about a non-notable band and not an individual. Otr500 (talk) 06:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Otr500 (talk) 06:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despite what the nominator said, this article is about an individual, Mr. Noritop, who was in the band Stereo and more recently has recorded under the name Stereo in Solo. That latest act got two feature articles in Spill magazine, which are already cited, but that is all I can find outside of unreliable social media and streaming sites. The old band Stereo got a few album reviews that can be found online, but that is not enough for a full article about either them or Mr. Noritop. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Viracola

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

Non-notable stand-up comedian due to no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 06:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not fulfill notability requirements. IrishOsita (talk) 01:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. if a merge is desired, it can be handled editorially but no one is making a case for deletion so we don't need to continue this. Star Mississippi 15:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Only Promise That Remains

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

This was listed as a Good Article, but I delisted it due to extremely poor sourcing and now I'm not even convinced it meets WP:NSONGS. To wit:

Windy City Times is a PR piece about the album
MTV source only verifies that Reba will be perfoming the song on a TV show
Variety is about the album and doesn't mention the song at all
USA Today is a passing mention in an article about the album
Duets Booklet is just the CD's liner notes
Carroll MTV is just an interview with JT where he name-drops the song
AllMusic is just a track listing of the album itself
People is 404
Pop Matters is also 404
KT is a Billboard review of the album that dedicates than a full sentence to it
The last three sources just verify the chart positions and the release date

In short, not a single one of the sources is about the song itself. Several are about the album, but WP:NSONGS states that Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created.

Given that the song had very low chart positions and didn't even crack the country music charts at all, I move that this be either deleted, or merged/redirected to the album. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is evidently enough here to write a worthwhile article on the subject. Deleting this (and presumably the infobox within it) would make the information harder for readers to find and would not improve Wikipedia, thus I think it should be kept even if a strict interpretation of the guidelines suggests it should be deleted. This shouldn't really be a deletion discussion anyway, it ought to be a proposed merge. NemesisAT (talk) 13:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did you ignore the part where I quoted Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created.? Literally none of these sources are about the song itself; they're about the album. This is why I said delete or merge. Most of the content about the song is already on the album's page, so there isn't much to merge that wouldn't be WP:UNDUE. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Caldorwards4:, @Martin4647:, @Hog Farm:, @ChrisTofu11961: Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Reba: Duets. Per nom the sources alone doesn't warrant the song having its own article. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 18:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NSONG per NemesisAT's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll say it again: Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: - you've made your point, remember some decorum please. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 01:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

merge. Does not meet WP:NSONG which clearly says Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. Charting only indicates notability but considering the album is spare content should be merged there instead. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 01:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge. I'm not convinced all the backstory on this song is DUE anywhere, and therefore there is limited material that could be merged to the album page anyway. JoelleJay (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Street, Hobart

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

NN local street. No indication of notability. MB 06:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. MB 06:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom, can't find any coverage of this at all. Lithopsian (talk) 13:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cochin Duty Free

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

Failed notability per WP:GNG. None of the sources are talking specifically about the duty-free, but the sources are talking about the airport Cochin International Airport. All of the sources just mention the duty-free in passing, and none provide in-depth coverage about the duty-free shop. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 05:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 06:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC) ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 05:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not meet WP:NCORP. Toadspike (talk) 06:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Savić (Bosnian footballer)

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

No indication of notability under GNG or SNG. The only source is a mere mention with a few facts on a web site North8000 (talk) 05:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to enough sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of passing WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 23:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep clearly passes GNG, see articles like these: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, significant sourcing in Bosnian news websites. AFD is not meeting BEFORE.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for a lack of in-depth coverage in independent, high-quality sources to meet GNG. Ortizesp, your links are: 1. A Q&A interview; 2. A Q&A interview; 3. A match preview for a local derby; 4. Quotes about an upcoming match; 5. Quotes about a victory over Sarajevo. None of these are helpful for meeting GNG. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Less Unless (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sigmund, Pennsylvania

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

No indication that this is an actual recognized community. Map does show a Sigmund road. Seems to be just an informal area mis-labeled in GNIS. MB 04:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Pennsylvania. MB 04:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Location cannot be found when looked up, probably doesn't meet NGEO. Toadspike (talk) 05:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This was a populated place.

[15] and p. 35 - Settlement was also called "Sigmunds Furnace", "Mary Ann Furnace", and "Hampton Furnace".
[16]:

"George Rothenberger...was born at a homestead at Sigmund" (p. 1373).
There was a reunion there (p. 510).

P.788 - A post office named "Sigmund" was established in 1872.
[17]:

A school was erected in 1877. (p.151)
A creamery and home were built there in 1886. (p.152)

[18] - The Hereford Literary Society wrote that "many new members had come in from Harlem, Sigmund and vicinity" (p.151). This source also lists many names of people with a P.O. address of Sigmund.
[19] - Calls Sigmund a "settlement" established in 1872 around a store located there (p.7). Magnolia677 (talk) 10:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Still not seeing this is a community. GNIS is not a reliable source for making such determination. Every other source above refers to Sigmund/Sigmund Furnace/Hampton Furnace as an industrial site - a kiln where charcoal was made. After that, the site was a gunpowder mill until it blew up, and later a creamery. It was owned/run by one family. A birth occurred in their house on the property (the homestead). No one lived on the property except the proprietor. There was a post office named Sigmund for a short time "on the road to the mill", and a small school used the name Hampton, but this was after the mill-site had shut down. IMO, it's a stretch to label this a community when the majority of the sources clearly are talking about the mill site. We don't have articles on every farm/ranch/factory, etc. MB 15:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MB: You missed the last two sources I listed. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would still stay this is not a legally recognized place and therefore fails WP:NGEO. It was a small Hamlet (place) (see the specific definition for Hamlet (place)#New York which I am personally comfortable extending for purposes of determining notability). This place had no government, boundaries, or any of the other hallmarks of a community, except a short-lived post office. It is a "rural neighborhood" that should be covered in "the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it". Since the article is virtually all WP:OR, there is nothing to be merged but I support a mention and redirect to Upper Milford Township, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania. MB 19:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sigmund had people, a school, a store, industry, and a post office. It was a populated place without legal recognition. This satisfies WP:NGEO. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would be willing to keep this if someone would edit this into at least a stub. Bearian (talk) 19:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: I have added some of the sources above to the article. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY per good work by Magnolia677. Bearian (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY Djflem (talk) 05:47, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Randy West

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

He's a swell guy and he has a few credits to his name, but he seems to be failing the WP:RS test. "Randy West" + "Supermarket Sweep" turned up no hits on ProQuest, and "Randy West" + "Price Is Right" yielded only one article about The Price Is Right Live! where he's mentioned in passing. The only source currently in the article appears to be a self-published fansite which is not reliable. Extensive searching found only personal fansites, IMDb, interviews in self-published blogs, LinkedIn, and his own book about Johnny Olson (good book, btw). It's a shame because I genuinely do enjoy his body of work and his roles in the community, but there is just nothing constituting a reliable source here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New York. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I also searched in newspapers.com and other sources, and I would agree with the nominator that there are no sources with significant coverage, let alone reliable sources. That is the missing ingredient for notability. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with both reviews of the sources above. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is not notable and the article makes no significant support for inclusion in Wikipedia. IrishOsita (talk) 04:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Punk jazz

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

Blatant WP:SYNTH violation. Not a single one of the sources in this article uses the term "punk jazz" nor supports its existence as a coherently defined genre. Extensive searching on reputable music sites only turned up false positives where multiple genres were listed; e.g., "...regardless of whether you played punk, jazz or folk music..." Everything else was just unreliable sources like Reddit, Discogs, Genius, or Instagram. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are multiple sources mentioning punk jazz ([20] [21]) or using the term to describe musicians ([22] [23]). It's an easily notable genre, even if the page is in less than good condition. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, then WP:TNT is the answer. The third source even admits that it's not a "real" genre in the same way that mallcore or boyfriend country. are just informal terms for a type of music with no clear origins or definitions. And the last seems to be one individual musician pushing the term as a neologism in the same way that Jimmy Buffett has called his music "gulf and western". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely a real genre, despite what you think, as the earlier two sources (that aren't just describing a musician) clearly state. Mallcore and boyfriend country are also not really genres, just slang used to describe terrible music. (Both also have literally zero formal sources on them). And WP:TNT is only reserved for dire cases (particularly copyright violations and potentially defaming content). This is not so bad to warrant that. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It clearly needs to be gutted and rewritten from scratch. As it stands, not a single source in the article uses the phrase "punk jazz" at all. Are you willing to put the legwork in, or are you just gonna let the article stink up Wikipedia forever or hope and wish and pray that it'll somehow fix itself? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter how the article currently stands. There exists suitable sources, and thus it is a notable topic for including within the encyclopedia. The information presented on this page isn't entirely wrong and will provide the framework for improvement in the future. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, you're expecting the article to somehow fix itself. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. It's had plenty of time to "fix itself" and it hasn't happened. WP:DEADLINE is not an excuse to just sit there with your thumb up your ass and expect everyone to do the heavy lifting for you. If you want the article fixed, YOU do it. WP:BURDEN says so. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it should be deleted, and I explained why. (I even provided a couple of decent sources per that same WP:BURDEN you cite). However, if you just want to get into rant, knock yourself out. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You know damn well WP:SOURCESEXIST is not a valid argument. If you want the article kept on those sources alone, THEN ADD THEM. ADD THEM. ADD THEM. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SOURCESEXIST: Don't just claim that there must be sources out there somewhere. Instead, prove it, by providing them. I provided sources in this discussion per guideline. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
THEN WHY DID YOU NOT ADD THEM TO THE ARTICLE?! DO YOU EXPECT THEM TO ADD THEMSELVES?!?!?! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please read these carefully: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a volunteer service and Wikipedia:Don't demand that editors solve the problems they identify.

Fixing the punk-jazz article is fairly low on my list of priorities, but I also don't think it should be deleted. (And participating in a discussion takes a lot less time and effort than rewriting and editing articles, especially as I type this on a phone.) Why don't you add the sources to the page? I know you can write fairly good prose and format citations. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because I see this same cycle Every. Goddamn Time.
Article is nominated for deletion

User says "keep, sources exist, here they are"

Several other users say "keep per editor who found sources"

AFD closes as keep

Nobody adds the sources to the article

Article is still a trainwreck 10+ years later without a single word of it changed

Sources are still nowhere to be found except in the AFD page or worse yet, go 404 with no one able to chase them down

Lather rinse repeat

It's absolutely infuriating. If YOU found the sources, YOU add them to the article. Don't just expect everyone else to do it for you. WP:BURDEN says the ball's in your court if you're gonna say "keep per these sources I found". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand the general consensus about how AfD works. This is not a venue for cleanup. This a venue for determining a subject's notability and its worthiness of being included in Wikipedia. As the policy page states: If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD. That applies here. Another policy that may be helpful is WP:PROBLEM. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup is not why I sent it to AFD. I sent it because 1.) the sources did not use the term "punk jazz" at all, meaning that it was violating WP:SYNTH and 2.) the sources I did find were all false positives that just used the words "punk" and "jazz" consecutively, thus meaning I was unable to find any sources that corroborate its existence as a genre. Of the sources you provided, only the book seems even remotely convincing to me. The third source even goes out of its way to admit that "punk jazz" is not a real genre, so how could it possibly be used to support the alleged existence of such? You can't fix an article with a source that says "this isn't even a thing". That said, I did apply some WP:TNT and start afresh with the one source I deemed halfway valid, so let's see what comes of this. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An article in JazzTimes isn't a good source to you? And the third article does not state that all. I still don't understand how you arrived to that conclusion. It simply says the phrase is "vague and dopey" not that it's not a real genre. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vague means it's not a real genre, in the same way that "mallcore" or "boyfriend country" are vague. Hell, even bro-country and butt rock are vague. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:45, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer@Why? I Ask Alright, the two of you, please cut the nonsense. I've added all the information I found relevant from the sources provided, the AfD discussion can now proceed, taking into consideration what is currently on the page. Please remain civil at all times, and don't SHOUT at other editors. I expect better of experienced editors like you.

As a side note, I suggest reading over Ten Pound Hammer's TNT edit. Although most of the article was irrelevant and unsourced, I think a few sentences might be salvageable. Toadspike (talk) 06:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There was also a section about "Jazzcore", although I don't know if there are enough sources to warrant a mention. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here are my two cents on this rather hotly debated AfD: Considering Ten Pound Hammer has already TNT'd most of the page (befitting the username), that is no longer a valid reason for deletion. The other question is whether punk jazz is a "real genre". Looking at the sources currently cited, it would seem to me that it is. A few notable musicians and a notable club are associated with the genre, showing either that this is a "real genre" or that those pages should be AfD'd too. While I realize that notability is not inherited, that was not the issue raised by the nominator; the question was simply whether "punk jazz" is a real term, or something entirely invented by Wikipedians, the latter of which does not seem to be the case here. The final point of contention, whether sources must be cited on the page to count towards notability, is thankfully now irrelevant, as nearly all sources listed here have been added. Best, Toadspike (talk) 06:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bhadram Be Careful Brotheru

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

PROD'd (proposed deletion) twice. Only notable source is this review. This source talks about a song. This source says that the teaser was released. This review is unreliable (from an IP). All in all, not enough sources (such as production). One more notable review is needed. DareshMohan (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 May 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:NFILM / GNG requirements. Cannot find any reliable reviews in my WP:BEFORE search in both English and Telugu -- Ab207 (talk) 05:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 15:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 03:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of band name etymologies

AfDs for this article:

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

Extreme violation of WP:IINFO, WP:SALAT, WP:V. Nearly every band that ever existed (and isn't just named after one or more of the members; e.g. Crosby, Stills & Nash, Zac Brown Band) is going to have some origin story to their name. In cases where the name's origin is verifiable, that info should already be present in the band's article (or, if the name is widely known to be the creation of an outside party; e.g., "our manager suggested it", then it can also be noted on the manager's page if they have an article).

This list is extremely long and bloated, with no clear criterion as to which band should be included. For instance, The Chicks were originally named after a Little Feat song. Nickelback was named after the amount of change given at Starbucks. Grand Funk Railroad was a pun on a railroad line. Diamond Rio was named after a truck. Florida Georgia Line from the states of which the two members are natives. Blue Öyster Cult came from an anagram of a beer. Lady A came from the band being virtue-signaling hacks that stole the name of a far more talented black woman. None of those are on the list, and those are hardly obscure bands.

The sourcing is all over the place too, ranging from fansites to tourism bureaus to YouTube videos. Some details are extremely fancrufty, such as the Alice Cooper entry; and the Bad Religion entry is just a quote-dump. Quite a few aren't even sourced at all. Even limiting it to the ones that have decent sourcing, this list is still horrendously long and indiscriminate.

While the concept of "how bands get their names" is discussed often, there's no set pattern to it. Inspiration can strike from literally anywhere. The last AFD for this list way back in 2007 called for a consensus to keep per the existence of List of bands named after places, List of band names with date references, and List of eponymous albums, all of which were eventually deleted anyway.

tl;dr: This list is hopelessly out of control and indiscriminate. If there is a topic worth writing about, then WP:TNT needs to be applied. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Lists of people. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Credit where due, "The band consists of two members, and each one plays a cello" is a hilarious sentence to me, but that does not save a WP article. QuietHere (talk) 02:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is insane to compile in one place, lots of negligibly notable bands cluttering up a list that's missing many well known names. Every band's article ought to have this information but I see no reason why there should be an attempt to put them together. Reywas92^Talk 04:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because learning new information like this on Wikipedia is both educational and entertaining. Sure it's incomplete but that doesn't mean it has to go. The internet is endless and there's no need to make it smaller by deleting things. Mtjaws (talk) 04:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ILIKEIT, WP:USEFUL, WP:INTERESTING, WP:PLEASEDONT, WP:NOHARM. Congratulations, you just got a bingo on your Arguments to Avoid bingo card. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I think TPH made a solid reasoning why this should go. Article is a complete mess, sourcing is inconsistent, and some of the links are unreliable. Any solidly sourced etymologies are already in the band's own articles where they belong. A list like this with them all together feels like trivia cruft and a relic of a Wikipedia long gone. Some band names just don't have an important story, some are just picked out of thin air, sometimes bands become so sick of being asked what their name means that they make up a fake story or regularly change the etymology whenever asked (Toto and Chumbawamba both did this). Are we sure any of these sourced etymologies aren't the latter case? Several examples on this page like Anamanaguchi and 10cc have different, conflicting explanations listed. Which one is the right one? In any case, this is a good idea for a Sporcle quiz or a Mental Floss article or a Name Explain video. But not as a Wikipedia page, and certainly not the way it looks and is formatted now. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 05:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, with regards to Mhawk10's argument here: I understand that lists, as a general concept, have a purpose on Wikipedia. But we're not debating the general concept of the list article, we're talking about this one article and how it's an indiscriminate poorly sourced mess. If this is to be kept - even though I voted delete, I don't really mind if it stays - effort needs to be made at untangling it. Something like the complete, heavily sourced overhaul that was done to List of one-hit wonders in the United States a few years ago could be done here. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:41, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article passes WP:NLIST, as multiple independent reliable sources have significantly covered the topic of the etymology/origins of band names as a group. These include The Band Name Book, Rock Band Name Origins, The Big Book of Rock & Roll Names, From ABBA to ZZ Top: How Rock Bands Got Their Names, and others. That guideline notes [t]he entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been, and WP:LISTCRIT allows for editors to set strict inclusion criteria by consensus. The actual policy on deletion notes that [i]f editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. If the reason for deletion is that the selection criteria is non-existent, it seems rather uncompelling absent attempts to set appropriate selection criteria first. And, as far as I can tell, the nominator did not do this before actually bringing this article here. We're making a mistake if we are to delete the list when it is reasonable that editing the list along the lines of proper inclusion criteria (for example, that a band origin can only be included if the origin is the subject of multiple independent RS) would be feasible. It is, and deletion makes no sense here. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Like Doc Strange pointed out above, there is no real criterion that could be applied given that many band name origin stories are random, not noteworthy, or even self-contradictory. Which ones would be noteworthy for inclusion? Would the Nickelback example be? Would the Chicks not be? What would be done in examples where the band themselves can't even agree on how they got their name, or intentionally give out misinformation? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For example, an selection guideline that a band origin can only be included if the origin is the subject of multiple independent reliable sources would be (a) easy and straightforward to apply; (b) rely on the coverage provided by independent RS to say what the band name's origin was; and (c) exclude band name etymologies that reliable sources don't find noteworthy enough to give an article to. I think that something like this might reasonably work. I don't know the particular sourcing situations for the examples of the names of Nickelback and The Chicks, but their inclusion would entirely dependent on the extent to which a particular name origin is given coverage by multiple reliable sources as the subject of an article. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And what purpose would this serve that is not already contained on the band's article? Also, what would be done in cases where the story is "we just picked a word at random", "our manager came up with it on the spot", or there are RSes that contradict each other? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When reliable sources contradict each other, per WP:NPOV, we would fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, note all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. This is pretty straightforward to apply in the case of disputed origins.

The purpose of having a list is that information on band names could be located in one place, which provides access to this sort of information in ways that are similar to how multiple reliable sources group it. The value of a list is that it compiles notable information in an easy-to-digest way; List of states and territories of the United States provides little more information than would be available in all of its member articles, but having a list of all the states adds more value to the reader than making them actually visit the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and Puerto Rico article to discover that they are all territories of the United States. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ⓜ️hawk10. There are books on the subject, so a list is justifiable. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the sources/arguments presented by Mhawk10. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 11:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:LISTN as a topic that "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Some source examples are listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:41, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

Rock Band Name Origins. McFarland. 256 pages.
The Band Name Book. Boston Mills Press. 336 pages.
Rock Names. Carol Publishing Group. 299 pages.
Rock Formations: Categorical Answers to how Band Names Were Formed. Cidermill Books. 285 pages.
The Big Book of Rock & Roll Names. Abrams. 304 pages.
Battle of the Band Names. Abrams. 252 pages.
The Dictionary of Rock & Pop Names: The Rock & Pop Names Encyclopedia from Aaliyah to ZZ Top. Pen & Sword Books. 320 pages.

Keep - per Mhawk10, and I go further: albeit I do agree that the content needs a cleanup and some of its resources checked, I also believe that the page has value. People come to Wikipedia to search for content, and this page fulfills such purpose. Sepguilherme (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It needs a lot of work, but not terrible. Bearian (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Oppose deletion. LynRuch (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Klima

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

Not seeing evidence of notability after source search. I am not finding any significant coverage to show that this passes WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. The included sources are mostly interviews and do not pass as significant coverage. One major claim is a deal with Jeffrey Michael Jordan, but can't be used for notability per WP:FORBESCON as it was written by a contributor. 40 under 40 articles do not offer the kind of coverage we need for notability either.

There are also some signs of promotion, such as Klima has always possessed a knack for connecting with people, starting businesses at a young age. ASUKITE 02:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Software, California, and Michigan. ASUKITE 02:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overly prmotional article on a minor businessman who is not even notable in the area where he works, let alone on a scale to jutify an article in an encyclopedia. If a one medtro area website lists you as one of their annual list of 40 people under 40 who they think will be impactful in business, that is clearly not a sign in and of itself you are notable. That is not a sign of notability at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, and WP:NOT. What a hot mess. This is a series of tweets, not an encyclopedia article. Bearian (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NBT Cup

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

Fails WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I am not sure you understand the GNG criteria. Can you please explain how this article passes GNG? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of additional context, both "fails GNG" and "passes GNG" seem to carry about the same weight... With whom do I WP:AGF? Yes, I'm being a bit sarcastic, but it's because it feels like the work is being pushed to me... I obviously will WP:AGF for both of you, but that now makes it even harder, requiring even more research... -2pou (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources currently on the article fail WP:GNG. They all mention the subject in a trivial matter at best. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 07:05, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any evidence of significant coverage outside of a Portuguese-language Blogspot page. Blogspot is an unacceptable source, though, so cannot be used. All that remains is the basic stats coverage provided by RSSSF which is woefully insufficient. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Armand (The Vampire Chronicles)

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

This article has many problems that have not been addressed, at least since 2009. The article is primarily written in an in-universe style and does not have many citations to sources outside of the novels themselves. A Google Scholar search turns up one article analyzing the character and another about vampire fiction in general, while Google and Google Books turn up almost nothing that is not fan pages or the novels the character originates from. This suggests that this article does not meet verifiability guidelines, and I would say that this is fancruft. The subject of the article is also already in the article List of The Vampire Chronicles characters, so I do not think this article is needed. The portion of this article not about the character in the books is also sorely lacking, containing only the portrayals of the character in film and theater. Roniius^{talk to me} 17:35, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and Film. Roniius^{talk to me} 17:35, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - The fact that there's a novel that literally has his name in the title suggests that he may be notable enough for his own article, but if Google et al. aren't turning up any good sources, then...well, that's why this is a weak keep. DonIago (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Vampire Chronicles characters. My version of DonIago's weak keep, basically. The nom has accurately described the state of the article, so unless someone pulls a WP:HEY on it in a hurry, redirecting is best. -- asilvering (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a major character in a well-known series. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he has his own book "The Vampire Armand", is one of the main characters of several of Anne Rice Vampire Chronicles books, is one of the main characters in the movie "Interview with a vampire" and the "Lestat" Musical. He is referenced in literature. I found quite a few books dealing with this character when looking at google books, here are 3 of them: 1, 2, 3, 4 and there are a lot more books that are discussing this character if you search for armand vampire chronicles or armand anne rice. --Dynara23 (talk) 18:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The Vampire Chronicles characters. ✗plicit 03:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia (The Vampire Chronicles)

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

Seems to be fancruft. No sources searching on Google Scholar, a Google search itself reveals that most of the web pages on this fictional character are on fan websites, strongly suggesting a lack of notability of this character. The article is also a biography written in a primarily in-universe perspective, with only a short list at the end about appearances in other media. Roniius^{talk to me} 17:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. Roniius^{talk to me} 17:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to what I said in the AfD discussion for Daniel Malloy, this should be changed to a redirect to List of The Vampire Chronicles characters, where it would be better suited.Historyday01 (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Film. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect. Topic has not received WP:SIGCOV in reliable independent sources and does not meet the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bálint László

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

Unsourced and fails WP:ANYBIO or WP:NPOL. References were recently removed by an editor who says that he is the article's subject. The removed references were from 2015 and earlier. Two were links to university web pages and one was to a Hungarian-language site that Google translate could not render into English. The "needs additional citations" maintenance tag has been in place over five years and the issue has yet to be addressed. In general if sources are this scarce and this stale then the subject doesn't meet notability standards. Blue Riband► 18:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Hungary. Blue Riband► 18:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lacks sourcing. The previous sources was not even enough to have a page in the first place, shouldn't have survived in mainspace that long. Certainly not sufficient sources to meet WP:NPOL. Jamiebuba (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Language issues, and it has been PRODded before, so giving it more time for discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the lack of notability/sources. Oaktree b (talk) 02:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Italian television series

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

Duplicate of the category system. No added value. Wikipedia is not a directory. gidonb (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists. gidonb (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Could be converted into a tabled list with year, channel and cast info. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You can't delete a list simply because you prefer categories. The rules are quite clear on that. See WP:CLN. Nothing wrong with this or the many other such articles listed in Template:WorldTV. Dream Focus 03:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not what I prefer. My question in this article for discussion is about the added value of the list next to the categories if it also contains nothing but titles. Creator suggests that potentially it could contain additional information. Potentially, yes! It's a good argument for deleting. gidonb (talk) 11:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:NOTVALUABLE are invalid reasons to delete an article. Dream Focus 11:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dream Focus, both do not apply, as I examine the article next to the category. There is no cookie cutter solution to this but this legitimate question is discussed in WP:LISTPURP, among others. gidonb (talk) 11:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, WP:NOTDIRECTORY (in the intro) does apply and is a great argument for deletion. It says so explicitly Wikipedia articles are not: 1. Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. Creator connected right to it, suggesting that potentially the article could contain valuable information. I appreciate that you want this article kept but, for preservation, it could be useful to come up with a positively stated reason other than WP:ILIKEIT and irrelevant comments about the nomination. I, for one, still do not understand why you think this list should be kept. gidonb (talk) 11:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an article, it is a list. Kindly read all that is written at WP:LISTPURP. Dream Focus 12:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A list is a specific type of article. Hence lists are nominated in AfDs. I used both concepts interchangeably throughout my comments. This is justified, as lists are articles but articles needn't be lists. gidonb (talk) 12:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list is currently subpar, but that's not a reason for deletion. It can be improved and look like lists similar in scope but more polished, eg. List of American television programs. Dege31 (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, Wikipedia articles are not: 1. Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit.. This article is nothing but a simple listing and therefore has no right to exist. We have categories (which are NOT articles) for this purpose. The bold, BTW, is in the source! So the list is subpar and in this particular case (i.e. does not apply to all subpar lists) the correctly identified general weakness is also cause for deletion. gidonb (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have correctly identified the weakness, but it's a weakness that can be fixed- that is not a cause for deletion. If you have a problem with this type of list, why is only this one singled out? This list does not differ in type from many others, only in quality, which can be improved. Dege31 (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a keep argument. gidonb (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The point of that is to not make comparisons to articles that (potentially) shouldn't exist. It does not forbid talking about consensus. I haven't seen a list of this type deleted for the reason you provide. Eg. the similar List of Pakistani television series was kept. So I am asking you to clarify your position. Dege31 (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do feedback loops because past mistakes should not inform future decisions. That said, the Pakistani list is considerably better. The Italian list is little but a copy and paste from the category. Compare to the Austrian list by the same creator. This Austria article was not nominated so I remain cautiously optimistic regarding the outcomes here. In any case, my position was and remains crystal clear. This list is a violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY #1. gidonb (talk) 17:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory. Simple listing without context. Open-ended list.List of loosely associated topics.Lurking shadow (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agreed completely with Dr. Blofeld and Dream Focus. I further agree with Dege31 that while the list is subpar it can be improved and more polished. I have to fully disagree with the OP and Lurking shadow.Historyday01 (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though it needs better organizing. Agletarang (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per valid request on my Talk. No harm in additional input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. While the list as it stands now offers little more than Category:Italian television series, it can be improved with more context (e.g. years, genres, etc.). WP:NOTCLEANUP applies. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Views are split between keeping as is, or moving to draft. Either activity does not require deletion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse Discrimination (EU Law)

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

It seems the whole thing is based upon one world press blog by some bloke on the internet who in fact created this article.

Thus it fails wp:n and wp:or as it relies on wp:primary analysis by a non expert, published in a wp:sps format. By an wp:sps account (thus may al fall foul of all kinds of wp:not). Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, notability has not been established. (Bonus minus points for Hardly any content. Copyright issues.) CT55555 (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With credit to Willbb234, I withdraw my delete. CT55555 (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep [24], [25], [26]. In just a couple of minutes I found 2 papers and a book, all by different authors, which discuss the topic in depth. Obvious issues with the article, but notablity is not an issue in itself. Would suggest writing more about this on reverse discrimination. Willbb234 17:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep: Sources in the lede were extremely weak, but I found some academic articles on the subject and added them. These are in addition to what User:Willbb234 has found. Perhaps there are more sources in the blanked copyright section. Anaxagoras17 (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Having found one version of the blanked version, I agree that the topic is notable, but is poorly written. Lots of sources cited, but there may be some original research. It would be better to improve the article, rather than delete it. Anaxagoras17 (talk) 02:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not exactly sure what the point is here, the article has been blanked due to copyright concerns. A keep result here won't restore the article itself. ValarianB (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, should the copyright issue be resolved, so we can see the article, before we debate this further? CT55555 (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can look at the whole article in the page history for now if you want to see what is being hidden. I've left a message to try and speed up the process and make sure we have usable permission for the text. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK wow. For anyone else who shared my ignorance, this is a 60,489 bytes (i.e. large) article with 70 citations. CT55555 (talk) 03:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Copyright uncertainty satisified, so the article has been unblanked. Please resume your regularly scheduled editing. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:36, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. The topic is notable, but the article is an embarrassment: a random aggregation of what appear to be random factoids and quotations mashed together with misspellings. Maybe somebody competent can use it as material for writing an actual article. Sandstein 05:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — This is a very salient situation that actually exists and impacts real people with real families. The sourcing is unimpeachable and the article needs to be kept.XavierItzm (talk) 11:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Send to draft per earlier. This needs to be worked on out of mainspace if it is to be kept. ValarianB (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sending stuff that already passes GNG to draftspace decreases the chances that the content is improved.★Trekker (talk) 13:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 03:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pavan Reddy Appakonda

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

Pavan Reddy Appakonda

Article about a real estate investor that does not establish biographical notability. The article contains minimal information, and basically says that he is a real estate investor. Naïve Google search finds that he uses social media, and has publicized himself well. (If there were secondary coverage, it would be hard to weed out from his advertising.) A check of the references shows, again, that he generates publicity for himself. Five of the six references are interviews, and one is written by him. There is no independent coverage in the article. There is no secondary coverage in the article.

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Secondary
1	Businessworld.in	An interview	No	Yes	No
2	Zeenews.india.com	Another interview, reads like a puff piece	No	Yes	No
3	Financialexpress.com	An article by the subject	No	Yes	No
4	Republicnewsindia.com	An interview that reads like a press release	No	Yes	No
5	Rdtimes.in	Another interview that reads like a press release	No	Yes	No
6	Theindianbulletin.com	A piece that uses the first person plural	No	Yes	No

He may or may not be notable, but if he is notable, a neutral editor should start from the beginning, not from this article. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Business, and India. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One anonymous column in the International Business Times India written by their "Entertainment Desk", various other hits, not sure that adds up to notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable PR junk. Note that I have removed three of the refs: "republicnewsindia", "rdtimes", and "theindianbulletin". All three are junk blogs pretending to be news sources, and are run by the same SEO scammer. Kuru (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 04:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: complete PR piece of articles. All articles seems paid ones and low quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4052:2118:49:3C5D:F922:B6B6:3533 (talk) 18:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing I can see in Hindi as well, besides the usual paid puff pieces. Fails WP:BIO by a long, long way. Java Hurricane 08:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lacks independent coverage to meet GNG -- Ab207 (talk) 15:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 03:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ackeel Applewhaite

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

Fails WP:GNG. All current references on article are trivial. Other references on the web such as [27], [28] and [29] all mention the subject at best in a trivial matter, such as a squad listing. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Barbados. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - International footballer with over 20 caps for his country who passes GNG, as you can see here and especially here. The second of these sources even says at the bottom "Please read the full story in today’s Weekend Nation". As you can clearly see, some news in Barbados is covered solely/in more detail in actual print, rather than online - not that you'd care, judging by your recent activity, in which you have targeted athletes from very small nations where actual print is used more than online sources for news. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 03:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And within minutes, I'm able to find another source with a lot of detail on the player. Clear disregard for WP:BEFORE in this instance, but I'm genuinely concerned that the nominator does not care. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 03:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first source mentions the subject twice, both trivial mentions, the article therefore doesn't qualify as part of GNG for this subject. Are you confusing the names? Regardless 1-2 sources, is not "substantial coverage". Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "Are you confusing the names?"? Also, WP:SPORTBASIC states "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources". There are two here, and I argue that this meets GNG. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 03:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first article has another similar name as the primary topic of the article. The subject of this discussion is mentioned twice, both trivially in that article. For me "Significant coverage" means more than two sources, I guess that is something that should be quantified and also a ranking of what takes precedence in discussions. My understanding is WP:GNG is the go to for discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, it was 4am and yes, I missed the fact that the first article was referring to (presumably) his brother. I stand by my claim that Ackeel Applewhaite is notable, and we will see who the community side with. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 04:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, how about for starters, you ratchet back your all-too-frequent accusations of sinister motive, if you aren't prepared to take pains not to make them in error, and you certainly aren't prepared to find adequate sourcing for the subjects you claim are notable absent them? For my part, I am not seeing the multiple, independent sources providing WP:SIGCOV to the subject that the GNG requires. Where are they? Ravenswing 15:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've given my reasons above for why I believe Applewhaite is notable above, and I ask you to be WP:CIVIL with your tone. I don't appreciate the condescending nature of your response, nor do I appreciate the unfounded accusation that I frequently accuse others of certain behaviours - I rarely interact with others on this website. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pot meet kettle. You have accused me on multiple occasions of having a "sinister motive". Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Of the three sources presented here, this one is a brief mention and actually has more info on Andre Applewhaite. This one is from the Barbados Football Association and thus is a WP:PRIMARY source. The third one might be significant but is locked behind a paywall. Even if we show good faith and assume it is significant coverage, it would still need more as GNG requires multiple sources of significant coverage AND that coverage would have to be from another publication than nationnews.com as two sources from the same publication are counted as one when it comes to GNG. During my search, including in Barbadian sources, I was unable to find anything of significance. This is a modern day athlete from an english speaking country so if he was truly notable, the sources would probably be found online. Alvaldi (talk) 20:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of passing WP:GNG. Did a search myself and all I got, apart from the ones mentioned above, are just passing mentions. --Angelo (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reference 4, even not counting the content behind the paywall, already seems to be SIGCOV. WP:GNG says "multiple sources are generally expected", which implies that this is not a hard rule and there can be exceptions. Given the small size of Barbados, the prominence of the Daily Nation (the nation's largest newspaper), and the likely great depth of coverage on that page, I think an exception is warranted in this case. Furthermore, I also see quite a bit of coverage on the site loopnews.com (this article, mentioning him as the U20 team captain, for example). EternalNomad (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by David. Giant Snowman 10:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems that there are better sources that can be included in this particular article, but doing a simple google news search shows many more references and this person appears to pass WP:GNG PaulPachad (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First Page Digital

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

Dorsn’t realise WP:NCORP Laptopinmyhands (talk) 00:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, and New Zealand. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:45, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article is very self promoting with numerous references appearing to be the companies own media releases, albeit in other publications. In my view breached WP:PROMO NealeWellington (talk) 10:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 13:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like WP:PROMO. LibStar (talk) 00:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the following reasons:

this article appears highly promotional in nature. Just one of many examples is this quote: "In recent years, First Page has achieved notable success, and as a result, leads a number of agency lists including Clutch, DAN (Digital Agency Network), Aspire, SEOlium, and The Manifest." This is not objective or free of bias. It is advertising masquerading as encyclopaedic content, and much of the article is similarly glowing in its description of services provided. Then again, promotional content is not always an indicator the article could be deleted, however on this occasion the entire article would need to be fundamentally rewritten.
Owing to the number of similar sources, I will not analyse each of them. However all I can see fail to be reliable or independent. Example - the first citation is a glowing profile describing the CEO as "revolutionary". Profile's of a CEO are not necessarily significant coverage. Other coverage more independent and reliable than the other sources, only trivially mentions the subject in one sentence.

Overall, this is a promotional article on a subject lacking sufficient notability for inclusion. MaxnaCarter (talk) 07:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is WP:REFBOMBed WP:PROMO material and this company doesn't have enough of an impact at this moment to be notable. FalconK (talk) 08:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Spar, Mindy (November 3, 2002). "TV stations gearing up for big night". The Post and Courier. (Charleston, SC). p. E1 – via NewsBank.

[2] McKinley, Jesse (13 June 2004). "The 'Bomb-itty' Team Sends in the Nerds". The New York Times.

[1]

[2]