Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 March 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 23	March 25 >

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 redirect to Dubthach. Withdrawing to redirect. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dubthaigh

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

I have been unable to locate any sources for this aside from the one quoted in the article (which is unavailable online, and which I suspect may be self-published). I find only trivial mentions of "Dubthaigh" as a surname, with no coverage of it as either a surname or a tribe. If they were a tribe, they seem to have been a minor one. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dubthach. "Dubthaigh" is the plural (and/or genitive) form of "Dubthach". According to the text, the surname seems to derive from the person name. (Like someone called "Matthew" begetting the surname "Matthews".) Recommend redirecting the title covering the plural form to the title covering the singular... Guliolopez (talk) 00:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on board for that redirect, barring anyone else objecting over the next day or so. I didn't realize it was a plural form, thanks for finding that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Guiliolopez Rlink2 (talk) 04:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Topic shown to meet CREATIVE and GNG. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sevda Shishmanova

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

A BEFORE identifies no reliable, independent sourcing in English or Bulgarian to establish notability for this person, and there isn't a particular claim beyond the JHU award Star Mississippi 20:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added a few Sources. Program director of a national TV station should be enough to jump over the notability bar. Arved (talk) 11:08, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 20:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 20:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 20:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Television. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this lacks WP:SIGCOV basically. We need to pass basic criteria before applying any subject specific notability. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 12:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did a little bit of work to the article, added passing mentions about award nominations, awards her show won, her 1996 arrest in Turkey. CT55555 (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lacking of significant coverage. Stifle (talk) 10:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the facts in the article are correct, the subject may pass criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO and criteria 2 of WP:ENTERTAINER for her award wins. Given that I don't read Bulgarian and am not proficient at researching in that language, I am hesitant to vote one way or the other, but it's plausible that she is notable based on the claims in the article.4meter4 (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Winning an international journalism award is a clear sign of notability. Despite the nominator's statement that a before search indicates no sources, there are significant sources in Bulgarian under "Севда Шишманова" (15,000+ hits using the quotation marks over a significant period of time). The Bulgarian Media Academy lists a biography [1], and though this is a blog (but not likely to be one that would misrepresent facts to the community that it advocates for) these two articles[2],[3] indicate she was involved in improving technology for delivery of media to the hearing impaired. All would be clear indicators of notability. Though some of the coverage is sensationalist, much of it meets our RS criteria and clearly indicates notability, such as: [4],[5],[6],[7],[8]. Meets GNG, and both the criteria of WP:ANYBIO and WP:ENTERTAINER. SusunW (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject passes criterion 3 of WP:CREATIVE, as she was the program director of BNT (the national television broadcaster of Bulgaria) and has played a major role in the production and broadcasting of the award-winning TV series Undercover. She has also made a number of documentaries, some of which she was internationally recognised for ([9])ElementSix (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant amounts of coverage make for an easy pass. The quality of her work seems to attract both local and international attention and this has lead to being either nominated or being awarded. There is much more here than is needed to pass borderline. She is established journalist and well known internationally. scope_creep^Talk 20:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't use that press-release in the article, or I'll need to remove it. scope_creep^Talk 20:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. which does not preclude a possible merge, but there's no consensus to delete the article. Star Mississippi 01:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hancock County High School

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

This article is sourced to only the subject's own website which is not enough to show notability. It has been notified with a notice on this problem for 13 years. A search for more sources showed no substantial coverage. We need substantial coverage to show that a school is notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Kentucky. Shellwood (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect into Hawesville, Kentucky. If anything additional pops up, it can incubate in there. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 19:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as merging it into Hawesville, the school is in Lewisport. If it were to be merged, I would suggest choosing Lewisport rather than the adjacent but smaller Hawesville.

I'm okay with that option as well. I'd like to see the content saved, but I don't know if a keep is in order right now. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's frivolous to delete an article for a high school that's been in existence for decades with a significant enrollment (this school has around 500) and that has won multiple state athletics championships. A quick newspaper search finds a myriad of articles. The article needs a lot of improvement, but it's clear that sources exist. Jacona (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am still not seeing how any of these added sources rise to the level of coverage we need for an organization. The fact that an employee here was arrested for a crime and it made the news does not make the school itself notable for example.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - although it's my opinion that secondary schools are important enough to merit some sort of SNG, at this point, the standard is GNG. GNG requires multiple reliable secondary sources discussing the subject in detail. Well, at this point, even with improvements, there is still only a single reliable secondary source, and all the citations to it are to articles that are transactional in nature; not detailed. Not going to !vote. If someone held a gun to my head and forced me to, I'd be forced to do something akin to jury nullification and !vote keep.174.212.228.208 (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Can schools be kept just on GNG, or do they have to pass the more demanding notability guidelines for organizations, since they are in fact organizations?John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NSCHOOL says they can meet either, or both. It does not say that WP:NORG is more demanding, however. Jacona (talk) 14:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Johnpacklambert, Jacona, the practice has been to apply GNG to public and non-profit private achools, reserving the more restrictive NORG for businesses that run schools for profit. Appropriate since the SNG for businesses, WP:NCORP, is a shortcut to the same place as NORG. 174.212.228.208 (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, a Newspapers.com search for "Hancock County High School" in KY brings up lots of results, though I don't have time to sort through them. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak delete I did a search for in-depth coverage of this outside newspapers.com and couldn't find anything. While I didn't look through newspapers.com, my guess is that all or most of the local news sources are extremely trivial school bake sale type nonsense that do nothing for notability. So I'm going with delete. That said, I'm on the weaker side since there are some articles about the school. If someone can provide evidence that they in-depth and not about trivial nonsense like bake sales or who won prom king/queen I will change my vote to keep. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - GNG applies here, and GNG doesn't discount local sources. It does discount trivial stuff, it does require at least a RS, which can be local, with some detail, and it does require multiple sources. All single fact stories aren't trivial. Example might be local coverage of the school’s first minority student. Integration is the single most important event of the 20th century in US education, and is woefully undercovered on Wikipedia. 174.212.211.248 (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - On what grounds do you claim that GNG instead of the notability guidelines for organization applies here?John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say any discerning view of applying GNG to schools needs to demand that the coverage be of the school itself, not of a recurring event that happens at the school, not of a criminal charge against an employee of the school, and not an incidental mention of the school.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I did a check on Newspapers.com, and I found two AP articles [10] and [11] [12]. The latter two are the same article, but it was published in multiple papers. I have not done much searching (15 minutes), but I am confident better sources exist. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It does not matter how many papers publish it, if it is the same article it still is only one source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know. I just wanted to make it clear that this was national coverage. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The second sentence at the top of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) says, The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams. And of course, passing mentions do not count toward notability for GNG. Scorpions13256 has made a good start on newspapers.com, and using sing search terms "Hancock County High School" and "Kentucky", the search engine yields 5,972 hits. Even if 99% are sports coverage, bride/groom alumni announcements, alum obits, and meeting notices, there would still probably be about 60 articles that provide coverage in some depth about this school. I've listed a few on the article's talk page, but I've run out of time to finish the search today. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge/Redirect~~ into appropriate community article per Royal Autumn Crest. As a stand alone article it fails WP:GNG for lack of substantial coverage in multiple, independent and reliable sources. Springnuts (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is WP:SIGCOV in multiple WP:RS. One of the best is an Evansville Courier and Press article from 1973 (partial clip here). Here are some more online sources that fit [13], [14], [15]; there are numerous others in the article or on the talk page that aren't online, but these alone are more than enough to pass GNG.Jacona (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are multiple reliable sources with significant coverage. Meets GNG. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see this discussion teetering between Keep and Merge/Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What makes this school special? From the sources … really not much, and not that special. I’m still for merge, as the school is no doubt a lovely school but just … not very notable in our sense. That’s not a criticism! So as an article it will always be uninspiring. As a para in a locality article it will fit well and likely get more exposure. Springnuts (talk) 23:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not confuse being "special" with being notable under Wikipedia's notability policy. The GNG notability requirement is not that a school be "special", rather that multiple secondary reliable sources have written about the school in some depth. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 03:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Response: You are entirely correct of course, and I do not suffer from that confusion. The reasons for my view about the the article are to do with notability and the lack of substantial coverage (which I know others debate). What I was trying to do - inadequately, clearly - was to make exactly this point that many, for example alumni, might well consider the school special, but that is not the same as being notable in our terms. Springnuts (talk) 08:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Editors may want to consider the depth of coverage in articles (and text) added since this nomination. Of course, some of the added reliable sources are only for verification of facts, but I invite your review of these sources that meet the criterion, A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject:
1. "Hancock County High earns recognition". Messenger-Inquirer. 2021-09-28. pp. C1. Retrieved 2022-03-22.
2. "Hancock County High School to assess students' testing ability". Messenger-Inquirer. 2018-01-29. pp. B1. Retrieved 2022-03-22. and "Testing (cont. from B1)". Messenger-Inquirer. 2018-01-29. pp. B3. Retrieved 2022-03-22.
3. "Hancock Schools tops region in K-PREP scoring". The Hancock Clarion.
4. "HCHS starting military-style class next year". The Hancock Clarion. and full source behind paywall: Taylor, Dave (March 29, 2018). "HCHS starting military-style class next year". 1954.newstogo.us. p. 3. Retrieved 2022-03-25.
5. "Hancock County High students prepare for careers close to home". Messenger-Inquirer. 2018-02-25. pp. B1. Retrieved 2022-03-25. and "Careers (cont. from B1)". Messenger-Inquirer. 2018-02-25. pp. B6. Retrieved 2022-03-25.
— Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With apologies to Jacona, I inadvertently missed your comment above on additional sources. I especially appreciate this one I had missed in my newspapers.com search:

"New School is different". Evansville Courier and Press. 1973-07-29. p. 70. Retrieved 2022-03-25. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Thank you! You have done the heavy lifting. Great job! Jacona (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have found another source here. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Churnalism For me they fail WP:INDEPENDENT- these are generally indiscriminate bits of reporting in the local press of what the school is saying about itself - and much of which is in any case of little substance. There is nothing like this, for example, about a school in the UK:

Plymouth High School consistently ranks as one of the top performing schools in Plymouth (and ranks well amongst schools in the rest of Devon and Cornwall) in terms of examination results. In 2011 97% of pupils achieved 5 or more A*-C grade GCSEs, including English and Mathematics.^[1]

^ "Plymouth High School for Girls". Department for Education. Retrieved 2012-06-22.

Friendly regards to all, Springnuts (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My sources are all from national or regional outlets. None of them are local. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To take your last addition, [[16]], it is just a reference to a staff member who has taken a job elsewhere. This is not the sort of significant coverage required to justify an article. The WP:GNG says "If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article": that is I think where this topic stands. Then if and when significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject emerges, it can be broken out into a separate article. Springnuts (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:AUD local sources appear to count toward notability. We do need at least one regional source though, which is about the students that were suspended. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:AUD is required under WP:NORG, but it is not a requirement of WP:GNG. Cheers! − Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 03:29, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Springnuts, I'm not seeing the 2011 data in the cit you provided, but nevertheless, this AfD is not about that high school or the use of Ofsted report data, about which I have seen other editors object, citing the process of each school submitting data that is then reviewed by Ofsted evaluators, usually after a site visit.

I disagree that all the articles cited above fail WP:INDEPENDENT and are merely "reporting in the local press of what the school is saying about itself". Maybe that happens in the UK, but in US, articles that carry a reporter's byline are not press releases. (See bylines for Bobbie Hayse here, here, and here; Linda Dillon here, and Dave Taylor here.) Sometimes small local papers do publish press releases intact, but they don't credit reporters for them.

In addition, stories that are reported by the Associated Press or United Press International are carried in national papers (see Students suspended for walk-out protest and Basketball player is attacked with bat). These articles have not been used in the article, yet, nor the text and citations about the coach who was arrested and convicted for abuses, but many schools do have sections on "controversies", so perhaps fodder for future versions. The point: this article has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and thus, this stand-alone article belongs in Wikipedia.— Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well that is the question, and there is clearly disagreement on the answer, or would not be in this process. So, we wait to see what the verdict is. In the meantime if you wish to improve the article so that it clearly passes GNG that would strengthen the case you are advocating. The last time I looked at the article it had been given a new outline format, but all the content had been removed. Perhaps it is better now. Springnuts (talk) 09:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm changing my vote to keep because I think there's been enough improvement to the article since the nomination to justify keeping it. Although that said, I do agree some of it is rather trivial and should probably be removed, but on the other hand one of their students winning Kentucky's Mr. Football, plus them playing in the girls class A cross country state championship in 2001 and 2002 is notable. The clear advertising nonsense like what extra curricular activities they provide, which literally no one except a potential student or their parents care about, should be removed. The same goes for the demographics section IMO, just say they are a majority white school or something. No one cares about the exact number of Asians that go there though. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adamant1, thanks, points taken. − Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to keep (have struck through earlier “vote”) ivo significant improvements to the article. Good result from RfD process working well with goodwill on all sides. Springnuts (talk) 06:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily enough sourcing to satisfy WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beto Furquim

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

Fails WP:N and WP:SINGER. The article is not covered in-depth by reliable sources. Actually, the only "sources" in the article are Furquim's profiles in music databases. The article in pt.WP was deleted several times via SPEEDY and AfD. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 16:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 16:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 16:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the Portugese WP has turfed this a few times for lacking notability - including literally today! - then it's almost certainly going to have zero to benefit from here. Delete as failing WP:SINGER. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article has not been updated for several years. I added more sources and references, as well as listing the author's literary works and adding new links. Cseabra (talk) 02:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Beto Furquim is referenced in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%B4nica_Salmaso Cseabra (talk) 02:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly think he's less notable as a writer than he is as a musician, frankly, and the fact the pt.WP article was speedied again today with the explanation that he's not notable as either is not doing him any good. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Review in the light of addition of new sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything in English to support this article, so I trust the portuguese wikipedians. Jacona (talk) 12:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Hellmich

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

Christian Hellmich doesn't seem to have widespread coverage nor has he been awarded any significant titles (as far as I can personally see), as such, they don't meet WP:Bio criteria. DevSpenpai (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. DevSpenpai (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON Just a few exhibitions. Not in any collections. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 10:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Sinclaire

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

Fails WP:FILMMAKER: none of her works are notable. In fact, an article about a film she directed got deleted on November 28, 2019. The Film Creator (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC/WP:GNG - an obit from The Times is in the article ("Free-spirited writer and artistic director who, with her husband, ensured the enduring popularity of the King's Head Theatre"), there is another obit from The Stage; the Evening Standard wrote a 2012 profile The queen of the new King's Head which is in the External links section of the article; the Independent has a 2013 article about the theatre and her: King’s Head theatre on search for ‘guardian angel’ philanthropist to secure long-term future, there is some biographical information in a bylined 2005 obit by The Guardian for Dan Crawford, more on her career from The Guardian in 2008 and 2010, Reuters in 2010, Islington Gazette in 2010, Evening Standard in 2012, Islington Gazette in 2014, and Scoop in 2020, and a 2015 article about her and her daughter in Stuff: Seatoun mother-daughter team planning short film. Her daughter also wrote a 2021 obit published in The Guardian. Her website also has more references to press, including reviews. Beccaynr (talk) 00:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: never mind the film-making, her work at the King's Head Theatre and the Golden Jubilee Award (hmm, can't find that exact award, needs a bit more googling...), and the obits in The Times and The Stage, show her notability. It's not a great article - I've done a bit of tidying of non-standard headings and contractions like "didn't", for a start. PamD 09:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Has also published poetry and a couple of novels - added. PamD 09:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ooof - all that info and so few sources! It's going to take cleanup and unfortunately some of the unsourced text will have to go. But Beccaynr's sources can hopefully go a long way to saving much of the article. Lamona (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw the nomination per consensus and article improvements. The Film Creator (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Hatton

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

Fails WP:NFILMMAKER; none of his works are notable. Plus, the sole surviving article about a film he directed is currently nominated for deletion as well. The Film Creator (talk) 21:33, 24 March 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) 21:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I added a couple of book references: the Roberts one is a basic encyclopaedia listing; the Monaco one is a bit more, summarising the subject's life and work. AllyD (talk) 10:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable to me: Guardian obituary: Maurice hatton: A tough-minded view of utopia (via ProQuest); New York Times: MAURICE HATTAN'S BRITISH COMEDY LONG SHOT, another film review, American Roulette directed by Maurice Hatton, Charity, Tom. Sight and Sound; London Vol. 1, Iss. 5, (Sep 1991): 56. Piecesofuk (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is notable as explained by "Piecesofuk" Mbilalwiki (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have always considered on obit in a major newspaper sufficient for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Aside from the two book references on which I commented above, there is also a brief biography by Sandra Brennan on Allmovie, and Michael Wood's obituary in The Guardian. Also acknowledging the various reviews and mentions of his films from the late 60s onward (e.g. by Philip French in The Observer) adds to an overall view that there is sufficient to meet the WP:FILMMAKER criteria. AllyD (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw this nomination per consensus. The Film Creator (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nelly's Version

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

Fails WP:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:SIGCOV; I found nothing suitable to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE. The Film Creator (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to Eva Figes~~ whose book the film was adapted from. The blue/red link ratio of the cast is bent towards this remaining in the bios of the actors at the very least. If it has somewhere to go, it should be linked there, not deleted (and the film is apparently available from FilmRise, so it's not like a 'crime of the week' TV film from 1987 collecting dust in the NBC archives). Nate • (chatter) 23:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per below and a reminder to the nominator that WP:BEFORE for pre-1995 media just doesn't equal Internet sources and one keyword. Nate • (chatter) 20:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reviews at TV Guide [17] and Time Out [18] DonaldD23 talk to me 01:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Also reviewed in Variety: Vol. 311, Iss. 7, (Jun 15, 1983): 14. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Highly notable cast and satisfies WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw this nomination per consensus. The Film Creator (talk) 00:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 University of Rochester. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

University of Rochester Economics Department

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Unsourced affair The Banner talk 21:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and New York. Shellwood (talk) 21:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Rediect with University of Rochester Rlink2 (talk) 04:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While concerns remain about the depth and DaneCoGuy's neutrality, consensus appears clear that per the sources identified and added during the discussion, she's notable Star Mississippi 01:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Raabe

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to locate any biographical details in reliable secondary sources. No indication of notable awards or charted songs. She is a very accomplished cleric, though the article is sourced by YouTube videos, biographic summaries from places she has worked, and self-sourced publications. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She is an American female cleric of some note, religious career for eight years DaneCoGuy (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She works at a high level position in Hatfield. She lives in Hilltop Twp Bucks County. DaneCoGuy (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Music, and Christianity. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She is a female American clergy of some note, her career spans eight years, she is an officer of a large Christian music nonprofit. Her writing career spans 15 years, it includes books, articles, blogs; one of her books won a significant award. Her music career spans 17 years, it includes about 150 pieces for piano, organ, vocal, choral, and solo use. She has been accepted by 8 traditional publishers. DaneCoGuy (talk) 15:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Several of her publishers have bio pages and info, they are unrelated parties

The article has sources to New York Times

She is president-elect of a large non-profit organization

The award from the Concordia Historical Institute is an important one. It relates to a lengthy book in print from an unrelated publisher

None of her many publications are self-sourced, they are all reviewed and edited by third party publishers, there are dozens of music publications at unrelated sources

Is there something else I can provide regarding this? DaneCoGuy (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DaneCoGuy: You took photos of her two weeks ago. Is there a personal connection? Magnolia677 (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Photo for her personal use, no compensation to me DaneCoGuy (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This 2013 article about her has biographical and career information: From critic to composer (Milton Courier). Beccaynr (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC) I haven't accessed the Wikipedia Library yet, but via GScholar/ProQuest, there are two reviews in The Hymn, Vol. 62, Iss. 1, (Winter 2011) (opens with biographical information), Vol. 65, Iss. 2, (Spring 2014). Beccaynr (talk) 03:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia Library includes: A 3-sentence review in American Organist Magazine for her work How Good It Is - Settings of Carl Schalk Hymn Tunes (Apr. 2011, via EBSCOhost), short book reviews for Carl F. Schalk: A Life in Song in Currents in Theology and Mission (Apr. 2014, via Gale) and Internet Bookwatch/Midwest Book Review (Dec. 2013, via Gale), and many articles written by her. Beccaynr (talk) 03:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, per WP:BASIC, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability - there is also this article, that while mostly an interview, is also focused on her and includes biographical/career information: Raabe takes new call, leaves Marshall church (The Courier, 2021). Beccaynr (talk) 05:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC) And also this, with more in-depth coverage: Holy Trinity Lutheran Church installs new pastor (The Courier, 2018). Beccaynr (talk) 05:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to nominator's ad hominem questioning here. Oh, and meets GNG, which is both true and the policy-based pretext, but the real reason I'm bothering to register a !vote is the nominator's response to a page contributor. Jclemens (talk) 06:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So basically your !vote is an ad hominem. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see anything ad hominem in Magnolia677's question. As it turns out, DaneCoGuy wrote he's Raabe's spouse. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as pure promotion. Wikipedia is not an advertising platform. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All such material has been removed DaneCoGuy (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added the connected contributor template to the article Talk page, and while I have removed some promotional material, I believe there is still work to be done, including after what appears to be unsourced promotional-sounding information was added back into the article, and sourced biographical information was removed [19]. I also would have already removed the Conferences section as WP:NOTCV, except during my earlier research on the WP Library, there were several hits for conference proceedings that could be reviewed and considered for possible inclusion. I have only made a first run through the article as part of my review for the AfD discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All puffery and promotional material has been removed by editors DaneCoGuy (talk) 13:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG with reliable sources coverage. Has been heavily edited by Beccanyr who is an uninvolved editor so is more neutral now. The earlier editor DayneCoguy has explained his coi as the spouse of the subject Nancy Raabe, so that should be added to the talkpage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 11:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added that I am her spouse in the Talk page. DaneCoGuy (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or Draftify because this needs help to meet Wikipedia standards) I'm not seeing sufficient reliable sources. There are multiple cites to a very local paper, the Courier. One (#2) seems to be substantial (don't know how much a local paper counts), others mainly say that she took a new job; in any case these would count as one source per WP:RS. There is about a page in an article from "Hymn", which is listed as a scholarly journal. Between those two, though, there is not enough to cover the content of a WP biographical article. Most of the article's references to her music are youtube videos of performances, which are not independent sources. Three of the links (9, 10, 11) are to sales sites for her music. Some of the references do not mention her (8,14, 32, 33 - and I didn't check them all). She has authored a book and written music, but the sources about her just aren't there. If we cut out all of the videos, sales sites and ones that fail verification, we're left with very little. (Kudos to her loving husband, but who hasn't gotten his Wikipedia chops yet.) However, it would be worth looking at "Raabe Prize For Excellence In Sacred Composition" which gets quite a few hits although many are announcements of winners. But there might be something there. Lamona (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have not yet added all of the reviews I found and listed in my comments above, including for one of her books. Article content does not determine notability, and I have found the research process challenging because her journalism career had produced a lot of hits for her own writing, so I am not necessarily convinced there is not more secondary commentary or context available to better support this article. Beccaynr (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Her notability is backed up by her position as an officer in a large music nonprofit, and by her many years of writing and composing for unrelated publishers.

There are published reviews of four of her books. DaneCoGuy (talk) 13:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DaneCoGuy, if you have reviews you should list them here. I didn't find them with a Google or Scholar search so you need to show sources for what you are asserting. Also, sources would be needed for performances of her works. (And I'm not sure that Youtube videos will be acceptable if they are uploaded by a reliable entity, but perhaps someone knows.) As I mentioned, linking to sales sites, and un-verifiable media (youtube, tiktok, etc.) is not generally considered okay as sources. Those CAN be listed in an "external sources" section, but they don't support notability. So the game is sources, sources, sources! Lamona (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also note, DaneCoGuy, that all facts in a biographical article must be verifiable in sources. There is quite a bit here that is not cited to an external source. Some examples are: information about her father; her specialty was French horn; the paragraph that begins "Raabe has composed ten..."; and the third and fifth paragraphs in that section. WP:BLP (biographies of living persons) states: "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed." If any of these facts can be found in sources we will need to add those sources as references. If they are not, those paragraphs could legitimately be deleted from the article by any editors. Lamona (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had a good source for the grandfather and more info about it, but another editor deleted that

I don't know how to list the music publications -- they are on the publishers' catalog sites, but editors delete these as being commercial

The YouTube for Tom Mueller, he posted it, not me, so it should count

All of her articles and compositions, there are many of them, they are edited and distributed by third parties, they should count as notability DaneCoGuy (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like an editor has found some and listed them in footnotes 17 and 18. DaneCoGuy (talk) 15:16, 27

Please read these two Wikipedia editing pages: WP:INDY and WP:RS. There must be reliable published sources that are independent of the subject that validate all of the facts in an article. You can have a section that lists things that the person has created, but ideally those also would be sourced to news or journal articles. To understand WP:N (notability) in this case please see: WP:ANYBIO. Many of the problems we are pointing out here are that this article does not follow Wikipedia standards, so you need to understand those standards. It might be useful to turn this into a draft that you could submit at WP:AFC (articles for creation) where you would get help in creating a valid article. Lamona (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANYBIO is one of the alternative criteria for notability, per the notability guideline for people, and reviewing the WP:BASIC criteria for this guideline, as well as all of the linked concepts within that section would likely be more helpful for this article, due to the nature of the sources available for this subject. Beccaynr (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022 (UTC)

Comment She's authored a few articles in peer-reviewed journals in GScholar, I can't comment on how impactful they are, citation index? Oaktree b (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oaktree b, I looked at that as well. Of the 3 that I found there, only one had 1 cite. I looked at the Ithaca College Choral Composition contest which is listed there from her site - in 2010 she was one of 5 composers, but she was not the "winner". (list here). Also, there are two reviews here but one of them appears to be sponsored by the Ass'n of Lutheran Church Musicians, of which I believe I saw she is an officer. It will be hard to consider that independent, if that is the case. Lamona (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Her notability is backed up by her composition being performed by Duke University on national TV, by the featuring of her music at a large liturgical conference, and by her invitation to speak/preach at an important chamber music concert. DaneCoGuy (talk) 13:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CSD G7. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Atuquaye Clottey

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

Doesn't appear to have ever played in an WP:FPL so WP:NFOOTBALL is failed. Searches such as this one do not yield any sources with enough depth for WP:GNG. He is mentioned in this rumour about being released and this routine transfer announcement. I would consider both of these mentions to be fairly routine and trivial and not enough for a stand-alone article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ghana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article was created by me, I created it mainly because at that time the Ghana Premier League was on the WP:FPL so that meant it passed WP:NFOOTBALL then. However now it has been taken off the list, and so it doesn't meet that criteria which I can't justify. Unfortunately it does not meet WP:GNG as well and so delete." Ampimd (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 22:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ampimd as creator (could be a CSD if desired). No Great Shaker (talk) 23:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, probably eligible for WP:CSD#G7 too (as creator supports deletion). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Senior producer

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

I found tons of sources using the term, but very few explaining what it actually is. Textbook WP:DICDEF; despite existing since 2009 and having a myriad of edits, this article has seen fewer than a dozen edits, further suggesting that it is incapable of expansion. Prod declined with prompt to improve it, but legitimate sourcing proved elusive. It's clearly just a WP:DICDEF and nothing more. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:12, 24 March 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?)} 20:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article now contains the sourcing that the nominator found to be so elusive. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources are clear on notability; article is a stub but could be expanded. --Jayron 32 12:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: Which is why it's been two sentences long since 2009, right? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a concern. Per WP:DEADLINE, not every article needs to be in a complete state. Lots of obscure topics can be expanded, but haven't yet. Wikipedia has existed for a finite amount of time. When we reach an infinite amount of time, I'll expect it to be complete. --Jayron 32 17:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between WP:DEADLINE and just magically expecting the article to build itself, and this seems dangerously close to the latter. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article is not magically going to build itself, but "it's going to take some time for someone to expand this" is not a reason for deletion. We delete articles largely because Wikipedia shouldn't have an article about the subject, or because it is a copyvio, or something like that. "It could be expanded, but hasn't yet been" is not a deletion rationale. --Jayron 32 11:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as mentioned, being a stub is not a reason for deletion. matt91486 (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yigal M. Rechtman

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

Non-notable person, lack of significant coverage in independent sources. Not sure if NYT wedding section is actually independent from the people whose wedding it is, but even if so, I don't think this would make him notable. (t · c) buidhe 18:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 18:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that you did not read or track the footnotes in the article.

The deletion guidelines state, inter-alia that:

"Strongly consider if an alternative deletion process (speedy deletion, or proposed deletion) should be used.

Check the deletion policy to see what things are not reasons for deletion. Consider whether you actually want the article to be merged, expanded, or cleaned up rather than deleted, and use the appropriate mechanism instead of AfD.

Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD." (emphasis added)

Suffice it to say that none of these steps were taken. The article is well research, fully annotated, and is a collection of important thought sharing about auditing, technology and assurance, fraud, regulation and compliance, and risk. These are not reserved just to academics, as practicing CPAs are the basis of changes and innovation in these areas. Yigal Rechtman (me) have been at the forefront of these changes. It is not a "personal" entry as much as its a collection of processes of thought that are now making the rounds and becoming regulations and practices of various professionals. 100.8.248.104 (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this page should be deleted. Yigal is quite influential in the industry in the tri-state New York area. I think having a page is warranted and it should stay up. Djb9271 (talk) 13:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yigal is an award winning writer/author for the business, accounting and financial community -- as a CPA, he has tremendous expertise in forensic accounting, business valuation and in addition has other professional designations. He is on the Editorial Advisory Board of the CPA Journal, The Voice of the Profession 2603:6080:5601:3101:F154:5018:FE43:C2DB (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 18:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is no longer an orphan topic. Other topics refer to it. Rechtman (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Businesspeople. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article was written like a resume and a Google search couldn't find any SIGCOV from reliable sources. Brian O'Conner 23:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to rebut this: the published articles are all SIGCOV. They are published by Yigal Rechtman as News and Views. This is an op-ed type articles. 100.8.248.104 (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is listed under academics, but I don't see a pass of WP:NPROF via citation or other recognizable impact. The best case for GNG appears to be the wedding announcements in the NYTimes, but this seems fairly weak to me. Meanwhile, the article is in poor enough shape that WP:TNT applies. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. clearly reads like a CV and does not pass the criteria outlined in WP:NPROF. Clearly an expert in his field, he simply does not fall into the category of persons that are covered in Wikipedia. --hroest 13:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Kitchens Press

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

Fails WP:NCORP can't find any in-depth coverage in independent RS. (t · c) buidhe 18:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 18:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 18:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 18:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 18:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 18:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Rlink2 (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacking significant coverage to meet WP:NCORP. LibStar (talk) 22:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indigo Muldoon

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

Hoax article, been around for 16 years without any sort of sources or anything else; BEFORE only pulls up mirrors or copypastas of this page and no news hits what-so-ever (string: "Indigo Muldoon"). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 18:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fictional elements, and Comics and animation. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As I mentioned on its talk page, additions to actual article content come from two single-purpose accounts, Moore575 and 24.118.236.102. Searching on google prior to January 1, 2008 for "Indigo Heat" yields only unrelated results, and "Indigo Muldoon" only produces the article in question. This definitely seems like a hoax to me, or at the very least it falls far from meeting Wikipedia's notability guidelines. aismallard (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it looks like the procedure on List of hoaxes on Wikipedia is to move the page as a subpage. So if the AfD goes through, an administrator will move it instead of deleting it? aismallard (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Same reasoning as above, almost no mention of it anywhere on the greater web. Tux9001 (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per above. Article does not cite any sources, and a search on the web too does not show any related material. Kpddg ^(talk ^• ^contribs) 02:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While this is probably a hoax, if it weren't a hoax the article should have been about Indigo Heat, the graphic novel, not Indigo Muldoon, the character. Gildir (talk) 09:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, then add to the Wikipedia:List of hoaxes, 16 years earns it a prominent place. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG possible hoax.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move to hoaxes per above. "Gitchi Manito" seems to be a diety in Ojibwe tradition and "El Shaddih" may be El Shaddai, so I suspect it was written with a hodge-prodge of various spiritual traditions. MSG17 (talk) 18:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Good job for discovering this hoax. Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Credit belongs to CompliensCreator, who first mentioned it on Twitter. aismallard (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Technically I posted about it on the Talk Page first, and then posted about it on Twitter because I thought it was fascinating, but either way it was fun to realize what I had found. Thanks for the credit! CompliensCreator (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was me being pinged to your Tweet in an unrelated Discord server that prompted me to do a BEFORE on it and then take it to AfD. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 23:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For previously stated reasons, this is almost certainly a hoax. It should probably go to the hoax museum. CJ-Moki (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per my arguments on the original talk page. No citations, all mentions outside of this character appear to be clones from across the web, and even if it's not a hoax, it's surely not notable enough to earn a page. CompliensCreator (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, don't think there's much to say that hasn't already been said. Good job spotting this. QoopyQoopy (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As failing WP:GNG miserably (although I don't think it qualifies as a "hoax" so much as something someone made up one day that slipped under the radar). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"I made this amateur graphic novel with zero notability and wrote this Wikipedia article about it" would be WP:MADEUP. This doesn't exist at all, it's a hoax. (Most of the examples on WP:MADEUP are things that exist if you can describe them - a ball game, a new word, a conlang.) QoopyQoopy (talk) 01:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and add to list of hoaxes as per above. Shocked this lasted so long. Gabe114 (talk) 12:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. Surprised it's still up after so long, but at least that's getting fixed now! --Kbabej (talk) 15:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Cubana

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

This is confusing. The only non wiki mirror I can find is this site, which refers back to the full script being here. The German site, which I thought might be better due to the Austrian premiere, is the same content as here and I cannot ID a viable ATD. The website is down, which means no link to a possible press page for reception. Star Mississippi 18:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not having strong reference to support notability. @@@XyX _talk 18:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If site stil down, check web archive to see if anything can be salvaged (I personally dont think anything can, but lets me sure). If theres still nothing there, Delete Rlink2 (talk) 12:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't able to access it through Internet Archive. Are there other options you recommend @Rlink2? Happy to dig more. Star Mississippi 19:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi, yes their might be other option. What is the german URL that you said was down? Rlink2 (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this one is down. This isn't but it doesn't have any content about the show, just a link out to the first one. I'm imagining the first would have press coverage of the performances referenced in the German article which might have helped with GNG. Star Mississippi 00:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi

I was able to find some coverage:

There's this: https://x-media-campus.unibw.de/content/carmen-cubana , which is from a university, but i'm not sure if it covers GNG as it just says the shows existence.

And there is this: https://utheses.univie.ac.at/detail/9185 which is a PhD dissertation that mentions the play so I dont know german so I dont know what its saying.

This look like from a press organization: http://web.archive.org/web/20111221160224/http://ganz-muenchen.de/artculture/dt/2007/deutsches_theater_muenchen/carmen_cubana/programm.html

along with this

https://gayguide.me/kultur/artikel/59_Carmen_Cubana_Musicalsommer_Amstetten (invalid HTTPS certificate, since you are not entering or giving any information to the site it is perfectly safe to skip the warning, despite what your browser tells you. If you can't skip the warning you can click on an archived link instead: https://ghostarchive.org/archive/AjU0K?kreymer=true)

And this: https://www.oe24.at/leute/kultur/carmen-mit-pop-und-latin-rhythmen/144363 along with this http://5bheli.at/logbuch/news.284/print.logbuch.html Rlink2 (talk) 02:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Re-closed after a mistaken non-admin closure per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 March 30. A relisting is not required per WP:SNOW. Sandstein 07:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Millerovo air base attack

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

Non-notable. The article is based on unreliable primary sources. Namely, unconfirmed reports on social networks and reports in the Russian media. There was no confirmation from either Ukrainian or Russian official sources. This fact is also not considered in secondary sources. Most likely it's a fake. Yakudza (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple reliable sources, including CNN and The Hill reported on it. Furthermore, it has been confirmed by Bellingcat, also considered a reliable source. Mupper-san (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All of these primary sources are based on unconfirmed messages on social media. --Yakudza (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Bellingcat, it was confirmed by geolocation. There's nothing unconfirmed here, in fact, on the contrary, multiple credible sources have backed up the information including by geolocation. Furthermore, in regards to the question of notability, I point to Shelling of Donetsk, Russia as another example of an article regarding the spillover of the Russo-Ukrainian War outside of the internationally-recognised borders of Ukraine. Mupper-san (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Mupper Ironmatic1 (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Yakudza (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Yakudza (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing concerns are not best addressed at AfD. It is clear this is not a "fake" as claimed by nom. Bellingcat, which is regarded as a reliable source, confirmed the attack took place. AusLondonder (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bellingcat only suggested that it was a Ukrainian rocket. More precisely repeated someone else. If there is no secondary source for an article, then it is not Notability. And here only primary source and social media. See Wikipedia:Notability. --Yakudza (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're fighting common knowledge here. Why would you like to see this scrubbed from Wikipedia? Ironmatic1 (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Wikipedia:Notability and find there at least one reason why the article can be left. --Yakudza (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1. '"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.' Check, every major media outlet. 2. '"Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline.' Check, Bellingcat. 3. '"Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability.' Check, the media outlets are not the primary source, they are secondary. 4. '"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it.' Check, the media outlets are not related to the article's subject. 5. '"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article."' Check, "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below" Should I continue? Ironmatic1 (talk) 22:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posting on Twitter is not a secondary source. I guess we can finish. --Yakudza (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is a notable event, the first and only Ukrainian attack on Russian soil.Mr.User200 (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Only (so far) attack on DE JURE PRORUSSIAN/RUSSIAN SOIL = notable. Search up "Millerovo air base attack" or whatever, gives a lot of (generally known) reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawsongfg (talk • contribs) 23:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per all the reasonings above. Elijahandskip (talk) 07:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close per all Keep !votes above. Is so far the only Ukrainian offensive attack on de jure Russian soil. Close per WP:SNOW. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 17:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still waiting for some argument with reference to notability guideline. --Yakudza (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Yakudza: Here's the thing: nobody wants this article to be deleted. It should be closed per WP:SNOW. You also (in the actual delete suggestion) pointed to both WP:GNG and also (kind of) WP:HOAX. I can find sources that shut both of those arguments down, no? Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 13:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, here, here, and even here. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 13:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm really just not seeing how this fails our notability requirements; this article topic has received coverage in multiple reliable sources. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tulsa Derby

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

Extremely premature. Two teams who will play against each other in an official competition for the first time next month, that's it. Not a notable rivalry at the moment. Fram (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I am inclined to agree with the nomination that this is not a notable rivalry (indeed, it isn't even a rivalry, yet?). The article lists only trivia about each of the two teams and how they come to face each other but is not at all pertinent for what the article is meant to be representing. Unless I am mistaken, this is only a meeting in a knock-out competition rather than a league, so it may not even be recurring/frequent. Regardless, there is no indication of a rivalry and the sources do not support this assertion. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the suggestion that a rivalry can exist between two teams who have never even played each other is arrant nonsense -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fully agree with nom, far too premature, 'rivalry' not reflected in sources. Giant Snowman 22:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significance. No Great Shaker (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If one of these teams get an MLS promotion, the other will contract as a market like Tulsa can't support two clubs. This is a 'rivalry' in the sense either team is fighting for survival rather than competitive terms. Nate • (chatter) 23:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a newbie to Wikipedia editing/and Wikiprojects I have one question. I concur the page may be premature, but is there a way to recommend to the original author to include the idea on the pages of Tulsa Athletic and FC Tulsa? All of these recommendation seem to be based on "football" ideas of what it takes to make a rivalry/derby. Maybe it should be a section on the respective articles. Just a thought. Demt1298 (talk) 00:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete made up rivalry, they've never played against each other, and so unsurprisingly no sources talk of the "Tulsa rivalry". Joseph2302 (talk) 09:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, the article should be created after they actually play their first game. We shouldnt create articles on things that dont exist. Rlink2 (talk) 12:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be created after the first game, it should only be created at a future point in time when they've played lots of matches and reliable sources call it a rivalry. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In my opinion, no evidence of notability and lacks WP:SIGCOV. As such, the article should be deleted. GauchoDude (talk) 13:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:GNG failure. Also that Tulsa Athletic page badly needs to be re-written. Jay eyem (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Natg 19 (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand Route 1095

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

Is it necessary to have encyclopaedic entries about roads? How does it provide more information about the topic when the topic is clearly not notable. Neither the references show any significance. I propose speedy delete under A7. Emir Shane (talk) 16:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Emir Shane (talk) 16:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hi, Emir Shane. This appears to be your first time nominating an article for AfD. You've probably already looked at the guides linked in the box to the right, but if not, please consider doing so. Please also see the guidance under WP:BEFORE at the main AfD page if you haven't already. I'd like to point especially to item C2, "If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article", as nominating an article for AfD ten minutes after its creation is usually seen as rather hasty. In any case, if you wanted to propose speedy deletion, the way to do so would have been to add the speedy deletion template {{db-a7}} directly to the page, and wait to see if an admin agrees that the criterion applies. Since you've already started a full AfD, I'd recommend letting the discussion run its course. Your main argument seems to be that the subject lacks notability ("the topic is clearly not notable"). However, you haven't demonstrated why this would indeed be the case. A brief Google search reveals that the road is the subject of coverage in several travel and news websites.[20][21][22][23][24][25] Discussion should probably focus on whether or not they constitute reliable sources. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Article has been renamed to Highway 1095 (Thailand), to maintain consistency with other articles. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:GEOROAD, it is written in notability guidelines that all national highways get articles. Jumpytoo Talk 17:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep "Route 1095" is mentioned in almost any tourist book about the area, and features in many non-fiction writing, I've added a few in. It it notable not just because it is a highway, but because it is a unique highway with the exceptionally high number of hair pin bends. It features extensively in English language literature because it's a common route taken by tourists. I know this sounds like original research, but I've added in sources to back this up and if you search "Route 1095" in Google books you'll find many sources. The recent name change does match Wikipedia norms, but not how this unique route is usually written about in English language media. CT55555 (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paul_012. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GNG demonstrated to be met 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chen Xiaonan

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

Mindful of systemic bias, but the Chinese article doesn't have any better sourcing and what I can find wiht the help of google translate is name drops in his role as a host, nothing in depth that would meet WP:BIO. Star Mississippi 15:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I was able to find a bbc article on the subject and other articles [26] republished by xinhua. Probably meets GNG and WP:BASIC. There are lots of Phoenix Television sources online but they probably are not considered independent sources Justi yaya 08:52, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the list of sources and research, Justiyaya (talk · contribs)! I've included these sources below in my list of sources. Cunard (talk) 11:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow thanks that's a lot of sources Justi yaya 11:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. ""凤凰"陈晓楠：主持人是最本色的演员" [Phoenix's Chen Xiaonan: The host is the most authentic actress]. People's Daily (in Chinese). 2010-08-31. Archived from the original on 2022-03-28. Retrieved 2022-03-28 – via Xinhua News Agency.
  This is an extensive profile of the subject. The article notes about the subject in the "brief introduction" section: "Phoenix TV news anchor and host, born in 1972, a native of Beijing, was admitted to Communication University of China in 1991 and majored in international journalism. Since 1994, she has served as an English news anchor and host in Beijing TV. From 1998 to 2000, she also served as CCTV economics The host of "World Economic Report" and "Fortune Dialogue". At the end of 2000, she joined Phoenix Satellite TV and hosted "Phoenix Morning Train", "Phoenix Noon Express" and "Weekend Ace Broadcast". In 2003, "Cold and Warm Life", in which she took the lead, moved the audience even more. She also participated in the live broadcast of many international events."
2. "凤凰卫视陈晓楠：片性思维的靓女主持" [Chen Xiaonan of Phoenix Satellite TV: a beautiful host with a piece of thinking]. People's Daily (in Chinese). 2010-08-25. Archived from the original on 2022-03-28. Retrieved 2022-03-28 – via Xinhua News Agency.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "I don't know, Chen Xiaonan, who studied liberal arts, but her parents are researchers at the Institute of Chemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences. ... After graduation, she first hosted the English news and bilingual program "Panora-ma" on Beijing TV. ... Later, she joined CCTV and had the honor to interview leaders of Fortune 500 companies in October 1999. ... Chen Xiaonan, who has been getting better in her career, unexpectedly left her familiar working environment and joined Phoenix Satellite TV in 2000." The article notes that she was born on 13 November.
3. 陳希 (2016-01-12). 友義 (ed.). "人物特寫：陳曉楠，從容走過冷暖十年" [Character close-up: Chen Xiaonan, who calmly walked through ten C'est La Vie years] (in Chinese). BBC. Archived from the original on 2022-03-28. Retrieved 2022-03-28.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "C'est La Vie [zh] has been shortlisted for the British local award this time, and has received widespread attention from the industry and peers. In fact, the C'est La Vie program has landed in the UK through satellite TV and has become one of the Chinese programs that have been loved by British Chinese for many years. The host of the show, Chen Xiaonan is eloquent, calm and generous, setting up a distinct and personalized style for the show." The article further notes, "9/11 incident: That year, Xiaonan was still a newcomer to Phoenix Satellite TV. After joining for less than a year, all the so-called positioning and styles were still being explored. Before joining Phoenix, Xiaonan had done many different types of programs on Beijing TV and CCTV."
4. 杨文杰 (2013-09-10). "《冷暖人生》十年陈晓楠：我们一直在做活着" ["C'est La Vie" ten years. Chen Xiaonan: We have been doing and living]. Beijing Youth Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-03-28. Retrieved 2022-03-28 – via Xinhua News Agency.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "Although the first interview was a complete failure, it did not change the show's fall into the path of curiosity. Chen Xiaonan and the staff desperately tried to find a bloodthirsty story: Beggars, nude models, and transgender people have come to the bright studio, which is not unattractive, but for half a year, Chen Xiaonan was always in a state of "don't know what to do"."
5. 刘通, ed. (2008-11-12). "陈晓楠与高校学子畅谈生活讲述人生"四宗最"" [Chen Xiaonan talks about life with college students and tells about the "four most important things" in life] (in Chinese). China News Service. Archived from the original on 2022-03-28. Retrieved 2022-03-28.
  The article notes: "on the evening of 12 November 2008, the famous host of Phoenix Satellite TV, Chen Xiaonan, was invited to enter the Central University of Finance and Economics as a guest speaker of the 5th Academic and Cultural Festival, and talked about culture and life with the students of Zhongcai University."
6. 黄建 (2021-07-14). "罗永浩、罗翔刷屏，背后的女人是谁？" [Luo Yonghao and Luo Xiang swipe the screen, who is the woman behind?]. IT Times [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-03-28. Retrieved 2022-03-28 – via Sina Corporation.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "Chen Xiaonan can chat, her conversation is gentle and intellectual, giving people a sense of security. Her interviews are solid, not just empty philosophical thinking. From the results, she is a successful character interview host. It can be seen from the performance of several interviewees in "My Bronze Age"."
7. "陈晓楠：寻找"极端"背后的共性倾听普通人内心汹涌" [Chen Xiaonan: Looking for the commonalities behind "extreme" and listening to the turbulent hearts of ordinary people]. Yangcheng Evening News (in Chinese). 2021-12-06. Archived from the original on 2022-03-28. Retrieved 2022-03-28 – via China News Service.
  The article notes: "From the 2003 "Cold and Warm Life" to the fourth season of "Talking to Strangers" in 2021, the host Chen Xiaonan has been talking to ordinary people for nearly 20 years. In her eyes, every ordinary person is a grain of sand rolled up by the waves of the times, and every interview is a process of cleaning the sand in the waves. The fourth season of "Talking to Stranger" was broadcast in October this year. Chen Xiaonan talked successively with ..."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Chen Xiaonan (simplified Chinese: 陈晓楠; traditional Chinese: 陳曉楠) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 17:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Bell

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

Merely being a contestant in the Commonwealth games is not enough to show notability. This is especially true considering the sources. My search for addtional sources turned up nothing else about this Stanley Bell. Instead I found information on an American sailor who was active about 20 years later and a lead fictional character in a novel. The sources here are 1-a table that lists an S. Bell, I am not sure how we even know his full first name is Stanley. B-a ship passenger list that is behind a paywall. That said, having looked at ship passenger lists, they are primary sources not giving indepth information on the sbuject. At best it may say his occupations is "Engineer/swimmer", but even if it does I am not sure how we can extrapolate from that that it is this S. Bell, and even if we could that is still no in any way adding to notability. Unless we are prepared to make articles on everyone who we have surviving documentation of their existence before 1950, including every single person who came through Ellis Island, I do not see how the sources we have here justify having an article on Stanley Bell. The bare table would add towards an article on S. Bell, but I do not think we want to create articles on everyone whose name appeared in some sports table, even if we literally have no other information on them. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Actually when I first searched the first information I found was information on two other swimmers, one last name Stanley, the other last name Bell, who were in the same match.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Shellwood (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to England at the 1930 British Empire Games#Swimming per [{WP:ATD]], WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. He did win a silver medal too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the excellent sourcing by Bungle, below. Nice work! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I have found some historic coverage from around the time of the 1930 games which I have expanded the article with. I think what strengthens the keep also is the fact he won a silver medal in the games as noted by Lugnuts, as well as being champion of some local and regional championships which was reported on at the time. I appreciate that contrary to typical tradition, JPL seems to have made reasonable efforts to ascertain notability on this occasion, and had Bell merely just competed without reward, maybe the case would not be so strong. I think a medal, plus other reported recognitions can satisfy at least WP:BASIC. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bungle. Great stuff. Nearly as good as Southend Pier. No Great Shaker (talk) 23:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@No Great Shaker: Very kind of you to give a shout-out to one of my expansions, though your "pier" review was equally impressive :) For Stanley Bell, I also found this which is decent coverage about him that i'll try and include too. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Medallist at the Empire Games, so clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Article not what it was when nominated for deletion. NemesisAT (talk) 11:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:NOLYMPICS, "Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have won a medal at the modern Olympic Games, including the Summer Olympics (since 1896)", so if he won a silver as per Lugnuts, it's an obvious Keep. Jacona (talk) 13:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Bell did not participate in the Olympics. He participated in the Commonwealth Games. As far as I can tell he was not in the Olympics at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Johnpacklambert: Correct, his medal is in the empire games and the article makes no mention of an Olympic participation. I haven't found anything to suggest participation but the coverage already present should suffice keeping anyway. The empire (now commonwealth) games is still a major competition and a medal in that is still significant. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per great expansion work by Bungle. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While only two of the sources are WP:SIGCOV, it is likely that a third exists but is difficult to find. Was a reasonable nomination at the time. BilledMammal (talk) 04:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per new sources added which demonstrate passing of WP:GNG. As an aside, Commonwealth Games medallists are listed as likely notable (and it's clear why, because this historic one is notable, despite it not originally looking so at first glance). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- When I first came across the article is did not mention him being a medalist at all. It just said he competed, and at least as far as I could tell from the one source I looked at, it was just saying he competed. I could not find other sources on him, just other people of the same name, and the other source linked to was behind a paywall and a primary source, a ship passenger manifest.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Would you be willing to withdraw your nomination now, in light of the improvements that have been made? NemesisAT (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  At the time of the nom, while not mentioned in the prose, he was clearly categorized as a Commonwealth Games medalist and linked to from List of Commonwealth Games medallists in swimming (men) (a WP:BEFORE includes looking at What links here). You also only had to click on his thecgf.com profile available through the first citation to see he won a silver medal. It was one click away. Jevansen (talk) 02:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and the work put into the article. The subject also medaled at the 1930 British Empire Games. --Kbabej (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Natg 19 (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Boxes (film)

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

Per WP:NFSOURCES, capsule reviews are “insufficient enough to fully establish notability.” The Radio Times and Time Out are capsule reviews which are therefore insufficient. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. Found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and nothing suitable was found to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE. The Film Creator (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Germany, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's more of a weak keep, admittedly, but I managed to scrounge up some sourcing. It looks like there's probably more out there from 84 and 85, but isn't on the internet. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the additions made above. Also here's a link to the full page feature in Sight and Sound mentioned in the article Piecesofuk (talk) 14:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw the nomination per article improvements. The Film Creator (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CSD G11 and A7 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Hamza abdulhamid

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

I don't see significant coverage for this cleric. Mvqr (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mvqr (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Mvqr (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mvqr (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:G11 and likely also WP:A7. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lucia Liljegren

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

This WP:FRINGEBLP has been here for a while despite really thin sourcing and almost no mention of the person in the sources used in the article. Searching for sources that profile her or offer what we could use as sources for WP:BLP has turned up vanishingly little. I think this is an inheritance of the climate change battles of 10 years ago and the article does not stand the test of time. Oh, seems to straightforwardly fail WP:PROF as well. jps (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The sources don't really mention the subject, GNG not met. Toadspike (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNews turns up a press-release, Newspapers brings up hits from 1917 and 1943, so unrelated. Scholar has a few mentions in alumni newsletters and the like. Non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well put. No reason to keep this. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was thinking of bringing this article to AfD myself. We've a straightforward fail of WP:PROF and no other way to make a reasonable argument that a general encyclopedia needs it. XOR'easter (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the comment of Oaktree b. Brian O'Conner 23:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Shirley, 14th Earl Ferrers

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

Unnotable British nobleman, fails WP:BIO due to a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Doesn't meet WP:NPOL either, since he never sat in the House of Lords due to inheriting his titles in 2012, way after the House of Lords Act 1999. The 2014 AfD discussion was a WP:ITSNOTABLE fest.

Source assessment follows.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
"Obituary: Earl Ferrers". Daily Telegraph. 13 November 2012.			Passing mention: "The elder son, Robert Shirley, Viscount Tamworth, born in 1952, succeeds as the 14th Earl Ferrers."	✘ No
Ruffer LLP pays member of firm £18m, Yorkshire Post, 28 December 2014			Passing mention: "He was chief investment officer at Rathbones before founding Ruffer Investment Management in 1994 with Earl Ferrers and Jane Tufnell."	✘ No
Julia Rampen, Ruffer co-founder steps down, Investment Week, 4 April 2014			Passing mention: "Tufnell (pictured), who was a founding member of the fund manager alongside Jonathan Ruffer and Earl Ferrers, will leave the group at the end of June."	✘ No
"Welcome to Ruffer".	Company website of the subject of the article			✘ No
Auckland Castle Trust				✘ No
Debrett's "People of Today" entry			? not archived anywhere	? Unknown
Robert Shirley, 14th Earl Ferrers, thepeerage.com		Deprecated self-published peerage website.		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Pilaz (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having read the 2014 AfD, the arguments centred around "he's an earl so he must be notable. There must be sources somewhere" There is no policy on Wikipedia that gives a free pass on notability to members of the British peerage. Shirley demonstrably fails WP:GNG. There's more coverage of the average TikTok "star". AusLondonder (talk) 14:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's very clear and detailed assessment of the sources provided. We shouldn't have an article if the bulk of it is listing the subject's kids and grandkids. Toadspike (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I concur with what has been said above. If he were to become a member of the House of Lords then an article would be appropriate, but currently he does not have the notability and the fact he holds the earldom can be adequately covered by the Earl Ferrers article. Dunarc (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GNG is failed and notability is not inherited. JoelleJay (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, fails neither WP:BIO nor WP:NPOL. Brian O'Conner 23:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Earl Ferrers. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Scott Muller (cricketer) per the consensus that the existing content is better than the article, but history is under the redirect should someone ID something that needs merging. Star Mississippi 01:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joe the Cameraman

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

Joe the Cameraman is known for just one unremarkable news event. Desertarun (talk) 13:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Barely any notability and the page name sounds like it's from a cartoon. Zippybonzo (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Scott Muller (cricketer). There are enough sources, but this person is notable only for a single event (WP:1E), so does not deserve an article. However, please remember to fully merge all the information and sources to prevent loss of information. Toadspike (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There is already a big paragraph in the Scott Muller article recording the event. That paragraph is much better written than the Joe the cameraman article and doesn't need extraneous and irrelevant detail added. Desertarun (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Scott Muller (cricketer) per Toadspike. There is enough information to sustain information in Wikipedia, so the base article should not be deleted. Deus et lex (talk) 00:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Gets a few views, but not really relevant to anyone besides Muller. No need for merge as already adequately covered there. Doctorhawkes (talk) 06:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus to delete, and a reasonable argument that additional biographical data discovered over the course of the discussion buttresses the case for notability. BD2412 T 23:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

H R Fox

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

No evidence subject meets WP:GNG. Hirolovesswords (talk) 10:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Transportation, and Jamaica. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:12, 10 March 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 12:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The head of the railways in a country would seem to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although his position may give him a claim to notability, there are no sources to firmly establish that the subject is notable. Unless the sources that are currently cited can be shown to contain more than proof of the subject's existence, they don't count as SIGCOV. I have searched the Internet and every newspaper archive I have access to (ProQuest, Gale, Newspapers.com) and found absolutely nothing. ~~There is one remaining source, which I can't access, that might help [27], but that still wouldn't put it over the GNG.~~ Toadspike (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor gave me access to the above linked source, which does not mention the subject at all. This reinforces my opinion that deletion is the best course of action. Toadspike (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not pass GNG. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Assuming it's the same person (as the first name doesn't match). Full name is Harold Robert Leslie Fox, he was awarded a CBE in 1946, there was an article about him in the Railway Gazette of London in about 1950/1951 (which I can't find) but it is referred to in MIT Technology Review 1951-01 which says he was also a captain in the Royal Engineers in WWI. He was described as a "trusted and true civil servant" in the Daily Gleaner (Jamaica) According to FindAGrave he died 14 August 1951. There seems to be some newspaper articles at https://newspaperarchive.com/tags/?pci=4&pf=harold&pl=fox/ but I don't have access Piecesofuk (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Piecesofuk's detective work has uncovered a CBE, which if I recall correctly is considered to be "a well-known and significant award" for purposes of WP:ANYBIO #1. (I agree that it's the same person: there surely weren't two general managers of the Jamaican Government Railway in 1945 with names of the form H. R. Fox.) I'm generally hesitant to !vote keep when GNG-qualifying sources haven't been presented, but this is a case where the SNG pass allows us to infer that offline coverage (for instance, in mid-twentieth-century Jamaican newspapers that haven't been digitized) may nonetheless be available. See WP:NEXIST (editors should "consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search"). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Good work indeed. Yes, a CBE has always been considered to meet WP:ANYBIO #1. See here to illustrate very clear consensus on this matter. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Editors are encouraged to make improvements to the article, including the addition of sources indicated here, to prevent renomination in the near future. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 14:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Konsento

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

An article about a 2001 film, sourced only to IMDb (which is not WP:RS) since creation in 2006. Searching in Japanese isn't easy; but googling "コンセント 2001" turned up these results, none of which looks like independent in-depth coverage when translated by Google. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 13:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 13:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reviews at Variety [28] and Midnight Eye [29] DonaldD23 talk to me 14:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above sources. I'll try to expand the article, but if I don't, I'd appreciate of others helped out. Toadspike (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above sources, article passes WP:NFILM, but it needs to be expanded. Brian O'Conner 07:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's a big film, just because the only source now is IMDB doesn't mean there aren't more sources out there as pointed out above.Fulmard (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 state parties of the Libertarian Party (United States). ✗plicit 14:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian Party of Rhode Island

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

Non-notable state branch of a notable federal party. Toa Nidhiki05 12:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Rhode Island. Shellwood (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of state parties of the Libertarian Party (United States) Reywas92^Talk 13:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to List of state parties of the Libertarian Party (United States) or somewhere else per Reywas92. I don't really care, but there needs to be multiple in-depth sources that are independent of the subject to justify an article and I'm not seeing them here. In the meantime there's zero reason to have an article for every minor state affiliate of a political party. Especially if they haven't been written about or for that matter have any notable candidates who have won elections. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that the article isn't notable, especially on grounds of sourcing. The position of "listed/recognised/should have" really should be hashed out at NPOL, but in any case the consensus would be delete, even if all arguments are included Nosebagbear (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Green Party of Tennessee

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

Non-notable state branch of a notable national party. Toa Nidhiki05 12:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Tennessee. Shellwood (talk) 12:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it isn't a recognized party in Tennessee. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We should keep every state green party article. GoodDay (talk) 03:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete articles need to be based on sources that are indepdent of the organization, secondary, and provide indepth coverage. None of the sources here are such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Stronger (Kelly Clarkson album). (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why Don't You Try

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

Not notable per WP:NSONGS- did not charge, or receive extensive coverage beyond sources largely covering its existence. The information would be better suited on the album's parent page. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 11:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 11:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Stronger (Kelly Clarkson album). I agree with the nominator that since most of the sources focus on the album as a whole and not the song itself, it is not notable under NSONGS. The only one focusing on the song itself [30] doesn't seem all too reliable. The article does have substantial detail, though, so make sure to merge most/all of the content before WP:BLAR. Toadspike (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Stronger (Kelly Clarkson album) per Toadspike. The article is somewhat comprehensive, but I agree that the information would be better suited as part of the album article. XtraJovial (talk) 03:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Stronger (Kelly Clarkson album). Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahrre Maros

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

Article created by now banned user, with multiple COI concerns. Not clear what this person is particularly notable for. Sources are mostly local coverage and trivial mentions and a WP:BEFORE search doesn't turn up anything more Melcous (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and New Jersey. Shellwood (talk) 11:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Hungary. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't see any evidence of meeting WP:GNG and it is salted with so much cruft and so many low quality sources it's best to WP:BLOWITUP and let someone start again - if this person is notable. Springnuts (talk) 11:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've been through all of the sources, and I'm seeing brief local newspaper coverage, coffee shop directories, passing mentions, local concert promos, and dead links. There isn't a single source that covers the man himself in any depth at all. And I can't find any better coverage out there when I search. Once again, what looks superficially like a well-sourced article turns out to be another example of the author's style of ref-bombing with everything he could find that mentions the subject's name in passing. I'm sure Mr Maros is a fine man, but I don't see the notability that Wikipedia requires. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Oaktree b (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DogmaTone

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

Fails WP:NCORP by all means. On top of that, lacks WP:ORGIND, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:RS. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of any notability. Springnuts (talk) 11:49, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Companies. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet any notability guideline as they Lack of independent and reliable references. Brayan ocaner (talk) 08:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Gnews yields nothing. LibStar (talk) 05:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not finding any references that meet WP:NCORP criteria HighKing⁺⁺ 20:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The references provided are start-up coverage about what the founders hoped to accomplish with their venture, along with brief coverage of this along with other ventures. No evidence that encyclopaedic notability was attained. AllyD (talk) 07:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tessolve

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

End-to-end WP:PROMO. Lack WP:SIGCOV, WP:ORGIND, and WP:RS. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. Also... if not delete, then merging it with Hero MotoCorp is the next best solution. - Hatchens (talk) 11:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 11:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of any notability. Springnuts (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article on a company acquired 6 years ago by a subsidiary of Hero MotoCorp. This article has featured successive waves of promotional editing, including an overwrite(now reverted) by a new WP:SPA since this AfD began. Searches find announcement-based coverage of financial transactions [31] and product partnerships [32] but these fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. I am not seeing specific notability for this firm, and a redirect or merge to the parent of the parent, while an AtD, seems a stretch. AllyD (talk) 09:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete AllyD says it all really, bottom line is this topic fails NCORP's notability criteria, references fail to provide for in-depth coverage containing "Independent Content". HighKing⁺⁺ 12:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I am Christopher, A players record is there stat and it does list players that played before 1968 like Margaret court who come to my mind right off the bat. It does not list every player. It lists like the top 100 players regarding wins 2603:6081:1501:BDF8:5119:481F:6638:E445 (talk) 08:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Open Era women's singles tennis players by career match wins

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

Entirely erroneous data that doesn't correspond with the title says it does. The listed player's stats shows PRE open era data as well. But you can't then even switch the title to "all time" stats because it's not even remotely all time. Basically it's just data from a website at this point. Fundamentally a wrong title with bad data that can't even be re-titled or reformulated, so it should be removed. --Ll 11:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. L 11:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
what are you looking if you are calling it erroneous data. 2603:6081:1501:BDF8:5119:481F:6638:E445 (talk) 08:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sports, and Lists. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Loginnigol please bundle the women's doubles and men's articles in this nomination if they also have the same problem. Letcord (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not (yet) convinced there is the same type of errors there in men's or the women's doubles stats articles. I have not bumped into a women's doubles player resume that goes back before the open era. This may point to yet another problem: wtatennis.com's doubles data is more scant / incomplete than the singles one. In which case the doubles wiki article can in theory be corrected by simply renaming it to the appropriate time space that all the players in it can be put in, (for example not an "open era" but merely a "WTA era career match wins" or something. Alas this can't be done for the singles version with the data that's there. And I'm not sure this problem exists in the men's side. I could be wrong but so far as I checked the men's data, the one's I've seen go back and stop at 1968. --Ll 16:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would bundle them anyway seeing as this looks like it will be a NOTSTATS deletion, and the other three articles are identical in form. Letcord (talk) 04:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a standard case of WP:NOTSTATS. Ajf773 (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NOTSTATS. No Great Shaker (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are three more articles with similar content. But they aren’t considered for deletion. Why this one? Makes no sense. Additional references might be added, that's all. What does it mean by open era and not all time? There are dozens of separate articles for both open era and all time tennis records in the same topic. They also should be deleted. This list includes 595 wins for Margaret Court (which she played only after Open Era started). If a player player played before Open Era, her numbers are counted only within Open Era. So, this article has no issues at all to be deleted. Abbasulu (talk) 12:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that it should be kept just like the men's tennis match wins. This is seeming to be a bit discriminatory to delete because of

it is not stats to you, but you kept the info regarding the List of Open Era men's singles tennis players by career match wins. Can you please

explain this 2603:6081:1501:BDF8:156C:C36D:2FE0:37E4 (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear case of WP:NOTSTATS. LibStar (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTSTATS, an abbreviated version of this information is replicated in context at WTA Tour records#Match wins. Bonoahx (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Project OBO: Our Bodies, (Our) Opinions

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

Basically a promotional article about a student public health project. Very limited coverage, not enough to establish notability. PepperBeast (talk) 11:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk) 11:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk) 11:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is certainly promotional, contains some unsourced information, and the reliability of sources is dubious. Further, I one source seems to be a deadlink, while at least one other is a primary, non-independent source that doesn't contribute to GNG. Thus, the GNG is not met, and the subject is not notable. Toadspike (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete large tranches of unsourced information and lists of names/meetings, only one of the 3 sources appears to meet WP:RS and even that hardly gives extensive coverage. I've converted that to an archive url to make it easier for any other editors to check. Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 18:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that this isn't notable. There wasn't an indication that this should be drafitified, although nor was there sufficient indication I should, say, salt this, to be sure. However, I will be keeping an eye to check the procedural problems don't continue. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Krrish Ladoiya

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

More than 30 sources, but it seems as if there a no actual reliable, independent, significant ones among them. A badly written piece from "Timebulletin" is the only thing on Google News trying to look like a real news article, but looks to be just a fake promo piece instead. The site is blacklisted on enwiki (hence no link here), which is indicative of its value for us. Fram (talk) 10:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: a brand new editor edited the article and removed the AfD note. I have readded it. Fram (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete preferably speedily, this is a borderline hoax. It's nothing more than exaggerated vanity spam with 0 notability. CUPIDICAE💕 13:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability and no (decent as far as I can tell) sources available at all/ Zippybonzo (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable individual. Oaktree b (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note I reverted a unilateral draftification and a blanking by one of the two primary authors. --Blablubbs (talk) 13:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lottery#United Kingdom. (non-admin closure) Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 14:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

People's Postcode Lottery

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

All of these sources are closely connected to the Postcode Lottery and are unreliable. I think it would be best to delete this article, and start it from scratch in a non-promotional manner with reliable sources to back up claims. QueenofBithynia (talk) 09:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. QueenofBithynia (talk) 09:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - with massive pruning it can be a short paragraph in Lottery#United_Kingdom. There are many news articles about winners, and acknowledgements of grants, but it is all WP:NOT. Springnuts (talk) 12:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - definitely would be fine merged into Lottery#United_Kingdom Zippybonzo (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - This seems a sensible way forward, probably with a redirect as I think it is a plausible topic that people would search for. I would agree there is probably not enough independent coverage for an article on its own. Dunarc (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Lonely Island discography. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Guys Don't Look at Explosions

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

Not notable. Zero hits on DDG news search. Google comes up with passing mentions at best. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect to The Lonely Island discography. Fails WP:NSONG with no significant coverage to be found. Redirecting to the artist discography is a reasonable ATD. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a better destination than my suggestion for redirect. Striking my suggesting to endorse yours. TartarTorte 14:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~The Lonely Island~~ The Lonely Island discography as {{R from song}} as an ATD. TartarTorte 13:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, target changed after reading Qwaiiplayer's comment. TartarTorte 14:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any objections to turning it into a redirect instead of deleting. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Lonely Island discography. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Shepherd (MMA)

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

Fails WP:MMABIO. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 08:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Martial arts. Shellwood (talk) 09:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete MMABIO states that in order to be notable, the fighter needs to have Have fought at least three (3) professional fights for a top-tier MMA organization, such as the UFC - this has not happened, according to the source linked, Have fought for the highest title of a top-tier MMA organizatio also not happened, per the website, and Been ranked in the world top 10 in their division which according to Sherdog is not true. The criteria supporting deletion says Only amateur bouts which seems to hold true. Rlink2 (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Phallic architecture. But selectively, it looks like. Sandstein 19:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most Phallic Building contest

AfDs for this article:

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

A check of the sources:

Dead
Dead
Primary source
Gawker, a gossip website subject to various debates about whether or not it constitutes a reliable source
Blog which makes no mention of the contest
Dead
Listing in a "site of the week" listicle
Broken link to a 2007 book. I could not find the book on GBooks to verify how substantially it covers the topic
Primary source
Seemingly self-published source

In short, this was a one-shot joke contest done almost two decades ago and had no lasting impact. I could find no third party coverage of this contest whatseover. I suggested a merge to Cabinet Magazine in the last AFD (all the way back in 2008) but it was never executed; however, given the obscurity of this contest relative to the magazine, a merge to either the magazine or Ypsilanti Water Tower, the building that won, would be WP:UNDUE. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More documentation has appeared since 2008, and that definitely needs consideration. Furthermore, it doesn't take much effort to find some of the above if one does more than merely expect a hyperlink from 14 years ago to work.
- The "dead link" for Brendan 2006 is because the LA Times has shuffled its WWW presence around since 2008. It is https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2006-feb-21-et-book21-story.html now, which can be found by using the rest of the citation. The book reviewed is Ames's ISBN 9781555845926 of course. Ironically, the book review doesn't tell us anything more than a chapter title and that the chapter is "about, among other things, buying fruit and walking past the bank".
- The ISBN for the 2007 book (ISBN 3936314772) takes me to it on Google Books, where it comes up with a German title, explaining why you could not find it I suspect. It's citing the dust jacket, of all things, which says:
  The Agbar Tower's distinctive rounded crown had already earned it a nominee spot in Cabinet Magazine's Most Phallic Building in the World Contest. Here, the Highrise Award's more serious honor cites the building's expressive shape, pulsating dynamism and a multi-layer outer skin that generates its varied and exciting appearance.
  It's a dust jacket blurb. I knew it wouldn't be in depth from that alone.
- ISBN 9781780231419 was published in 2012, and goes into some detail on pages 87 to 88, with a long list of entries and a connection to Louis Sullivan's quote about the Marshall Field's Wholesale Store. The author is still a professor at the University of Edinburgh. This is quite the source, because not only could it support the existing content that is otherwise sourced to that book jacket, that book review, and the magazine itself, it could even be used to expand the current article.
- ISBN 9780759123144 is a 2014 encyclopaedia which has an "Architecture" entry that has this in it on page 12. The (first) author is a professor of Sociology at Stony Brook University this time. Given this and Williams's section heading ("Phallic Towers"), if even if the instant subject were too minor, there's clearly a phallic architecture topic to be had since 2014. And — Lo! — there it is, already at the words that I simply hyperlinked without looking, the obvious supertopic that is neither the magazine nor the water tower, created in 2012.
- Rounding off with a rebuttal of the "but it's undue" argument, I point out that the Ypsilanti Historical Society mentioned the contest in its own 2008 article on the tower. The local historical society doesn't think it undue.
  Rudisill, Alvin E. (Summer 2008). "The Ypsilanti Water Tower" (PDF). Ypsilanti Gleanings. Ypsilanti Historical Society. pp. 4–5.
Uncle G (talk) 10:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Phallic architecture. As Uncle G's analysis of the sources indicates, the topic is subordinate to that. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I came to this article, expecting an easy in-and-out !vote, but then I found myself searching long and hard, up and down, and back and forth for sources to support this content. Carefully, I examined the sources dangling at the bottom of the article, checking each for weight. Delicately I probed around the subject, hoping to find just the right spot on the web that could prove this was independently notable. Alas, after all of my exertions, the article hangs limp before me, unsupported, not backed up with any firm sources we could use to erect an article establishing notability. Certainly, there is enough to shrink it down and package it up and merge it into Phallic architecture, but here, on it's own, hanging in the wind, I don't think it's notable. I did find this alumni magazine that had another insignificant mention, but I think Uncle G found everything else that I did. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC) Here I am, over a year and 20,000 edits later, still making jokes at Ten Pound Hammer's AfD submissions.[reply]
Merge per above. There's enough here for a sentence or two at the Phallic architecture article, probably not enough for a full article. --Jayron32 12:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Special:Diff/512943951 — Dr. Blofeld copied without attribution in 2012. Uncle G (talk) 10:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have to go with delete on this one and oppose merging. The phallic architecture article is a junky synthesis of the ubiquity of phallic sculptures in non-Christian cultures, some feminist theory, and a lame list of buildings; but at least it's trying to be serious. This contest isn't, and it gets next to no GHits. I just don't see anything here that ought to be saved. Mangoe (talk) 04:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nobody is for keeping this maybe-place, so... Sandstein 18:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Independence, Uintah County, Utah

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

Another nothing-place entered from GNIS with nothing in particular there. Mangoe (talk) 03:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Van Cott's entry is interesting, in that it actually verifies that this was nothing. This was a land speculation scam at the time of the 1906 land rush of parts of the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation, alkaline soil land sold as prime arable. If there's actual in-depth documentation of the scam from contemporary sources, we could refactor. But I'm finding just 1 sentence in the history books, again verifying that this was nothing:
On this trip, Smart inspected the prospective townsites of Moffett near Fort Duchesne and Independence in the Dry Gulch area; neither town materialized.
— Smart 2008, p. 175
Perhaps Hog Farm or someone will have success with the newspapers. Uncle G (talk) 05:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Smart, William B. (2008). "Making Indian Land Mormon Country". Mormonism's Last Colonizer: The Life and Times of William H. Smart. Logan: Utah State University Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctt4cgnsw.12. ISBN 9780874217223. JSTOR j.ctt4cgnsw.12.
  - I can take a look tomorrow - I was able to expand out a similar situation with Martensdale, California, but that at least had significant coverage in history books. Hog Farm _Talk 05:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Utah. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I turned up this, but I'm not sure if it's referring to this Independence, or Independence, Utah, which is ~100 miles away. Is this 1907 reference to "soil experts" claiming that the soil at Independence being a bumper site for wheat a reference to the scam itself, or a reference to the other Independence? I'm inclined to think that this from 1909 is referring to this Independence, though. In the roughly 1906-1909 period, there was a column in the Vernal paper titled "Independence Sparks" that mentions people living in the area and there being a hotel, but without anything to guide on a general history of the site, I'm finding it hard to determine what is referring to the right Independence. Any thoughts, Uncle G? Hog Farm _Talk 02:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The Vernal Express's mention of "reservation country" leads me to believe that the first one is on point. The second one mentions "Little Dry Gulch", which relates to modern names, which again appears to make it on point. This would make the third one on point, too. You can read Van Cott here. Van Cott gives 1912 as the date that this ended, so if it made the news that's the approximate year to look. Uncle G (talk) 09:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as Blatant Hoax. Could be recreated to be about the scam if enough sources are found casualdejekyll 07:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a hoax. We can have articles about notable scams/hoaxes, and while our article is wrong, I wouldn't call it a csd-able hoax. Hog Farm _Talk 14:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  "Van Cott's entry is interesting, in that it actually verifies that this was nothing." - @Uncle G
  The thing is, everything in the article is blatantly wrong. There is no community at the location described in the article. casualdejekyll 20:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aces Brass

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

Not a notable performing ensemble by any means. Every college has a pep band, and this one has not met such notability for it to get its own page. (Note that there is a slightly more notable band called "Pocket Aces Brass Band" that appears when searching for sources).

The PROD was reverted by an IP who left this wonderful message User talk:2600:1702:CC0:2A10:C088:7F65:921B:C875#March 2022. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, can't find neither notable events in their CV nor significant coverage. Brayan ocaner (talk) 08:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NMUSIC and the GNG. I found a bit of coverage in the local press, but it's all far too trivial to count toward establishing notability. No alternatives to deletion come to mind: there's no sourcing to justify a merger, and a redirect wouldn't be appropriate since the band isn't mentioned in any other articles. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 McAfee. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 13:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Solidcore Systems

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

Not notable according to WP:NCORP alone. Maybe…it should be merged with Mcafee… Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to McAfee. The article subject is mentioned here in the Acquisitions subsection and - in my POV - there is no need for more content about this company. Pavlor (talk) 06:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to McAfee as per ATD, topic fails NCORP criteria HighKing⁺⁺ 14:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extol International

AfDs for this article:

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

Complete marketing article with name of all company employees here. Not realising WP:NCORP policy in my view. It should be discussed again to reach a consensus. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Pennsylvania. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. 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. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and I can't find any, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Coverage is routine. LibStar (talk) 01:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:GHITS "keep" !vote falls flat in light of the scrutiny from the "delete" !votes. ✗plicit 14:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SiSoftware

AfDs for this article:

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

Not realising WP:GNG policy of Wikipedia. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A Google News search finds over 8,000 matches on articles containing the term "SiSoftware". Sean Brunnock (talk) 10:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Software. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sifting through routine announcements, tech blogs, etc., the available sourcing doesn't meet the WP:NORG standard. It might be possible to craft an article about their product, but not about the company; given the current state of the page one might as well blow it up and start from scratch. XOR'easter (talk) 14:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree with the above, the article needs to be about the Sandra package - there's sufficient NCORP references for that. But there's not sufficient from what I can find to meet NCORP's notability criteria if the subject is the company. This should be TNT'ed. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Warnock

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

Non-notable soldier. He is not even known for "firing the first shots of WWII", as the article says it was once thought that these were the first shots fired by an American in World War II, though these were in fact fired by the crew of USS Ward. Additionally, none of the statements in the stub-like article are even sourced (besides him being a sailor on the submarine). Natg 19 (talk) 01:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So he fired anything from what could be the second shot going forwards in WW2. Not in the least notable. The article has one source. Oaktree b (talk) 03:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not "the first shots of WW 2" by any margin. Intothat darkness 14:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That's gonna be a delete from me, no notability and hardly any citations Zippybonzo (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a sailor who happened to be involved in defending against the attack on Pearl Harbor. Neither his actions nor the sourcing is enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any credible claim (outside of Warnock saying he had) that he was even the first person to fire a shot in defense of the attack at Pearl Harbor, and when you match it up his story against the timeline of the attack it's highly unlikely he did. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 02:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability. Gabe114 (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 18:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

András Gerevich

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

Fails per WP:BASIC, There are very few intellectually independent articles on this person to establish notability. Sid95Q (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, Austria, Hungary, and Ireland. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

András is a notable hungarian poet who's poetry is used in education and has been translated to multiple languages. What would you like to see in the article for it to be worthy for Wikipedia? 193.226.244.209 (talk) 05:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- As per Wikipedia:Notability (people) there should be multiple published secondary sources that are reliable and intellectually independent of each other but there hardly any independent articles in English or in Hungarian. Plus I can't see there contribution notable in academics per WP:PROF. Sid95Q (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack the indepdent secondary sources needed to build an article that is not original research.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep. The relevant policy here is WP:NAUTHOR; to demonstrate that he has created... a significant or well-known work or collective body of work" the sourcing we're looking for is multiple reviews of multiple works. Frankly, anyone who has had the kind of published praise that is quoted in this article (from the preface to his translation) is someone I expect to be bountifully reviewed. If his works have taught in schools, that would also be a WP:NBOOK pass for the works in question. I don't have time at the moment to track down reviews myself but I think a delete is premature unless someone does do a thorough search for reviews of his works and makes the case that they are lacking. It's also my understanding that faculty profiles like this one, and interviews like the ones currently on the article, although they do not count as sigcov to establish notability, do count as RS to write a verifiable encyclopedia article -- which makes said article eminently writable. Even without those, the reviews of his works will let us summarize them, which is the most important part of an author's encyclopedia entry. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- No source mentions that "his works have been taught in schools", no mention even in the University profile. Sid95Q (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since the IP editor said he was, I wanted to note that it would be a valid keep rationale. Nobody would mention that in their university profile, it would be weird, and it's also a little weird for news sources to comment on it. I don't typically try to prove NBOOK 4 because it usually requires primary sources which aren't as easy to find as reviews or as useful once you have them. However, a simple search of "'András Gerevich' syllabus" turns up one right away: he was taught in "Literature and the Place of Central Europe" spring 2011 at NYU (can't link the PDF download). Looking for Hungarian syllabi would likely turn up more. But as I said, I prefer NBOOK 1 to show his works are notable, which doesn't take many reviews: just two each for a couple works. As a source for a more GNG/sigcov route, worth noting he gets about a page in the book Queer Stories of Europe, where he is one of only two Hungarian poets discussed (p. 19-20). Argh, I should have just taken that time to do dig up reviews directly, as I have to go now, but I was curious about the syllabi... but I feel confident enough that reviews WP:NEXIST that I'd say "keep". ~ L 🌸 (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - While I'm closing tabs -- another PDF download, "Stephen Spender prize 2017," someone won second place for translating him & there are three people talking about his poetry & references to two others (next thread to pull-- what did Claire Pollard say about him? where?) ~ L 🌸 (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I went looking for coverage of him / reviews of his books. Review of co-edited book on Heaney. Very long review of Tiresias’s Confession (this is Claire Pollard). Second review of Tiresias’s Confession (NBOOK pass). Article discussing Átadom a pórázt. Analysis of the poem "Men and Friends". Analysis of Gerevich, not sure which works. Analysis of Férfiak. Paragraph on Gerevich as a poet overall, discussing an anthology he's in. According to this book review, the book Szodoma és környéke: Homoszocialitás, barátságretorika és queer irányulások a magyar költészetben ('Sodom and its Environs: Homosociality, Friendship Rhetoric and Queer Orientations in Hungarian Poetry') (Zoltán Csehy 2014) discusses Gerevich. I feel like I am still missing things because I don't know Hungarian and my library website is down so I'm using Google Scholar instead (and can't access ProQuest). I also suspect there is more coverage out there from before he was a poet, since several of these mention award-winning animated films, but I haven't found the names of those films. Overall, I can only demonstrate one NBOOK pass, but his general body of work seems to get a lot of discussion as important queer Hungarian poetry. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @LEvalyn The films might be these? [33] -- asilvering (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Also, I don't want to link this one in the article because it's about the least independent kind of interview possible, but there are some leads here for more, I think. [34]. -- asilvering (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  and can't access ProQuest. For convenience, these are all the results I found in Proquest
  - ProQuest 2272320603 is a German translation in Die Welt and a short bio
  - ProQuest 2272320603 = doi:10.7771/1481-4374.1290, which you mention above as the analysis of Férfiak
  - ProQuest 2370983617 is an English translation in Out and a short bio/review of his oeuvre
  - ProQuest 311643943 is an Independent article about literary circles in Budapest mentioning his Hungarian translations of Seamus Heaney
  - ProQuest 1937432992 = doi:10.5195/ahea.2017.308 mentions him as a Hungarian poet focusing on the gay experience in the early 21st century
  Lemme know if anyone needs a PDF/ the text of any of these above. Additional ProQuest results which I don't have full access to via ProQuest (but luckily can generally still access):
  - Queer Stories of Europe 2016 Preview which looks promising based on what I can see for the first chapter. Google Books suggest all of the discussion of Gerevich is in the first chapter, which the preview has almost all of.
  - Dienstleister, kongeniale Mitautoren, Kulturvermittler? Literarische Übersetzer aus dem Ungarischen ins Deutsche, mentions the German translation Teiresias' Geständnisse
  - "Gender trouble in a grammatically genderless language: Hungarian" = doi:10.1075/impact.36.08vas discusses how he makes use of the ambiguity of the Hungarian pronoun ő and how his translators have had to adapt
  - Translation and Intercultural Communication 2019 p. 125 mentions him as part of the contemporary canon of Hungarian literature published in Szirtes's anthology An Island of Sound
  - Contested Identities: Literary Negotiations in Time and Place Sample 2015, just thanked in acknowledgements
  - Theatre of the Rule of Law: Transnational Legal Intervention in Theory and Practice = doi:10.1017/CBO9780511732393 just thanked in acknowledgements
  Obviously the ones that are just thanks in the acknowledgements aren't useful for this but I figured since you don't have access to ProQuest I'd let you know what ProQuest would have shown you and say what everything is to save others' time in finding out why ProQuest listed them. Of these I think the chapter "The End of Gay and Lesbian Literature as a Happy End" in Queer Stories of Europe is most helpful.
  
  Umimmak (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: frankly, it would be extraordinary for someone with this much English-language coverage to not have enough Hungarian sources to be notable. Not voting yet because I expect I could turn up some more, but I've added some references to the article so it's no longer an unsourced BLP - someone can use the biographical information in those to fill out the biography. Before anyone chimes in to say "those sources aren't independent, though": yes, I know interviews are not independent. Queer Stories and Colin Herd's review are, though. (And in case anyone gets skeptical about the blogspot link: it's fine, we even have an article on that journal (Chroma: A Queer Literary Journal). Blogspot is free and queer academics are frequently broke.) -- asilvering (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KoviNo

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

Clear fail of NMUSIC, but autobiographer will not accept draft space, so we're here. No RS-based/GNG-compliant coverage to be found. Star Mississippi 00:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 00:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 00:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Satisfies neither musical notability nor general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources in article are his profile account or unreliable sources like IMDB, Spotify and ect. Fails WP:NMUSIC. Brayan ocaner (talk) 08:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Pure WP:ADMASQ. Fails WP:NMUSICIAN. Images used are copyvios, being handled on Commons. Reference material fails RS. Overall WP:BIO/WP:GNG filature. Total vanity cruft. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have just removed various copyright violations from this article and asked for cv-revdel. I considered CSD for copyvio, but there coudl be said to be sufficient remaining on which to base an article, assuming the article survives this deletion discussion Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 14:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. And same, which is why I didn't G12 it last night. Plus, assuming this closes as it's trending, this will help avoid further promotion via G4. Star Mississippi 14:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. One of the clearest notability failures I've seen in a while – obvious promotional autobiography with no reliable independent sources. Richard3120 (talk) 12:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meghan Walsh

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted at AfD, the article was created again today. It contains one (local) source that provides significant coverage of the subject. I've been unable to find any additional independent sources. Not notable as a singer/songwriter or as a journalist. Schazjmd (talk) 00:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Ohio. Shellwood (talk) 00:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Being a reporter for six major local newspapers, covering state politics and the war in Ukraine is not notable? Venusrising16 (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find many thing she's written, but nothing about her as a person. Some local coverage about her singing/releasing a single, which just about anyone can do online these days. Nothing notable. Oaktree b (talk) 03:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing found notable. fails WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTRESUME, plus WP:NJOURNALIST which says that simply being a journalist with publications is not sufficient. Instead, there must be reliable articles about said journalist as prominent in that field. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need something more than press releases from her employers to show that she is notable. In general reporters for local newspapers are not, on the whole notable. Only a select few journalists are actual notable for journalism per se, a lot more move on to becoming notable writers. Yes, there are also people notable for being journalists, but they are far outnumbered by the news reporters who are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree this fails WP:GNG Chronotime (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:JOURNALIST and WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 14:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sharmila Thapa (Nepali activist)

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

Redirect reverted without improvement. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Nepal. Shellwood (talk) 00:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I did some searches and found more sources and a publication by her. They are mostly weak, passing mentions and I added a primary source. However, this link seems solid: https://policyscotland.gla.ac.uk/international-womens-day-beyond-womens-human-citizenship-rights-nepal-sharmila-thalpa-samida-womens-development-forum/ and so combined with all the other reporting about her and noting that English language press doesn't cover events in Nepal very well, I lean towards a weak keep. CT55555 (talk) 05:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Over a year ago, I got caught up in some move/redirect confusion over this article at Sharmila Thapa (Nepali activist) and the article for a different woman of the same name, and as of now the other article is simply titled Sharmila Thapa. If the article on the activist is kept, the titles of both need to be straightened out and a new disambig page may be necessary. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Inclusion in the N-Peace Awards is significant.--Ipigott (talk) 08:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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] "Plymouth High School for Girls". Department for Education. Retrieved 2012-06-22.

[1]