Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 May 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 09	May 11 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep didn't happen speedily due to timing, not an issue with the !votes as such. AfD should not be used for cleanup Star Mississippi 01:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Co-benefits of climate change mitigation

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

(see below, step 2/3 of nomination were done 16:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC))

The article has these issues: 1) the subject is not notable; 2) the article reads more like a whitepaper or concept discussion rather than anything meriting an encyclopedia entry—at most, the topics discussed could be integrated into other existing, notable articles; 3) it is fundamentally a promotion piece. —Ryanaxp (talk) 16:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: @Ryanaxp: This entry seems to not have been set up in a way that transcludes it into AfD logs. Could you please make sure you've followed the instructions at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_nominate_a_single_page_for_deletion ? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:29, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, leaning to Speedy Keep. References clearly show that the subject has been extensively discussed in multiple secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The nominator has not explained why the subject isn't notable despite meeting the definition of notability in WP:GNG. The nom speculates that it could me merged into other notable articles but hasn't named any possibilities. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The information in this article should be incorporated as a subheading under the article of the document that defines it—IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. It is not sufficiently independently referenced other than as a constituent of that paper. —Ryanaxp (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report isn't the document that defines it. IPCC reports are secondary/tertiary documents that summarize previously published research. That's how the IPCC works. The fact that the IPCC discusses a concept means that the concept was already defined and used in other sources. The IPCC happens to be the most authoritative source on climate change so it's frequently named by other documents that discuss co-benefits of climate change mitigation. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:29, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep being worth billions or maybe trillions of dollars and many many lives the subject is notable. If there are other problems with the article they can be fixed. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not the appropriateness and notability of the information in the article that is proposed to be deleted, rather, but that such information is properly a subheading under the article for the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. —Ryanaxp (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep article cites more than enough high-quality sources to show notability. Removed mention of AR4 from the first sentence as inappropriate inline attribution of common definition. Subsequent IPCC report have assessed this body of literature too. Femke (talk) 10:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC) (16:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC) changed to speedy)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

USFL on Fox

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

Case of WP:TOOSOON. Might be notable someday, but for now the only coverage is from press releases. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and American football. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cbl62 (talk) 23:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too soon. Note that Fox Sports is one of the owners of the league and is the main media promoter of this TV league in which all clubs are based in the same city.--Mvqr (talk) 11:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Could be a notable topic at some point but is not there yet. Potentially draftify as a WP:ATD but the small amount of content hardly makes that worthwhile. Frank Anchor 17:49, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) TNstingray (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Xavier (film series character)

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

This article is essentially a duplication of Professor X in other media. As such, I see no reason for its continued existence per a variety of Wikipedia guidelines that we can get into during this discussion. TNstingray (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as violating specific Wikipedia criteria, here are a few: WP:CFORK (content forking - the creation of multiple separate pieces of content all treating the same subject, resulting in redundancy, Wikipedia:A10 (relatively recently created article that duplicates an existing topic), Wikipedia:A7 (failure to assert importance, or need for this article, beyond the already existing page Professor X in other media). TNstingray (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose(Speedy Keep): Duplicated content deleted from Professor X in other media. Pumpoffed (talk) 23:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, as this question has been endlessly litigated with numerous other instances of long-running film adaptations of characters originating in comic books. The portrayal of this character by Patrick Stewart (and James McAvoy) is a unique and distinct artistic achievement, and is the subject of extensive coverage in reliable sources separate from discussion of the origin material. BD2412 T 23:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would it possibly make things less confusing if the article in question was renamed to "Professor X (X-Men series)" or something along those lines? "Film series character" is incredibly generic, and the same issue applies to Logan (film series character). That way there can be clear redirects from their respective "x in other media" pages. It would follow the same logic as the pages for the various MCU and DCEU characters. TNstingray (talk) 23:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Before the character's MCU debut was announced, I might have found this to be a sensible title move, but those worms are out of the can. BD2412 T 23:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and oppose deletion this character is well deserving of an article for the character in film, for the X-Men series and the later MCU version, which is very similar to the J. Jonah Jameson (film character) article, as these are the same actor portraying different iterations of a role. If the title is an issue, I would suggest a rename to Charles Xavier (film character). Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per all the points above. Charles Xavier (film character) seems to be a good option for the title. – SirDot (talk) 01:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It sounds like a consensus has been reached. I just changed the article name (along with Logan (film character) to reflect that consistency). With the duplicated content being deleted, and the notability being established by @BD2412, I think that cleans things up. My original nomination was made in good faith. TNstingray (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TNstingray: Please withdraw your nomination by following these steps. InfiniteNexus (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NFOOTY is defunct; GNG is the standard. Based on the rebuttals to the sources presented, I do not believe there is consensus that GNG is met. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa Abdul Hafeth

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

Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: pass NFooty: there's a coverage about the player, he played in a professional league. https://www.eurosport.com/football/mustafa-mohammad-abdul-hafeth_prs413019/person.shtml https://www.soccer24.com/player/hafeth-mustafa/6Vu24oFb Oloriebi 10:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Please note that NFOOTBALL no longer exists. Giant Snowman 18:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nominator appears to be correct. Best source that I can find is Al Arab, which is a long quote from him but contains no content about him, therefore, this is not significant coverage of him. The sources provided above are stats database profile pages and don't confer notability. WP:NFOOTY has been deprecated so the closer should give !votes based purely on that less weight than those based on GNG. As my searching skills in Arabic are not amazing, please ping me if someone finds substantial coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm seeing GNG coverage with one, two, three. Nfitz (talk) 07:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first source is trivial. I can't comment on the other two, as Google Translate doesn't want to work on them. Can you explain how they constitute significant coverage? 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 07:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the first is trivial. In addition he's the one that the media turn to frequently; these articles are examples of that. Right-click translate works fine in Google Chrome for me. Nfitz (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clearly some coverage, but let's be grownups, if someone asks you to explain why you are putting forward a source as helping meet GNG, its useful to provide that information, especially when they are not in English / roman alphabet, rather than just pointing to Google translate, it can only help bolster arguments. Likewise the opposite applies when dismissing sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the sources provided by Nfitz are just briefly quoting the subject about upcoming matches. He has the usual generic statements about "facing strong opposition". There's no actual secondary coverage of the subject. In the third article, he's mentioned once and his opinions on an upcoming game are paraphrased in 1 sentence. I don't think this is significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. 1 and 2 are long quotes from the player but nothing about him. 3 seems to paraphrase some comments made in an interview, presuming the Google Translate is accurate. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is the sourcing (rehashes of team website, social media, press releases) is not suitable. If someone believes they can identify compliant sourcing and wants to work on it in draft space, happy to provide. However I doubt it's forthcoming in the timeline of a relist. Star Mississippi 01:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Genny Rondinella

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

Prod removed on the basis that subject plays in a certain football league. That doesn't confer notability. Coverage is limited to routine blurbs from local sports publications. I would urge the closer to apply policy rather than the certain deluge of keep votes from people unwilling to let go of WP:NFOOTY. agtx 17:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. agtx 17:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Two seasons as a professional. He has national media coverage like Tuttocampo, not only local media. He also signed with ChievoVerona, a top league Italy club.Pincheira22 (talk) 23:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a routine player trade announcement that is literally sourced to the team's Facebook page, not significant coverage. There is no special exception for football players that permits this type of coverage to be considered significant. agtx 23:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is your personal interpretation. It's a national media coverage.Pincheira22 (talk) 03:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Please note that NFOOTBALL no longer exists. Giant Snowman 18:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article comprehensively fails GNG. The only online Italian-language coverage I can find is similar to the sources already included in the article (routine coverage such as transfer announcements like this). Jogurney (talk) 03:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG with coverage referenced above and in article. There's no prohibition against news stories about transfers. Also meets WP:SPORTCRIT - I'm not understanding User:Ficaia's claim there. Nfitz (talk) 07:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, those sources only give trivial coverage 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 07:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The tuttocampo article is entirely about him; it's not a trivial mention of him. See WP:TRIVIALMENTION. Nfitz (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Several of the keep !votes refer to the "article" in Tuttocampo. That's not an article. It's a team press release that got picked up by some sports websites, making it not a secondary source that can be considered for notability. Here is the same verbatim text archived from the team's then-official website. agtx 19:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinions are divided, but the keep vote arguments are weak, with the only coverage of sufficient size shown to be clearly a primary source. There's obviously some trivial coverage but no real suggestion of any thing more. Extending to provide more time to add to the sources if possible, but editors are encouraged not to refer to the final point of WP:SPORTCRIT, which is clearly not trying to say a single source is sufficient for notability for a sports person, when the first sentence aligns exactly with GNG in the requirement of multiple significant independent sources as all articles require.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just did a quick check on Google and here's a bunch of secondary sources covering the subject specifically: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. These are the first ones I found, for the record, so it's quite possible there's more (which is pretty common for a Serie C player). --Angelo (talk) 23:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4 is the same press release on another page. 6 is a site solely devoted to the team. And frankly the rest are basic, routine coverage. Just being a footballer does not confer notability. agtx 04:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What you call "routine coverage" is just regular acceptable coverage to me. They are definitely not trivial and go into enough detail on the subject and his professional football career. I think that we have a deeply different opinion on that. --Angelo (talk) 07:09, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me understand. How is this anything but routine match coverage? agtx 12:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to be routine coverage as stated above, so fails GNG. bop34 • talk • contribs 15:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mekonen Gebrelu

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

Fails WP:GNG. No google news results as well. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Ethiopia. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only coverage appears to be database entries 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Felo Feoto

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG - not a notable subject. --Angelo (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all I can find is this Futsal Planet squad listing Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Almagest (journal)

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

Article tagged for notability since 2012. According to MIAR it still is not indexed in any selective databases (the only one listed being zMATH), so this fails WP:NJournals. There are two references, one a trivial listing, the other a dead link, but most likely this was a simple listing, too. Therefore this also fails WP:GNG. In the absence of any other evidence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NJOURNALS - Nanosci (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for a Soft Delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to help put the article, discussion out of its misery. Technically ineligible, but no one is contesting the deletion, so it should be eligible. Meta aside, per the lack of selective indexing as Randykitty pointed out and my own search doesn't indicate any evidence to the contrary. Star Mississippi 02:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The history and philosophy of science is a small discipline, but by no means an insignificant one, and the journal is a serious one. Looking through the list of editors there are two names that I recognize (Ana Barahona, whom I know slightly, and who is a serious scientist, and Ron Numbers, who is very well known in the field). It did occur to me that perhaps they were listed without their knowledge (it has been known!), but given that Numbers is a co-editor of the current issue that can be ruled out. Athel cb (talk) 07:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: please see WP:INHERITED and WP:ILIKEIT. --Randykitty (talk) 09:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not obvious to me why you think either of these is relevant (the second certainly isn't). Could you elaborate? Athel cb (talk) 11:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument for "keep" rests on the notability of some persons involved with the journal (hence NOTINHERITED] and on your personal evaluation (i.e., not based on any source) that this is a "serious" journal (hence ILIKEIT). --Randykitty (talk) 13:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of indexing in selective databases. Fails WP:NJOURNALS and unlikley to pass WP:GNG Carver1889 (talk) 08:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Karasounk

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

Likely a WP:HOAX, the sole source does not mention this. See discussion at Special:PermanentLink/1087149739#Did_the_Battle_of_Karasounk_ever_take_place? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not convinced it's a pure hoax, but I don't think this article title should exist. The battle described in the text, which *might* have happened as described, cannot be verified to have happened either in the year given (863) or at the place in the article title Karasounk (or any other place). Therefore, the article should be deleted and relevant information about the battle incorporated to other, better-titled pages. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Armenia. Shellwood (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Same as above, this article is either a hoax or a complete distortion of the facts and thus there is nothing to salvage here. Similar vibes as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Kiawe Bridge, another old sockpuppet creation. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Ganesha811. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete single source that has failed WP:VER despite attempts searching similar sources. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete regardless of whether it's a hoax, the article content can't be verified. (t · c) buidhe 21:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the content being unverifiable. TH1980 (talk) 04:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Körber. valid ATD. Star Mississippi 01:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Werum IT Solutions

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

Notability tagged since 2012, promo tagged since 2014, doesn't appear to meet the stringent notability guidelines for companies. Deleted from de-wiki in 2017: "no encyclopaedic relevance" ([8]) asilvering (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Germany. asilvering (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect: The discussion in the de.wiki equivalent process in 2017 included consideration of the award sources before concluding with deletion. Since then, there are client reviews of the Werum PAS-X product collated by Gartner [9] and announcement-based coverage of industry product awards [10], but I don't think these are sufficient to demonstrate notability either for the company/brand under WP:NCORP or if the article was repurposed to be specific to their product set. This acquisition / brand is not mentioned on the Körber page and merging might be WP:UNDUE there, but a redirect to Körber may be an WP:ATD option. AllyD (talk) 08:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're certainly right about a full merge being WP:UNDUE, but right now a redirect would be really confusing since Körber doesn't mention it at all. I'm not really sure where I'd put it. I suppose a couple of sentences could be added under "History" about the acquisition? -- asilvering (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The History section there is the possible target, probably in the vicinity of the "packaging for pharmaceutical products... expanded further through acquisitions" text. However that article section is currently in prose (comparing favourably in that respect with many company articles which become pin cushions listing every transaction announcement). Before distending it to mention Werum, I feel evidence (beyond the Manufacturing Chemist item that I added to the Werum article) of its intrinsic significance would be need, which takes us back to the Notability challenge. AllyD (talk) 07:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consider the possibility of a redirect (to where?) as an alternative to deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Körber as per AllyD's reasoning and WP:ATD, otherwise since the topic fails NCORP, Delete. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: or redirect, either of the two options sounds good. - Hatchens (talk) 05:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NCORP. Jacona (talk) 06:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 40 Below Summer. ✗plicit 23:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Transmission Infrared

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

Non-notable album. Redirect to band's discography. Mooonswimmer 16:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Mooonswimmer 16:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect - Keep, or redirect to 40 Below Summer as a useful search term. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find anything that would indicate this album passes WP:NALBUMS, so redirect to 40 Below Summer. Jacona (talk) 07:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 40 Below Summer. ✗plicit 23:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fire at Zero Gravity

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

Non-notable album. Redirect to band's discography. Mooonswimmer 16:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Mooonswimmer 16:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect - Keep, or redirect to 40 Below Summer as a useful search term. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find anything that would indicate this album passes WP:NALBUMS, so redirect to 40 Below Summer. Jacona (talk) 07:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soul loss

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

Poorly sourced to largely web content none of which appears to be WP:RS Acous mana 20:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Paranormal, Mythology, Religion, and Spirituality. Acous mana 20:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The edit summary tells us that this is a translation of ru:Потеря души, where the sources come from. The support for linking this to Christian theology in any way is some dodgy exegesis on a WWW site. There's an awful lot about souls in Christian theology, but connecting it to a completely different religion in this way is just ridiculous ad hoc conflation. It just doesn't belong here at all. So I've removed it. That done, this leaves us with soul loss in Shamanism.
A quick search reveals that this is quite real and there is serious anthropological study of this idea, in both North American and Asian shamanism, e.g. ISBN 9780520212770 page 31 and ISBN 9780306477546 page 148. There's all sorts of additional stuff such as soul loss as the cause of illness per the Temiar people in ISBN 9780520082816 page 8. Were this currently poorly sourced it could still be properly sourced. Editors would just have to read books. But, indeed, editors can read the books cited as sources in this article. Contrary to the nomination, which doesn't seem to recognize a chapter of a book, fully footnoted and authored by Mircea Eliade (it being xyr 1951 book on Shamanism), this is not sourced largely to web content. Indeed, the book is cited three times over in two different ways. The translator, Immanuelle, could have done a much better job with translating the citations, but ru:Мирча Элиаде isn't that hard to find. As noted, there are other books by anthropologists and the like that address this, too, so this is not just one author's pet invention, either. Not that Eliade is exactly just some random bloke in this field. There is no policy reason for deleting this.
Uncle G (talk) 08:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian sources are also apparently translations of English originals, but I have not found the English originals, they are written by serious academics though. Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 09:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment irrespective, doesn't warrant an entire article, unless someone is prepared to do a proper job of this, at best it's a subsection in the 'soul' article. Acous mana 10:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Soul or Shamanism. It is a notable subject and a belief that some people do hold. It is at least worth a mention, but maybe not enough for its own article. ArdynOfTheAncients (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's plenty about this in anthropological literature and it's not only restricted to the shamanic traditions. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22Soul+loss%22&btnG= AtFirstLight (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's been relisted, this is Britannica's view on it. https://www.britannica.com/topic/soul-loss AtFirstLight (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 09:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a key concept in the anthropology of traditional medicine and as such merits a Wikipedia article that is distinct from either soul or shamanism. As noted, there is plenty about this in anthropological literature. The problem with the article as it stands is not so much the merit of having it, but the fact that it does not have enough sources. These sources do exist, they just need to be added to the article in order to make it clear that this is a significant topic. For this reason, I think we should 'keep this article but seek for it to be improved though quality content and references. Hoopes (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HoopesI agree and I added a more citations template Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 22:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a stub, about an aspect of shamanism, doesn't require standalone in current form, merge if not delete. Acous mana 12:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amara Konate (Guinean footballer)

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

Footballer lacking in sufficient secondary source coverage for notability. There is an article on a local sports blog and routine game coverage from a website dedicated to covering local sports teams (like [11]). agtx 19:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. agtx 19:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Africa. Shellwood (talk) 20:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of coverage out there from a very quick Google search, the following all from 'Amara Konate Perugia' on news - 1, 2, 3. Giant Snowman 18:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as mentioned above, there is plenty of non-trivial coverage on the subject. [12] [13] [14] [15] if you want something more than just a transfer announcement and with a little more context about the subject's personal life as well, and I literally found these in less than a minute... --Angelo (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG with sources found, which makes me question whether a WP:BEFORE was done or if people are just trying to use AFD as a cleanup process again. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Clearwater, Florida

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

Yet another boilerplate "List of mayors of X" article that, like all the others before it, has no reason to exist. The city is not a major one, and most of these mayors are therefore not notable on their own so siphoning them off to their own list does nothing to improve their notability. Prod contested. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Florida. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE@TenPoundHammer: Can you please add this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politicians. Thanks.Djflem (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not every small place needs a list of mayors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NLIST. AusLondonder (talk) 17:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mayorcruft. Dronebogus (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per (bold mine) plus fact that city size is not a Wikipedia policy-based criteria.
- Wikipedia:SALAT: This list fulfills objective as it is limited in size and topic and is not trivial and is encyclopedic and related to human knowledge
- Wikipedia:LISTPURP #1: This list fulfills requirement because the list structured around a theme and is annotated.
- Wikipedia:CSC: This list fulfills this criteria explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles. The lack of a parent article in which it can be embedded does not exist and there no need or requirement for it to exist in order for the list to exist.
- Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA: This list fits this criteria because listed items fit its narrow scope and are topically relevant making it encyclopedic, comprehensive (and possibly) complete.
- Wikipedia:NOTDIR#1: This list does not contravene this policy as it is not a loosely associated topic and its entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic. Djflem (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC) Djflem (talk) 04:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 18:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.No notability according to WP:NLIST.Lurking shadow (talk) 13:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Clearwater, Florida#Government per WP:ATD. Stifle (talk) 11:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment large enough to be listed annually in the United States Conference of Mayors' The Mayors of America's Principal Cities. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 08:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keelathooval

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

Does not seem to meet requirements for notability per WP:GEOLAND. Also, there seems to be a dearth of reliable sources. $Clyde2_{3}^{9}$ (👋 • 🗣 • ✍️) 18:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Archaeology, Geography, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Highly likely to meet Geoland. It doesn't help that the India Census website has been down recently but a village with such a name in Tamil Nadu does exist in censuses. Also New Indian Express has an article referring to a TN police station of that name here. No doubt named after a geographical location. Additionally the prose of the Ancestry section says 'present residents', that statement is of course not verified but it's an indication that the village is populated. Zindor (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out the India Census search function located [16] has been depreciated in favour of a new population finder. It's much faster but i'm not sure yet how to cite the thing . Regardless, type in 'Keelathooval' and 2011 data on a village in Ramanathapuram district with a population of 3900 can be found. Zindor (talk) 03:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Possibly speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT #3) Meets WP:GEOLAND as a populated, legally-recognised place as per Zindor. Can't imagine a settlement of this size in Britain or North America, where there is no doubt as to its existence, being nominated for deletion. The settlement appears on Google maps and seems to include a police station. There is also evidence of important archaeological sites in Keelathooval. AusLondonder (talk) 05:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stubify. This would be an easy keep for me if it's true that there are "six sites of archaeological importance" in the village, but there aren't any sources for this. Google Scholar and Google Books searches for "Keelathooval" turn up nothing either. Maybe a spelling or language issue? But also, of the six sites described in the article, only one sounds like an actual archaeological site that there might be reliable sources about (Muniyappasamy and Kali Temple). The rest are trees (generally not of great antiquity...), a large rock, and another temple (which may be a historic building, but unlike excavated sites historic buildings aren't always written about). There seems to be a weak case for passing WP:GEOLAND with the census entries (see also the Google Books search), but unless someone can produce some actual sources, this needs to be cut back to what we can verify: that there exists a village called Keelathooval in Tamil Nadu and about 3900 people live there. – Joe (talk) 11:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not weak, it's a slam-dunk bonafide gold-plated Geoland. This AfD needs closing and those content issues, however true, have no merit here. Checking the census is basic before for possibly populated places. I can sympathise that it's become a little harder because the India Gov is playing switch-a-roo with their website, but the village is findable not only on the 2011 population finder but also in the 2001 census handbook page 162. Zindor (talk) 12:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I say weak because there are two criteria for WP:GEOLAND: populated and legally recognised. It's populated, for sure, but legally recognised? I don't know about India but there's a long-standing consensus that in other countries (e.g. the US, Iran) that census units are chosen for statistical convenience and don't necessarily imply that it's a separate legal entity. Anyway, let's not get too bogged down in technicalities. My main point is that if all we have are census records, we can only support a stub, not the 700 words of largely unsourced text we have now. – Joe (talk) 12:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For India they're treated as equatable. Sometimes if the population migrates a short distance then that's handled by creating two census entries and adding (old) and (new) onto the village name. The CD-blocks don't necessarily match up, that's for sure. For old censuses, the one's run by the colonial British were notorious for convenience and inflating figures. I've not yet tried to verify the archaeological prose but at a glance i'd agree with you. Kind regards, Zindor (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is sourcing is not sufficient. Star Mississippi 03:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cade Thompson

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

WP:BLP of a musician, not properly referenced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The only notability claim on offer here is that his music exists, which is not automatically enough in and of itself -- and the only referencing is his music metaverifying its own existence on CDBaby, YouTube or user-generated lyrics databases, which are not reliable or notability-supporting sources.
As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which musicians are automatically entitled to have articles just because their music exists: the notability test is the reception of reliable source coverage about him in media, verifying that he passes one or more notability criteria (charting hits, playlisting, touring, etc.), but nothing here passes either part of that equation. Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete found a few promotional fluff pieces from Christian Beat, and mentions in articles about the label, but that's it. Clear WP:TOOSOON. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fluff or vanity spam, not seeing notability as described above. Just about anyone can "release" an album on any one of the streaming media sites, it has to have traction in the media or chart or something else to be notable. Oaktree b (talk) 18:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thompson has been in news articles ^[1] and his music is played on K-Love which is the biggest CCM music radio station in the united states.^[2] Cherrell410 (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Q&A interviews, in which he's talking about himself in the first person, do not count as notability-building sources. Blogs do not count as notability-building sources. His own marketing materials do not count as notability-building sources. Media coverage, in which he's being discussed in the third person by real professional journalists and/or music critics in real media outlets, is what's required. Bearcat (talk) 09:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here^[3] Cherrell410 (talk) 00:03, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here what? Even if we accept that as counting for something (which is debatable at best), it still takes four or five pieces like that, not just one. Bearcat (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8] Cherrell410 (talk) 02:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC) Cherrell410 (talk) 02:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

^[9] Cherrell410 (talk) 02:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're really not getting what's being said to you. "Newreleasetoday" is a marketing platform, not a reliable or notability-supporting media source. "Red Street Records" is his own record label, not a reliable or notability-supporting media source. College or university radio stations like Life 96.5 are not reliable or notability-supporting sources; WP:NMUSIC explicitly says that college/university student media is not admissible for establishing the notability of a musician. Very short blurbs that convey very little meaningful information, and instead mostly just quote his own press releases about himself verbatim, are not reliable or notability-supporting sources. It's already been explained to you that Q&A interviews, in which he's talking about himself in the first person, and blogs are not reliable or notability-supporting sources. All of which means that absolutely none of these links are reliable or notability-supporting sources, because every single one of them is one of those things.

Please learn what constitutes reliable sourcing for Wikipedia and what does not, because having to repeatedly explain to you why the sources you're using aren't acceptable is getting tiresome. You are not showing the depth or type of sourcing that needs to be shown to establish notability, and just trying to bludgeon this discussion with more bad sources is not going to help anything. Bearcat (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Alkazian

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

Does not meet Wikipedia’s WP:NBIO, as well as if you go through the edit history it’s become aware that Mr. Alkazian was editing his own page by adding false claims over his career. He was also running multiple sock puppet accounts, all of which have been blocked. Pillowdelight (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Music. Pillowdelight (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and too many socks. Oaktree b (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to the appropriate articles as proposed in the discussion. Consensus is that this is a WP:SYNTH problem in its current form. Sandstein 10:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Animals in LGBT culture

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

Article is entirely synthesis of unrelated topics. There are no sources that cover this topic as a whole to establish notability or the relevance of grouping these. The fact that LGBT people own pets has nothing to do with some LGBT people dressing as furries, which has nothing to do with hairy men being called bears, which has nothing to do with Arthur showing a gay character, which has nothing to do with LGBT people taking part in the Unicorn trend. Animals are relevant to many parts of human life, language, and media, and grouping them in this way is not a cohesive, notable topic.

Most of the slang terms are already at LGBT slang and the rest should be added, and the lines about unicorns can be added to LGBT Symbols#Unicorns. The fictional animals have little to do with animals in particular, with sources like [17] discussing the LGBT presence and queer coding in Disney films in general, with nothing distinguishing animal characters from human characters (or hybrids like Ursula). I just don't see any encyclopedic basis for this grouping of disjoined topics and standalone facts, none of whose references paint a broader picture of what established their relationship "in LGBT culture." Reywas92^Talk 17:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Animal. Reywas92^Talk 17:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content from sections with a see also/main article template into the main articles, since its largely duplicative, and as Reywas92 noted, there isn't much tying them together. Keep section on Pets, since it seems there are several sources giving it notability as its own topic (and maybe rename this article). ~~Consider splitting LGBT fictional animals into a new main article for Category:Fictional LGBT characters~~. Politanvm ^talk 18:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge LGBT fictional animals into History of LGBT characters in animation. Politanvm ^talk 20:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I suppose, as that could get that article more attention, as the person on that article who has been the big editor on there for a while now. Historyday01 (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in line with nom. LGBT people just having pets and parts of LGBT culture referring to animals are not a topic, or we could say the same for every subculture in existence. Animals in goth culture, anyone? That is, there do not appear to be any academic studies or thinkpieces or even tabloid columns that claim that "animals" has a unique connection to LGBT culture, nor even, which would be the bare minimum to justify, any sources saying that animal motifs have prominence within LGBT culture that they don't in just normal human life. Like, lesbians often having cats isn't worth an article, and if that is all that could be said to be connected here, just stick it at the article on lesbian stereotypes? Because the rest of the pets section is more about emotional support animals in general, with the stats about LGBT groups being plucked from wider studies, i.e. the sources haven't considered it a topic. Kingsif (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Or whatever process that involves moving some content to different places, then deleting, because this title as a redirect is worthless, and would be misleading to send anywhere in particular. Kingsif (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @Kingsif What say you about the LGBT fictional animals content? Asking because Politanvm suggested this is a potentially notable topic. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that between this and the TV project, there has been far, far, far too much creating, deleting, merging and on, articles about different categorisations of LGBT characters. By sexuality, by genre, by decade, alphabetically, and it is too messy for me to want to consider adding more to that. If somebody wants to userfy a list and build it into an article to suggest creation once all the other lists-cum-articles have been cleaned up, they can, but I think it would be more effort than recreating anew at some point in the future when it wouldn't itself be quickly debated for deletion or merging with any of the other LGBT characters pages. My opinion of it is notable is probably no: I also think Polianvm makes a point of the animal nature of at least some of the characters not being a defining feature of the characters, so the intersection of animal + LGBT wouldn't be notable or populated enough to justify a standalone article. LGBT characters that happen to be animals can go in the same place as other LGBT characters. Maybe there will be an abundance in the animated character pages, if any of them are still around. Kingsif (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  There's History of LGBT characters in animation with subarticles by decade and sublists List of animated films with LGBT characters and List of animated series with LGBT characters. A subsection there about animal characters could be appropriate (can't think of any non-animated ones) but concur there should be sources describing LGBT animal characters as an intersection. Reywas92^Talk 19:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks Reywas92 - I knew there were existing articles about LGBT animated characters but I couldn't remember what they were. To clarify, I wasn't suggesting creating a new article just about animal characters. Politanvm ^talk 20:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I mean, as a big editor on the History of LGBT characters in animation page, I suppose I wouldn't be opposed to having a sub-section for fictional LGBT animals, there, as that page isn't as bulky as the split off ones for the 1990s, 2000s, 2010s, and 2020s. Update: I created a section on the talk page to discuss adding this section to that article, if you are interested in participating in that and what such a section will look like.--Historyday01 (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a little bothered by just throwing all of the slang terms over to LGBT slang, mixing them alphabetically with the numerous others. The "animal spectrum" part of this is lost when the animals are not grouped. Similarly, the "identity" component would also be lost. Also, we might need to do something about Bear_(gay_culture)#Terminology since this is yet another area of overlap. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  That's why my thought was that there could be a section specifically focused on animal terms... I don't see why not. Historyday01 (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture and Sexuality and gender. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure WP:SYNTH; I can only see the importance or relevance of slang terms, which we of course have an article for. We need good articles about LGBT culture, not filler cruft talking about “random thing and how it relates to LGBT, no matter how labored the intersection”. I also agree we don’t need more “fictional queer people by random category” WP:content fork cruft. Dronebogus (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to appropriate LGBTQ articles, specifically the "Fictional animals" section to History of LGBT characters in animation, "Unicorns" section to LGBT symbols (maybe one day there could even be a whole page on the significance of unicorns to the LGBTQ community? I think there might be enough on that topic), "Animal slang terms" to LGBT slang (maybe create a section for animal slang), "Animal roleplay and furry fandom" to Animal roleplay and perhaps add a section on Pet that would use the content from the "Pets" section of the article. I have to completely disagree with Dronebogus here, but agree with Kingsif and Politanvm on this topic. I don't think a straight-up deletion is a good idea, as it would put all the work done by active editors on the page, like the page's creator, Another Believer, @User:QueenofBithynia, and the ten discussions on the talk page about various topics to waste. I'd hate to see that. I believe that there should be efforts to continue those discussions on other appropriate pages so the discussions made on the talk page of Animals in LGBT culture are not lost. Furthermore, I see what the OP is saying that "animals are relevant to many parts of human life, language, and media, and grouping them in this way is not a cohesive, notable topic" but I'd have to argue that certain animals have a specific significance to the LGBTQ community. The effort by Another Believer in creating this page is laudable, and even though the content may be moved to other pages, it remains an important topic for pages on here to focus on. Historyday01 (talk) 22:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Change focus and rename. The article does suffer from some OR, and the sland section should be merged to the slang article, same for unicorn. The pet section is relatively relevant and well cited. The animal and furry roleplay is semi-relevant and I'd support merging the referenced content to the relevant animal roleplay and furry fandom articles. Fictional animals section is bad as it seems like a bad WP:IPC section - an attempt to list all fictional gay animals. While the topic may be notable, the article is written as an OR mixing a number of related concepts. Right now, the scholarly sources cited suggest borderline stand-alone notability for the topics of Pets and the LGBT community, although the resulting stub could also be merged somewhere. Overall, there is some content to rescue from here through merging to others articles, but right now I am not seeing sources in the article suggesting the broad treatment of this very concept is notable enough to warrant a stand-alone article, not to mention, the choice of sections is WP:ORish. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect as proposed. desmay (talk) 23:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge the content and leave a redirect. As there are too many issues involving the article existence. Mayhaps the list section can be in LGBT slang

— Tazuco

23:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's my thought too. I can also agree with Piotr's suggestion to create a Pets and the LGBT community article as well. Historyday01 (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Yup, the consensus seems to have already identified the obvious solution here, but I'll lend my voice the chorus in any event: seemingly a fair bit of salvageable content here, but the overall structure of the article itself is an unworkable mish-mash of competing subject matters extremely tenuously united by an overly vague cross-categorization of two descriptors. As Piotr points out above, with a change of name, the article might be preserved on one narrower basis or another, but I think arguably the simpler solution is to have the content of each section merged out into appropriate articles, but without implied prejudice for the possibility of regular editors of those articles (or other editors) spinning that info back out again into more focused standalone articles, if it all comports with WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge, per all. The notability of this topic is borderline questionable, and a lot of it is substantially WP:OR that should not be WP:PRESERVEd. But there is a growing consensus that the verifiable parts of this article can be covered somewhere else and it's good to look for compromises. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hindi as the official language of India

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

Right now this seems like an WP:NOTESSAY rather than a Wikipedia article, and I'm struggling to see if it can be re-written. Ultimately, I think this AfD is required. Right now there appears to a lot of opinion and WP:Original research (for example, In the context of India, the Hindi language perfectly fits these characteristics) with some quotes from the relevant legislation, and what appears to be a lengthy quote from a speech. Singularity42 (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Singularity42 (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like an essay. I've written articles about Indian laws for Wiki Loves Asia in the past, this would need better inline citations to be kept. Oaktree b (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Law. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NOTESSAY. There may be an encyclopedic topic in here somewhere, but this article would have to be fundamentally rewritten from the ground up to get there. agtx 19:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an essay. It's a translation of hi:भारत की राजभाषा के रूप में हिन्दी, which is just a poor quality article itself. It's actually the second translation that someone has tried. There was a prior one in 2017, deleted on the grounds that it was (a) partly gibberish and (b) already covered in the English language Wikipedia under languages of India and languages with official status in India. We do not need that article translating, thank you. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no need for a redirect. This is garbage, if there's anything useful it is already/can be covered in articles as described by Uncle G. Jacona (talk) 07:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. By about 3 to 1, people here are of the view that this list suffers from the problems identified in the nomination. These arguments are also stronger, because while the "keep" opinions contest this view, they do not substantiate their arguments by indicating why exactly the policies and guidelines indicated in the nomination do not apply to this content. They mostly argue that the topic is notable, which does not address the reasons for deletion identified by the "delete" side. Sandstein 10:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

United States Navy SEALs in popular culture

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

A list(icle) of media in which SEALs appear. Tagged with "This article appears to contain trivial, minor, or unrelated references to popular culture", this is yet another violation of multiple policies and recommendations (multiple policies and guidelines (WP:IPC, WP:GNG, WP:NLIST, WP:INDISCRIMINATE,WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR, WP:V, plus the just created WP:NOTTVTROPES). Mostly unreferenced and according to my BEFORE, probably unrescuable, as this topic does not appear to have been covered before in a way that meets SIGCOV, etc. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Military, Popular culture, and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic and mostly unreferenced. Fails WP:NLIST. AusLondonder (talk) 13:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - like it or not, we do recognize the impact of article subjects on popular culture here on WP, including examples of literature, film, art, etc. that are based on, inspired by, or otherwise depict said subjects. The entries on this page do have sourcing, and/or otherwise are linked to other articles, a practice commonly accepted in list articles. SIGCOV isn't an issue as US Navy SEALs are an extremely well recognized and reliable supported military unit. As for the rest of the link-salad of guidelines, the nom hasn't demonstated how each one is violated by this article. (And some of the listed links are essays, I don't see how we can violate an essay). Personally, I think it may be better to have one centralized list, instead of numerous, indivdual pop culture sections on SEAL-related articles. Also, why nominate this and not the other sister units in pop culture listed on this article? - wolf 16:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. " The entries on this page do have sourcing". Most don't, and the few that do are PRIMARY or fail SIGCOV. SIGCOV is an issue, as no source found discusses the topic of "United States Navy SEALs in popular culture". Your argument that "SIGCOV isn't an issue as US Navy SEALs are an extremely well recognized and reliable supported military unit" is totally off mark, as we are not discussing the deletion of articles about US Navy SEALs. You ask for more policy explanations? Sure. IPC discusses how IPC articles should be written. The current article obviously fails the " only properly sourced examples" part, and has major problems with " that are bona fide cultural references" (defined in that guideline as "Inclusion of unremarkable mentions or appearances", "Inclusion of coverage in works of minor significance"). GNG and NLIST are failed as obviously nobody has found sources that show this topic notable by the virtue of discussing it ("accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines"), which also covers OR (this article is OR as in, it claims that the mostly unreferenced examples show whatever, and unreferenced part covers how this fails WP:V). The relevance of Trivia and Not TV Tropes is I think obvious (this is a list of TV-trope like trivia). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aah-choo! (Sorry, hayfever) I'm not sure that you addressed all the rules/essays you listed. I wrote: "The entries on this page do have sourcing, and/or otherwise are linked to other articles, a practice commonly accepted in list articles./ SIGCOV isn't an issue as US Navy SEALs are an extremely well recognized and reliable supported military unit." (Perhaps I should've swapped the order of those two sentences.) Some, perhaps many, of the entries here that are linked, are likely supported by refs in the linked articles. Again, this is commonly accepted. But that aside, why not tag the unsupported entries and see if some refs come in? Other may not require refs, in the same way that we don't need refs for film/tv episode plots. Lastly, why this list and not the two sisters in see also? - wolf 11:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thewolfchild Starting from the end: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. AfDs are simpler if we don't lump too many entities into one discussion, each merits is own BEFORE etc. As for the article, the practice (of months if not years) of rewriting and often enough, deleting trivia lists of "Foo topic in popular culture"(see history of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Popular culture) that most editors don't consider such kitchen-and-sink lists to be encyclopedic. It doesn't matter whether US Navy SEALs are "extremely well recognized", so is for example the Eiffel Tower (but the list of media mentioning it went away few days ago in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eiffel Tower in popular culture (3rd nomination)). I already cited that in order for such list to be kpt it should meet the requirement of being "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Adding references to primary sources or passing mentions won't make this encyclopedic, even if we address WP:V we still fail most other policies. I am not sure what you mean by "commonly accepted". Such low quality articles existed for over a decade, yes, but it is "commonly accepted" now that they need to be significantly rewritten (to adhere to NLIST and IPC, as well as MOS:POPCULT which I didn't mention but it is very relevant) or deleted. For an example of a recently rewritten military-themed topic, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Thermopylae in popular culture. They key element that, IMHO, resulted in this article being kept (after a rewrite, to get rid of the ton of trivia), was that it is discussed, as a topic, in RS (" There is a long tradition of upholding story of the battle as an example of virtuous self-sacrifice", cited to an academic book which says pretty much that - I checked). Now, can you find a reliable source that says something along the lines of "cultural depiction of US Navy SEALs has been often discussed as blah blah"? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Blah blah"... got it. - wolf 15:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't usually chime in on other peoples' threads. But respectfully, it's not really constructive or WP:CIVIL to make comments like this. There's already a risk of promoting a WP:BATTLEGROUND by repeatedly replying to multiple editors as you've done. But that aside, this particular comment is especially unhelpful. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actaully not sure who you're replying to. You'll note this was a quote, so I agree that it was not particularly helpful, hence the reason I pointed it out. In this string I've just responded to replies posted to me, starting with my !vote. Other than that, I posted a few comments in this AfD, not so much to argue against the deletion but to point out stuff that I wasn't sure the other editor was aware of or not. But that said, I'm pretty much done. Have a nice day. - wolf 00:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thewolfchild. I don't see how it fails WP:NLIST, and it inherently passes WP:GNG due to notable forms of popular culture portraying a notable group repeatedly. I am sure more sources could be added as well. The most relevant policy would seem to be WP:NOTDIR, but as the list demonstrates there is a strong association between popular culture and SEALs and is valid encyclopedic content. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I replied above on how this fail NLIST, but to be clear: it has NOT "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Mdewman6, if there is no secondary sourcing for any or most of them, then there is no evidence whatsoever that this is a notable topic. Nothing passes GNG "inherently" unless--well, one is a Supreme Court judge or a K-pop band, but it doesn't work for this topic. The list, unverified as it is, demonstrates nothing, except for the fact that people love adding pop culture trivia to Wikipedia articles. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per keepers. Unimpressed by the barrage of policies cited, pretty indiscriminately. WP:NOTTVTROPES is just an essay, and clearly does not apply. Piotyrus is an experienced editor, & should have learned by now which policies are relevant for deletion discussions. Johnbod (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Non of the sources in the article demonstrate significant coverage of the topic "United States Navy SEALs in popular culture" (as a group). It simply doesn't matter how notable of a topic "United States Navy SEALs" because this article isn't about them in popular culture. This is why it fails WP:LISTN. Additionally, per MOS:POPCULT pop cult articles aren't self sourcing. So if the article is to be kept it's notability must be demonstrated through significant coverage in reliable sources, and anything that can't be verified through those sources removed per WP:V. Cakelot1 (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with United States Navy SEALs and prune considerably. I think that even a lot of the folks in here arguing for "Keep" would agree that there's a lot here that could be pruned from this list. Frankly, my personal opinion is that by the time we have done the necessary pruning, there'll be little enough left that what remains could easily just be included near the end of the main SEALs article rather than having its own page. Sleddog116 (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The preference is to keep this off the main article, which is already WP:TOOBIG. - wolf 15:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:TNT. Potentially a valid subject but the current article is an example farm that is unsalvageable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:OR (specifically "If no reliable independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it.") To be clear, United States Navy SEALs is a notable topic, but it doesn't mean we get to create endless WP:CONTENTFORKs where we compile WP:PRIMARY research based on editorial opinion. This isn't a topic in independent reliable sources, and even it were, there would be nothing to WP:PRESERVE from this article as it doesn't have a single proper source. To one commenter's point, Delta Force in popular culture would fail our policies and be deleted for the same reasons. It does not provide a policy justification for preserving either unsuitable article. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mostly per nom. Any salvageable content could be merged with the main SEALs article as others have suggested.Intothat darkness 17:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The preference is to keep this off the main article, which is already WP:TOOBIG. - wolf 15:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I said 'could', not 'should.' Intothat darkness 17:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only legitimately sourced piece of information here is the opening sentence explaining what the Navy SEALs are, which is sufficiently covered on the main United States Navy SEALs already. The remainder of the article is poorly sourced (i.e., not a single legitimate reliable source being used) trivia. There is quite simply nothing to salvage here, so merging would not be appropriate. Rorshacma (talk) 04:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rorshacma: most, if not all, the entries are linked to articles, which as a standard practice on list articles is accepted in place of refs. - wolf 15:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - You may have missed this, but quite a few of these TV Tropes-style articles that lack proper secondary/tertiary sourcing for the contents have recently either been deleted (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eiffel Tower in popular culture (3rd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waterloo in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vercingetorix in popular culture (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battersea Power Station in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classical elements in popular culture (3rd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Troubles in literature and popular culture) or rewritten in prose form based on proper secondary/tertiary sources (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genies in popular culture (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Thermopylae in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loch Ness Monster in popular culture (2nd nomination)). TompaDompa (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I may have. I don't regularly follow/take part in AfD... it's a flawed and broken process. That said, I was just pointing out that it's common for entries in list articles to be acceptable if linked to another article (where the info is supported). I'm not mentioning this as an opinion or argument so much as a simple fact. Hopefully articles haven't been, or won't be, deleted as unsourced just because the majority of entries have been linked instead of directly sourced. If people have an issue with the practice, perhaps they should address it as whole with an RfC, instead of piecemeal via individual AfDs. - wolf 00:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, User:Thewolfchild, but "AfD... it's a flawed and broken process" is almost Trumpian in its meaninglessness and its deflection of the actual topic of discussion. You seem to be thinking of all list articles as the same. Yes, "List of beers" would included "Heineken" and that's enough--but the point here is that we're dealing with something more slippery. "List of novels with beers in it" is an entirely different matter--the kind of stuff that requires secondary sourcing. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Sorry [but your comment] is almost Trumpian in its meaninglessness..." -Heeeeyy now, no need to be so nasty. I was just explaining why I wasn't aware of the other noms.
    
    "You seem to be thinking of all list articles as the same" - No, I'm only referring to a practice that has long been accepted at many of the list articles that I'm aware of, (through editing or just reading). You must be aware of it, and if you have an issue with it (which it appears you do), then surely you agree with my suggestion to have it addressed, project-wide, by way of a single RfC, which could very well negate the need for many, many AfDs. As for the rest of your comments, I don't necessarily disagree with you, I absolutely support sourcing for article content, the more refs the better, especially quality secondary sources. Have a good evening. - wolf 03:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure how an RfC could help. AfD is needed to review such entries one by one, as some are unrescuable, some can be rewritten (sometimes with total TNTing, sometimes a bit of content is rescuable), some are mergeable. What could RfC do except take time away from fixing the problem and and up with likely 'keep doing what you are doing'? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I only mention it for the one specific practice that is common to many articles. If a single consensus can spare the need of multiple AfDs, and potentially even more time, then why not? But, it seems you have as much faith in RfCs as I do in AfDs, so we'll just have to agree to disagree and leave it at that. Have a nice day - wolf 16:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it's not very well-written and seems devoted to listing examples from mostly non-notable shows, which either seem to revolve around Navy SEALs or mention them in passing detail. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 16:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too broad to be kept, would be better if we had more citations or a short few sentences on the impact of the SEAL characters in the media. Oaktree b (talk) 18:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no policy based arguments why this should be retained. Mztourist (talk) 09:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a case of WP:TNT, unless someone does a rewrite on the level of what was done to Loch Ness Monster in popular culture. -Ljleppan (talk) 12:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as shotgunning irrelevant non-policy references into a nom: TRIVIA is an MOS page, IPC and NOTTVTROPES are essays, and INDISCRIMINATE is used wrong, per WP:DISCRIMINATE. It's hard to tell how many of the above !votes have been inappropriately influenced by the misreferencing. Jclemens (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You could ping the voters and ask. And you present no policy based arguments for keeping this mess. Oh, and you convenient fail to discuss several other linked policy pages, which leads me to conclude that they are very relevant and you have no good way to address them... seriously, "keep because the nominator cited some essays" is a pretty weak argument. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 11:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moulvi Abdul Ali

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

Trivial namedrops in half-a-dozen sources cannot lead to the passage of GNG. If he was the founder of DCS, he might have claimed notability; sadly, he was among the first students. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh and India. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Notable Jamindar. Prodipto Deloar (Talk • Contribute) 08:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Explanations are needed - this is not a ballot poll. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need more participation with policy-based opinions
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete TrangaBellam says the sources contain "trivial namedrops". Newsline BD, the Daily Purbodesh, and Banglapedia all contain mere passing mentions. (Moreover, Newsline BD does not have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, and the Daily Purbodesh fails verification for the statement where it is cited.) The remaining two sources are offline and thinly held. I have been unable to examine them, but judging from the fact that only one page of each is cited, and only five sentences and one sentence are traced to them respectively, they do not seem to contain significant coverage. My own searches found brief mentions in Syed Muhammed Taifoor's 1952 Glimpses of Old Dhaka,[18] and a brief footnote in Hassan's 2008 Commercial History of Dhaka. In the absence of significant coverage, should not be the topic of a stand alone article. No obvious redirect target, but if the market is notable, an article could be written about it, and Ali could be mentioned there. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 00:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Floyd Matthews

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

Matthews was at the time of his death the oldest verterna living in the state of Alabama. Being the oldest vereran living in one of the 50 states (and we could then spread this to hundreds of other countries, and all the states of India, Mexico, Brazil, Grermany and probably some other places), this is not a claim to notability. So let us look at the sourcing. It is one obituary from the local paper in Florence, Alabama where he lived. If we had articles noting him as the oldest veteran or his death in the Birmingham, Montgomery or even Hunsville papers, we might have something to work in, but it is only in the locality where he lives that notice is taken. Basically this article exists because he was mentioned in an article in a paper after Wikipedia was started, and so its very existence adds to our presentism. At best this might be one event. If we keep this we will I guess need articles on every person who was ever the oldest veteran in any first level sub-national entity of a federal style government, just the prospect of how many articles that will be, and how many of them will have utterly escaped any notice for the rest of their lives, suggests that down this road lies madness. Also, if we give this recognition to the oldest veterans at the first level-sub-national level of federal governments, what other oldest also will we give recognition to, just for being the oldest? John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Alabama. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I found more sources about him and added them, basically newspapers did find him being the oldest submariner to be notable, but also so were his early use of a new type of under water rescue equipment. There was even more articles about him that are linked here, but the links are dead, http://stupidscholar.blogspot.com/2006/12/ CT55555 (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Other than being old, he wasn't notable as a sailor or for much of anything else. Oaktree b (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see the bit where he was one of the first people who used the Momsen lung and rescued dozens of people using it in 1939? CT55555 (talk) 18:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's also loads about him here: https://www.mynavyhr.navy.mil/Portals/55/Reference/ShiftColors/Documents/Archive/2003JANSC.pdf CT55555 (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Found this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, appears to pass GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (I !voted above, don't count me twice) I reject the whole narrative in the nomination that suggests if he is notable that every other sub-national oldest veteran is notable - because it suggests something other than WP:BASIC/WP:GNG being the benchmark. If every other oldest veteran was written about in multiple reliable independent sources, they meet the criteria, if they don't they don't. We can avoid the straw man argument that keeping this would somehow open floodgates of new articles. Now that we've addressed the initial concern that there was only one source, perhaps the nominator will withdraw the suggestion? CT55555 (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are currently 11 sources in the article, many which provide significant coverage to show the article meets WP:GNG. Here are three. [19],[20],[21]. In addition, there is a BBC movie Hanging by a thread in which he appears, as himself, and a book by Peter Maas, The Terrible Hours. Jacona (talk) 01:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I don't think he did much other than outliving most other veterans, but that's not how WP:BASIC works, he has WP:SIGCOV in multiple WP:RS and so BASIC is satisfied. Mztourist (talk) 07:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per a source review, meets WP:BASIC, there's significant coverage in a few articles, along with some somewhat shorter articles that per WP:BASIC, are usable to demonstrate notability because "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" for shorter articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The reference to Momsen lung as a basis for notability here seems suspect. Charles Momsen is notable as the inventor of the device. Matthews' connection to the device is quite vague and appears to be an after-the-fact effort by local newspapers trying to build a narrative on a local man who lived to be 100 years old. There's nothing I've founded from the 1939 time frame referencing Matthews' connection to the lung. Instead, what we have is local coverage trying to build a story about an elderly local man. This piece is typical -- it is written 66 years after the fact at the time of Matthews' 101st birthday and even it doesn't assert (as our article now claims} that he saved 33 people -- rather, it simply asserts that Matthews was "among the first" to try the device and that he "took part" (what part is unclear) in a 1939 rescue using the device. IMO this seems more like human interest coverage about a local centenarian rather than hard news or history. Cbl62 (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The bona fides of the local newspaper account are called into question in that the paper refers to Matthews' role in a 1939 rescue but our article on the Momsen lung says that "the only emergency use of the Momsen lung was during the escape from USS Tang on October 25, 1944." (emphasis added) This raises serious concerns about local reportage claiming Matthews' connection to a 1939 use of the device. Cbl62 (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that the person who wrote the offline source that is used to back up the "only time ever" claim was also wrong, and it's difficult to verify. I see comparably equal likelihood that the "only time ever" claim is wrong. What do you think? Are we stumbling towards original research territory here?

I also wonder if your comments lead you to conclude that he is not notable, or you are just pointing out a possible factual error in the article? CT55555 (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned about both. In the past, I recall that we had a glut of articles about centenarians who received lots of local coverage for just getting old. The general consensus was that such "really old folk" articles didn't pass GNG based on local coverage. Oftentimes, a local reporter assigned to cover such a local centenarian will tend to exaggerate about the person's past in order to make the story more interesting. I would feel more comfortable about Matthes' notability if we had coverage beyond hyper-local outlets. Cbl62 (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is why we really need to avoid creating articles built on hyper-local coverage period.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He was featured in a BBC piece (already cited). That's international in nature. I note that he did play himself in the documentary, and I've not seen it, but it's anything but hyper-local. CT55555 (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Johnpacklambert that we need to avoid hyper-local articles, but sources here and in the article include sources from Florida, Alabama, Tennessee, the US Navy, a book, and the BBC. Is that hyper-local? If so, what is the definition of a non-hyper-local article? Jacona (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was the one who first said hyper-local, and you're correct that the coverage here extends beyond that. Sometimes, a good "feel good" story takes hold and gets broader coverage, as appears to have been the case here. Even so, I still have my reservations about building an encyclopedia article on such "feel good" journalism. Cbl62 (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The broader coverage was not present in the article at the time of the nomination. As is often the case, the AfD has drawn eyes to a low quality article. Kudos to User:CT55555 and User:Jacona for rescuing an old sailor from the turbulent waters of deletion, even if a Momsen lung wasn't needed in the effort. Cbl62 (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I recognise the risks of the "feel good" factor, but assuming we're in consensus that with BBC etc, this is a keep? CT55555 (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I still can't quite get myself to vote "keep" given the "feel good" nature of the coverage and concerns about accuracy of his supposed role in a 1939 rescue using the Momsen device, but I'm not voting "delete" either. Count me in the "skeptical meh" camp. Cbl62 (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha. Let the record state, that a new category of vote, the "skeptical meh" just dropped! Alert Jimbo! CT55555 (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you User:Jacona. User:Johnpacklambert please be willing to change your mind when presented with new information. It's difficult to reconcile your "hyper local" criticism of a US subject when the BBC are featuring him. CT55555 (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My comment above was a statement about the problems of hyper local coverage in general.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I remain unconvinced that a bit part mention in a BBC documentary is GNG passing, or that a local article on the local navy recruiter being relocated is enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

J.O.D

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

Non-notable "beatmaker", producer, rapper, and illustrator lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 14:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable person involved with music.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Not notable, no reason to keep it. ArdynOfTheAncients (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. I would also agree that speedy tag would have been a better choice. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 08:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Hamada (racer)

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

Lack of notability, unknown racer that does not meet WP:BIO. Gabe114 (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, Motorsport, Africa, and Egypt. Gabe114 (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I took it as far as I could. I don't read Arabic and English language sourcing is lacking. Not going as far to say he's not notable when I can't fairly evaluate sources Star Mississippi 15:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No claim to significance, does not appear to meet GNG or NMOTORSPORT. No proof or presumption of notability. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under WP:A7 per 5225C -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 00:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks to fail WP:GNG. Looking at the sources in the article, he's not competed at any high level motorsport events, which is why there's no coverage of him. Looking at the article creator's name, I imagine it was an autobiography (before being stubbed earlier this year). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on lack of English-language sources, but willing to reconsider if someone can provide evidence of notability in other languages. Jacona (talk) 07:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Technically ineligible, but there is no one actually contesting this in nearly three weeks. Star Mississippi 03:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian/Lebanese Antiguans and Barbudans

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

WP:NOT the place for detailed statistics and little or no background. We have no sources which actually discuss this (small) group in depth (and the sources we do have in the article don't seem to work?). A redirect to Demographics of Antigua and Barbuda might be a solution, even though that article doesn't mention the Syrian or Lebanese. Fram (talk) 11:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Lebanon, Syria, and Caribbean. Fram (talk) 11:45, 26 April 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 12:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Peter Ormond 💬 16:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mauro Iurato

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

Mauro Iurato does not seem to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The only source cited in the article (presented as an external link rather than a reference) is a page on his own web site, and my searches have not turned up any substantial coverage in any independent source. (The article was originally draftified as not ready, but the author re-created it as an article. It was tagged for A7 speedy deletion, but I have declined that, as I think it does have enough assertion of significance to invalidate that criterion. The conflict of interest guideline appears to apply to the author of the article.) JBW (talk) 10:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 11:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is the editor of Mauro Iurato article. I am sorry for taking your time but please let me explain. Firstly, I wanted to published this article as translation from Japanese Wikipedia, so information source should be enough. I tried but I could not publish translation, may be because my account is too new, so I planed to published in English Wikipedia first, then link to the Japanese one.

I am sorry again for making this case more complicated, but I think the source should be enough because the contents mean same as it in Japanese version. H. Kobe (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this article does not passes WP:BASIC if you have more Japanese references please add. JoyStick101 (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, I need to put more than one reliable information source, don't I?

I put a URL about TED event. Isn't it reliable enough? H. Kobe (talk) 11:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO JoyStick101 (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 14:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I managed to find and link the Jpwiki article. gidonb (talk) 11:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sourcing and reads like his CV. I find nothing to show he's notable. I get one hit in a German book, nothing else. Oaktree b (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Found some coverage in Japanese sources that do not appear independent. Tag me if you found good sources. The text does have problems. gidonb (talk) 22:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot find anything worthwhile that adds to the discussion, it looks like WP:RESUME/WP:PROMO Jacona (talk) 01:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 11:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Amir

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

No notable wrestler. Sources are reports of events, WP:ROUTINE, which don't established notability for the subject. No in-deep coverage of the wrestler. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Wrestling, and Caribbean. Shellwood (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is a former OVW Champion, but also apparently had success as a model in the Bahamas before becoming a wrestler. This isn't even mentioned in the article, but mainstream sources in the Bahamas did cover it.[22][23][24] LM2000 (talk) 08:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only the first of the news pieces provided above is in any way substantial. Not enough here to meet GNG. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 06:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While there is a desire to keep, this has run more than two weeks and there is no sourcing. If someone wants to work on this in draft space, happy to provide it. Star Mississippi 02:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Gunn

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

No notable wrestler. Sources are reports of events, WP:ROUTINE, which don't established notability for the subject. No in-deep coverage of the wrestler. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Wrestling, and Arkansas. Shellwood (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He did get mainstream coverage because of a legal issue involving Billy Gunn copyrighting his name, he's been an OVW triple crown and made the PWI top 500 at least once. I wouldn't feel good about deleting this one but I also can't find a lot of in-depth coverage at this point.LM2000 (talk) 07:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - cannot find any WP:SIGCOV Jacona (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Fareham

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

I previously placed a PROD with the rationale "The subject's political career as a local councillor and unsuccessful parliamentary candidate is insufficient for notability as a politician. Nor is notability inherited from a spouse or from appearing on a reality TV show, and there is no evidence that the subject's social media outings are significant." The PROD was removed by an IP but the notability issues remain so I am now bringing this to AfD. AllyD (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and England. AllyD (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article itself makes no clear or convincing claim of notability. There are tens of thousands of local councillors in Britain and it is exceptionally rare for a councillor to meet WP:BASIC. AusLondonder (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Routine political career, almost drab. One brief event of illegal dumping, still not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Municipal politician fails WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 07:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus appears to be that Bajarani is notable and the issues of the article can be addressed editorially. Ulvi95, you're welcome to provide sources and edit requests on the Talk, but please do not edit the article directly. Star Mississippi 02:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ulvi Bajarani

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

This article seems to be a list of wins for a chess player so fails WP:PROMO. Unsure if being named on a chess results page counts for notability if not will fail WP:GNG as remaining references are not independent of the subject. Carver1889 (talk) 13:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Carver1889 (talk) 13:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

:Usually, chess encyclopedias provide the notable results of the player (for example, the Soviet chess encyclopedia "Шахматы" published in 1990), so I included my notable results on the article. Regarding the Chess-Results.com, it is the hugest database of tournaments created in Swiss-Manager chess program. Most of the official and open tournaments are uploaded to the chess-results.com, so it might be considered a reliable source. Additionally, I used to have the site ulvichess.az where I covered the notable results of Azerbaijani players playing in various tournaments. During the writing, I checked Vasif Durarbayli article to have some solid basis of how to write.

In my opinion, the article might be updated in the following ways:
Using more neutral tone (for example, changing "he won" to the 1st place;

Reducing some results that might not be verified (for example, U10 Baku Championships)

~~With regards, Ulvi Bajarani Ulvi95(talk) 17:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

Speedy Keep. This one is directly addressed in WP:NCHESS which states: A chess player is presumed to meet the general notability guideline if they have been awarded the title of grandmaster. Ulvi95 (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, I hadn't found WP:NCHESS before nomination relying instead on WP:GNG. I still feel this is worthy of delete due to WP:PROMO. Currently it has been written by a WP:COI editor (see struck out reply above signed as Ulvi Bajarani, the subject of the page at AfD). Struck out reply also indicates that some of the tournament results are unverifiable, those should be removed. Additionally, sources that are not independent or promotional should be removed (such as the website ulvichess.az operated by the subject and “The excellence page of Ulvi Bajarani”). If this article was kept I would suggest to maintain WP:NPOV the current author finds a willing volunteer at WP:CHESS to help them. Carver1889 (talk) 19:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Carver1889 Yes, I agree that I have supposed to write in a bit neutral tone, so please help with the edition if it is possible. Regarding the excellence page, I wanted to prove that I studied at UTRGV. About the source ulvichess.az, the site was covered the news with Azerbaijani players being successful in various tournaments, not the site where I tried to promote myself strictly (the information about me was the only one dedicated to me).

With regards, Ulvi Bajarani Ulvi95 (talk) 19:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
no WP:CANVASing please. Jacona (talk) 20:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree with User:Carver1889. Per Wikipedia:Autobiography, it is strongly discouraged to write your autobiography in Wikipedia.

Having said that, I admit that we have to consider the notability of the subject. WP:NCHESS is not authoritative, it is only a guide as to what things are likely to be notable. Because Bajarani is a GM, one may guess a priori that there is enough coverage of his chess achievements to make him notable, but in an actual article, one must cite such coverage.

The general guideline as to what sources can be cited is WP:RS. For a biography of a chess player, bare tournament crosstables, such as are found in chess-results.com, or the USCF MSA database of tournament results, do not by themselves demonstrate notability. I think that the citation of theweekinchess.com and the citation of movqe.az might be usable for this purpose. Autobiographical sources, such as ulvichess.az and the "excellence page" at utrgv.edu, are not helpful -- citing your autobiography is frowned upon as much as writing your autobiography in the article. Searching with Google for "Ulvi Bajarani", I have found some articles that may be helpful: [25], [26], [27]. However I admit that my search has been superficial.

As noted by User:Carver1889, this article must be mostly written by one or more other Wikipedia editors, persons who are not you (Ulvi) or related to you. I will try to help with this, but cannot commit to such a project at this time. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruce leverett Thank you for your answer. Yes, it will be good if someone might help me with the page related to me because I don't have a huge experience in writing Wikipedia articles. As it might be seen, I am not against of this. Just due to lack of experience, the article submitted by me was poor. Ulvi95 (talk) 02:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with major revisions The article needs to be brought in line with WP:PROMO. But the subject is definitely notable. He meets two of the WP:NCHESS criteria in being a grandmaster and having won the 2014 Azerbaijan championship, which is much more significant than the average national championship – Azerbaijan is a chess powerhouse, currently ranked #6 in the world (by average rating of its top ten players). This interview on Oxu constitutes significant coverage. The Azerbaijan State News Agency has regularly reported on his achievements, and so has azerisport.com. Cobblet (talk) 03:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is a valid question of whether identified coverage is in enough depth, which is an ongoing issue with awards. Is the award notable, the award it's in honor of, and or the recipient. There is no doubt that Bowden is notable but we do not have a clear consensus here that sourcing is enough. With two input-free relists, I don't see a third helping provide clarity here. Star Mississippi 02:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Bowden National Collegiate Coach of the Year Award

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

All sources are WP:PRIMARY. No secondary sourcing found Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Sports, American football, and Alabama. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep a whole lotta news sources to cite, they just need to be put in the article. This is an editing issue and not a deletion issue. Passess WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Every single one I found is just "X won the Bobby Bowden award". That's not WP:SIGCOV. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All sources in the article are primary, but I found a few on the first page of Google results.[28][29][30][31][32] – Muboshgu (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Every single one of those is just a variant of "X won the award". How is that significant coverage when literally the only thing it says about the award is that it was won? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete semi-notable award (at best), with only WP:ROUTINE and WP:PRIMARY coverage. I could potentially support creation of an article for the Over the Mountain Touchdown Club with the content of this article being merged there, (as the similar Woody Hayes Trophy redirects to Touchdown Club of Columbus) if there is enough WP:RS to support that article. However, this is not the forum for creation of that page. Frank Anchor 18:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As mentioned, there are other sources to add to flesh out the page, and while I understand the concerns about the sources not doing a deep dive on the award itself, isn't that kind of the nature with awards? This is coverage specifically that a coach won the award, it's not like articles get routinely written about the awards themselves outside of something world-famous like the Oscars or Grammys. -fuzzy510 (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But being written about is what qualifies a subject to have an article on Wikipedia. 174.212.227.174 (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 12:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is clearly against keeping. Whether a redirect makes sense is not clear from this discussion, but remains up to interested expert editors. Sandstein 10:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Complex differential equation

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

The concept is not notable, and the definition given in the first line is almost nonsensical: in general, the coefficients of the differential equations that are considered are analytic, and the solutions are also analytic, which means that their natural domain is a large part of the complex plane, even if everything is real in the equation.

Except for the first line, the article consists only of assertions that are dubious, unsourced or unrelated to the article title (generally, at least two of these three issues).

So, nothing is to be salvaged, and there is no plausible redirect for this non existing concept. D.Lazard (talk) 10:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. D.Lazard (talk) 10:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 11:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if a redirect to complex analysis would make sense. If a student has just learned a little about differential equations, gets curious about if there's a complex-number version of what they've seen, and Googles "complex differential equation", that's probably where they should end up. XOR'easter (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The content of the article I expect from the title of the article was like Hörmander's method for several complex variables. I also expect that Cauchy-Riemann and harmonic analysis related to PDEs would be explained. Also, I think this page is strongly related to complex differential forms and Dolbeault cohomology (De Rham cohomology) etc. So , TNT.--SilverMatsu (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Monodromy#Differential equations in the complex domain for the time being. That page is a better target than complex analysis as ODEs are not mentioned there. I think this is a topic worthy of an article and that the current version at least includes a collection of links to specific topics in the field. However as it is currently written it may be too informal so keeping it might be counter-productive, and unfortunately I don't have the time or expertise to edit it at this point. jraimbau (talk) 13:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Similar challenges in sourcing as the other lists which have appeared. I do not see consensus for a redirect, but if someone wants to post deletion, that's an editorial decision as there's also no one arguing against it. Star Mississippi 02:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of Vanuatu

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

Unsourced since 2004, woefully incomplete. Fails WP:LISTN. It has no stamps of Vanuatu, despite the title (and the existence of plenty of stamps from Vanuatu depicting people) , and the list of the New Hebrides is badly incomplete or wrong (e.g. lacks the first stamps of Elisabeth II, but also stamps of Prince Philip, William Wales and William Hodges). No evidence that this is a notable subject, and being looked at on average once every five days[33] shows a total lack of interest among our readers and our editors. Fram (talk) 10:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Oceania. Fram (talk) 10:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how one rationalizes deleting a list of people on the stamps of one country, while keeping it for other countries. It was split in the first place because of enormous size overall, and country granularity seemed most logical, even if it meant some were going to be short. Are stubby listicles needing work subject to deletion these days? Stan (talk) 11:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple others at AfD already, but it isn't because it isn't notable for one country that this is definitely the case for other countries as well. For example, for Austria there exists a 1961 book "The People on Austrian Stamps. A Concise Biographical Dictionary, Etc", which may well be sufficient to keep it at AfD (or at least makes it necessary to discuss it separately). Fram (talk) 12:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This list lacks any sources. Whether other lists are notable is a seperate issue, this one clearly is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The source is any stamp catalog, easily added as a reference as has been done for many articles of this type. But if this kind of list is intrinsically non-notable, then I expect to see nominations for the 170+ other members of Category:Lists of people on postage stamps. Stan (talk) 17:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- But that's not a source about this subject, that's a source about stamps (value, year, variations) where you decide to select one specific, non-defining, not as a group discussed element and turn it into a group. And no, such a lust is not intrinsically notable or not notable: for some countries, it may be that the subject has received attention, and then a list for that country may be warranted. Finally, there are already 5 or so other such lists up for deletion, and I'll probably add more ones later. Fram (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  That's an odd-sounding standard by which to decide the validity of a source, like saying that a newspaper is not a valid source because it has articles on many different subjects. What wikirule does that come from? Stan (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:SYNTH, WP:INDISCRIMINATE: the stamp catalogue is not interested in the topic of "people on stamps", it doesn't group the stamps that way, it doesn't discuss "people on stamps", it is a cross-categorization which you can extract from a stamp catalogue. To use your example: newspapers are valid sources, but a list of "people discussed on page 5 of the New York Times" would not be an acceptable list, even though every entry would be verifiable in a reliable source. Fram (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Postage stamps and postal history of Vanuatu. Vanuatu has had a variety of designs on their stamps, but I don't see why we would specifically have a list of people that have been on them but not other subjects, and an absurdly incomplete one at that. Reywas92^Talk 16:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yet another badly maintained list with no improvement or sources in sight. Not everything needs to be listified. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to 2022 Sri Lankan protests#PM's resignation. as an uninvolved editor, as the page clearly falls under WP:A10, but the redirect is plausible nevertheless. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022 Sri Lankan unrest

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

WP:CONTENTFORK from 2022 Sri Lankan protests, stub and better to remain as part of main Protest article UtoD 10:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Politics, and Sri Lanka. UtoD 10:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete then merge into main article, per nom. 72 words, just a reworded skinnier duplicate of 2022 Sri Lankan protests. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 10:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 Sri Lankan protests. Doesn't seem like there's any content worth merging, but plausible search term for redirect (and preserves the article history/attribution). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's been a qualitative escalation in the country in the last two days, passing WP:NEVENT and now WP:RELAR.^[10]^[11]^[12] Whether this is the right title, or something else (eg Resignation of Mahinda Rajapaksa), can be determined by a move discussion.

References

^ "Q&A with Cade Thompson". Peer Magazine | The Salvation Army. Retrieved 2022-05-10.
^ "Cade Thompson". Positive Encouraging K-LOVE. Retrieved 2022-05-10.
^ ""Every Step of the Way" Points to God's Faithfulness". Positive Encouraging K-LOVE. Retrieved 2022-05-15.
^ "Cade Thompson". RED STREET RECORDS. Retrieved 2022-05-17.
^ "Cade Thompson Artist Profile | Biography And Discography | NewReleaseToday". www.newreleasetoday.com. Retrieved 2022-05-17.
^ "Singer/Songwriter Cade Thompson Has a Burden on His Heart for Generation Next". CBN.com - The Christian Broadcasting Network. 2021-06-22. Retrieved 2022-05-17.
^ "Cade Thompson demonstrates how far faith can take us". LIFE 96.5. 2021-08-18. Retrieved 2022-05-17.
^ "StackPath". www.ccmmagazine.com. Retrieved 2022-05-17.
^ "StackPath". www.ccmmagazine.com. Retrieved 2022-05-17.
^ "Sri Lankan troops on streets after protesters torch leaders' homes in night of unrest". BBC News. 10 May 2022.
^ "Sri Lanka: MP dies in stand-off with angry protesters as homes of politicians set on fire in escalating violence". Sky News. 9 May 2022.
^ Handunnetti, Dilrukshi (9 May 2022). "In Sri Lanka, a prime minister is gone. What next?". www.aljazeera.com.

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Policy-based consensus is there's no lasting impact of this fire. Should there be a change, or a development of legislation, I am happy to provide this in draft space but at the moment there are no grounds for an article. Star Mississippi 02:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Quezon City fire

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

As per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING, there is nothing to indicate that fire that happened in the residential area, U.P. Campus, Quezon City was historic (e.g. record deaths or property damage).

While coverage includes BBC News and a Hong Kong site, all falls under WP:ROUTINE. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it's important enough & is reliably sourced, including mainstream media articles from multiple countries. Causing a record number of deaths or record amount of property damage isn't required for disasters to be notable. The vast majority of fires & other disasters which we have articles about weren't that severe. This isn't a routine or run-of-the-mill event - it was a large fire which destroyed many houses & killed 8 people. Having started (according to the BBC) within the campus of a university increases its notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 06:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 10:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not a major notable fire incident similar to Star City, a mall in Davao City and the Kentex factory. This is just a normal and ordinary fire incident that frequently seen everytime in all news media outlets, fails WP:NOTNEWS. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 11:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Eight people were killed. According to SunStar:

Around 250 families were affected by the fire, which was declared out at around 7 a.m.

According to AFP via The Manila Times at least sixty homes were destroyed. [34] The Independent says 80.

These are somewhat notable numbers. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with User:Dunutubble that those numbers are notable, and there is already some coverage of it. This doesn't fall under WP:ROUTINE in my mind, with something that affected 250 families - it's not a wedding announcement or a sports score or a "dog bites man" type deal. Given that this fire only occurred two days ago (by local time), I think we may be jumping the gun a bit by deleting it since more coverage is likely to arise (including some that has already been brought up in this AfD discussion) with which we can expand the content of it. Sleddog116 (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it was a major fire that swept through a village's worth of houses leaving 250 families heavily affected by this and leaving 8 people dead 6 of which were children plus it can stand out in a way for where why and how the fire started. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubstar44 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is just a run of the mill fire. The latest news is just about the identification of 7 of the 8 victims. (Philippine Star as of May 4). No WP:LASTING effect such as the city mayor's position being challenged such as the case of the Kentex slipper factory fire or virtual destruction of one of two of the country's major amusement park such as in the case of the Star City fire. The fire just happen to occur inside a village that shares the same name as the country's university (yes technically said university is largely in the same village/barangay) thus it was picked up by international media (eg. BBC News).Hariboneagle927 (talk) 23:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How can a fire which destroyed dozens of houses & made hundreds of people homeless be run-of-the-mill? Had it happened in the developed world, our article would be several times longer & would have been edited by several times more people. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 06:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is not from the developed world. I lived, studied and worked there and this is sadly a normal occurrence especially during the dry season. Here's another fire from the same area with almost the same number of families displaced and in the end it was just run of the mill politician promises afterwards. --Lenticel ^(talk) 14:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about the coverage being run-of-the-mill you usually hear in the local evening news. As for the second point I afraid WP:SYSTEMICBIAS plays. But even so, if the local Filipino media would have provided a more comprehensive info on what happened to the fire which would have provided material to build this article. I really attempted to add more information about the fire but I can't really find further info from reliable sources aside from "we have now identified on who died." Virtually all news article says "a fire has happened and people died". No information of its implications to even local community or the related universityHariboneagle927 (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this was not run-of-the-mill fire, there could have been easily longer... with COVID and ABS-CBN shutdown in mind, which meant getting references got a bit harder. Two examples of notable fires were the aformentioned Kentex slipper factory fire and the Ozone Disco fire. Generally, fires in residential areas are run-of-the-mill. There were bigger fires in Cavite City, two of them in February, one affecting 700 families and four villages. Those two were still run-of-the-mill. If East Coast bias was real, then Imperial Manila bias can give a run for its money. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not all !votes are policy backed, but amongst those that are, there's sufficient to warrant from another week's discussion - especially as to whether it is ROUTINE and LASTING coverage (or not)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 08:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LASTING. After two weeks there are no additional news articles that details any progress about what to do with the effects of the fire moving forward. I appreciate the votes that are concerned about the loss of life and property but thing is, this is routine. It happened before and it will happen again and nothing will be done about it. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOTNEWS. SBKSPP (talk) 03:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to EP Daily#History. Viable ATD in the absence of sourcing. Star Mississippi 02:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews on the Run

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

Current sources are all press releases, forum posts (seriously, WTF), or other unreliable first-party coverage. I tried googling various forms of the name + "Victor Lucas" and found literally nothing. Previously kept in 2008. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Video games. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to EP Daily#History, where it is mentioned, as alternative to deletion. czar 18:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you limit your search to Google Canada, you get several hits in newspapers, one discussing video game awards presented in part by the show. Oaktree b (talk) 18:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BURDEN. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per Czar as a WP:ATD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found one example of SIGCOV:^[1] Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as two sentences do not constitute WP:SIGCOV, and we can't write a WP:VERIFIABLE article with only a bare bones definition of what something is. Most of this article is WP:OR without any suitable sources. WP:STICKTOSOURCES tells us that if there aren't independent sources that discuss a topic, we shouldn't have an article on it. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Conlin, Shaun (April 3, 2003). "Shows dedicated to gamer's lifestyle". The Leader-Post. Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada. p. A9. Retrieved May 1, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 08:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough SIGCOV here to warrant a page Dexxtrall (talk) 11:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. consensus is sourcing is not at the quality required for notability Star Mississippi 00:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Domou Amro

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS, but does pass WP:NBADMINTON. GNG takes precedence in this case. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Jordan. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has significant coverage in reliable sources, hence passes General Notability Guideline. zoglophie 07:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite those sources here. They do not exist. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there were 83 results for Domou Amro badminton in Google. Jordan News Stvbastian (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a trivial mention and does not meet GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sportsfan 1234 In addition, she is the winner of multiple bwf sanctioned tournaments in Africa and Middle East, which itself tells about her notability. Many of the sources which are reliable does have her coverage. I don't know how anyone can call such significant coverage as mere "trivial". And more importantly, before this nomination, you even nominated this article for speedy deletion; what a big joke that was. zoglophie 05:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in the nom she meets WP:NBADMINTON, but you fail to provide significant and independent coverage as per GNG. You have failed on multiple requests to provide independent and significant coverage. Just saying it does not mean its true. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can only find trivial mentions and database entries 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 08:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sportsfan 1234 many of the sources used for references are notable in nature. I'm not obligated to put them up here, I have already done so in the article. See the article yourself. zoglophie 05:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of which meet WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 11:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charly Berger

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

Uncited since 2007. Film actor who appears to have only played minor roles, most not even with named characters. asilvering (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, and Germany. asilvering (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after 15 years if no one has found any reliable sources it is clearly time to delete. IMDb is not reliable, and we need to stop treating it as such, especially by having articles with it as the only source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep More than enough mentions in GBooks to show he exists. Would probably find better sources in German of course. Oaktree b (talk) 23:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That he existed is not in dispute. That he passes WP:GNG is. Can you point to any mentions that might approach WP:SIGCOV? -- asilvering (talk) 04:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have not crosschecked in detail but a list of ~100 films which looks similar to this one is supported by Filmportal.de [35] which I believe to be reliable. "Film actor who appears to have only played minor roles, most not even with named characters" is, I think, misleading when applied to silent films from this era (starting 1913); he was credited in lists containing only a handful of actors, which in current terms would equate to major roles; minor appearances simply weren't credited. The external links provide reliable basic sources including Deutsche National Bibliothek. Also hundreds of hits in Google Books; I leafed through the first 7 pages of hits and nearly all seem relevant. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant for what, though? The DNB link is just this [36] - a link to a list of films (the filmportal one). I have paged through the Google Books results, and found only passing mentions - can you point to specific ones you believe contribute to a WP:GNG pass? -- asilvering (talk) 04:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant to contradicting "Uncited since 2007. Film actor who appears to have only played minor roles, most not even with named characters." Espresso Addict (talk) 04:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In what way? The article is still uncited since 2007, and the google books hits do not appear to disagree with "minor roles, most not even with named characters". Are we somehow looking at two different sets of google results? Can you give any links to WP:SIGCOV? -- asilvering (talk) 05:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The concept of "minor roles, most not even with named characters" is a misfit due to the context of the time when those films where made. While it is true that imdb will go to great length to publish who "man at bustop #354" was, this was certainly not true of the publications of the time. Google books shows that he was listed in films closer to the time. Anyway all a moot point as he qualifies for WP:ANYBIO being listed in a national biographcal work (not just in Marlene Dietrich's autobiography) which makes him notable. The point being we do not decide who is notable, but reflect the published view which is why we defer to national biographical works. The details of the article can certainly benefit from attention but there is enaugh that spilled onto the interweb that the content of the article can be verified. For the rest someone has to look at dusty old books from the library. Agathoclea (talk) 10:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What national biographical work? Can you provide a link or bibliographic information? I'm happy to add some info to this article but I don't see this reference anywhere. Do you mean this, linked from the authority control template [37]? This is not a national biographical dictionary. This is a database search tool. The only biographical dictionary it links him to is Filmportal, which is not a national biographical dictionary. -- asilvering (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He's not in a national biography. I get absolutely nothing in my library search for secondary critisim. In ProQuest, I only get four hits for historic newspapers, all four of which are false positives not about this Charly Berger at all: [38][39][40][41]. In Google Books, including German books, I just see his name in various lists of cast members, I can't find one place where he even gets a full sentence. (The sentences I find are not about him.) These cast lists allow some information about him to be verified, but they are certainly not SIGCOV for GNG. I am not convinced by the argument that these roles meet the standards for WP:ENT but I think that SNG is the only possible way he could be kept. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without any evidence of these roles being significant or any substantive sources, I see no basis for notability. Even with so many appearances, which of these were major films, rather than those quickly churned out in that era? Reywas92^Talk 00:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 08:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even the German language wiki has about as many references as this one does. Delete, can be re-created when better sources are found. Oaktree b (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b You might want to strike your earlier vote, since you appear to have changed your mind? -- asilvering (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have corrected my vote/stricken the first choice. Oaktree b (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's a lot of input here from established editors, but without sourcing I don't see how it can be kept. @Agathoclea: what is this national biographical work? Like the others i"m having trouble finding anything. However @Espresso Addict: (already here, not a canvas issue as a clear heads up to closer) had a conversation recently about my sometimes broken google so I want to be sure my !vote is fair. Star Mississippi 02:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fajar Firdaus

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

Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 06:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Indonesia. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 06:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Social procedure

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

ill-sourced concept (dictionary definition?) and wild edit history; maybe merge into Social software (social procedure)? fgnievinski (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this term has been around for a long time and has coverage in at least one reliable source - Frank H. Knight (1942). "Science, Philosophy, and Social Procedure". Ethics. 52 (3). University of Chicago Press: 253–274. SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Friday (franchise)#Friday: The Animated Series (2007). Viable AtD in the absence of significant sourcing. Star Mississippi 02:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Friday: The Animated Series

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

Found only passing mentions and name-drops in people who were on the show. WP:NOTINHERITED. Seems to have been too short-lived and too under-publicized for any RS coverage to surface. Deprodded without comment Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Comics and animation. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't understand this one; based on a very popular movie and though short-lived, still comfortably meets WP:N as a spin-off of a notable film series on its face (we're at the very least not deleting this because Friday (franchise) can also take it in). Advising the nominator that just because it aired on an all-filler channel now doesn't mean that N expires because where it aired in 2007 was part of a diverse schedule, and that instead of semi-automated prodding, redirects to list-of or franchise articles and notifications to interested editors are highly advised before taking items to AfD. Nate • (chatter) 01:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED though. Just because a film is notable doesn't mean that every adaptation is by default. This could be merged into Friday (franchise). I checked Proquest and Newspapers.com on this one, and found only passing mentions at best. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Friday (franchise)#Friday: The Animated Series (2007). I couldn't find much - surprisingly there's 2 weak references in the Italian version. Nfitz (talk) 05:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not the most substantive of sources, but I found TV Guide and Screen Rant, which is at least enough to show that the topic is notable and suited for Wikipedia. Could possibly be merged with Friday (franchise) if consensus goes that direction, but the very least I think suggesting this be deleted is way out of line.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The TV Guide source is just a one-sentence directory listing. That's hardly significant coverage. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The ScreenRant entry is potentially acceptable, but no other users have offered solid evidence of notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Friday (franchise)#Friday: The Animated Series (2007) - There does not appear to be enough coverage in reliable sources for its own article, but what little bit there is on it should be covered on the main article on the franchise. Rorshacma (talk) 06:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yopen Wandikbo

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

Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 05:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Indonesia. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 05:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear WP:GNG fail; Google has nothing, Google News has one trivial mention, DDG has stats sites and Wikipedia mirrors only and ProQuest has zero hits. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kevy Syahertian

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

Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT. A search per WP:BEFORE turned up plenty of mentions, but no significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 05:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Indonesia. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 05:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BizChair.com

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

non-notable/barely notable (I can't find articles about similar companies). Astroturfing perhaps? Codeofdusk (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, highly promotional, practically orphaned. the creator, Dunwichhorror, has made no other undeleted edits. The only other edit they've made is to the deleted page Rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic, which is a fairly apt metaphor for the futility of trying to save this page. Graham87 05:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Georgia (U.S. state). Kpg jhp jm 07:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 13:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Enjoyed the deck chairs though!Oaktree b (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. per sourcing identified within the course of this discussion. Star Mississippi 03:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tom and Jerry: Cowboy Up!

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

Non-notable film, all references are reproductions of press releases, no truly independent coverage, per WP:NF and WP:GNG BOVINEBOY2008 22:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Comics and animation. Shellwood (talk) 06:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Found one RS review at Common Sense Media [42]. Not enough on its own, but perhaps a start. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Not enough references and no receptions. just voice cast and that's not enough for an article. Gellerman (Talk) 22:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 04:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leave Through my experience with English Wikipedia, I've dealt with too many ridiculous deletions of pages related to popular franchises. I can't believe that it's not possible to find a notable source about a Tom and Jerry movie. Perhaps some of the rules have to be changed instead of deleting pages like this? --Дейноніх (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The last AFD resulted in a move to Draft space. If this move is repeated, will it end up back at AFD for a third go-round?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain comment Google throws up sources that suggest it's notable:

But that was so easy to find that I'm sure WP:BEFORE process would have shown them to the nominator, so that makes me think maybe these sources aren't good enough? Can the nominator please say something about that, because I don't know what the normal sources might be for a cartoon movie. Certainly DAWN seems solid. CT55555 (talk) 04:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Costello, Brian (2022-04-01). "Tom & Jerry: Cowboy Up! Movie review by Brian Costello, Common Sense Media". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on 2022-05-10. Retrieved 2022-05-10.
  The review notes: "It's a perfectly fine movie for its targeted audience. Interestingly, the titular cat and mouse don't even come across as the stars of their own movie. There's one distinct sequence near the beginning where Tom chases Jerry, but in the rest of the movie they're overshadowed by Jerry's nephews, the prairie dogs, other cats, the sheriff, and all the other humans. It's nothing new, but kids are likely to enjoy the silly antics."
2. Suhayb, Muhammad (2022-02-12). "Movie review: Tom and Jerry: Cowboy Up". Dawn. Archived from the original on 2022-05-10. Retrieved 2022-05-10.
  The review notes: "Want to watch an animated film that is both musical and comical, with a touch of the Wild West? Turn to Tom and Jerry: Cowboy Up, for it is an amalgamation of all three genres. This flick can only be termed as a God-sent for those who had been waiting for an action-adventure animation with songs and lots of fun, for it caters to them exclusively."
3. Less significant coverage:
  1. Bobbin, Jay (2022-01-21). "DVD Releases for the week of January 23, 2022". ONTVtoday. Gracenote. Archived from the original on 2022-05-10. Retrieved 2022-05-10.
    The review notes: "“TOM AND JERRY COWBOY UP”: Two of animation’s most classic characters play their literal cat-and-mouse game again in this made-for-home-video attraction that, as the title should indicate, has a Western theme. They try to help two siblings protect their land against someone who’s intent on taking it away from them, and they get assistance from both relatives and complete strangers in the quest. Though there are some nods to contemporary humor along the way, by and large, the story sticks to the time-tested elements that have kept Tom and Jerry audience favorites since they were created by cartoon titans William Hanna and Joseph Barbera more than 80 years ago. *** (Also on Digital)"
  2. Milligan, Mercedes (2021-11-02). "Tom and Jerry Return in All-New Movie 'Cowboy Up'". Animation Magazine. Archived from the original on 2022-05-10. Retrieved 2022-05-10.
    The article notes: "Cartoon comedy’s iconic cat and mouse duo is back in action in Tom and Jerry Cowboy Up, the all-new, full-length animated family film set for release on Digital and DVD ($14.99 SRP / $19.99 SRP Canada) on January 25, 2022 by Warner Bros. Home Entertainment. Produced by Warner Bros. Animation, Tom and Jerry Cowboy Up finds the rip-roaring duo in the wild west where they help save a ranch from the hands of a greedy villain."
  3. Perrett, Glenn (2022-01-23). "'Tom and Jerry,' 'Halloween Kills' and 'Younger' on disc". Toronto Star Newspapers. Archived from the original on 2022-05-10. Retrieved 2022-05-10.
    The article notes: "Tom and Jerry was created in 1940 by William Hanna and Joseph Barbera. Now, 82 years later, the latest release of the famous cat and mouse team – Tom and Jerry Cowboy Up! – is available on DVD. This 75-minute animated movie finds Tom and Jerry working to save a ranch owned by a brother and sister from an evil land-grabber. Helping out are Jerry’s three nephews as well as numerous prairie dogs. But can they all work together to defeat the greedy man who wants their ranch in this western adventure that includes several songs?"
  4. Kiest, Jim (2022-01-27). "Now streaming: San Antonio actor Jackie Earle Haley in 'Death of a Telemarketer,' plus 'Matrix Resurrections,' new Tom and Jerry cartoon". San Antonio Express-News. Archived from the original on 2022-05-10. Retrieved 2022-05-10.
    The article notes: "“Tom and Jerry Cowboy Up!”: Unlike last year’s “Tom and Jerry” movie, which combined live action and animation, this new straight-to-video feature is fully animated. It’s a mild Western, with Tom and Jerry teaming up to help save a family ranch from a villainous land baron. It’s strictly for kids. There are no celebrity voices, no rude humor and not even much cartoon violence — Tom gets tossed around and smooshed a bit, and that’s it. There also are a few original songs, all sung by prairie dogs, and some life lessons, such as family sticks together and never sit on a rattlesnake."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Tom and Jerry: Cowboy Up! to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of the additional reliable sources coverage identified above including two reviews and other coverage so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - having thought about it for a few days and seeing no objections to my sources above. CT55555 (talk) 02:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Northrup

AfDs for this article:

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

This article fails WP:GNG and relies on non-notable sources like corporate and institutional blogs and press releases. It's also written in a plainly promotional tone. — Mainly 01:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Mainly 02:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Mainly 02:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mainly 02:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This feels pretty cut-and-dry promotional to me. PureRED | talk to me | 02:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as a lawyer and the musical career seems even less so. Motion to dismiss? That's showbiz. Oaktree b (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Didn't notice the sources added. Good work, @NemesisAT: (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Murdock

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

Fails WP:BAND. Has worked with a few artists but isn't notable on his own. Zero sourcing found Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added three newspaper articles, two of which focus on Murdock. NemesisAT (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sourcing has been provided. Star Mississippi 02:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Korgoth of Barbaria

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

Pilot episodes are not usually notable on their own. The only non-primary source is a "who would win?" clickbait article which pits it against another non-notable show. Despite the notable names involved, WP:NOTINHERITED is in full force here Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Comics and animation. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a pilot episode that never becomes a show needs lots of sourcing to show notability and we do not have that here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Maher, Lucy (2022-02-28). "Korgoth of Barbaria, TV review by Lucy Maher, Common Sense Media". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
  The review notes: "Despite some clever writing and well-executed animation, each episode comes with a super-sized serving of violence and a side order of misogynistic undertones. The bloodletting is particularly brutal and pervasive, and since there are no guns or out-of-this-world weapons in Korgoth's world, audiences might find the fight scenes more realistic than those in other animated series. The scenes in which women are held captive (in one episode, this happened twice) are also troublesome. Parents' best bet? Watch an episode or two before letting younger teens tune in, and keep Korgoth off the screen if young kids are watching."
2. Iverson, Dan (2006-09-12). "Korgoth of Barbaria: "Pilot" Advance Review. Korgoth lays waste to the competition in this pilot for Adult Swim". IGN. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
  The review notes: "The "Pilot" episode for the show actually surpassed our expectations, unlike the channel's last new program (ahem, Metalocalypse). But like Metalocalypse, Korgoth of Barbaria will be funniest to a particular audience; in Korgoth's case, that would be anybody who loved and laughed all the way through the Conan the Barbarian films. Bearing more than a small resemblance to said movie, Korgoth holds his own against Arnold Schwarzenegger's classic character. This show features the same brutal fighting, the same misogyny, and the same disregard for life as the Conan films did, and when you tie in humor that doesn't distract from the story you get an awesome new show."
3. Thill, Scott (2009-04-09). "Krod Mandoon vs. Korgoth of Barbaria: Which Spoof Winneth?". Wired. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
  The article notes: "But can it hold a candle to the legendary Korgoth of Barbaria, the hyperviolent, hyperhilarious animated 2006 pilot from Dexter's Laboratory director Aaron Springer and toon virtuoso Genndy Tartakovksy (Star Wars: Clone Wars, Samurai Jack)? After dropping jaws when it first aired on Adult Swim three years ago, the pilot was never picked up by Cartoon Network, although it still retains a dedicated fan base. Too bad, as its excessive gore and riotous jokes were perfectly subversive, which is to say the opposite of Krod Mandoon."
4. Less significant coverage:
  1. Swarts, Jessica (2016-04-20). "9 Animated Series Cancelled Before They Could Even Start". Inverse. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
    The article notes: "Originally intended as a series for Adult Swim in 2007, this heavy-metal and bloody parody of Conan the Barbarian was dropped for being too costly. Adult Swim has run the pilot created by Aaron Springer (Dexter’s Laboratory, SpongeBob SquarePants) twice since its rejection, and audiences still enjoy it now."
  2. Terrace, Vincent (2019). Encyclopedia of Television Pilots: 2,470 Films Broadcast 1937–2019. Second Edition (2 ed.). Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. pp. 131–132. ISBN 978-1-4766-7874-0. Retrieved 2022-05-01 – via Google Books.
    The encyclopedia notes: "Concept: It is a future time when all cities and structures have been destroyed and people have regressed to a medieval time. It is here that the adventures of Korgoth, a warrior are depicted as he goes about trying to survive in a savage land (even though animated, the pilot is violent, bloody and gory and had been designated to the evening Adult Swim time slot of Cartoon Network)."
  3. Terrace, Vincent (2018). Encyclopedia of Unaired Television Pilots, 1945–2018. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. p. 127. ISBN 978-1-4766-7206-9. Retrieved 2022-05-01 – via Google Books.
    The book notes: "Concept: A rather violent (and gory) pilot about Korgoth, a barbaric warrior living in a cruel world following an apocalypse wherein only the fittest survive."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Korgoth of Barbaria to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the coverage provided above. 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 01:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert W. McGee

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

A new editor tagged this article for speedy deletion as "vandalism". I removed the CSD tag and thought it was better to consider this article at AFD. It is so superlative (a novelist! a professor! a champion martial artist!) that it reads like a hoax article. I found evidence of his academic articles that have been published but nothing about the 900 gold medals he has supposedly earned. If it matters, much of this same content is repeated in his Amazon profile. It's unusual for an academic bio to be such an over-the-top exaggeration, I mean, it sounds like there is a super hero teaching at Fayetteville State University. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Finance, Law, and Martial arts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most of the sources are from his won works/self-published. Vanity spam, taken to a new level I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 02:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not checked in detail but Google Scholar profile[43] suggests possible notability under WP:PROF, with top five citation counts of 268,242,205,167,164 and an h-index estimate of 56. There's a more sensible version in the history after what looks like IP vandalism in February. He's published on Trump's tax situation, which might explain things. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is the one thing I found evidence of, his publication record which is respectable for an academic. It's the rest of the content that made me skeptical about the entire article. I know of academics with a few honorary degrees but the dozens which it's claimed he has, teaching at a non-elite university, and the martial arts gold medals and the dozens of books he's written, AND being a lawyer make me doubt the truth of the bulk of the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd probably have rolled the article back to the version prior to the IP additions on the assumption that the mess was just a prank originating from a student; that's pretty common for academics that continue to give lectures. But the self-citation issue that the unsigned comment notes below is concerning, particularly on top of the fact that the highest-cited article on his GS page is clearly not written by him (I excluded it above). Not going to argue for retention in the circumstances, unless someone can produce substantive clearly independent coverage of him/his works. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McGee, here. Thank you for taking the time to read my Wikipedia page. Actually, I am an attorney (retired). I earned my law degree (JD) from Cleveland State University and passed the New York Bar exam. I also passed the CPA exam in Ohio. I actually do have 23 earned academic degrees. My first bachelor's degree is from Gannon University in Erie, PA. I also have 4 undergraduate degrees from Excelsior College (It was called University of the State of New York at the time), and 4 undergraduate degrees from Thomas A. Edison University. I have an MST (Master of Science in Taxation) from DePaul University in Chicago. Three of my doctorates are from universities in the United States - a JD from Cleveland State University and 2 PhDs from the Union Institute and University in Cincinnati. Six of my PhDs are from schools in England: University of Warwick, University of Bradford, Manchester Metropolitan University, University of Sunderland, University of the West of England and Leeds Beckett University (called Leeds Metropolitan University at the time). I also have a PhD from the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, a DUniv from the University of Debrecen, Hungary (called Lajor Kussuth University at the time), a DSc from Tartu University in Estonia and a Dr. oec. from the University of Latvia. I am not listed in the Guinness Book of World Records because: [1] some people have more degrees, and [2] the Guinness Book no longer has a category for "Most earned academic degrees." I have approached Guinness several times, and each time I approached them I was told that Most Academic Degrees was not, and would not be a category because every university has its own standard for awarding academic degrees, and it is thus not a uniform standard of measurement. 2603:6081:3503:B4FF:755B:7822:CEAF:3A9A (talk) 03:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: considering that the University of Debrecen was called Lajos Kossuth and not Lajor Kussuth, one might entertain some doubts if not to the veracity, then at least to the depth of the involvement there. I might not have a dozen PhDs, but I do know how to spell each of the universities whose names I had to spell dozens of times when submitting my dissertation and other paperwork.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 14:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was a typo. 2603:6081:3503:B4FF:A532:876E:83C:C60B (talk) 03:15, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sheer amount of degrees is very impressive. All documented. ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackAmerican (talk • contribs) 05:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of a notability standard by which the number of degrees held alone makes one notable, unless it's some Guinness world record type of thing. Having a ton of degrees, many of which are quite prone to repurposing (it was very common for Western scholars to get 'Soviet style PhDs', as the article describes them, by simply translating their Western PhD into the local language and taking a class in dialectical materialism to satisfy the educational requirement), is not in and of itself an indicator of notability.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am unfamiliar with the European system, but a degree is still a recognized earned degree. I am right now updating his page, and am listing all his earned degree's from non primary sources.BlackAmerican (talk) 14:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment my reality-check alarm is going off very loudly. Before being impressed by the citations, do check who is doing the citing. For example, for "The ethics of tax evasion: Perspectives in theory and practice", which is his best, he has 268 citations but 73 are self-citations. By the time we reach "Why people evade taxes in Armenia: A look at an ethical issue based on a summary of interviews", which is still one of his higher-cited articles, at 141, we find that 113 of these citations are self-citations! To reach a self-citation rate of 80% in a field that ought to be highly interesting (tax evasion) takes real talent and effort. I feel strongly that this article needs close examination by someone who's prepared to do the detective work and unravel what this person has actually done, and what's self-promotion, because he's clearly an utter expert at it. I'll admit a strong personal bias, to the extent that I don't feel I can judge him fairly (it's impossible to do anything well at the sheer speed he does things). But we're not here to assess his quality. He may have achieved notability by getting himself written about (by appropriately gullible secondary sources); the decision must be taken on secondary sources, and them alone. I'm really struggling because it's hard to google without being bogged down in a morass of his self-promotion and primary publication.

References

^ https://community.myunion.edu/alumni-spotlight-at-72-robert-w-mcgee-is-just-getting-started/

Delete - if we peel back the self-promotion, what do we have? His Google Scholar record is dubious. The most cited article on the list is one from 1954 which he manifestly did not write. There are plenty of articles that appear in works edited by him but not written by him, which is not a 'publication' to be credited to one in any conceivable scientific sense. The articles all sound like rehashings of the same paper, and even though he has copious self-citations, his h-score is a respectable but not too high 23. Some of the entries on his Google Scholar are individual chapters of a monograph, so that the twenty-odd citations of the monograph accrue once per chapter, which is admittedly a clever trick to inflate one's citation count. According to the FSU website, he's not a named chair, which would not meet WP:NPROF. I have no doubts that he's a very interesting fellow, but just about everything about him is so tainted by self-promotion that even if there might be a justifiable case for notability, it is very, very hard to ascertain.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 13:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- - Maybe it is self promotion, but there is enough independent research to show he is somewhat notable.BlackAmerican (talk) 14:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Clearly passes WP:GNG WP:SIGCOV has Significant coverage, Reliable sources, and Independent of the subject. BlackAmerican (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am the user who originaly proposed the page for deletion. In general claims such as 900 medals and claims such as best selling novelist are unverefied or self verefied (read: false self promotion). The fact that guinness doesn't acknowledge his as the first in degrees held is also very suspect. Reverse search of the image in the page only yields the page itself(excluding alumni uses whom he probably gave the picture himself)! It is almoast definately photoshopped. Even if there is anything true under these layers upon layers of self published sources, it is doubtful it meets the notability deadlines. Even so, I believe we shouldn't take the risk and remove the page entirely. Inquisitor9800 (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Response He isn't first in degree's, there is another individual, Michael Nicholson, who has more degrees. ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4] BlackAmerican (talk) 18:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McGee here. Thank you for taking the time to critique the content of this Wikipedia article. As the article states, several studies have ranked me #1 for both accounting ethics and business ethics scholarship. Those studies were published in refereed journals. One of those journals is the Journal of Business Ethics, which is an "A" journal. It is true that I have published many article and books over the years. Writing is a hobby of mine. I published my first article in 1975. I published my first book in 1978. It, and several others, were published by Harcourt Brace. I have also published with Prentice Hall, Springer, National Association of Accountants (now called the Institute of Management Accountants), Dow Jones-Irwin, Quorum Books, Greenwood Press, Kluwer, Praeger, Warren, Gorham & Lamont, the Foundation for Economic Education and a few academic presses. 2603:6081:3503:B4FF:755B:7822:CEAF:3A9A (talk) 03:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McGee here. Thank you for taking the time to evaluate me and my hobbies. I actually have won more than 900 gold medals in various martial arts. There are several factors that have enabled me to achieve this number of gold medals. I have competed in more than 200 martial arts tournaments. I tend to compete in many different events, not just sparring. Martial arts tournaments offer many different events, such as traditional, creative, extreme and musical weapons; traditional, creative, extreme and musical forms; hard style (Korean, Japanese), soft style (tai chi, etc.). During Covid, the various martial arts organizations that sponsor tournaments cancelled their "live" tournaments. Many of them started offering virtual tournaments. There are two kinds of virtual tournaments: [1] live Zoom tournaments, in which competitors perform their routines in front of a camera, and the judges score them in real time, and [2] tournaments in which the competitors submit videos of their performances, which are distributed to judges for evaluating and scoring. Because of Covid, I was able to compete in many more tournaments, and in many more events, than would have been possible under "normal" circumstances. I competed in my first tournament in the mid-1980s. I competed in my most recent tournament less than two weeks ago. At the age of 75 I continue to plug along, winning sometimes and losing other times. I have won world championships in several hard and soft martial arts. The photo that appears on my Wikipedia page was taken after I won 6 gold and 1 silver medal at a 2019 taekwondo world championship that was sponsored by the American Taekwondo Association [now called ATA Martial Arts] and its worldwide affiliates. It was not photo shopped. 2603:6081:3503:B4FF:755B:7822:CEAF:3A9A (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McGee here. Actually, I am a novelist, professor and martial artist. I have given some details in the comment section of this page. I have published a lot because writing is one of my hobbies. I have won many gold medals because martial arts is also one of my hobbies, and I happened to be in the right place at the right time, as I explain in some of the comments on this page. 2603:6081:3503:B4FF:755B:7822:CEAF:3A9A (talk) 03:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

Delete. Heavy self-citation makes WP:PROF#C1 unusable as a notability criterion, and he doesn't appear to pass any other WP:PROF criterion, so we're forced to fall back on WP:GNG. But excluding works by McGee rather than about him, and promotional pieces by his employer, it seems the only source meeting the criteria of GNG (independent, reliable, in-depth) is a single local newspaper profile [44]. That's not enough, and in view of the evident promotion here and the effort needed by other editors to keep the promotion down, I think it's not worth keeping this article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McGee here. Thank you for taking the time to critique my work. One thing you did not mention was my ranking by the Social Science Research Network WWW.SSRN.COM. As of today (May 11, 2022), it ranks me #6 in the world among accounting professors in the "Last 12 Months" category, and #2 in the world in the "All Time" category. In the Business Author category, it ranks me #68 in the world in the "Last 12 Months" category and #15 in the "All Time" category. In the Top Author category, it ranks me #304 in the "Last 12 Months" category and #31 in the "All Time" category, out of a database containing 856,002 authors, which places me rather high [31/856,002 = 0.0000362]. 2603:6081:3503:B4FF:755B:7822:CEAF:3A9A (talk) 03:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment source analysis:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Bowen, Jessie (August 13, 2017). "2017 Who's Who in the Martial Arts". Lulu.com – via Google Books.		subjective	~	✘ No
Robert W. McGee". Amazon	self-written author entry	?		✘ No
Bowen, Jessie (August 13, 2017). "2017 Who's Who in the Martial Arts". Lulu.com – via Google Books.		subjective	~ one in a large who's who	✘ No
https://warwick.ac.uk/alumni/news-events/news/robert-mcgee/	article by alma mater			✘ No
https://www.clevelandstatemagazine.com/tenacious-mcgee/	article by alma mater (JD)	?		✘ No
https://www.uncfsu.edu/robert-mcgee-martial-arts-champ	article by school newspaper	?		✘ No
https://alumni.sunderland.ac.uk/Keep-Informed/WAYN/2000-2009/Robert-McGee	article by alma mater, with clear reflection on his degree, there is a clear interest in positive portrayal	?		✘ No
https://community.myunion.edu/alumni-spotlight-at-72-robert-w-mcgee-is-just-getting-started/	article by alma mater alumni newsletter	~ unclear		✘ No
https://www.gannon.edu/alumnispotlight.aspx?profile=81	article by alma mater	?		✘ No
https://www.excelsior.edu/article/robert-w-mcgee-bs-1976-as-1979-aa-1980-bs-1983/	article by alma mater	?	?	✘ No
https://books.google.com/books?id=ILwDnwEACAAJ	~		does not cover the individual, just the fact that he has written this book	✘ No
Robert W. McGee and Walter Block. Academic Tenure: An Economic Critique, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Volume 14, No. 2	publication by the subject	?	does not actually cover any biographical facts	✘ No
Robert W. McGee and Danny Lam, Hong Kong's Option to Secede	publication by the subject	?	does not actually cover any biographical facts	✘ No
Robert W. McGee, The Theory of Secession and Emerging Democracies: A Constitutional Solution	publication by the subject	?	does not actually cover any biographical facts	✘ No
Robert W. McGee, If Dwarf Tossing Is Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Toss Dwarfs: Is Dwarf Tossing a Victimless Crime	publication by the subject	?	does not actually cover any biographical facts	✘ No
Robert W. McGee and Yeomin Yoon, Technical Flaws in the Application of the U.S. Antidumping Laws: The Experience of U.S.-Korean Trade	publication by the subject	?	does not actually cover any biographical facts	✘ No
Richard A. Bernardi, Accounting Authors Publishing in Ethics Journals		?	only one of many covered	✘ No
Sabrin, Murray (April 1, 2002). "A Ranking of the Most Productive Business Ethics Scholars: A Five-Year Study".		?	only one of many covered	✘ 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}}.

I would consider this to be very strongly in favour of deletion.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McGee here. Everything in the Wikipedia page (as of May 11, 2022) is true. See my comments for explanations and elaborations. 2603:6081:3503:B4FF:755B:7822:CEAF:3A9A (talk) 03:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the concern isn't with the truth of your article, the concern is with your notability. Coming here and explaining the truth of the record is not going to make much of a difference. If there are reliable secondary sources we've missed, go add them. Otherwise, not much good generally comes from an article subject turning up for its discussion.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 12:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
McGee here. As I mentioned elsewhere on this page, the Social Science Research Network ranks me rather highly in three categories. The SSRN is a reliable external source that contains more than 800,000 academics in its database. 2603:6081:3503:B4FF:755B:7822:CEAF:3A9A (talk) 13:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A few comments.
1. SSRN is a preprint server. It's gotten tidier in recent years, but there is some mindblowing stuff there.

2. The ranking is the number of downloads of your papers on SSRN. You have over 500 papers, so a high rank would be pretty much to be expected. What a number of downloads does not do is make a person notable.

3. The ranking is not a ranking of skill, prowess or reputation. Such lists don't make much sense anyway.

Why do you so desperately want a Wikipedia page? You have lived an interesting, rich life with a lot of achievements. A Wikipedia page is neither an achievement nor a badge of honor. It's not a judgment on you or your accomplishments whether your page is deleted or not, and least of all is it the ultimate judgment of your worth.

To borrow from Marcus Porcius Cato: I would much rather have men ask why I have no wiki page than why I have one.

Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very cute comments. Actually, I am not desperate to have a Wikipedia page. Someone else created it. I don't know who it was, but I suspect it was someone from the Union Institute and University. When I first saw it, I edited it a bit to get rid of some inaccuracies, then decided to add a few things. I will survive quite well weather I have a Wikipedia page or not. However, I do find it quite amusing that people with lesser credentials have Wikipedia pages. Go ahead and cancel me, if you like. 2603:6081:3503:B4FF:A532:876E:83C:C60B (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of the article, and I have never met Robert. I just happened to see an article about him and wrote one.BlackAmerican (talk) 09:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for writing the article. It was a nice surprise. 2603:6081:3503:B4FF:A041:5787:8E7F:13DD (talk) 04:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

comment Just wondering what is the difference between Robert McGee and [[45]] BlackAmerican (talk) 09:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BlackAmerican: The keep votes in the Bolger AfD were based on GNG via coverage in mainstream media sources. I don't see that here so far. See the sources table given by Ari T. Benchaim. (In contrast, the US News and World report and the Chronicle sources in the Bolger article are independent in-depth coverage from reliable sources.) In general WP:WHATABOUTX is an argument to advance with caution in deletion discussions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I just wanted to know the difference. I didn't see it.BlackAmerican (talk) 09:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The scholarly output looks like a wp:walled garden, and I'm not seeing a pass of WP:NPROF, nor much progress there. There would be a possible case for WP:BASIC based on number of degrees, but I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, as would be required. The best case I can see for notability is based on WP:NAUTHOR. However, the books I can find reviews for appear to mainly be edited volumes (or possibly just compilations/anthologies of pre-existing works) [46][47][48]; there's also a coauthored book with review [49]. I'd look for two authored books with two reviews each as a bare minimum for WP:NAUTHOR. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete His martial arts championships are in senior age and (sometimes) belt limited divisons. ATA divides black belts by dan and runs tournaments only open to members, while there's no evidence that he's won anything that would show WP:MANOTE is met. I agree with the previous comments that he doesn't seem to meet any WP notability criteria, including WP:GNG. I also think he has accomplishments to be proud of, but nothing to clearly show WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 02:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Victim's Song

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

A non-notable film that fails the WP:GNG. I initially PRODed it with the following rationale: "Non-notable film that fails the WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. It was never picked up for distribution, and was never reviewed by a reliable source." The PROD was removed, though the user that did then stated that it was done in error, and that they had actually been meaning to remove it from a different article. Unfortunately, once a PROD has been contested for any reason, it cannot PRODed again, and must go to AFD, so here we are. Rorshacma (talk) 02:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 02:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed with nominator. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It exists, but as far as I can see there's no coverage to establish notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G3) by Justlettersandnumbers. Non-admin closure. --MuZemike 11:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

British Ivory Coast

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

Reviewed as a part of New page patrol. No sources, and they do not appear to exist. So 100% of content violates wp:Ver. It appears that this name doesn't and didn't exist. The only source for this name was another wiki (unsourced) which this is an exact copy of. Editor that created this is indeffed. North8000 (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Africa, and United Kingdom. Kpg jhp jm 07:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Basically just a complete falsehood created by a sockpuppet. Curbon7 (talk) 07:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G3 and G5, Ivory Coast was a French colony. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G3. CMD (talk) 07:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is definitely not a consensus to delete, but this does not mean a merger cannot be considered if there's more to say about the show and Warren together. Star Mississippi 02:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beverly Hills Vet

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

Prod and redirect to List of Animal Planet original programming both declined. I tried, but all I found was PR puff pieces about Katrina Warren that refer to her as "Beverly Hills Vet" and mention the show either passingly or not at all. Editor who undid prod claimed sources on Proquest but failed to WP:PROVEIT. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one, two, three. Nfitz (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First one is a good find. I think you linked the wrong thing in the third one, as that's sources about Tuckerville. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I screwed up the third link - it was a non-existent page ... perhaps it showed you a Tuckerville article because that was what you'd previous been looking at. Correct link is https://www.proquest.com/docview/438886427 Nfitz (talk) 05:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Additionally, [50]. matt91486 (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There's also a Hartford Courant article I can see on google that redirects just to their main page, if someone has access to it through another means. It's called "A SURREAL `BEVERLY HILLS VET'". matt91486 (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This one's tricky to me because most of the sources being found tend to refer to Katrina Warren herself as the "Beverly Hills Vet" and mention the show in passing or not at all. The Variety source was a good find. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consider whether the limited sources are enough to establish notability for the TV series rather than the show's host.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can see why this was nominated. A stub with few citations and few sources overall. However I feel the citations found above do lean toward a tenable view there is significant coverage. The internet was not what it is now in 2003, and so to be able to find internet articles in Variety for a show nearly 20 years old is good enough for me. Ought to stay. Such-change47 (talk) 01:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the article about Warren herself. I don't think the tv show is notable enough by itself. Oaktree b (talk) 03:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Playboy of the West Indies. I think a redirect to the original source of material is a good resolution. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Playboy of the West Indies (musical)

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

Reviewed as a part of new page patrol A performance scheduled at a theater for late June through early July 2022. Zero indication of notability under GNG or SNG. One source is pretty clearly just a press release of theirs on a website, than other is about the venue and has 1-2 sentences on the topic. North8000 (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is promotional in nature and coverage is not significant. This coverage is promotional and may not be independent. This does not appear independent or reliable as it is a promotional piece by a source appearing to routinely cover upcoming plays. This article does not meet notability guidelines and ought to be deleted. Such-change47 (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 07:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Playboy of the West Indies until such time as the musical version has been staged and reviewed. I believe it will get some press attention. Deb (talk) 09:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 00:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of years in Brunei

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

Reviewed as a part of New Page Patrol. Basically a list of of all of the years that existed between 1900 and 2022. (a list of 120 years) including 112 red links and 8 that go to a stub article which list 1-2 events that happened in Brunei that year. No indication of wp:notability for the list concept. Further does not fulfill the nature of list articles (just a list of years) nor the intended purposes of them North8000 (talk) 00:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that later / below I decided "keep" for the given new rationale, but to not wihdraw so that others can still discuss and decide. North8000 (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, unless we are planning to delete every article in Category:Year lists by country, some of which are far more incomplete. List of years in Grenada is literally all redlinks. Yes, the existence of some stuff is not generally regarded as a justification for keeping other stuff, but in this case, it's clearly standard to have "xxxx in Country" articles, and to have "List of years in Country" articles to organize them. Deleting one and keeping the rest is nonsensical. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never even knew that existed. I don't even know who would use that architecture. People who want to look up something and know what year it happened but not what it was? North8000 (talk) 01:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe people who want to see a timeline of everything that happened in a given country in a given year? That's not totally absurd to me. In this case the list format is more useful than a category as it allows for chronological organization, annotation, etc. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The example of Grenada is extraordinary. If nothing else, surely independence in 1974 and invasion by the USA in 1983 are worthy of inclusion? Athel cb (talk) 07:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Years of the 20th century in Grenada plus categories for other centuries there, shows how many articles there are which could be used to populate a proper list if anyone cared to bother with it, or if there was a bot to do it automatically. Check the year in the category, post the article linked there to the proper list. If only one link per year exist, then list them by decade instead. Dream Focus 15:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 07:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we were to set a standard that which countries would be covered according to particular requirements, then it would prove allegations of "systematic bias" to be correct. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 11:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to History of Brunei and merge the subarticles there or a new Timeline of Brunei. We do not have the need or bandwidth to have by-year articles for every place in the world. I redirected the utter joke of List of years in Grenada. If you want to see chronological organization and annotation of what happened in a country, History of Grenada has independence and invasion, and a new timeline article could serve a parallel purpose without the need for dumb empty pages of redlinks or mediocre stubs with a single entry like the few Brunei year pages. Reywas92^Talk 13:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More could be added to this list. Category:Years in Brunei. Need someone to make a bot as I mentioned above. Dream Focus 15:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Reywas92. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So this representative of a system for creating perhaps 30,000 articles, each of which is neither a list article nor is it wp:notable under that topic, each on containing whatever any editor chose to put in as something that happened in a country that year. And then about 200 list articles which are nothing more than a list of years under that country (i.e. the contents of the list are merely years). None of this is in the Wikipedia system at all, nor does it comply with criteria for existence of an article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. If we were to create an article for the history of each year of each country, that easily would be tens of thousands of articles. And if countries, why not cities? It is much better to keep articles such as History of Brunei. This is simply beyond the current scope and abilities of this encyclopedia. Jacona (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above, do we really need this kind of nonsense? Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As long as there are a bunch of bluelinks, a list of lists has an obvious navigational purpose. The year lists are not nominated here, so "merge them all" isn't a valid outcome (it would need separate tags, for starters). Beyond that, I see [year] in [country] as a perfectly valid format for an article. We have a ton of "years" articles, and while it's true we do not have clear inclusion criteria/notability criteria set up for them, the country-wide pages are, to me, the easiest to keep. The problem, of course, is that they're so often poorly maintained. The good news is, the content of the page shouldn't change all that much after the year is complete. There are all sorts of [year] in [very narrow/ambiguous subject] articles to take aim at. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rhododendrites. Cbl62 (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTPURP. This is a valid navigational aid, such lists are common at Wikipedia. --Jayron 32 18:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (But not withdrawing my nomination so others can weigh in) I discussed this type of thing in general at WP:Notability and there seems to be a consensus that this type of article (and the type of articles targeted) is OK and does not need to meet wp:notability requirements. With only a few blue links, this one is a sort of edge case but I chose to say "Keep" for the edge case as well. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IMO there's a good argument to be made for merging some of the smaller lists-by-year up to lists-by-decade - 1990s in X for example - to reduce the sheer number of individual lists, but I think doing that en masse might require consensus by RfC. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:19, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you support keeping the article then you should also note in your original nomination that you are withdrawing the AfD. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 10:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I already said I was not withdrawing so that other could still discuss and decide. But I added a note by my nomination. North8000 (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Keep. The arguments of User:Rhododendrites and User:Jayron32 are valid. Jacona (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Republicans Abroad Norway

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

Fails WP:ORGCRIT. No notability independent of the parent organisation. AusLondonder (talk) 00:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Organizations, Politics, Norway, and United States of America. AusLondonder (talk) 00:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage independent of the subject indicating it passes notability guidelines for organisations and hence does not warrant inclusion. Such-change47 (talk) 01:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was very much leaning to delete, but then came across a number of articles showing the Trump presidency seems to have the given current leader somewhat of a profile in the Norwegian press.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]

References

^ "Leder av Republicans Abroad Norway: Ikke sett beviser på voldelig storming" [Leader of Republicans Abroad Norway: No evidence of violent raid]. www.abcnyheter.no (in Norwegian). 7 January 2021.
^ Bakken, Av Jenny Dahl (7 January 2021). "Republikaner-leder i Norge: – Jeg har ikke sett noen beviser på at stormingen var voldelig" ["Republican leader in Norway: I have not seen any evidence that the raid was violent"]. Dagsavisen (in Norwegian).
^ Paust, Thomas (5 January 2022). "Professor ber Canada forberede seg på det utenkelige: - USA kan bli styrt av et høyrevridd diktatur innen 2030" [Professor asks Canada to prepare for the unthinkable: The United States could be ruled by a right-wing dictatorship by 2030]. Nettavisen (in Norwegian).
^ Bakken, Av Jenny Dahl (6 October 2020). "Austin (31) i Drammen: – Jeg syns Trump har gjort en god jobb" [Austin (31) in Drammen: I think Trump has done a good job]. Dagsavisen (in Norwegian).
^ "Republikanere i Norge tar avstand fra Donald Trumps oppfordring til hvit maktgruppe". www.aftenposten.no (in Norwegian Bokmål). 30 September 2020.
^ "Ut fra hva han har gjort, er det lett å stemme på Trump én gang til" [Based on what he has done, it is easy to vote for Trump once again]. www.aftenposten.no (in Norwegian Bokmål). 31 October 2020.

Probably still on a weak delete, but interested to hear others' views regarding these sources (the last one requires subscription but appears to be an indepth profile of the leader). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete had a chance to look at this further, none of the sources provide notability to the organisation itself, rather just the leader. It might well be that he passes the GNG and deserving of an article...but he doesn't have one so no reason for a redirect there. As AtD, possible redirect to Republicans_Overseas#Chapters. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Davide Locatelli

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

largely per IT wiki deletions (of which there are nearly a dozen) and extensive discussion there, he doesn't appear to be notable and most of the sources are PR, primary or otherwise not able to establish notability. I'm not sure what being the 'protagonist' of a tour is but it certainly doesn't make him notable. PRAXIDICAE💕 15:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject is not very noteworthy. The only sources that I could find are interviews, including one from L'Officiel Italia. I cannot find any articles that critically evaluate his music. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 16:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of the page. The "Davide Locatelli" page was under review for more than 2 months before being approved. I believe that if it has been approved, its presence on Wikipedia is right. In any case, I am Italian, and in Italy Davide Locatelli is an established pianist, with the Sony label. Searching on Google (especially in the Italian results), the main Italian newspapers wrote and are writing about him. If there are any points in particular that can be better written, or need to be clarified, I am available to act. Thanks for your contribution. Diegoferralis (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I want to mention the user @Numberguy6, who approved the page in order to have his opinion. Thanks Diegoferralis (talk) 08:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that since there were enough non-primary sources, the topic was notable. --Numberguy6 (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Numberguy6 Thank you for your contribution. I believe that the page should not be deleted. Diegoferralis (talk) 08:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like one unmarked Keep vote by the page creator, I'd like to see further evaluation of the sources that are present. Any native Italian speakers patrolling AFD? I'm sure much meaning is lost using Google Translate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable about his career it seems. Oaktree b (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eric LaRuez

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

Reviewed as a part of New Page Patrol. No indication of notability under GNG or SNG. Of the three sources, one is the instagram log in and the other two are general website info about two competitions that he was in. He also owns a supplement company related to this field and editor has listed the supplement company and redlinked it for creation. North8000 (talk) 00:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only source found is an obituary that looks strangely like this fellow in 50 yrs or so.... Regardless, not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 03:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 07:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The two independent sources in the article [51], [52] were trivial mentions, no more than his name. Nothing found on Newspapers.com, either. Jacona (talk) 02:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This discussion has received ample input, but no consensus for a particular outcome has transpired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lam Yeo Coffee Powder Factory

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

Reviewed as a part of new page patrol. I wish them the best but this is a local coffee shop. It is about the business, so the higher bar of ncorp (vs geo) applies but I don't think that it would even meet a lower bar. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or Ncorp. Sources are local reviews. North8000 (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would that then mean that anything from Singapore would have to receive international coverage to be considered notable enough? Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 01:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I never gave "local" as my basis. The basis would be the source and coverage requirements under WP:Ncorp. North8000 (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: To be exact, Lam Yeo Coffee Powder Factory is not a coffee shop (aka cafes and stuff) but a coffee beans retailer. Article passes GNG with sources/coverage in Singapore's mainstream media, The Straits Times and The Business Times, and also South China Morning Post. It is also part of the Balestier Heritage Trail of Singapore, one of the few trails in Singapore which marked heritage landmarks in various parts of Singapore. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Justanothersgwikieditor (talk · contribs), you said that Lam Yeo Coffee Powder passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guidelines. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) is another notability guideline that is specifically about companies. Your argument for retention would be substantially stronger if you evaluated whether the company also met the company notability guidelines. Would you review the analysis I have posted below and provide your opinion about whether the company meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 01:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Singapore. Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 02:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm neutral on this one, I have trouble assessing notability but I also don't really see much indication it isn't notable. It's probably semi-notable if that's even a thing. I don't have a particularly strong preference for Delete or Keep. Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 02:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Tan, Shzr Ee (2003-09-21). "Enjoying the daily grind". The Straits Times.
  The Straits Times is the newspaper of record of Singapore. Coverage in the newspaper of record of Singapore meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience, which says:
  The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.
  The article notes: "If there was one shop along Balestier Road which could offer that special something to perk up your spirits any time, any day, it would be No. 328. Here, for $2 per 100g, roasted beans get crushed into brown-black powder before being pumped into boiling water. Doused with milk and left to sit in mugs, the resulting woody fragrance wafts through the humid room. Ah, coffee. Not from Starbucks, UCC or Lavazza, but Singapore's own Lam Yeo Coffee Powder. The name of the store is a Hokkien translation of the word Nanyang, for South Sea. Since 1959, it has been dispensing its 10 signature blends of coffee harvested from various parts of Indonesia to Singapore's coffee-philes."
2. Loh, Juliana (2017-07-13). "Five traditional Singapore bakeries, and a coffee shop, to satisfy your craving for the treats locals grew up with". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2022-05-10. Retrieved 2022-05-10.
  The article provides three paragraphs of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "The Hokkien name Lam Yeo translates to Nanyang in Mandarin, meaning “South Sea”. The shop’s coffee powder business started in 1959, when Tan Thian Kang began selling the coffee beans door-to-door, before setting up shop in Balestier in 1960. The same shop still exists today and second-generation owner Tan Bong Heong continues to roast the local coffee beans with margarine and sugar the way his father did. [quote from owner]"
3. Daniel, Gillian (2017-05-08). "Yesterday Once More". The Business Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-10. Retrieved 2022-05-10.
  The article provides nine paragraphs of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Lam Yeo Coffee Powder stands facing the frenetic waves of traffic along Balestier Road. Passing cars stir up the dust outside its shopfront, a relic from a Singapore of old, when a generation of coffee drinkers brewed their morning cuppa in a sock-like strainer rather than a Nespresso machine. Lam Yeo is Hokkien for "Nanyang" and since the late 1950s, it has been trading in Nanyang-style coffee beans and grounds on the very same premises. Time seems to stand still the moment you step into the shop."
4. Lee, Samantha (2017-03-10). "3 oldschool eats at Balestier you'll always go back to". ThePeak. SPH Media Trust. Archived from the original on 2019-09-26. Retrieved 2022-05-10.
  The article provides 174 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "A sepia-toned vision of coffee culture, this stalwart has been purveying its kopi blends – the uniquely Singaporean concoction of beans roasted with margarine and sugar – since 1959. Not much has seemed to change since then. Vintage coffee grinders still sit on the shelves."
5. Sim, Teddy Y. H.; Sim, Hwee Hwang, eds. (2021). Fieldwork in Humanities Education in Singapore. Singapore: Springer Nature. p. 53. doi:10.1007/978-981-15-8233-2. ISBN 978-981-15-8232-5. ISSN 2730-9762. Retrieved 2022-05-10 – via Google Books.
  The book provides 78 words of coverage about the company. The book notes: "Lam Yeo Coffee Powder. Owner Tan Peck Hoe retains the long-standing tradition of roasting coffee beans with sugar and margarine to give them that lusciously black exterior unique to local coffee. While his traditional coffee powder remains an old favourite, Mr Tan has also adapted and started importing gourmet beans from South Africa and Central America. These are roasted plain and ground only upon purchase to ensure freshness"
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Lam Yeo Coffee Powder to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both GNG and NCorp require that there be some significant in-depth coverage is some suitable sources. You don't get to this by adding together a lot of "reviews" type coverages. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean by "review" type coverage. Most of the sources cover the company because it is a traditional coffee shop, and it is also included in the Balestier Heritage Trail here. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 13:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By "review coverage" I mean the kind of thing you see in Yelp. Basically information on offerings and ratings/recommendations for visitors and prospective visitors. In-depth coverage would be where independent sources have seen fit to give broader coverage. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First lets pick the appropriate guideline, this is a company/business so WP:NCORP applies and we need at least two references that discuss the company *in detail* - that is, deep or significant coverage containing in-depth information. WP:SIRS emphasises that each reference must meet all the necessary criteria - you can't mix-and-match or combine from different references. In other words, we need more than confirmation that the company exists at a particular address, the history/meaning of its name and the price it charged for coffee nevermind whatever opinion the author has on the beverage - that is neither significant nor in-depth. It is notable that Cunard's analysis above references WP:GNG instead of NCORP so when we examine those sources against the actual guidelines we should be using, a different picture emerges. First, lets keep in mind the information that is available on the topic company's own website which can be found here.
- There's no argument that The Straits Times meets WP:RS but being a "newspaper of record" does not give the reference any additional weight and is a red herring. I haven't access right now but the extracted text provided is lightweight and is not in-depth. Basically, confirms the location, describes how coffee is made (big deal) and tells us absolutely nothing in-depth about this company, fails CORPDEPTH
- The South China Morning Post article describes five "traditional Singapore bakeries, and a coffee shop" and among the mentions we find the topic company. The extract provided by Cunard is 3 sentences from the total of 7 sentences available in the complete section on the topic company. Ridiculous to say it meets CORPDEPTH especially when you can clearly see all of the information in the quoted extract has been copied from their website and precedes the information quoted from the the company/owner. This is not "Independent Content" as per ORGIND and is not in-depth as per CORPDEPTH.
- The Business Times reference does two things - just like the rest of the references, the information about *the company* is entirely available on the website sprinkled with new quotes from the owner. The extract from Cunard above confirms the location and the history of the name, nothing more. The article also adds in the journalist's impression of the inside of the shop (e.g. Time seems to stand still the moment you step into the shop. Burlap sacks of coffee beans pile up against plywood shelves sagging under the weight of coffee pots, strainers and cups. In the middle of the shop floor, three prized traditional hand-grinders glint atop containers of coffee beans ... etc) but that isn't in-depth on the company either. The reference has no in-depth information that is "Independent Content" as required by WP:ORGIND.
- The Peak Magazine reference looks at 3 "food outlets" in the Balestier neighbourhood including a total 12 sentences on the topic company. Like the previous references, it confirms the location, describes the inside and then switches to quotes from the owner. It has no "Independent Content" and no in-depth information about the company. The extract from Cunard is lightweight, repeating the date the company started (1959) which appears in every other article and the website and includes the fact that the shop has coffee grinders on shelves - nothing that is in-depth.
- The Book reference which Cunard notes is not 78 words but the text is in fact a total of 3 sentences for 64 words. The entire reference has been duplicated by Cunard above, and while there's no "minimum length" of article discussed in the guidelines, I think we're on safe ground to conclude 3 sentences is not "in-depth".

Overall, the area itself, Balestier, is notable and perhaps a "Places of Interest" section can be added to that article. But this topic company fails NCORP's notability criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Lam Yeo Coffee Powder passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) through coverage in The Straits Times and The Business Times:

Tan, Shzr Ee (2003-09-21). "Enjoying the daily grind". The Straits Times.

Daniel, Gillian (2017-05-08). "Yesterday Once More". The Business Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-10. Retrieved 2022-05-10.

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage says:

The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Independent sources says:

There are two types of independence to consider when evaluating sources:
Independence of the author (or functional independence): the author must be unrelated to the company, organization, or product. Related persons include organization's personnel, owners, investors, (sub)contractors, vendors, distributors, suppliers, other business partners and associates, customers, competitors, sponsors and sponsorees (including astroturfing), and other parties that have something, financially or otherwise, to gain or lose.

Independence of the content (or intellectual independence): the content must not be produced by interested parties. Often a related party produces a narrative that is then copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by independent parties (as exemplified by churnalism). 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.

I will show that these two sources meet the "significant coverage" and "independent sources" sections of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).

The Straits Times article provides 929 words of coverage about the subject. The Straits Times is a newspaper of record for Singapore. Coverage in the newspaper of record of Singapore meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience. Additionally, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Numerical facts says, "However, the reputation of the source does help to determine whether the source is reliable and independent." The Straits Times's strong reputation as a newspaper of record strongly bolsters the argument that it is an independent and reliable source. The article has "functional independence" because the newspaper and the author are unrelated to the company. The article has "intellectual independence" because it contains "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject".

The article begins, "If there was one shop along Balestier Road which could offer that special something to perk up your spirits any time, any day, it would be No. 328." This is the journalist's independent opinion about the shop. The article continues, "Here, for $2 per 100g, roasted beans get crushed into brown-black powder before being pumped into boiling water. Doused with milk and left to sit in mugs, the resulting woody fragrance wafts through the humid room." This is the journalist's observations of what it's to visit the shop: what can be seen, what can be smelled, and what can be felt. The article continues that the shop uses "10 signature blends of coffee harvested from various parts of Indonesia to Singapore's coffee-philes". This is independent reporting of where the shop sources its coffee from. The article continues, "For all the freshness of his coffee, Mr Tan's shop wears the air of a place where time has stood still out of boredom, routine and age. An ancient abacus lies, its beads rubbed down over time, on a table with a peeling formica top. Sacks of coffee beans and coffee powder, imported every month from Indonesia, strain tired plywood shelves." This more in-depth analysis of her observations in the shop.

The Business Times article provides 584 words of coverage about the subject. The article has "functional independence" because the newspaper and the author are unrelated to the company. The article has "intellectual independence" because it contains "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject".

The article begins: "Lam Yeo Coffee Powder stands facing the frenetic waves of traffic along Balestier Road. Passing cars stir up the dust outside its shopfront, a relic from a Singapore of old, when a generation of coffee drinkers brewed their morning cuppa in a sock-like strainer rather than a Nespresso machine." Calling Lam Yeo Coffee Powder "a relic from a Singapore of old" is independent analysis of the company and provides societal context about the earlier history of the company.

The article later notes: "Time seems to stand still the moment you step into the shop. Burlap sacks of coffee beans pile up against plywood shelves sagging under the weight of coffee pots, strainers and cups. In the middle of the shop floor, three prized traditional hand-grinders glint atop containers of coffee beans, browned to varying degrees. The grinders have been there since the shop's humble beginnings and were originally bought from a Singaporean manufacturer, Zhi Min Zao, which has now ceased operations." This is very in-depth analysis of the journalist's observations of what the shop looks like. None of this information is based on the shop's website. Several other paragraphs discuss the company's early history and how it was passed from father to son. This is independent reporting that the journalist gathered through her research. That some facts about the company's history (such as its being founded in 1959 and that Lam Yeo is Hokkien for "Nanyang") are present on the company's website does not mean the article is non-independent. These are important facts about the company that any article discussing its history should always include.

Through these two sources alone, Lam Yeo Coffee Powder meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The coverage in the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post is not needed for the company to meet the notability guidelines. Although brief, it demonstrates that the shop has received international attention which most local shops never receive. The brief article from ThePeak is also not needed for the company to meet the notability guidelines. I am citing it here because the author provided independent opinion about what he observed the shop to be like when she visited. She called it "A sepia-toned vision of coffee culture".

Cunard (talk) 01:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response If I've understood you correctly, you're saying that a journalist's "observations" (the Straits Times) about what can be "seen" and "smelled" in the shop constitutes "in-depth analysis" of the company? And that the information about how many "signature blends" are available is in-depth even though that info is repeated in nearly all the references and is available on their website"? Or again in the "Business Times" you're saying that the journalist observations about the shop constitutes "very in-depth analysis"? Nonsense. That's trivial reporting by any definition. I'll leave it to others to make up their own minds but those articles are neither "deep" nor "significant" which is the criteria we require. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lam Yeo Coffee Powder is a coffee shop. The journalists visited it to do a review of the shop. The journalists shared their observations and opinions of what it was like to be in the shop. Their reviews constitute "independent commentary" about the subject so establish notability under Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Independent sources. As part of their reporting, the journalists conducted "independent fact-checking" and "independent research" into the shop through their discussion of its history. I do not view the information as being copied from the subject. There is significant coverage in reliable sources that are both functionally independent and intellectually independent of the subject to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Independent sources. Cunard (talk) 09:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IMO that does not meet the letter or intent for the type and depth of coverage required. North8000 (talk) 10:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources meet both the letter and intent for the type and depth of coverage required under the guideline. From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Product reviews:
Significant reviews are where the author has personally experienced or tested the product and describes their experiences in some depth, provides broader context, and draws comparisons with other products. Reviews that narrowly focus on a particular product or function without broader context (e.g. review of a particular meal without description of the restaurant as a whole) do not count as significant sources. Reviews that are too generic or vague to make the determination whether the author had personal experience with the reviewed product are not to be counted as significant sources.
The journalists "personall experienced" or visited the coffee shop "and describ[e] their experiences in some depth [and] provid[e] broader context" about the shop's history. Cunard (talk) 10:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response First, NCORP guidelines are for topics about companies/organizations *or* products/services. You don't use a product "review" to establish notability of the company and vice versa which is what you appear to be saying. The topic of this article is the company, not the "product". Second, even if that was OK, the "product" of this company is not the experience of walking into the shop, but I imagine its actually coffee. It would be akin to saying that someone's experience in the flagship Apple store in NYC counts as a review of the iPhone 11 and therefore Apple is notable. That is neither the letter nor the intent of NCORP guidelines. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Product reviews includes restaurants so as a coffee shop, Lam Yeo Coffee Powder is within scope. I quoted the guideline to show that the guideline supports using journalists' personal experiences and observations in establishing notability for products. Just as a restaurant review that discusses a restaurant's ambience and history constitutes significant coverage so too does a coffee shop review that discusses the coffee shop's ambience and history establish notability. There is no basis to say that the 929-word article in The Straits Times and a 584-word article in The Business Times that contain original commentary and independent reporting do not establish notability. Cunard (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, a coffee shop is not the same as a restaurant and is not covered - if it was, the guidelines would qualify the scope of businesses covered by "restaurant" to include all manner of establishments. But even if for argument's sake we agree to use that part of the guideline (which I don't), the article still doesn't establish notability. The guideline says that the review must be significant where the reviewer as personally experienced or tested the product and describes their experiences in some depth, provides broader context, and draws comparisons with other products. Where's all that? Where, for example, is the description of the author's experience sipping the famous beverage and comparing to a Starbucks or whatever? There's nothing in either of those references that meets the criteria so by your own selected section of NCORP guidelines, the references fail WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From The Straits Times, "Doused with milk and left to sit in mugs, the resulting woody fragrance wafts through the humid room. Ah, coffee. Not from Starbucks, UCC or Lavazza, but Singapore's own Lam Yeo Coffee Powder." Cunard (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Nothing in that even suggests a single drop passed the reviewers lips. And mentioning other famous coffee brands does not qualify as drawing comparisons. That's not even a review, never mind a significant review. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I don't see the in-depth coverage required for NCORP. MB 14:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree with applying the high bar of NCORP in general compared to what we'd apply to restaurants. The coverage presented here is sufficient to indicate notability. On the subject of notability not being inherited from product reviews, this is true, but not entirely relevant. If a company's product is notable, we should either have an article on the company, the product, or both. It would not make sense to have a standalone article on this company's product (Coffee powder produced by Lam Yeo Coffee Powder Factory); it simply makes more sense to have an article on the company instead. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is well said, especially regarding when to create a company or product article. Thank you, Elli (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 19:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per analyzing and sources providing by Cunard and reasoning by Elli.ZanciD (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Q&A with Cade Thompson". Peer Magazine | The Salvation Army. Retrieved 2022-05-10.

[2] "Cade Thompson". Positive Encouraging K-LOVE. Retrieved 2022-05-10.

[3] ""Every Step of the Way" Points to God's Faithfulness". Positive Encouraging K-LOVE. Retrieved 2022-05-15.

[4] "Cade Thompson". RED STREET RECORDS. Retrieved 2022-05-17.

[5] "Cade Thompson Artist Profile | Biography And Discography | NewReleaseToday". www.newreleasetoday.com. Retrieved 2022-05-17.

[6] "Singer/Songwriter Cade Thompson Has a Burden on His Heart for Generation Next". CBN.com - The Christian Broadcasting Network. 2021-06-22. Retrieved 2022-05-17.

[7] "Cade Thompson demonstrates how far faith can take us". LIFE 96.5. 2021-08-18. Retrieved 2022-05-17.

[8] "StackPath". www.ccmmagazine.com. Retrieved 2022-05-17.

[9] "StackPath". www.ccmmagazine.com. Retrieved 2022-05-17.

[10] "Sri Lankan troops on streets after protesters torch leaders' homes in night of unrest". BBC News. 10 May 2022.

[11] "Sri Lanka: MP dies in stand-off with angry protesters as homes of politicians set on fire in escalating violence". Sky News. 9 May 2022.

[12] Handunnetti, Dilrukshi (9 May 2022). "In Sri Lanka, a prime minister is gone. What next?". www.aljazeera.com.

[Lead030403-13] Conlin, Shaun (April 3, 2003). "Shows dedicated to gamer's lifestyle". The Leader-Post. Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada. p. A9. Retrieved May 1, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.

[14] ttps://community.myunion.edu/alumni-spotlight-at-72-robert-w-mcgee-is-just-getting-started/

[15] ttps://www.teenvogue.com/story/michael-nicholson-college-55-years-30-degrees-advice

[16] ttps://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/2012/06/heres_the_list_of_29_degrees_k.html

[17] ttps://www.vice.com/en/article/wdbnmz/college-advice-from-a-man-with-30-degrees

[18] ttps://www.nydailynews.com/news/71-year-old-man-29-college-degrees-counting-michael-nicholson-kalamazoo-michigan-aiming-33-34-degrees-article-1.1099395

[19] "Leder av Republicans Abroad Norway: Ikke sett beviser på voldelig storming" [Leader of Republicans Abroad Norway: No evidence of violent raid]. www.abcnyheter.no (in Norwegian). 7 January 2021.

[20] Bakken, Av Jenny Dahl (7 January 2021). "Republikaner-leder i Norge: – Jeg har ikke sett noen beviser på at stormingen var voldelig" ["Republican leader in Norway: I have not seen any evidence that the raid was violent"]. Dagsavisen (in Norwegian).

[21] Paust, Thomas (5 January 2022). "Professor ber Canada forberede seg på det utenkelige: - USA kan bli styrt av et høyrevridd diktatur innen 2030" [Professor asks Canada to prepare for the unthinkable: The United States could be ruled by a right-wing dictatorship by 2030]. Nettavisen (in Norwegian).

[22] Bakken, Av Jenny Dahl (6 October 2020). "Austin (31) i Drammen: – Jeg syns Trump har gjort en god jobb" [Austin (31) in Drammen: I think Trump has done a good job]. Dagsavisen (in Norwegian).

[23] "Republikanere i Norge tar avstand fra Donald Trumps oppfordring til hvit maktgruppe". www.aftenposten.no (in Norwegian Bokmål). 30 September 2020.

[24] "Ut fra hva han har gjort, er det lett å stemme på Trump én gang til" [Based on what he has done, it is easy to vote for Trump once again]. www.aftenposten.no (in Norwegian Bokmål). 31 October 2020.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[1]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]