Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 May 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 15	May 17 >

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 delete. ✗plicit 15:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yahweh's Assembly in Yahshua

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

This is a very minor religious organization with purely self-published references as it stands and all of 3 news hits, with the Daily Beast and CBS news articles both basically being takedown pieces - so, if it stays up, it should probably reflect these. Google Scholar is similarly sad. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and United States of America. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- despite trying to be much more, the "services" section of the website refers to Worship meetings in a single place each Sabbath. This makes clear that this is essentially a local church, not a denomination. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "... a splinter group from the Yahweh's New Covenant Assembly, which was a splinter from Yahweh's Assembly in Messiah, which stemmed from the Assembly of Yahweh group." seems rather progressively attenuated. Manannan67 (talk) 03:31, 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 delete. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Nemtin

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

WP:BLP of a writer and television personality, not reliably sourced as passing our notability criteria for writers or television personalities. The referencing here consists almost entirely of primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as IMDb and YouTube videos and content self-published by his own employers, with the only semi-reliable source in the bunch being a university student newspaper that glancingly mentions the show Nemtin was on without ever mentioning Nemtin as an individual, thus not counting as a data point in support of his standalone notability. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Television, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Second time this article has been AFD'd and still lacks coverage in RS/secondary sources. Megtetg34 (talk) 05:45, 23 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Vishwanath Shetty

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

Non-notable person for single event. Does not meet WP:NCRIME Whiteguru (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and India. Whiteguru (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NCRIME really just tells us to make sure there are good sources (I think there are) and directs us to the full guidance at WP:CRIME. WP:CRIME, as I read it, cautions against a separate article for the person (all good, that's not the situation here), cautions about BLP compliance (I think this is fine, but will update my !vote if someone says otherwise) and that it's well documents (I think it is, there are multiple news sources). So to me, I think it's in line with the guidelines, which supplement the WP:GNG, which I think is met. But if I've missed something, please specifically tell me how and I'll revisit my !vote CT55555 (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CT55555 NCRIME is in the EVENT page. This may pass WP:EVENT as there are articles from 2015 and 2022, so durability is there. And there were section 144 after murder.

If an article passes NEVENT but fails NCRIME, then such articles should be deleted? And how is this biography article as the nominator is saying? Ivan Tsar (talk) 09:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A merge might be appropriate if there is a suitable target, but the nom makes no argument for deletion. Facially, this article seems to cite to ample independent reliable sources to meet the threshold of WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT. As for WP:NCRIME, in its current entirety that section reads as follows:

Articles about criminal acts,[5] particularly those that fall within the category of "breaking news", are frequently the subject of deletion discussions. As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources.

The disappearance of a person would fall under this guideline if law enforcement agencies deemed it likely to have been caused by criminal conduct, regardless of whether a perpetrator is identified or charged. If a matter is deemed notable, and to be a likely crime, the article should remain even if it is subsequently found that no crime occurred (e.g., the Runaway bride case) since that would not make the matter less notable.
NCRIME thus does not provide any distinct grounds for deletion. -- Visviva (talk) 23:00, 23 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. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus as to what should be done about this article. There is clearly not a consensus to delete. The support for keeping an article invokes a thread of sufficiency from a rather poorly articulated policy, but it can not be said to be clearly against policy. Nothing in this close forecloses an immediate proposed merger with a better developed supertopic article (a proposal also made but not further developed in this discussion). BD2412 T 05:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United Kingdom, Vilnius

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

Embassy buildings are required to meet WP:NBUILDING which this does not. All buildings "require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability" - this has none. AusLondonder (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Bilateral relations, Lithuania, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could find no sourcing that would establish why the building the embassy is housed in is notable. All I turned up were links to the UK embassy itself.TH1980 (talk) 03:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no inherent notability about embassies. Fails WP:NBUILDING. LibStar (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Listed cultural heritage building on the Lithuanian Registry of Cultural Property ([1]), so clearly meets WP:GEOFEAT. The entry has a link to a description. Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lithuania is a small country (65,300 km2, less than 3 million population) with approx 25,000 buildings with heritage listings. I do not believe a reasonable, sensible approach is that all those buildings are inherently notable. AusLondonder (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline, however, says that they are! Basically, your argument is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would also point out that a building like this would be heritage listed in most countries, however many buildings they listed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you able to get any useful information out of the listing? I looked it over, but it is incredibly sparse on text so I didn't even bother trying to translate it. Articles still need to be verifiable. Something being notable is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for an article. Rockphed (talk) 05:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In what possible way is this not verifiable? In any case, I have a suspicion you didn't click on the link that gives far more detail about the building ([2]). -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Necrothesp. Listed buildings have been clearly been noted by a reliable third-party source. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp. Respublik (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:16, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article about a building or the diplomatic mission? It seems to be the latter, so WP:GEOFEAT and WP:NBUILDING do not apply as this is not an article about a building.Lurking shadow (talk) 12:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe move to Antakalnio Street 2 and rewrite as a building article? The building was made a cultural heritage building before the embassy moved in. But the embassy itself does not seem notable. Lurking shadow (talk) 13:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's both. Although I have no objection to it being moved to the name of the building (Antakalnio gatve 2). -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as building article. Rewrite as building article, if warranted. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp. Atchom (talk) 20:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Closing admin should disregard plain votes of which there are now at least two, that say literally nothing more than "keep per Necrothesp". WP:PNSD states ""Votes" without reasoning may carry little to no weight in the formation of a final consensus" AusLondonder (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If my rationale has already been articulated by another editor, as is the case here, I don't consider it necessary to repeat them in extensio as opposed to adopting them by incorporation. Nothing in the guidelines forbids this. Atchom (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, but you do not address the building/diplomatic mission problem that came up. Your comment can be safely disregarded because you do not appear to try to form a consensus. Lurking shadow (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You should have been here long enough to know that "keep per X" is perfectly acceptable shorthand for "the other editor has said exactly what I think". It should most certainly not be disregarded by the closer and any attempt to do so would be in breach of the closer's responsibilities. Complaining about it is tantamount to suggesting you're angry that other editors don't agree with you and are trying to get their opinions disregarded for that reason. It never ceases to amaze me the lengths that editors will go to get articles deleted once they've decided they don't like them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is supported by 3 sources, 2 of which are not independent and the third does not have any data with which to verify the rest of the article. Some people have suggested that an article about the building itself is viable; I have no problem with people figuring out how to write that article. But this article adds essentially nothing as a base to start that article. Rockphed (talk) 05:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "Presumed to be notable" however we do not currently have independent, reliable sources to back up that presumption. Let's see if another seven days helps that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi: Are you taking position here? Djflem (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Djflem. I'm not, I was simply relisting and noting a challenge with the existing !votes and what's said in the guideline. It is unclear whether "a" source is sufficient and more input on that front would help the closing admin. Star Mississippi 18:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Presumed to be notable" however we do not currently have independent, reliable sources to back up that presumption. Does nobody read links? We do indeed have an independent, reliable source as to the building's notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have two .uk sources which by their definition are not independent leaving us with this source which is connected with this one you linked above. This is why I relisted, because no don't have sourceS to back up that presumption. Star Mississippi 16:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To quote once more: Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable. Not, are presumed to be notable if multiple sources can be found. That would be changing an established guideline to make it fit your own beliefs as to what it should say. We clearly have "verifiable information beyond simple statistics". It therefore clearly meets the requirements of the notability guideline. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understand, presumed to be notable is the same issue we have with the sports guidelines v. GNG. Presumed notable, means presuming coverage that hasn't been found to exist. At the top it says Geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable so I don't think I'm adding anything that isn't there, albeit in a different section. It is unclear whether this building meets the GNG. But we agree to disagree as we have in other areas, and I'm happy to leave it there. Star Mississippi 17:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Necrothesp, but probably merge to Lithuania–United Kingdom relations until there is more than a brief paragraph's worth of content on the building itself. -- Visviva (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete having stayed in the grounds of this building and visited the Embassy itself I would say that there is nothing here that shows the building to be a separately notable place like other British Embassy buildings and the diplomatic content is as boilerplate as the start and end of a note verbal. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability established with references such as its inclusion on the Lithuanian Register of Cultural Property. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NBUILDING is not well-written, but my reading of the discussions that lead to it is that cultural heritage or national heritage is meant to be a sufficient condition for an artificial geographic feature to be notable. Some above have argued that they don't like that Lithuania has a large number of buildings on their cultural heritage list, but there's a community consensus (via the NGEO guideline) that these sorts of lists are valuable measures of notability. There's no inherent notability for embassies, of course, but this is moot given inclusion on the cultural heritage list. Since criterion 1 of WP:N explicitly allows for an WP:SNG to be met even when the WP:GNG is not met, and an article still be notable in that case, the arguments that this fails GNG also don't provide a compelling reason to delete. The editor who argued that their overnight stay at the building didn't give them the impression that the building was notable does not seem compelling whatsoever in light of the WP:PAG not caring at all about the vibe the building gives off when one personally visits it. For these reasons, my reading of guidelines is that this building merits an article and should be kept. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The register of Cultural property listing actually says nothing interesting about the building. The date of construction is given rather imprecisely - 18th-19th century, and that’s it. Nothing is said about the architectural style, or about any interesting features of the structure, or about the architect. If that’s all we have, it’s not worth keeping the article. Nwhyte (talk) 09:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fact of its inclusion on the Register of Cultural Property alone is enough to establish its general notability. Additional detail about architectural style, etc., would be nice but is simply not necessary. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 10:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Meatsgains^(talk) 13:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Azerion Group N.V.

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

Procedurally completing nomination for Meatsgains (talk · contribs), who may edit this accordingly. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated for AfD as this is a non-notable corporation lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 22:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Meatsgains:

Azerion is a digital entertainment and media company based in Schiphol-Rijk (Amsterdam). They recently became a publicly listed company and are a very notable corporation in the gaming world; covering digital publishing, game creation, and ad tech. As they have significant coverage in reliable news sources (Reuters, Silicon Canals, Tech Times, Tech.eu, etc) I have created a Wikipedia page for them as they are a thriving enterprise. As Azerion is a Dutch company, they have a Wikipedia page written in Dutch. I have taken it upon myself to create an English language Wikipedia page to get more reach globally (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azerion).

I have made more contributions to my wikipedia article to further prove their notability and will continue making changes until it meets Wikipedia's standards.

Thank you,

Asenazeliha ~~~~ Asenazeliha (talk) 08:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Netherlands. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:37, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Inexcusably forgot the WP:NPOL provision. (non-admin closure) The Gnome (talk) 22:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mabel Ruth Baker

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

Article about a Colorado state legislator without any significant claim to fame or notability. Subject fails WP:GNG and even more so WP:NPOL. What one can find online or off are trivia such as : typically laconic, mandatory mentions in the 1923 edition of Laws Passed by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado; a report in the Colorado State Teachers College Mirror newspaper about legislators visiting Colorado State University, in which our subject's mentioned once; and a Colorado State student's write up about Baker, copied from a database that lists almost every woman that attained a political position (and even that text admits that Baker's "most active year" was 1921 when she chaired the Education Committee). That's practically all. But Wikipedia is neither a directory nor a historical journal. -The Gnome (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Colorado. Shellwood (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Legislators pass WP:NPOL. There is no dispute that the subject did serve in the Colorado legislature. --Enos733 (talk) 22:29, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo media

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

Unnecessary article. Most of the content can be easily addressed in the main article of the series. It also has just one source. - Xexerss (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan - Xexerss (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems to be an unnecessary split from the main article, that is redundant. The information on the various releases that is covered here is already also discussed (with sources!) on the main Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo article, and the voice cast is properly included on the corresponding character list. Rorshacma (talk) 01:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the content here is already concisely covered in the main article or the character list. Completely unnecessary split and nothing worth merging. Link20XX (talk) 05:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like anything worth mentioning is already covered in other articles.--70.24.251.91 (talk) 02:39, 21 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 23:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neo & Farina

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

Non-notable band with lack of coverage found in WP:RS. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 21:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 21:56, 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 keep. Sources were provided in the discussion, which essentially nullifies the concept of no sources being found, because several were provided here, hence they have since been findable. It has been over a week, and the nominator has not checked back in to discuss the sources that have since been found. The nominator has not cited any guidelines or policies qualifying deletion, only stating that they could not find sources. However, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles, and a user not being able to find sources does not equate to automatic non-notability, particularly when a specific notability guideline or other Wikipedia policy is not cited. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Manhunters: Fugitive Task Force

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

No sourcing found despite the show lasting three seasons. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I mean I added a source when I removed the prod, so at least one form of sourcing had been found. Did some more searching through Newsbank, and now have added 4 more sources from 2008-2011. There are other articles out there, but wasn't any new information to credit or cite from. There's several articles about Luddie Austin who was on the latter two season(not listen on main cast atm), some bios of him, but most dealing with the murder of his son and then the followup arrest(by same task force the show follows) & trial. Lenny DePaul also gets a lot of solo coverage, he was main guy for this show/unit, but he also was on the shows Hunted (2017 TV series) and Hunting Hitler, so there's articles just about him and his career. Neither notable for their own article, but enough coverage to have an expanded bio here if we wanted. WikiVirusC^(talk) 22:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WikiVirusC^(talk) 22:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Wade, Will (2022-02-24). "Manhunters: Fugitive Task Force. TV review by Will Wade, Common Sense Media". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
  The review notes: "Like many actual police investigations, Manhunters features plenty of mundane incidents punctuated by brief moments of real danger. ... Despite the many fictional films and TV shows that feature people evading capture on the run, the reality show version makes it clear that the odds are heavily against the fugitive. ... it's obvious that these are real people performing a really dangerous job. It may be too intense for younger viewers, but teens and adults with a taste for this topic will find it interesting."
2. McDonough, Kevin (2008-12-09). "TV Guy: Fugitives can run, but they can't hide". Times Herald-Record. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
  The article notes: "The reality series "Manhunters: Fugitive Task Force" (10 p.m., A&E) adds little to the genre, but it does feature a few memorable real-life characters with Brooklyn and Bronx accents as thick as a pastrami sandwich. ... Based in New York but called to action all over the country, the task force goes after the most dangerous criminals at large. They were part of the hunt for the Washington sniper, and tonight they go from Brooklyn to Los Angeles after the ringleader of a gang called the Jamaican Spray Posse, an organization that touts more than 1,400 homicides."
3. "TV spotlight will shine on Utica tonight - Focus of 'Manhunters:' Star's memories of city, area fugitive". Observer-Dispatch. 2011-04-07. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
  The article notes: "Television viewers tonight will get a glimpse of what it's like to take a wanted fugitive off the streets of Utica on the A & E show "Manhunters: Fugitive Task Force." The episode is expected to feature clips of the show's star - Utica native Lenny DePaul, who is commander of the U.S. Marshals Service New York/New Jersey Regional Fugitive Task Force - returning to some of the places he remembers from growing up in the area. ... Tonight's episode will center on the house-to-house hunt for 25-year-old ..."
4. Reilly, P.J. (2009-07-21). "Fugitive arrested on Penn Square as television camera rolls". Intelligencer Journal-Lancaster New Era. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
  The article notes: "A&E Television's "Manhunters: Fugitive Task Force" came to Lancaster July 14 to track down Tyler Mix, 36, who was wanted by police in Spring Valley, N.Y., for attempted homicide. And as they do week in and week out on the program, Lenny DePaul, commanding officer of the U.S. Marshals Service New York/New Jersey Regional Fugitive Task Force - the show's primary manhunter - and deputized U.S. Marshal Roxanne Lopez, who is a detective with the Spring Valley Police Department, got their man. ... And as they do week in and week out on the program, Lenny DePaul, commanding officer of the U.S. Marshals Service New York/New Jersey Regional Fugitive Task Force - the show's primary manhunter - and deputized U.S. Marshal Roxanne Lopez, who is a detective with the Spring Valley Police Department, got their man."
5. LaDuca, Rocco (2010-11-14). "Former Utican hunting the "worst of the worst' on A&E show". Observer-Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
  The article notes: "Last week, the former Utican and Vernon-Verona-Sherrill High School graduate was accompanied by a camera crew from A&E's television show "Manhunters: Fugitive Task Force" as he and local law enforcement officers stormed the Utica area in search of fugitives. ... Since first airing on A&E in late 2008, the half-hour reality show has followed DePaul and a cast of other officers across the country and overseas to hunt down some of the most dangerous fugitives. ... The show's goal has been to shed light on the aggressive and cooperative efforts of the fugitive task force, created by Congress in 2002 following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. ... The pursuit of Gaston symbolizes the type of case the show's producers typically look for in an episode."
6. Adario, Sharon (2010-01-10). "N.J., N.Y. fugitive task force reality show 'Manhunters' films second season". The Star-Ledger. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
  The article notes: ""Manhunters: Fugitive Task Force," a reality show about the federal agency’s New York/New Jersey Regional Fugitive Task Force, was filming its second season for the A&E network last month. In episodes that are scheduled to start airing Jan. 14, the men and women of the Marshals Service hunt down the most violent fugitives, whether on the streets of Newark or San Juan. ...The series drew an average 1.6 million viewers during its first season. The Marshals Service gave the green light for the series because of its public relations value, DePaul said. ... Six of the upcoming 21 episodes were shot either partially or completely in New Jersey, with locations ranging from the state’s larger cities — Newark, Trenton and Camden, for example — to smaller South Jersey communities such as Deptford and Swedesboro."
7. LaDuca, Rocca (2011-03-19). "A&E's "Manhunters' episode to focus on Utica". Observer-Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
  The article notes: "Television viewers will get a glimpse of what it's like to take a wanted fugitive off the streets of Utica in an upcoming episode of the A&E show "Manhunters: Fugitive Task Force" scheduled to air in April. ... The episode, titled "Scarred for Life," is scheduled to air on A&E at 10 p.m. Thursday, April 7. The new season kicked off March 17."
8. Less significant coverage:
  1. "Baby's First Day - The Big Bang Theory - So You Think You Can Dance - Manhunters: Fugitive Task Force". The Westerly Sun. 2011-05-22. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
    The article notes: "Manhunters: Fugitive Task Force. Commander Lenny DePaul is briefed on a situation involving a fugitive who was deported several years ago after an incident with his ex-wife. Authorities have reason to believe he's back in the country, and his ex may be in danger."
  2. "Rules of Engagement - Pawn Queens - Outsourced - Manhunters: Fugitive Task Force". The Westerly Sun. 2011-05-01. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
    The article notes: "Manhunters: Fugitive Task Force. A major gun store heist prompts a 5 a.m. briefing with Commander Lenny DePaul, who meets with Supervisory Inspector Greg Holmes about the case. Concerned the perpetrators will try to sell the guns on the street, the team wastes no time."
  3. "Wipeout - The Paul Reiser Show - Outsourced - Manhunters: Fugitive Task Force". The Westerly Sun. 2011-04-10. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
    The article notes: "Manhunters: Fugitive Task Force. Senior Parole Officer Vinny Senzamici and his team won't rest until they find a Level 3 sex offender on the run. After visiting a mother of one of his victims, Senzamici becomes even more determined to find him before sunrise."
  4. "Police Women of Broward County - The Big Bang Theory - CSI: Crime Scene Investigation - Manhunters: Fugitive Task Force". The Westerly Sun. 2011-04-03. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
    The article notes: "Manhunters: Fugitive Task Force. Commander Lenny DePaul heads back to his hometown of Utica, New York, to track down a dangerous woman in this premiere. The suspect allegedly used a box cutter to slash a former friend in the face. Later, the marshals look for a parole violator."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Manhunters: Fugitive Task Force to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Online Nation

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

Very short lived show. Couldn't find anything beyond a single review from Common Sense Media. Prod contested on that alone Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Internet. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Review at New York Times [3], another at Hollywood Reporter [4], and one at Pittsburgh Post-Gazette [5] DonaldD23 talk to me 22:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources giving significant coverage have been found. Dream Focus 22:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources found by Donaldd23. The subject meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 09:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage from multiple well known publications listed above, along with CSM review mentioned in nomination. Passes GNG WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:56, 22 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 23:44, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Riverine Assault Craft

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

This page inappropriately is being used to describe a multitude of boats of the United States Navy and United States Marine Corps. There are several different boats considered "RAC", and if this page exist, it should be a disambiguation page which directs to articles that represent the said boats, if there is even enough information to make pages on them. At least 3 different boats are considered "RAC": the RAC-28 (an interceptor/interdiction boat), RAC-55 (a transport) and the Swift Riverine Assault Craft, 11 Meter (also a transport). This page also improperly shows a "RAB", the "riverine assault boat", which is a different boat altogether.

Monstarules (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 May 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:26, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evacuate Earth

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

Deprodded because of NYT review, but I could find literally nothing else. Tagged for notability since 2016. Prod contested Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is one episode of a TV Series. I don't normally participate in discussions like this, but I have to ask this. If one episode of a series is noted as unimportant, subjecting the article page to face deletion, then all episodes of that series should get the same treatment. Everything is "notable" to someone. My understanding when Wikipedia was launched is that the content of the pages and the creation of the pages would be up to whoever cared about those pages. Now we're just deciding that all of the work done is unimportant. Which discourages anyone from making any change on this site. I no longer care if the pages that I've worked on over the last 20 years are deleted on Wikipedia. I've given up on trying. Do what you will. Chadlupkes (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In addition to the NYT in depth coverage I also found:

http://www.ravinglunaticmedia.com/scifimalady/2019/9/8/symptom-124-evacuate-earth-apocalypse-soon (seems significant, I didn't listen to all 50 minutes, it's an online podcast....suitable for documentary review? It does suggest notability..
http://philosophyswalk.blogspot.com/2013/04/documentary-review-evacuate-earth-2012.html (significant coverage, it's a blog, by a teacher....reliable, I assume not.
https://screenrant.com/forgotten-canceled-nat-geo-shows/ (trivial mention)
https://documentaryheaven.com/evacuate-earth/ (trivial mention)

So not much, although the NYT piece is rock solid, so could this add up, did anyone else find more sources? CT55555 (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [6] Ledger-Enquirer (Columbus, Georgia) 05 Dec 2012, Wed Page D2. That and the New York Times article, equals significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Dream Focus 23:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a press release. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think that? Dream Focus 23:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because 1.) it's attributed to "New York Times News Service", and 2.) it's next to the TV Guide. TV Guide used to run press release blurbs adjacent to the listings like that all the time Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It reads like a review not a press release. Dream Focus 23:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's at best a lighthearted overview of several upcoming television shows with a common theme. I would not consider it "significant coverage" for Evacuate Earth. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Science. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (I commented above also) Due to this source I found, plus the existing NYT coverage.

Viewing to fuel your anxieties. (2014, Feb 25). The Press Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/viewing-fuel-your-anxieties/docview/1501427197/ CT55555 (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "Viewing to fuel your anxieties". The Dominion Post. 2014-02-25. ProQuest 1501426264.
  The review provides 499 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "New series Evacuate Earth (Tuesdays, 8.30pm, National Geographic) looks at possible apocalyptic scenarios. Tonight's episode, Micro Monsters, focuses on the risks associated with nano technology. If last week's episode, Zombie Apocalypse, was anything to go by expect lots of over-dramatised scenes of terrified crowds, fake news coverage and doomladen background music. Hyperbole is the key word here and I was prepared for some implausible nonsense. But actually the whole premise drew me in more than I thought it would. ... There were plenty of talking heads thrown in to lend some credibility. But they too had bought into the drama with one of them describing "rabid people overflowing into the streets". .... There are plenty of cool graphics, some history in cartoon form and stacks of amazing facts. It's all pulled together by suave presenter and astrophysicist Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson. Super stuff."
2. Hale, Mike (2012-11-30). "No End in Sight for Doomsaying". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
  The article notes: "The lineup will include three new programs: “Evacuate Earth” (Sunday night) ... That puts “Evacuate Earth” on the firmest ground (so to speak). It posits a possible, if unlikely, event — a collapsed star’s passing through our solar system, tearing apart the planets one by one — and then physicists, astronomers and other scientists outline how we might respond in the decades we would have between first warning and final moments. It’s essentially science fiction, cheap and cheesy, with lots of stock scenes of explosions, fires and chaotic crowds, but it’s consistently interesting. A 15-mile-long spaceship carrying 250,000 people is proposed, propelled by nuclear bombs exploding behind a huge plate covering the back of the ship. (An antimatter drive is considered and rejected; in one of the show’s satisfyingly pulpy moments, a private spaceship full of billionaires explodes on the launching pad when its antimatter seal leaks.) ... At times, though, “Evacuate Earth” shows some restraint. A discussion of the search for a hospitable new planet mentions that the presence of life there will be important, without going on to say, “so we can eat it.”"
3. "Embry-Riddle featured in National Geo 'doomsday' show". The Daytona Beach News-Journal. 2012-11-28. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.
  The article notes: "Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University will be featured in a special television show called "Evacuate Earth" on the National Geographic Channel. ... The two-hour special explores the possibility of building spacecraft to fly humans to "new and habitable words" if Earth "faced a countdown to destruction," according to National Geographic."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Evacuate Earth to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:07, 22 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 23:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John David Whalen

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

Unmistakably promotional, and fails WP:NACTOR. Possible undisclosed paid contributions. – Ploni (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ploni (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Baltimore Sun article seems notable, can't find much else though... He was in the John Glenn movie, if he was the star, that would seem to make him notable. I can't do a deep dive at this time for it, however. Oaktree b (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Glenn appears to be a very minor character in the film (not mentioned in the film's article, for instance), and not significant enough to satisfy the first criterion of WP:NACTOR. The Sun article is a local interest story (Whalen is from Baltimore), and I haven't been able to find significant coverage elsewhere. –Ploni (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivial role. Oaktree b (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a local interest story and minor roles do not notability make.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:36, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feller Brown

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

Elected local official with no significant coverage; fails notability criteria for politicians and general notability guidelines. – Ploni (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Tennessee. Ploni (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article on a local politician sourced to the local government website and local publications. Nothing rising to what would demonstrate actual notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run of the mill in regards to subject and field. Fails to establish notability in his own right. NiklausGerard (talk) 19:43, 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Crafton

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

Elected local official with no significant coverage; fails notability criteria for politicians and WP:GNG. – Ploni (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Tennessee. Ploni (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a local politician covered in light of votes on local issues, there is nothing here that demonstrates the broad notability we ask when having articles on local politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 19:44, 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 keep. WP:SNOW close, overwhelming community consensus that members of US state assemblies are notable, per WP:NPOL. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Gotto

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

Elected local official with no significant coverage; fails notability criteria for politicians and WP:GNG. – Ploni (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Tennessee. Ploni (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:NPOL as he served in the Tennessee House of Representatives. U.S. state level politicians are notable per WP:NPOL. ColinBear (talk - contribs) 21:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right—not sure how I missed that. I'd happily withdraw the nomination. –Ploni (talk) 23:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since state legislators are notable. However this really feels like a relic of extreme presentism from 2005 where a knee jerk reaction to possible violence that seems to have never gone anywhere is given very undue weight by the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets plank #1 of WP:NPOL. Sal2100 (talk) 19:02, 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Forkum

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

Elected local official with no significant coverage; fails notability criteria for politicians and WP:GNG. – Ploni (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Tennessee. Ploni (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing here is not enough to justify an article on a local politcian.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 19:26, 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Cole (legislator)

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

Elected local official with no significant coverage; fails notability criteria for politicians and WP:GNG. – Ploni (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Tennessee. Ploni (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not every local politican who votes on an issue that gets media coverage becomes notable for such. Cole is not a legislator how that term is normally used, he is serving at the county level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 19:33, 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 23:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Craddock

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

Non-notable elected local official; fails notability criteria for politicians. – Ploni (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Tennessee. Ploni (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable local politican covered only in local sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 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. RL0919 (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of chairmen of the Tyumen Oblast Duma

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

Lack of notability. When the Duma itself is not notable enough, do not make this list. Gabe114 (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, Lists, and Russia. Gabe114 (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OP. Two items does not a list make. — Czello 19:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This Duma isn't "not notable", it's just no one has just gotten around to creating it yet. Curbon7 (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, yes delete this particular article. Fails WP:NLIST with only 2 items. Curbon7 (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am also nominating the page List of chairmen of the Ulyanovsk Oblast Duma for delation. Gabe114 (talk) 19:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too small for having a stand-alone article. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NLIST. Cheers, --WellThisIs TheReaper ^Grim 19:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons given above. Athel cb (talk) 09:20, 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. RL0919 (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rebel Eats

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

Pilot that only aired one episode once. Deprodded with addition of sources, but there still isn't enough content here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:59, 1 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?)} 00:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per TenPoundHammer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.145.163.110 (talk) 06:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This anonymous editor appears to have voted "keep per..." in seven AfDs in the space of 10 minutes. NemesisAT (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Myers, Dan. "Justin Warner on 'Rebel Eats' and What Took So Long to Get His Show on the Air". The Daily Meal. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
  The article notes: "The end result, a one-time special called Rebel Eats, will be broadcast Saturday, March 30, at 10 p.m., with the potential for it to be turned into a series if it performs well. ... While traveling the South’s back roads in a beat-up car with little cash in his pocket, Warner meets folks who are similar to him: in a word, rebels."
2. Sagner, Stan (2013-03-24). "Justin Warner, winner of 'Food Network Star,' goes in search of the unusual in his show 'Rebel Eats'". New York Daily News. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
  The article notes: "The culinary enfant terrible of Bed-Stuy, who brought a fresh, irreverent and season-winning perspective to cooking on last season's "Food Network Star," is at it again, this time with the premiere of his show "Rebel Eats." ... Restless for new ideas and armed with a whopping $300 budget courtesy of Food Network, the Alton Brown protégé sets his sights on America's Deep South in a one-hour TV special meant to get (and give) some fresh inspiration from what he regards as his "sick and twisted" culinary soulmates. Over the course of a grueling 12-day odyssey, Warner encounters eccentricity galore, at one point sampling bacon-infused beer and visiting Memphis' legendary Dyer's Burgers, a restaurant that's been recycling and cooking with the same batch of mythical grease for over a century. Delicious."
3. Schelle, Crystal (2013-03-21). "'Rebel' hits the road: Justin Warner's new show premieres Saturday, March 30". The Herald-Mail. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
  The article notes: "Justin Warner might be "The Next Food Network Star," but he wants his viewers to know he hasn't forgotten his Hagerstown roots. Even the title of his new show, "Rebel Eats," which premieres Saturday, March 30, is a wink to the mascot of his alma mater, South Hagerstown High School. ... Armed with $300 and driving his jalopy, he'll be out meeting everyday people and chatting about what they do."
4. Robbins, Caryn (2013-02-18). "Food Network Star Winner Winner Justin Warner to Host REBEL EATS, 3/30". BroadwayWorld. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
  The article notes: "Food Network Star season eight winner Justin Warner hits the road in search of unique culinary rule-breakers in the one-hour special REBEL EATS, airing Saturday, March 30th at 10pm ET/PT on Food Network. Armed with $300 in his pocket, a beat up car and a passion for unconventional food and eccentric people, Justin travels the back roads of the South to try everything from moonshine and bacon beer to BBQ in a jar and jelly fish pasta. Along the way, Justin meets the cooks and proprietors who, like him, march to their own beat through the world of food."
5. Trenda, Hilary (2013-04-03). "'Rebel Eats' on Food Network pays a visit to 10 Park Lanes". The Charlotte Observer. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Charlotte's 10 Park Lanes was featured on the March 30 Food Network special "Rebel Eats," hosted by Season Eight Food Network Star winner Justin Warner. Warner tried the Montford establishment's Mason jar signature stacks, which layer complementary ingredients such as barbecue, beans and mac and cheese in the canning jars. Warner also stuck around to bowl with the Charlotte Roller Girls."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Rebel Eats to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging NemesisAT (talk · contribs), who contested the proposed deletion. Cunard (talk) 11:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources shared by Cunard demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some of the sources found don't seem notable, but together, I think they just push it past the notability bar. Oaktree b (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on sources listed above, at the very least it passes WP:GNG. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:37, 21 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) 08:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

General Code of Operating Rules

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

Fails WP:GNG and is mostly copy/pasted from one source. Ironmatic1 (talk) 03:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ironmatic1 (talk) 03:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are three Wikipedia articles explicitly on railroad operating rules, two of which are nominated for deletion, and more articles on "railway signalling" which might be the broader topic.

Northeast Operating Rules Advisory Committee, at AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northeast Operating Rules Advisory Committee
General Code of Operating Rules, at AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General Code of Operating Rules
Canadian Rail Operating Rules, not at AFD currently

And all of these, plus many more articles, are within broad category , which includes an article for signalling (and operating rules) in each of many countries.

Note that the main article Railway signalling includes a section on Operating Rules.

Please consider commenting at other AFD(s) and closer should consider all AFDs together. --Doncram (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This deletion request fails on at least two levels: (a) First, a standard that is applied by a major subset of an industry is per se relevant. This is e.g. also true for all ISO standards, and also all major laws. It is not necessary by WP standards that the amount of secondary literature about a subject is used as a indicator of the relevance - adoption of something in the real world by itself can make it relevant. (b) But additionally, there are thousands of documents citing and using the GCOR; first of all of course derived rulebooks, but then many FRA documents e.g. about accidents or incidents, and also secondary literature about e.g. adherence to standards. Probably quite a few of these can be found online (FRA documents), but also scientific literature. One article I found after half a minute of googling doesn't even mention the GCOR in its literature list - it just references the GCOR as a well-known resource, and only puts the four letters and their expansion in the abbreviation list. Yet, and of course, one can doubt the quality of an article that does not try to explain why its subjects matters - but this is no reason for deletion, only for improvement. --User:Haraldmmueller 07:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Haraldmmueller: Can you provide a link for "It is not necessary by WP standards that the amount of secondary literature about a subject is used as a indicator of the relevance"? AIUI, the term notability here on WP is a misnomer term of art; an article on an important or useful topic is not necessarily notable. Instead, an article is notable in the WP sense iff the secondary literature is rich enough to write a well-sourced article adequately covering the topic. Thanks, Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 06:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per User:Haraldmmueller's comments. Further, encyclopedic information about GCOR is relevant to many users of Wikipedia interested in information about railways, as indicated by this article's longevity, created in 2007 and edited and improved by many Wikipedians. Truthanado (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since both opposes were basically copy-pasted between Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northeast Operating Rules Advisory Committee and here, I shall copy-paste mine from there as well:

Delete or Redirect to a suitable target. (Noting that I was made aware of this AfD at my talk page [7]) The above arguments against deletion do not make any reference to Wikipedia policy, merely saying "we can't delete it because people use GCOR in the real world!" People use textbooks all the time in the real world, that doesn't mean they are Wikipedia notable. Ideally I'd like to see an article on Railroad safety in the United States or Railroad operations in the United States, where something like this topic could be briefly mentioned. An article's longevity means nothing about its notability. I once got a 10 year old hoax article deleted. That it was present for 10 years did not make it any less of a hoax. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The above arguments against deletion do not make any reference to Wikipedia policy". That's wrong. (a) First, I say that WP's policy(!) is a guideline that is used to establish notability, not a law that formally excludes objects if they do not fit to the letter. WP:GNG is so short and unclear that various subareas created their own, substantially differing notability guidelines - e.g., academics start with "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline", which is not at all "derivable" from the main guidelines WP:GNG; it is "newly invented as a common-senes guideline". By analogy, this guideline could immediately be adapted for standards: The standard has been significantly adopted in its area. That no-one has done this formally is no reason at all that it can't be taken as a common-sense guideline.(*) (b) As I said, there are 1000s of documents using, invoking, commenting (via use and selection) GCOR (and NORAC); just work at the FRA.

What I find astonishing is that someone calling himself Trainsandotherthings tries to remove an article about an obviously very relevant railroad subject. Why would someone want to do that??? - and not instead try to come up with any arguments of why it should be kept, ways of how it could improved, ideas of how we can repair WP if its current practices actually would be inclined to suppress such an obviously relevant topic?? --User:Haraldmmueller 09:08, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(*) Essentially, you make an exclusionary argument: What doesn't fit today's "rules", must die. I make an inclusionary one: What fits a useful interpretation of WP's intention, should remain (or be included).

--User:Haraldmmueller 08:57, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did provide a method of retaining the material in my vote, rather than simply saying "delete". I do not think it is possible to retain a standalone page on the subject. I am quite familiar with these operating rules, in fact I am qualified on NORAC operating rules. But we need reliable, independent, secondary sources to establish notability. Another alternative would be to create a single article on Railroad operating rules as a topic, which is something that likely would meet notability. Operating rules would also be worth mentioning within Rail transport operations. The articles in question (NORAC and GCOR) lack citations to such sources. You keep saying "there are 1000s of documents using, invoking, commenting (via use and selection) GCOR (and NORAC)". If so, can you show some reliable secondary sources discussing the subject?

What I find astonishing is that someone calling himself Trainsandotherthings tries to remove an article about an obviously very relevant railroad subject. Why would someone want to do that??? - and not instead try to come up with any arguments of why it should be kept, ways of how it could improved, ideas of how we can repair WP if its current practices actually would be inclined to suppress such an obviously relevant topic?? This particularly grinds my gears. If you doubt my commitment to improving Wikipedia's coverage of train topics, I invite you to check my content work listed on my userpage, including literally bringing Train to GA status. AfD is not a place to complain about Wikipedia policy. If you want it to be changed, you're more than welcome to start a discussion at the village pump. Your use of terms like "obviously relevant" is but a matter of opinion as it stands - the way to support that argument is to provide examples of significant coverage of the topic in reliable secondary sources, which you have not done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although should be renamed to be more clearly about railroad operating rules and/or signalling, which were needed and are significant. The current article name could be about anything. Operating rules seem important, and there is history involved. It would also be acceptable to merge this into a combined article about railroad operating rules and/or a list-article describing the major ones such as this one. Or specifically it could potentially be merged into Railway signalling#Operating Rules. Personally, I think a list-article could be better in providing context, showing variety of the operating rules adopted. In the absence of an editor actively developing a merged list-article, at the Railway signalling article or separately, keeping seems best for now. --Doncram (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More than enough discussion about the rules and how they apply to railroads, Railway Times, Trains magazine, Railway Age etc in Gnews. Also hits in GScholar. Oaktree b (talk) 19:23, 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. There has been no policy-based input on why this article should be kept. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pyramid Party of India

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

Previously prodded in 2010. No notability asserted, only one source Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - coverage in mainstream media per https://www.vice.com/en/article/j57y7p/political-party-believes-meditation-and-vegetarianism-will-solve-indias-problems-elections , http://www.uniindia.net/pyramid-party-of-india-holds-silent-rally-in-delhi-pledges-go-vegan/india/news/1548951.html, note here https://www.facebook.com/pyramidspiritualsocietiesmovement/photos/a.294463297379382/1153957071429996/ , https://www.facebook.com/PyramidPartyOfIndia/photos/a.561216164369426/568368026987573/ material of mainstream media coverage not available online. Party got 130,362 votes in 2004 election (contesting 13 out of 543 seats). --Soman (talk) 13:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Response The appropriate guideline is NCORP. By itself, "coverage" is not sufficient to establish notability, rather the "content" of the references in question. The Vice reference takes all its information from the website and from quotes made by the leaders. There is very little "Independent Content" (ORGIND) and not enough to meet CORPDEPTH. The UNI India reference appears to be a copy of this Millennium Port article published a day earlier which fails CORPDEPTH and/or ORGIND. Facebook isn't a reliable source. I'm unable to locate any references that provides good in-depth details on the organization and which doesn't rely entirely on information provided by their website or organizers. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:59, 23 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!} 23:20, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:50, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are noticeable. KhinMoTi (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: My close as a functional PROD was challenged, so I have restored it for further discussion per policy. Policy-based input would be very helpful for the next closer. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since this is an organization, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP. As such we therefore require references that discuss the *organization* itself in detail. As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the organization* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". None of the references meet NCORP's criteria for establishing notability. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG, lacking indepth sources. 05:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LibStar (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, primarily under criterion G12, copyright violation. —C.Fred (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Jahangir

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

Non-notable, self-promotional. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All the content is just copied and pasted from [8], so I've marked it for speedy deletion as a copyright infringement ji11720 (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:55, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Defense Intelligence Agency in popular culture

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

Another mostly unreferenced TVtropic listcruft. Like all similar articles (ex. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Navy SEALs in popular culture), it fails numerous policies, guidelines and like: as an 'in popular culture' article, WP:IPC and MOS:POPCULT/TRIVIA, as a list, WP:NLIST and WP:SALAT, as a potential topic, WP:GNG and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, due to lack of references, WP:OR and WP:V. My BEFORE failed to find anything useful to even start rewriting this, plus WP:TNT applies to the current OR list of trivia ("Lost – Kelvin Inman, a member of the Dharma Initiative, is a former DIA officer"). That's what TV Tropes is for, folks _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:24, 16 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} 15:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, textbook example of WP:NOTTVTROPES. No criteria for inclusion, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Intothat darkness 17:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No actual discussion on the topic, just a list of trivia. The only potentially decent source included on the page does not discuss the DIA in popular culture at all, and is merely being used to explain what the DIA is. Rorshacma (talk) 01:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this topic is WP:OR, as there are no reliable independent secondary sources about this topic. To be clear, the DIA is covered by sources, but there isn't any significant coverage about "Defense Intelligence Agency in popular culture", and so this topic does not meet WP:GNG. As with many of these types of articles, someone might find an independent reliable source with WP:SIGCOV that treats this in an encyclopedic manner with analysis/reception/significance. But there would be nothing to WP:PRESERVE from this poorly sourced article. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Instead we should use Category:Defense Intelligence Agency when it is necessary. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 21:44, 21 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 and with policy based input on both sides, it does not appear a consensus is forthcoming. Star Mississippi 03:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of garden plants

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

Prodded by Hyperik and endorsed on talk by Stan Shebs and Peter coxhead, deprodded by Espresso Addict. An unsourced list of over 2000 context-free genus names doesn't seem to be very informative or useful for navigation. Garden plant is broad concept and there are no criteria for inclusion here. Reywas92^Talk 15:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 15:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Disagree with the deprod reason. There is no criteria for inclusion. What kind of plant is a "garden plant"? Better question, what kind of plant isn't? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are lots of sources available; I own three different print encyclopedias of garden plants and I'm not a gardener. By no means all plants are garden plants and actually it is a reasonably well-defined term. Having clicked on a selection, not all the entries are categorised as garden plants, and so it is not redundant to a category. Some of the comments on the talk page don't seem to have looked at the list, as the entries are genera, so the concern about including species/cultivars appears unfounded. For the record, I received a thanks notification for deprodding. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If its valid to list the entries as a category then its valid to put them on a list. Category:Garden plants It would be great if someone had a bot that would look at each article linked to and get additional information to put on a sortable column. This article was created in 2003, and has gotten 17,990 page views in the past 90 days alone. Many find lists to be more useful than categories, you can scroll through all on one page, while the category for this is spread out over multiple pages. So it is a valid navigational list. You can also click on the reliable sources search at the top of this AFD and find ample results for "list of garden plants" and even more so if you just search for "garden plants". Garden plant redirects to Ornamental plant, not sure which is used in textbooks and scientific publications or is the more commonly used term. Anyway, if you need a definition for what a garden plant is, check there. Dream Focus 17:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like some clarification over the definition of a "garden plant".
- I assume it excludes house plants, glasshouse plants, etc., i.e. means plants grown outside in a garden.
- I assume it mean a plant grown in gardens anywhere in the world. To give just one example, Hibiscus rosa-sinensis is in the category Category:Garden plants of Asia, which means garden plants originating in Asia. It's definitely a garden plant in tropical parts of the world, but not in temperate regions. There are many plants that could be in lists of garden plants for some countries but in lists of house, conservatory or glasshouse plants for others.
- Referencing will be an issue; plants will need referencing individually, it seems to me. Is this feasible?
- Are vegetables or fruit grown in gardens included? Does it actually mean "ornamental garden plants"?

Peter coxhead (talk) 19:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this can be sorted by editing, or possibly moving to a more appropriate title, without needing deletion. Given the length I'd be inclined to restrict it to plants predominantly grown for ornamental purposes. I don't think individual sources per entry are necessary; one could add a general list of default sources and only add specific entry sources where needed. The region issue could be solved by marking those genera where all the species are only cultivable as garden plants in, say, tropical regions. Many genera will have examples that can be grown under temperate conditions; Hibiscus also includes Hibiscus syriacus, for example. A list of individual species would be more of a problem, I agree, and would probably need splitting up. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So is this a list of genera in which at least one species is grown in a garden as an ornamental plant somewhere in the world? My questions are not rhetorical; I really don't understand what is intended. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source is mentioned on the talk page (a references section was kind of a novelty in 2003, especially for lists), but the list content is based on just the one book, so while it's verifiable, there is no way for us to distinguish between genuine generality and authors' personal preferences. Intuitively, the list seems salvageable, but someone would need to figure out an objective criterion (sold in stores? successfully grown by non-professionals? mentioned in at least one gardening book's list? :-) ), that didn't also include every genus that master gardeners try out just to show off their mad skills. I note that the modern standard for confirming a new species often entails growing some from seed, so the fact of *anybody* having grown a plant is not necessarily going to narrow things down much. Stan (talk) 02:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Point 1: this is based on a single source, the genus index of "The American Horticultural Society A-Z Encyclopedia of Garden Plants". That makes it basically a data dump of otherwise published tabular material, which we don't do. Point 2: the work in question has no pretensions to be global. As the foreword makes clear, it only covers plants that could be grown in North American gardens (go ahead and borrow it on the Internet Archive - I just returned the copy) - which is a rather debatable criterion for such a list. Point 3: even if this were turned into "Garden plants suitable for North American cultivation", there is no claim that the coverage in the source is comprehensive (they picked Interesting Stuff) nor could such a list ever be reasonably bounded. Much less so for a truly global list - practically everything may be grown in a garden somewhere. This list cannot be reasonably sourced or curated. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:08, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, while I agree with the concerns raised by the nominator, the topic passes WP:NLIST as garden plants have been extensively discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. There are many, many compendiums on garden plants. SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Elmidae. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my initial proposed deletion note (and I'd delete the category too). —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 22:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think policy and precedent are pretty strongly against this list, and Elmidae has a clear articulation of that argument, which I cannot really fault. I do not think the keep !votes make policy/precedent sense, especially the argument that garden plants are frequently discussed as a group or set. (Sure: and what plants are in that list? We can't answer that question, because what "garden plants" actually means depends on the context of the person using those words. It's not the "set" it appears to be.) That said, I do think Dream Focus's This article was created in 2003, and has gotten 17,990 page views in the past 90 days alone. is worth considering. It seems pretty clear that this is useful to many readers. Specifically, American readers, since as Elmidae observes, the source is "The American Horticultural Society A-Z Encyclopedia of Garden Plants". Is it so terrible to keep this list, renamed to something more appropriate, for the benefit of readers? I'd be interested to hear what the delete !voters might suggest for the name of such a list, even if they hate the idea, and what the keep !voters think of renaming the list to be specific to this source. I think the delete case is strong, and I'm not excited about a list of plant genuses with very little information provided alongside. But I wonder if there might be a reader-minded compromise here. -- asilvering (talk) 02:31, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of people do, apparently, navigate to this page, but does that really mean it's useful to them? Being sorted by Latin genus name, listing genuses rather than species (if relevant), only a fraction having a common name or type listed, simply being so massive with over 2,200 entries, and yet likely incomplete by whatever definition to be used makes this a daunting wall of text more than really useful. List of flowers redirects here, but this just doesn't have the context – or conciseness – to have a good use especially without better inclusion criteria. Reywas92^Talk 03:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm guessing people end up here because if you simply say "garden plant" to Google, the second of its suggestions for a longer search phrase is "list of garden plants", which if you click on it, gives this article as the second result (at least for me). So that's probably how this inadvertently ended up as one of Wikipedia's landing pages. However, it may be that the suggestion is prompted by the existence of this list, so if it goes away, so does the suggestion (I work at Google, but in the basement, don't know much about search result reporting). Stan (talk) 11:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, I think you're probably both right. I don't think we have any way to tell if readers immediately bounce off this page (as opposed to clicking through to some link they find helpful)? The more I look at this, the more I think it really isn't useful at all - I'm struggling to imagine a reader who knows enough Latin genus names to be able to operate the list, but who nonetheless needs to have the list as a reference or landing page. -- asilvering (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  There's data on how readers get to the page and where they go after reaching it here. 7% of outgoing page views were to Abelia (the first entry in the list). Of the 10 articles that get the most outgoing page views, 6 of them are in the first 10 entries in the list. This suggests that a substantial number of readers arriving at the article aren't really finding it useful to navigate to other articles, but are just clicking more or less at random on some of the first few entries. Plantdrew (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are lots of sources available. WP:Not paper. I agree with User:Dream Focus and User:Asilvering. Let the readers get the benefit of this navigation page. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:01, 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 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 23:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ash Adams

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

Overwritten, undersourced article on what seems to be a non-notable actor. The one source provided is only a passing reference, and nothing else by way of credible sources showing up elsewhere Dexxtrall (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Many hits on his name, none seem to be about an actor. Oaktree b (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and California. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 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) 08:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zerodha

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

WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and I can't find any. Existing references are either repeats of company announcements/information or articles that rely entirely on quotes/interviews with no "Independent Content" or mentions-in-passing. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom. It's a WP:CHURN + WP:ADMASQ case. - Hatchens (talk) 09:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please do not exercise non-admin closure rights on this AfD discussion as someone did last time. Instead, allow it to run its course and leave the decision to an administrator. It's a request. -Hatchens (talk) 09:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This vote is going to be iconic considering current environment but Zerodha has plenty of independent in-depth discussion. There is a complete case study [9] on their success published by Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad and then several more books talking about their journey [10]. They definitely have some PR agency churning coverage but beyond that, there are many good sources that contribute to notability. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The "case study" was written as an exercise by students attending the Indian Institute of Management. While WP:SCHOLARSHIP allows for scholarly references, this one falls short and in my opinion fails as a RS. As for the rest - see WP:GHITS. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:10, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Surprised to see this at AFD again. In addition to the four sources I had posted at the previous AFD discussion, here's four more: [11] [12] [13] [14]. A retail company operating at such scale almost always receives WP:SUSTAINED, in-depth coverage, though older sources may be harder to dig up due to the way Google's algorithms work. M4DU7 (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Those four references are not indpendent, in-depth nor significant. The bloomberg is paid advertisement, the 3 and 4ths are a primary and not independent of the subject, failing WP:SIRS and WP:ORGIND and 1st reference is of a similar quality failing WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 17:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCORP and is a pure WP:ADMASQ article, based upon very strange referencing indeed. Twenty eight references for a nine paragraph article is WP:BOMBARD 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete based on a preliminary review. An article should speak for itself and should explain, without the need for the reader to check the references, how the subject is notable, in particular, how the company satisfies corporate notability. Corporate notability is based on what third parties have written, not on what the company says about itself. This article is about what the company says about itself. This does not mean that the company is not notable, or that the company is notable. It does mean that this article does not establish notability. I have not checked the references, but the article has been reference-bombed and I should not be expected to check the references. Robert McClenon ([[User talk:Robert McCl
Delete this is an advertisement. It contains a list of services (which happen to be the services any brokerage firm offers as a matter of course), it discusses their fee structure (all brokerage firms have fee structure), it states some of the companies it has invested in (as do all such firms). It lists a variety of trivial awards, awards designed so a company will get one in its turn; it lists a reference to an academic analysis which HighKing has nicely explained as a student project. The news items about it are of various occasions of computer down time. This is the most trivia and ephemeral news imaginable: all we sites (includding WP) have them, and they are of interest only until they get fixed. The defense of the article by Nomadicghumakkad refers to " several more books talking about their journey" This is the most obvious form of corporate jargon, and an argument using such terms indicate the inability to tell articles from spam.

There is however , a suitable place for this content, jargon and all: the company web site. DGG ( talk ) 06:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's a lot of citation spamming and some use of self-published sources coming from the company, but my quick review also shows that article has a strongly promotional tone. Based on that conclusion its enough for me to consider this article as an advertisement. Mario Jump 83! 07:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Scope creep How is the Bloomberg article an advertisement? I see that Marcus Wright and Michael Patterson are mentioned as the editors, and Rahul Satija the Mumbai reporter. It also mentions that it received inputs from Pei Yi Mak. All are/were Bloomberg editors/reporters. The India Today article is authored by Shwweta Punj, senior editor at India Today. The Business Standard article carries a very long, in-depth, independent commentary and that one is researched and written by Jyotindra Dubey who is now an associate editor at Economic Times. All three satisfy WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. I can see how that Forbes India article (and Forbes India in general) can be seen as unreliable. There are four more in-depth sources which I had posted at the previous AFD, all independently-written by staff/editors. The Ken also has detailed analysis of the company with articles like [15] [16]. M4DU7 (talk) 00:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a free workaround in case you are hit by a paywall, read the Bloomberg article on BNN Bloomberg and the Business Standard article using a Google AMP link (works on mobile). M4DU7 (talk) 01:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the workarounds. The Bloomberg reference relies entirely on information provided by the company and people associated with the company. Where's the in-depth "Independent Content" which is required as per WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND? The only content which might arguably be "clearly attributable" to a source unaffiliated with the topic company is towards the end, with the paragraph starting with "Zerodha's continued success is far from guaranteed" but those last 7 sentences do not provide any in-depth information. I'd call this a puff profile and PR. The India Today article attracts the exact same criticism - where's the in-depth "Independent Content"? It is another puff profile. If you are starting to get used to seeing the characteristics of puff profiles, then you won't need to be told that The Business Insider is also a puff profile. You say it "carries a very long, in-depth, independent commentary" - that's hard to swallow considering that practically every paragraph references a claim or announcement made by the company or contains a quote. They're not "Independent" enough to meet WP:ORGIND and what's left fails WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I find it extremely hard to agree with your claim that editors from different parts of the world at Bloomberg News, which is seen as one of the most reliable sources at WP:RSP, are indulged in promotionalism. The only paragraphs with claims attributed to the company on that article are 4th, 8th, 14th and the last one. The Business Standard article is indeed independently authored, and one of the best sources on this company. Just because it carries a bunch of quotes from the company, we cannot disregard all the independent research on that article.

The phenomenon of admiration of stories of entrepreneurs, businesses, artists, sportspeople, etc, and disruption/success stories in general is very common across the media industry in the Indian subcontinent. But it doesn't necessarily mean that all these articles are sponsored "puff pieces". As someone from India, I see this on a daily basis even in print newspapers and on TV channels. We need to evaluate and assess the sources on a case-by-case basis. Generally, articles written by reputed editors and carrying independent commentary satisfy SIRS and ORGIND, unless there is evidence of material republished from a press release or there is unambiguous promotion of the product. Your definition of "puff piece" fits those articles that do not mention the editor's name and simply say bureau, newsdesk, agencies, PTI, etc. If we continue to discount editorial pieces that use an appreciative tone, we'll end up deleting a majority of articles on notable Indian companies based on the incorrect assumption that all media houses and journos in the country are on the company's payroll. M4DU7 (talk) 07:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@M4DU7 Bloomberg aggregates news. Bloomberg also aggregates PR pieces. You need to learn to tell the difference. It's not hard. You are arguing very strongly to keep an article with poor references and poor notability. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete Per HighKing's analysis of the sourcing. Much churn and promotion, not a lot of fire for the smoke. Rockphed (talk) 04:14, 26 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Smallcase

AfDs for this article:

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

There was a relatively recent AfD in which several socks participated and have been blocked - see WP:Articles for deletion/Smallcase. Notwithstanding the concerns over COI editing in general, the topic fails our notability criteria. None of the references discussed at the previous AfD meet WP:NCORP and none have been provided or found since. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mint appears to be non-reliable, TechCrunch can only be used to verify they exist, as it's a non-reliable source. Rest appear to be blogs or advertorials. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom. I tried to rewrite this entity's page into survival state (duly assisted by Timtrent). But, not confident with the outcome. As one of the alternatives to deletion, merging it with Zerodha could be explored as per WP:ATD-M. Again... it depends on the general consensus derived from this discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to something that confirms this company is owned by Zerodha? HighKing⁺⁺ 19:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing there are few cues pointing towards it - 1, and 2. But, here's the catch... there is always a difference between "getting an investment" and "being backed". So, the confirmation is based on one's interpretation. Since, it's a company AfD discussion and you're an expert in this domain... I'll stick to your "final call". - Hatchens (talk) 03:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's not the same thing at all. Getting an investment is pretty much the same as "being backed" and neither mean that the investors/backers are the owners. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing, then it's a delete. Period! - Hatchens (talk) 08:35, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Despite Hatchens's valiant attempt to edit this to show it passes WP:NCORP, and despite my own WP:BEFORE I find it fails NCORP. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and also the subjective criteria. Nothing worth discussion. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 19:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Brochure article. scope_creep^Talk 12:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my vote at the previous AFD discussion. M4DU7 (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP, as I cannot find enough independent coverage that makes this significant. Mario Jump 83! 08:36, 23 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 14:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of Palau

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

Fails WP:LISTN. Palau (pop. 18,000) has created in 40 years more than 4000 stamps (about the same as Great Britain did in 180 years), many of them with people. The current completely unsourced list only includes 3, completely at random (e.g. the 1983 set that featured Captain Wilson also showed three other named people, including Lee Boo who is here given for 1990). Nothing was added to the list since its creation in 2004, not even after someone else prod'ded it in 2009. Over the last 90 days, it was seen 13 times. Basically, no one cares to correct and improve it, and no one cares to read it. Fram (talk) 13:58, 16 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) 13:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe a list organizing those 4000 could be appropriate somehow, but I don't see why people should have its own article. Postage stamps and postal history of Palau is the main article but no one seems to care, it's not an inherently notable topic. Reywas92^Talk 14:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced list. This is the extreme of philatelycruft.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems uncontroversial. Unsourced. How is three people even a "list"? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:35, 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 keep. ✗plicit 14:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hank Frierson

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

Frierson was an Olympian who won no medals. You would not know it from this article, but he was also a soldeir who recieved some decoartions for service in World War II, but his decondarions and service were not at a level to pass notability. The only source I can find that says anything even half substantial on him is sportsreference.com. There is another Hank Frierson who was an academic active in the early 21st-century, who I do notthink is notable either, but clearly makes this not a good redirect since we do not know that people would be looking for this person. I have to admit that we clearly are not doing Wikipedia right if its articles are more focused on the sports aspects of a person's life than sportsreference.com. Wikipedia has an over-emphasis on sports and politics in its biographies, to the point where many people who are really more known for their non-sports or non-politics actions are highlighted and governed in Wikipedia only based on those aspects of their careers. Frierson was a non-notable soldier, and he received no coverage for his minor role in the Olympics either. Deletion is the way to improvement. John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lambert please see WP:ANYBIO - "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times" - as he has been decorated with FOUR military honours. A quick WP:BEFORE found a bio on him, so I reckon there will be other coverage of this guy. I'll see if the military projects can help find more! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It's definitely a nice collection of medals, but none of these are the highest level of valor, which is what that's typically interpreted to refer to. I'm having trouble independent sources in my WP:BEFORE. -Indy beetle (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These "significant awards" were the Silver Star (which has been awarded to between 100,000 and 150,000 recipients, so not all that good an indicator of notability, since clearly there are not anywhere near that many military figures - all across the world, ignoring the fact this is a US award - whom we'd expect to actually be notable enough for genuine encyclopedic articles); the Bronze Star and the Croix de Guerre are even worse (if this, based on this paywalled source, apparently; is accurate, there has been upward of a million of them; the Croix de Guerre has been awarded to millions of individuals...). On top of that, even if those awards were significant enough (they clearly aren't) WP:ANYBIO is not an "auto-magically notable"; it's a People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does your blog source also mention how many people got honoured with all four of these medals? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral ~~I don't see evidence of GNG level of sourcing; and~~ looking rapidly I find plenty of hits for another "Hanks Frierson" (some US university professor, Henry "Hank" Frierson; who doesn't really appear notable given the only sources are non-independent like [17]); and of course the usual database hits for Olympians, but not much in the way of SIGCOV from RS. If Lugs has "found a bio on him", he should show proof of it instead of assuming that others have the same results as them. Opposed in principle to a redirect as the only logical target has no coverage on him; and since there is no generalised exception from "no redirect if subject isn't really notable and there's nothing at the target about them". In this case, the subject is notable neither for their military career (colonel was not even enough in the long-since deprecated NSOLDIER) nor for their sports career (since we have no evidence of such notability...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, a detailed obit here, so that's SIGCOV piece number one. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Article on him being awarded the Silver Star here, so that's SIGCOV piece no. 2. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - SIGCOV piece number three. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets GNG, see [18] [19] and [20]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The obituary about this person from El Paso in a newspaper from El Paso... The same page also contains a similarly detailed obit about some local doctor; I'm not sure this would count as either significant (obituaries in local news are routine) or independent (since, well, its probable the information was supplied by people close to the subject...). The google books result is from the "United States Military Academy. Association of Graduates"; which I would very much tend to assume Frierson would have been a member of; and its in an album of similar profiles, which suggests it is not a very selective work either (and wide-sweeping all-inclusive works, like alumni albums or databases, are not significant coverage). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you do exclude the bio from GBooks, there is still two pieces of SIGCOV, still enough to pass GNG. (I'd like to note that ROUTINE does not apply to people, so the El Paso article still counts as it addresses the topic directly and in detail.) BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're citing essays, I'm going to one up you with WP:ROTM. The El Paso obituary is still routine (and yes, routine definitively does apply to people: routine news such as sports play-by-play match reports, and, yes, routine obituaries [the routine nature of it being obvious from the presence of a similar one on the same page for another non-notable person], are generally not accepted as significant coverage) and more importantly there is no evidence it is truly independent. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First off, how is competing at the Olympics (and being awarded several important medals) run-of-the-mill? The participants at the Olympics are the best athletes in their country (in this case, the US), so saying its ROTM is... nonsense. Secondly, the fact that a non-notable person has an obituary next to Frierson has no effect whatsoever on the latter's notability (and whether the coverage counts as SIGCOV). Are you saying that if someone has an obit in NYT, but someone who is nn also has one, that the former obit is automatically disqualified from being SIGCOV? Also, how is this not independent? You have not shown me anything that points to the El Paso article being not independent. (BTW, the obituary on Frierson was not on the main obituaries page. Page 1 says that the obits were on page 4-c; Frierson was covered on page 3-b). BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
important medals would be less laughable if they weren't of the kind that have been awarded to hundreds of thousands or even millions of recipients. As for Olympics, you're well aware of the not-so-recent changes to NSPORT and also aware of the fact that notability is neither inherent or inherited. He clearly is not notable as a sportsman (because otherwise you'd be able to find more than "X participated in the Olympics once" about this). As for "obituaries in local newspapers" (the El Paso Times is not the NYT) [no matter which page they might happen to be on]; have you read ROTM? Many people have one or more obituaries published detailing the fact that they died, information regarding their deaths and often information about their families and lives. This information is published in a newspaper, a reliable source. But in a single major city, there will be dozens of obituaries published each day. An obituary, especially a short one which takes up not even half a column like this one, is simply not significant coverage (as it is routine) and its independence is very dubious, as obituaries in local newspapers are usually based in information from people closely associated with the subject. Very different from say something like this. Anyways, people seem to have found maybe better sources and I'd rather not be wasting more time arguing with you, since obviously we're not going to change the other's position on the suitability (or lack thereof) of obituaries as sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the comments above about Olympics participation are really poorly informed. Were the Jamican bobsled team the best bosleders in Jamaica? They did not do any bobsledding at all until they left the country with a plan to go compete in the Olympics. At least in the time frame we are talking about the qualifying requirements for the Olympics were less clear. Also, since you had to be fully amateur at the time, for lots of competitions the best people in that particular sport were excluded from the Olympics. Before World War II especially it would be whoever the local Olympic committee chose, and that was not based on merit. The depth of the amateur rules meant that you had to basicly be well off to compete in the Olympics, at least to the point where you did not have to work daily for a living or could afford to take large amounts of unpaid leave. Sponsorships and broken time payments and travel reimbusements were officially not allowed, and the best evidence is for the most part even under the table such deals did not emerge until after World War II, so no, being in the Olympics in this time period does not say you are the best in the sport in your country, and some of these sports get no real attention, so it does not matter if you win national championships, because no one was paying attention to that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It may be productive to search for him by his given name, "Andrew Allison Frierson" or "Andrew Frierson", than by his nickname, Hank. Jacona (talk) 18:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Have a look at this [21]. Jacona (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be sometimes known as "A. A. Frierson," see here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Found another detailed obit here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Help needed I can't see this behid a paywall. [22], but it looks like probable SIGCOV. Jacona (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Here it is on ProQuest. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - thanks. I see the problem-my library card is expired. Ill have to take care of that.Jacona (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Tennessee. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although medals may be common, this history of the WW II campaign [23] mentions Frierson by name 26 times, giving SIGCOV to his military career. And while I agree that obituaries in a home-town paper are not great for showing notability, there are quite a few articles about his equestrian accomplishments listed above, including in the New York Times. In addition, his divorce [24] was big enough news to be carried in newspapers across several states, including this [25] and several others. This meets WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Jacona (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources engaged in the article and the discussion meet a reasonable interpretation of WP:N, and I do not find the explanations of why those sources are not sufficient convincing. Canadian Paul 01:36, 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 delete. ✗plicit 14:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A. G. E. Blake

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

Subject is a self-published esotericist. Does not meet notability criteria for biographies. – Ploni (talk) 12:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Scotland. Ploni (talk) 12:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an undersourced article on a non-notable living philosopher.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero hits in GBooks, Gscholar or Jstor. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also did a search using his full name "Anthony George Edward Blake", looks like he wrote a book in 1975 or so, only get listings for his books. First hit is the wikipedia page, which tells me he isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:30, 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 draftify. I will note that I am doing this somewhat IAR, as the page creator has opted to re-draft the page and continue working on it. Should the draft be moved back to the article space (whether via WP:AFC or by direct move) there is no prejudice against either re-nominating the page or relisting this discussion. Primefac (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hush Puppy (Australian 'Surf-Rock' Band)

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

Fails WP:NBAND. Theroadislong (talk) 12:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 12:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ it appears as though another user has also attempted to create an article about this topic - as evident via @3PPYB6's link GeorgiaKenn (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Striking this, you only get to !vote once. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, was unaware of this rule - thank you. Un-couting vote aside, I'd appreciate having the point made, acknowledged. Thanks. GeorgiaKenn (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as non-notable. Tried to help, to avoid precisely this, but the article creator insists on moving it to the main space, so inevitably here we are. Fails WP:GNG / WP:BAND. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete changing my !vote based on 3PPYB6's comments. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for ensembles - points; 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11 and 12 - are met :)

I've worked to the best of my ability to make sure my writing adds value to Wikipedia (as I'm sure you do as well) - I've managed to research my topic enough to find that the criteria is in fact met :) if you may kindly view my citations you'll notice that the points I've stated above are in fact correct in regards to WP:NBAND

It also appears as though Wikipedia readers are searching for said topic (evident within page views). GeorgiaKenn (talk) 12:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=desktop&agent=all-agents&redirects=1&range=latest-20&pages=Hush_Puppy_(Australian_%27Surf-Rock%27_Band) GeorgiaKenn (talk) 13:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=all-agents&redirects=1&start=2022-04-25&end=2022-05-15&pages=Hush_Puppy_(Australian_%27Surf-Rock%27_Band) GeorgiaKenn (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep large percentage of criteria met (prerequisites met stated in my previous comment) GeorgiaKenn (talk) 12:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence, please? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for ensembles - points; 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11 and 12 - are found to be met within the article - how may I further prove this? GeorgiaKenn (talk) 13:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's start with #5, which requires "two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels". The article's 'Discography' section shows two self-produced singles. Can you please explain how that satisfies #5? Or if you don't like #5, feel free to pick any of the other criteria on your list, as long as you clearly demonstrate that it is met, backed up with reliable evidence. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

5 one of the two singles ("Too Cold") appears to be released under 'AWAL'. This track along with two of the members other works has been placed on national radio rotation (#11), to name a few. The citations for these link to abc's triple j (Australia's national alternative music station)... GeorgiaKenn (talk) 13:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it unfortunately appears as though you have not managed to read my article in depth before assuming such - I've discussed my topic and pushed for it as it appears as though it does in fact meet the criteria you've mentioned. GeorgiaKenn (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even going to bother replying. The evidence doesn't stack up, and I'm guessing you know it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I may move on from this to another article topic - this space is seemingly cut-throat toward female writers. I'm uncomfortable pushing for this article if the general consensus is that I have underlying motives - absolutely heartbreaking... What further evidence would you like me to provide other than what I've cited? GeorgiaKenn (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia readers also viewing/searching my chosen topic. GeorgiaKenn (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, G5 – Suspiciously similar to Special:Permalink/1086176763, and likely Sammanson socking under account "GeorgiaKenn". This is at WP:SPI. Thanks. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 13:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness - is it not possible that that is someone else? I'm Georgia K - my article has similar sources due to sharing the artist's already publicly available information. GeorgiaKenn (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hoping this thread will remain publicly available too - shocking GeorgiaKenn (talk) 13:26, 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. Consensus is neither the quality nor the quantity are sufficient Star Mississippi 02:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pyti

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

Not convinced that there's enough here to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Claims to have "won several international and national competitions" but it's not immediately clear from the sources whether these are notable. English language sources are mainly promotional puff pieces. KH-1 (talk) 02:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 02:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article meets criteria number 1. There are detailed critical reviews in AllHipHop and The Source.--Roxy177 (talk) 09:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The review in The Source is certainly an interesting one. I ran some of the text through a search engine and found large parts of it copied verbatim from reviews of other artists.

Text comparison
Pyti - The Source (Feb 2022)[26]	Eli Amari - Billboard Hip Hop (Jul 2021)[27]
One of the most distinctive traits of his releases is certainly the energy, and the drive that fuels the performance of the artist. The vocals feel very animated and spontaneous, an obvious sign that this performer is actually genuinely connecting with his lyrical flow, in a much deeper way. This isn’t just another Soundcloud rapper popping out catchy hooks copy-pasted with the same old Splice sample: there is a deeper concept behind the songwriting, which really adds weight to the mix	One of the most distinctive traits of this release is certainly the energy, and the drive that fuels the performance of the artist. The vocals feel very animated and spontaneous, an obvious sign that this performer is actually genuinely connecting with his lyrics, in a much deeper way This isn’t just a puppet singer popping out catchy hooks: there is a deeper concept behind the songwriting, which really adds weight to the mix
In addition to the personable and edgy performance value, this release is also quite distinctive because of the sheer quality of the production. The mix is balanced and very detail-oriented, making for a lively, edgy and stark sonic approach. In other words, there are many subtle nuances in this release, which really add to the richness of the track when summed up together. The frequency spectrum of the mix is also very balanced, with a tight, yet deep low end working wonders along with a smooth top end, which adds a sense of clarity to the music.	In addition to the personable and edgy performance value, this release is also quite distinctive because of the sheer quality of the production. The mix is balanced and very detail-oriented, making for a lively, edgy and stark sonic approach. In other words, there are many subtle nuances in this release, which really add to the richness of the release when summed up together. The frequency spectrum of the mix is also very balanced, with a tight, yet deep low end working wonders along with a smooth top end, which adds a sense of clarity to the music

The Source article was written by "SHA BE ALLAH", while no specific author was listed for Billboard Hip hop. Even if it were the same person, it signals lazy churnalism rather than a serious review. One thing you'll notice is that it has a lot of broad statements that can be applied to just about any electronic musician. It's a similar style of writing that you also find in the AllHipHop review.-KH-1 (talk) 11:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a funny fact about this particular review. I read this one, there are a lot of unique content too, but even a few copy-pasted sentences from another artist doesn't prove much about lack of notability. We can't rely on this while discussing whether there is enough to meet WP:MUSICBIO or not.--Roxy177 (talk) 06:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - We're talking about entire paragraphs from multiple sources, not just a "few copy-pasted sentences". It's clearly not a genuine review.-KH-1 (talk) 01:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Other parts of it are lifted from someone else's 2019 post about another artist at https://thebandcampdiaries.com/post/187924964897/nogi-friday-pendulums-nogi-friday-is-an-artist and a February 2022 review of yet another artist at https://thebandcampdiaries.com/post/675244669067788288/suaveuk-has-recently-released-a-new-project. KH-1 is right. A source that is actually a bad source, in this case turning out to be rampant plagiarism on the part of a writer at The Source and thus not even actually about this subject, does not count, and Roxy177's rationale is undermined by 1 source. Unfortunately, that leaves us with 1 source, and some searching does not turn up any more. Potential candidates turn out upon reading to be recycled press releases or an interview in the first person. Uncle G (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSICBIO says, that "Notability is not determined by what the article says, it is determined by how well the article does or does not support the things it says by referencing them to independent verification in reliable sources.". We should use WP:RS to verify something about our subject. We can still use this source for some information. Even if "The mix is balanced and very detail-oriented" and "The frequency spectrum of the mix is also very balanced" were copied, that can be applied to just about any electronic musician. That's right. KH-1 mentioned that. We can't know whether mix is balanced or not from that source anymore, but that's why here are the others. As for The Source, there are other sentences, for example: "which is a fantastic single that brings a deeper, soothing melody to the audience. The introduction has a really smooth vibe, and the song later dives deeper into the groove, with a massive electronic beat that matches the beautiful arpeggio synths." And you can apply it exclusively to subject's single "Night Wish', because it has arpeggios and those things, etc.--Roxy177 (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost looks like a copyvio on their end. Non-notable here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please, provide any additional info. Simply stating that the subject of the article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable. We avoid saying "just notable" or "just non-notable". There are sources, a few of them are WP:RS, there are "several international and national competitions" and awards in those, which also deserve an attention. There are copy-pasted sentences in 1 source, we have discussed above, as well. --Roxy177 (talk) 17:32, 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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Gardiner High School

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

Per Wikipedia:Notability (schools), lack of significant coverage. Ascendingrisingharmonising (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Ascendingrisingharmonising (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Caribbean. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NORG and WP:GNG. A quick Google search only found about 3.7k results and none on the first page seemed to have any good info (other than phone number and other stuff like that, but we don't put that kind of stuff in wikipedia articles). --interstatefive (talk) - just another roadgeek 15:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why, User:Ascendingrisingharmonising, are you referring to a guideline (Wikipedia:Notability (schools)) that literally doesn't exist? Nfitz (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
‘’’comment’’’ @Nfitz I’m sorry, I’m genuinely an idiot and hadn’t noticed the thing at the top about how it was a failed proposal. This is embarrassing!!! Ascendingrisingharmonising (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easy to find references in Proquest - ProQuest 455960976. Before failure. Nfitz (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:02, 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 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 03:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Newfangled Four

(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 very non-wp:notable band . No evidence of meeting with wp:GNG or the SNG. The only sources are a barbershp group wiki and an article about a performance at a church. North8000 (talk) 02:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:00, 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 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 14:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel J. Lockwood

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

Fails notability criteria for actors and plainly autobiographical. – Ploni (talk) 11:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Theatre, and New York. Ploni (talk) 11:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete playing lead roles in productions that do not get attention from reviewers is not a way to make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:15, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) TheWikiholic (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dr S Prakash Tiwari

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

Doesn't meet WP:SCHOLAR. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 11:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 11:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not seeing a particularly strong citation profile, but Deputy Director General of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, director of National Academy of Agricultural Research Management chair of National Biodiversity Authority and perhaps particularly vice chancellor of Swami Keshwanand Rajasthan Agricultural University all suggest notability. He is also a fellow of the National Academy of Agricultural Sciences, which might be enough to meet WP:PROF. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Had made changes in accordance with WP:PROF. Being a fellow of the National Academy of Agricultural Sciences and having held notable academic positions like Deputy Director General of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, director of National Academy of Agricultural Research Management chair of National Biodiversity Authority vice chancellor of Swami Keshwanand Rajasthan Agricultural University totally explain notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proton Dental (talk • contribs) 20:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I spent some time to clean up the page to suit wiki format. I also formatted the sources to suit wiki guidelines. I equally added extra sources that meet WP:RS which I found in Googlenews. Having done the above, the page now clearly passes WP:SCHOLAR, WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG especially for the fact of his pedigree as Director, Deputy Director, Chair and Vice Chancellor in various capacities.Irasa Nira Yaa (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Found and added one more sholary source [28] With this, the subject clearly passed 5 and 6 of Specific criteria of WP:SCHOLAR as indicated [29]. Voting keep then..Irasa Nira Yaa (talk) 16:10, 23 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) 13:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JJ Horner

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

Fails notability criteria for creative professionals. Promotional. – Ploni (talk) 11:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Arizona. Ploni (talk) 11:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an article based on hyper local sourcing, some of which is blogs. There is no actual sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources in the article don't seem to mention him by name, and a web search reveals only social media hits and a YouTube video profile published by the skateboard company that sells his work (primary source). Nothing on Google Books or news. He does not meet our criteria for WP:GNG nor pass WP:NARTIST as there is no indication that he's been featured in any important exhibitions nor included in any notable museum collections nor received in-depth critical attention for his work. The one paragraph in the article (it's unsourced) that is about his work seems like WP:OR. Netherzone (talk) 14:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Time to move non-notable Jack Horner into a non-wiki corner. – S. Rich (talk) 17:15, 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. Consensus is neither the awards nor sourcing is sufficient. Star Mississippi 02:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan McDermott

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

Contested PROD; this BLP stub has been around since 2009 with little movement, development or sourcing. I've been hunting for references, and frankly can't turn much up. The Dana Award has been defunct for some time, and the archived reference to the Bridport Prize does not mention this subject. If anyone can turn up sources, great, but at this point I don't feel this subject meets WP:NAUTHOR. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I deprodded this in the hope that further sources might prove findable. The Bridport Prize source does in fact mention McDermott, but I agree that it isn't enough on its own. His author bio at Barnes & Noble[30] states that one of his stories is in 100 Notable Stories list in Best American Short Stories, but I can't find the details, and there's a long list of relatively minor awards for individual stories listed at the B&N page. Perhaps someone else will be more successful. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notes; I've been browsing the Best American Short Stories lists, and it appears that the reference is to a "100 Other Distinguished Stories Of..." that appears to possibly be included in the anthology, with a list of stories the editor deems worthy of consideration. I mean, I'd love to have one of my pieces on a list like that, but I don't know that it does much for him notability-wise. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete this page. McD is my 6th grade ELA teacher. He is the nicest teacher ever. People really like him at my school. 2601:248:500:D090:C99F:794F:E187:4951 (talk) 01:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 0xDeadbeef (T C) 01:33, 24 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 14:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MalariaWorld

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable sources; only mentions I could find were this article, which is clearly an advertisement by the journal's editor anyway and the name of the journal listed in some databases (e.g. [31], [32]). All the references bar one within the article are to the group's own website and the only other is a dead link to a related group's site. BigDom (talk) 10:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 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 withdrawn per WP:HEY. As I suspected, there were foreign-language references which I could not easily peruse; my thanks to Cunard for giving a reasonable jumping-off point for improving the article. Primefac (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kowloon Dairy

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

This could very well be a language issue, but I am finding no significant coverage of the dairy. The existing references are all primary, and in my searches I am finding little more than routine coverage of new flavours being introduced, or pop-up stores in XYZ location. In other words, fails WP:NCORP. Primefac (talk) 09:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Hong Kong. Primefac (talk) 09:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "香港經典品牌" [Hong Kong classic brands]. East Week (in Chinese). 2007. p. 51. Retrieved 2022-05-16 – via Google Books.
  The article notes: "九龍維記牛奶有限公司自一九四 0 年起,維記牛奶大事記殿堂級品牌南美歸僑 George Ahwee 及本港長大的業餘騎師蔡永禧創辦了。大馬主李蘭生先生投入資本,擴大業務,成為今天的「九龍維記牛奶有限公司」。李氏家族是今日「維記 11941 牛奶」的最大股東及公司決策人。「維記牛奶」一直伴隨著香港人成長,不經不覺已有六十六年歷史,細看這品牌誕生至發展,仿如閱讀香港早期風物誌。單是公司命名過程也饒富趣味,南美歸僑 George Ahwee 及本地長大的業餘騎師蔡永禧先生創辦了「九龍維記」。「維記」這名字竟是源自 George Ahwee 的廣東話暱稱「阿維」,因當時人人愛以「維記」稱之以示親切,再加上當年牧場位於九龍清水灣道,於是「九龍維記」便成了公司的名字了。"
  From Google Translate: "In 1940, Kowloon Dairy Co., Ltd. was founded by George Ahwee, a South American returned overseas Chinese, and an amateur jockey who grew up in Hong Kong. The Malaysian owner Mr. Li Lansheng invested capital to expand the business and become today's "Kowloon Wei Kee Milk Co., Ltd.". The Li family is the largest shareholder and company decision maker of today's "Kowloon Dairy". "Kowloon Dairy" has always been growing up with Hong Kong people. It has a history of 66 years without realizing it. A closer look at the birth and development of this brand is like reading an early history of Hong Kong. The naming process of the company alone is also very interesting. George Ahwee, a returned South American, and Mr. Choi Wing-hee, an amateur jockey who grew up locally, founded "Kowloon Wei Kee". The name "Wei Kee" was actually derived from George Ahwee's Cantonese nickname "Awei", because at that time everyone loved to call it "Wei Kee" to show affection, and the pasture was located on Clear Water Bay Road in Kowloon, so "Wei Kee" "Kowloon Victoria" became the name of the company."
2. 袁仲安 (2014). 香港食材圖鑑 [Illustrated Handbook of Ingredients in Hong Kong] (in Chinese). Hong Kong: Wan Li Book [zh]. p. 136. ISBN 9789621450784. Retrieved 2022-05-16.
  The book notes: "另一生產商——九龍維記成立於1940年,宗旨是為本地市民供應牛奶,由於其鮮奶只供應九龍北部,因而得名。及後因添加另一本地人股東,更易名為九龍維記牛奶有限公司。當時的牧場位於現彩雲村的位置,路經清水灣道時,可在路旁看到一個由水泥倒模做成的大型牛奶瓶,這正是維記的地標。在1972年,政府宣布收地興建公屋,牛場有21萬平方呎,乳牛數目有300至400頭,而現代化設備的改良也自此開始。到了1984年,基於環保要求、土地發展需求增加以及中國市場的開放等因素,維記將牛場全面遷至廣州。但其在新界大生圍,近現錦繡花園的位置仍設置牛奶廠房,繼續生產。 "
  From Google Translate: "Another manufacturer, Kowloon Dairy, was established in 1940 with the aim of supplying milk to local citizens. It was named after its fresh milk only supplied to the northern part of Kowloon. Later, due to the addition of another local shareholder, the name was changed to Kowloon Wei Kee Milk Co., Ltd. At that time, the ranch was located in the current location of Caiyun Village. When passing Qingshui Bay Road, you could see a large milk bottle made of cement pouring mold by the roadside, which is the landmark of Wei Kee. In 1972, the government announced the resumption of land to build public housing. The cattle farm had 210,000 square feet and the number of dairy cows was 300 to 400. The improvement of modern equipment has also begun. In 1984, due to factors such as environmental protection requirements, increased demand for land development, and the opening of the Chinese market, Kownloon Dairy fully relocated the cattle farm to Guangzhou. However, it still has a milk factory in Tai Sang Wai, New Territories, near Fairview Garden, and continues to produce."
3. Less significant coverage and passing mentions:
  1. 田恬 (2014-04-02). "去香港怎么买鲜奶？港人更爱本地品牌" [How to buy fresh milk in Hong Kong? Hong Kong people prefer local brands]. Southern Metropolis Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-05-16. Retrieved 2022-05-16.
    The article notes: "香港华润万家公共处就表示在华润万家集团超市内所售鲜奶均为香港本土品牌，“品牌有维记、牛奶公司、十字牌、维他”，她也说从销售角度来看最受欢迎的鲜奶品牌还是属于维记牛奶，这间1940年成立的牌子全称为九龙维记牛奶有限公司，是香港的一间鲜牛奶及奶制品的制造商，专为香港本地市民供应鲜奶，不少港人从小喝到大，是它的忠实粉丝。"
    From Google Translate (my bolding): "The public office of China Resources Vanguard in Hong Kong stated that the fresh milk sold in the supermarkets of China Resources Vanguard Group are all local brands in Hong Kong. The most popular fresh milk brand is still Wei Kee Milk. The brand established in 1940 is called Kowloon Wei Kee Milk Company Limited. , many Hong Kong people drink it from childhood to adulthood and are loyal fans of it."
  2. "香港4大鮮奶品牌啲奶都係出自屯門牛元朗牛？" [The top 4 fresh milk brands in Hong Kong. All the milk comes from Tuen Mun cattle and Yuen Long cattle.]. Economic Digest [zh] (in Chinese). New Media Group [zh]. 2019-10-28. Archived from the original on 2022-05-16. Retrieved 2022-05-16.
    The article notes from Google Translate: ""Wei Kee" emphasizes that its products are "100% made in Hong Kong every day", but according to its official website, they collect raw milk from farms in Guangdong every day, and send it to the Tunnel factory for "Bard disinfection" and "" It is a matter of opinion whether it is really "Made in Hong Kong" after being homogenized and then packaged."
  3. Kwong, Kevin (2005-05-01). "ad watch". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2022-05-16. Retrieved 2022-05-16.
    The article reviews an ad about Kowloon Dairy.
  4. Lowe, Sandra (2008-07-29). "Slice of Life - From the South China Morning Post this week in: 1948". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2022-05-16. Retrieved 2022-05-16.
    The article notes: "The Kowloon Dairy, whose farm is at Ngauchiwan in Kowloon, behind Kai Tak airport, lost its entire herd of 100 cows during the war. Its new pasteurisation plant looted in the war has now been replaced and is in working order."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Kowloon Dairy (traditional Chinese: 九龍維記牛奶; simplified Chinese: 九龙维记牛奶) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:00, 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5 by Bbb23. ✗plicit 06:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tanvir Shahriar Rimon

AfDs for this article:

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

Little indication of notability and previously returned to draft and subsequently rejected but then moved to mainspace again. There is a comment in the page history in respect of 'sock' activity and he page has previously been rejected per deletion log. May be a candidate for speedy as 're-creation'... Eagleash (talk) 08:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Bangladesh. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 11:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom —MdsShakil (talk) 14:42, 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 redirect to Southeast Asian Games. ✗plicit 06:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2029 Southeast Asian Games

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

Previously deleted article. This is for an event in 2029 ... 8 years in the future. Considered WP:TOOSOON Whiteguru (talk) 05:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Sports, and Asia. Whiteguru (talk) 05:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, way TOOSOON. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: yep WP:TOOSOON There's only one pertinent information at the moment, and that's Singapore will be the host. But beyond that, we don't have other information yet. For now, it can just be a liner in the main Southeast Asian Games article. – robertsky (talk) 10:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect on second thoughts, this article can be 'reactivated' instead of being rewritten from scratch closer to 2029 when there are more details about the event available. – robertsky (talk) 03:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Yes they've named a host country, but nothing else is known about it currently. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Southeast Asian Games. There are multiple sources discussing the award of the games [33], [34], [35], [36] and [37] among others. A redirect is a good compromise instead of deletion. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Southeast Asian Games. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 14:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Far too early for any sort of coverage besides selection of the host city. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 11:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect rather than to be deleted
- Azmi1995 (talk) 01:35, 23 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. After being relisted per this discussion at deletion review, more input was received herein, and consensus is for the article to be retained. Further discussion about the article can continue on its talk page, if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hooker with a heart of gold

AfDs for this article:

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

See maintenance tags: mostly an essay with a list of (admittedly well-sourced) examples attached. This is AfD2, the first having been in 2008 and closed w/ no results. Fourteen years later, the same issues still stand. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 05:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Literature. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 05:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Not sure, but not excited about a keep.~~Delete, explained below. My first thought when I looked at the article was WP:TNT since these long lists of examples are often pretty uninformative. I tried searching for some actual coverage of the concept of a hooker with a heart of gold, but didn't find a lot. I've added some info from this sociology article, which specifically says the archetype belongs to 1980s American films, distinguishing it from other narrative tropes about prostitution from other periods. This chapter says it evaluates the hooker-with-a-heart-of-gold trope but actually mostly critiques a few versions of Moulin Rouge with very few statements about the trope at large. So I'm not sure how feasible it is to write something that's not just a glorified TVTropes article. I'm also not sure that it's justified to combine "hooker with a heart of gold" and "tart with a heart" in one article. Both seem more like marketing phrases than analytic terms. Of the sources in the article, almost none seem to contribute notability for the overarching concepy. This article on prostitutes in Hindi films, and the article " "Of Names of Women in Hindi Cinema: An Exploration in Semantics", are the only ones which don't seem to just be reviews of individual films. They use the phrase "heart of gold" but not the word "hooker." I wonder if the actual topic about which substantial sourcing exists is the broader one of "prostitution in cinema." Or should it become a list? "List of fictional prostitutes with hearts of gold" sounds a bit silly. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep for the article but considering deletion for the list of examples (but for now, abstain on that, see my following thoughts). The sources LEvalyn found and added suggest this topic (stock character/trope) is notable, but the article suffers from the common problem of wP:NOTTVTROPES. List of fictional prostitutes with hearts of gold is not just "silly", it fails WP:NLIST/WP:SALAT too - while the section possibly fails WP:IPC, WP:GNG, WP:OR, etc. (Example of OR: The list opens with "The story of Rahab in the Bible's Book of Joshua is considered by some the earliest example of this character type", but the quote used in reference does not confirm this is "som eof the earliest" - it's just the earlist entry in the list). That said, I'll note that NLIST applies to stand-alone list, so perhaps this section can be retained as a section, with a note that at present, due to lack of any reliable outside lists of this trope, it should not be split? I'll admit that due to use of quotations (good practice), it does represent above-average level of referencing. Given that most of the entries are referneced with secondary sources, which do describe relevant characters as hookers/whores with hears of gold, it is much better than what we usually discuss here. Ping User:TompaDompa for his thoughts. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Film, and Television. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems to be a genuine stock character, as attested by secondary sources, and therefore should be treated somewhere on Wikipedia. Per WP:AtD, if an article can be improved that's preferable to deletion. First steps for improvement have already been taken by LEvalyn (thanks!). If this should in the end be not enough, an alternative to deletion would be a merge of the core content to List of stock characters, and of the sourced examples in the list to List of prostitutes and courtesans#Fictional. Daranios (talk) 10:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How much of that core content is really usable? As the maintenance tags indicate, this is barely sourced and reads more like an opinion essay. I'd support moving the list. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Just Another Cringy Username: That might have been a problem at the time of the nomination. Have you checked out the improvements made since then? The article is no longer "barely sourced". At the time of my !vote, there were already some sentences about the concept with references, more than enough to fill a proper line in List of stock characters. Now, it would no longer fit there, and fullfills WP:WHYN quite clearly in my view. (It also should be part of the process to look if there are sources which can be used to remedy issues before an article is nominated for deletion. That's no longer an issue now as participants of the discussion here have done that.) Daranios (talk) 10:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm finding quite a bit of mention so far, a lot of the coverage describes this as more of a western character trope - or at least that it pretty much originated in the west, particularly the United States. As to when it exactly started, that's less clear. It does seem to have become far more popular in the last 100 or so years, but that there were examples of this earlier on than that - they just didn't use this specific term. One PhD dissertation describes this as a more modern day spinoff of the idea of the sinner/saint trope. In any case my thought is to keep but improve so far. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced. Discuss on talk page anything you want to change AFD is not cleanup. Dream Focus 11:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: at this point the discussion was closed as keep under WP:SNOW. I am relisting this under today's log in my capacity as an uninvolved admin per WP:NACD. See related discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 May 17. Hut 8.5 07:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD discussions should be about whether WP should have an article on the subject or not. In this case there is more than enough sources to pass WP:GNG. Maintaince tags, content etc should be discussed on the talk page not at AfD. --John B123 (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation for my Delete. Putting my second comment here to preserve the flow of discussion. I do want to state more explicitly that we have exactly one source which is actually about the topic "hooker with a heart of gold." That's the sociological paper by Griffiths, which says it is exclusively present in 1980s American cinema. From what I see right now, everything else is either a discussion of a specific movie, which uses the phrase "hooker with a heart of gold" in passing, or it is about a much broader trope, something like "a prostitute, but what if you liked her because she was a good person" -- which is typically not discussed with the phrase "hooker with a heart of gold." (The analysis of courtesans in Hindi cinema fall into the latter category.) Just because the phrase is used a lot doesn't mean the trope has gotten actual coverage and analysis. Based on the sources, I think a "hooker with a heart of gold" article has to be about 1980s American cinema. I also think the trope in 1980s American cinema is not notable because it only has one source. Therefore, I think the question at hand is whether the 1980s "hooker with a heart of gold" trope can be meaningfully combined with some larger, actually notable topic. The lack of a name for this broader trope does not inspire confidence on that front. I increasingly think that following the sources means merging this article to a new "prostitution in cinema" article. That is the topic about which books and articles have actually been written; indeed, that is the main topic of Griffiths' sociological article. People who simply say there are "a lot of sources" need to address whether those sources are about "hooker with a heart of gold" or merely use the phrase. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In American literature, the trope (not the term) is attributed to Bret Harte, a contemporary of Mark Twain. I found a couple of sources, but I'm not sure how valid they are. I've listed them on the talk page and would welcome your input. I like the idea of an article on the depiction of sex workers in film (or literature). Seems a lot more encyclopedic and less "TV Tropes." Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 03:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another secondary source which discusses the trope('s origins) within Western literature to some degree, mostly on p. 168. It also supports the other two sources' link to Bret Harte, p. 165. Also this article, while only having one longish sentence, tells us about the ubiquitousness of the trope. Daranios (talk) 10:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing this digging. On reading them, they seem to be about the other major trope for representing prostitutes, the "fallen woman." The examples discussed at length are not women who are considered morally upstanding members of their society who are beloved by the characters and the narrative (ie the hooker with the heart of gold), but rather, women who have been irretrievably ruined by prostitution, get narrative sympathy only as a tragic figure, and even then can only be considered sympathetically because the West itself is already outside of "society". One of the main examples is actually dead for most of the story. I tried pretty hard to find quotes/details to expand this article from those two sources but without luck. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LEvalyn: Those sources use the exact phrase "hooker with a heart of gold". I guess it's just short enough that I'm allowed to quote: New Wests and Post-Wests says on p. 165 "Modern literary critics attribute the origins of the Western and the stereotype of the frontier hooker with a heart of gold to Harte." P. 168 first talks about a specific example and then "...the role of the hooker with a heart of gold - the prostitute whose kind deeds compensate for her lack of virtue. That this type of prostitute was commonly depicted in works of Harte and Miller suggest that gender on the frontier was flexible. As White points out, the mythic West was a space where women existed as either virgins or whores, but the hooker with a heart of gold stereotype suggested that a woman could be both." Sounds like a summary discussion of the type (also pointing out the pervasiveness) to me. Daranios (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to be a recognised stock character, widely used in critical discussion not relating to film. eg from Project Muse (specific subscription only): Kristen D. Amiro (2018). Suzy's Gold Star: A Holistic Education in Steinbeck's Sweet Thursday. Steinbeck Review Volume 15, Number 1: 17-30 ("Steinbeck's many portrayals of sex workers are sometimes criticized as stereotypical "hooker with a heart of gold" tropes." ... "Sweet Thursday is a comedic novel, with Fauna as the ultimate grande dame "hooker with a heart of gold.""); Jung Ha-yun (2020). Of Voice and Men: Kim Hoon Rewrites History as His Story. Azalea: Journal of Korean Literature & Culture Volume 13: 11-22 ("As a translator, one of the instances that I found uncomfortable is the chapter in Song of the Sword ... involving the courtesan Yŏ-jin ... Kim's account is a fictional one, which, to the contemporary reader, does far less to achieve verisimilitude about medieval life than clumsily resort to the cliché of the "hooker with a heart of gold.""); Robert Haas (2011). Homer on the Range. Classical World Volume 104, Number 2, 245-251 ("One character, incidentally, has no Homeric precedent: Maudie, the hooker-with-a-heart-of-gold, who fills the stock Western role of a romantic love interest for Arch."); Katie N. Johnson (2009). Before Katrina: Archiving Performative Downpours and Fallen Women Named Sadie in Rain and The Deluge (1922). Modern Drama Volume 52, Number 3, 351-368 (" both The Deluge and Rain recycle a classic hooker-with-a-heart-of-gold story – a tale about a repentant prostitute called Sadie who reconciles with her scarlet past." ... "while both plays recycled a classic [End Page 354] hooker-with-a-heart-of-gold story, Rain offered a more captivating and resistant scarlet woman, the first of a long line of Sadie Thompsons."); Lee Parpart. "Feminist Ambiguity in the Film Adaptations of Lynne Stopkewich" in The Gendered Screen [38] ("Stopkewich’s adaptation clearly announces itself as a rejection of the “hooker with a heart of gold” template that has so often been recycled in Hollywood products as diverse as Pretty Woman, Trading Places, and Leaving Las Vegas, and in non-film narratives from Nancy in Oliver Twist to the Hebrew Bible’s Rahab.") and many more (31 hits in total for the quoted phrase). ETA: They also include several discussing the use in American film well pre-1980s. ETA2: Also several discussing the trope in Roman/Greek drama, including an interesting note "The notion that possessing a "golden nature" ... makes her a "true hetaira" recalls Theognis's obsessive wish to find a pistos hetairos just like himself, "refined gold when rubbed on a touchstone" (Thgn. 415-18, 449-52). The similarity of language and theme suggests that the "hooker with a heart of gold," who becomes a staple of New Comedy, is an adaptation of an older aristocratic ideal." p185-86 in Coins, Bodies, Games, and Gold: The Politics of Meaning in Archaic Greece [39]. ETA3 Open-access article that cites two 1970s books on portrayal women in film that discuss the archetype.[40]. While I'm aware that most of these aren't discussing the trope itself, surely we can source a list of characters that reliable sources discuss using this terminology? I'm not seeing any reason to delete this content, even if a broader article on portrayals of prostitution would be interesting. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing this digging. Of these sources, most seem to be exactly what I mean about a sourcing using a phrase rather than being about the trope. Only Coins, Bodies, Games, and Gold seems to be doing more than identifying a certain text as an example or counterexample of the phenomenon (that one speculates about the origins of the trope). If all we're doing is sourcing examples, then we're talking about a list, which should pass WP:NLIST. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was initially trying to find examples to show it wasn't just applied to 1980s American film, and was a much broader and older trope. I think the Stopkewich one is also useful. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd just like to highlight LEvalyn's point. It doesn't matter how many examples we can collate; it matters how much the topic has been discussed in secondary sources. Remember WP:NOTTVTROPES, WP:NLIST, and WP:STAND. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 02:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm baffled by the repeated assertion that this passes WP:GNG based on the sources we have found so far. Yes, the topic exists - no one disagrees. Yes, this is a recognized stock character. But we need secondary sources that discuss the trope, not merely speak its name. What we have is a massive list of passing mentions ("charactername is a hooker with a heart of gold"), not in-depth coverage of the trope itself. The article that results from these sources will be entirely made of WP:OR, or it will be more properly named "list of hookers with a heart of gold". That already exists, here: [41]. I'm not !voting delete because I still haven't had a chance to do a proper look for better sources, but there isn't sourcing here or in the article for a Keep right now, despite the proliferation of footnotes. -- asilvering (talk) 04:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: After recent improvements there is currently no content without references (aside from the introductory line, which customarily doesn't need one), so there is no WP:OR going on. And yet we do have a non-stubby article, if a short one, which is the goal of the notability requirement in the first place. And that's when not all found secondary sources have been worked into the article yet. Daranios (talk) 10:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. there's emough, especially is one does not get pedatic in expecting the exact phrase, but acepts synonyms. For example, the trophe is discussed in every book about early 20the century film smd popular novels of the period. . I cannot immediately think of a better title--there are many synonyms, of vaious degrees of euphemism. The assumption that he sources merely list the characters ifs falso--they are usually discussed. DGG ( talk ) 06:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Well known trope since at least the time of Rahab. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FeydHuxtable Care to address the issue of WP:NOTTVTROPES? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ Just Another Cringy Username In my view the article already contained sufficient analyses to be exempt from WP:NOTTVTROPES, even more so when taking into account the sources detailed by editor Espresso Addict. As you still had concerns I've further expanded the article. To pick out just one of the top tier sources I used, the Cambridge University Press book Prostitutes and Matrons in the Roman World has an entire chapter analysing hookers with a heart of gold, talking about the historical development of the trope, mentioning a few real world examples, and discussing the social purpose of the trope. Theres such an abundance of good sources analysing the stereotype that it would be trivial to expand the article to good article status if one had a few days to spare. FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was pinged for my opinion by Piotrus.
Looking at the cited sources, I must say that this isn't by any stretch of the imagination a well-sourced article. The number of sources is really not that important (we're not going for a much-sourced article, but a well-sourced one), the quality is what matters. That's quality as it relates to the topic of the article, specifically.
What the topic of the article actually is/should be could go two ways: either the character archetype or the phrase (i.e. WP:WORDISSUBJECT). I'm assuming we're going for the former here (the latter would necessitate starting the entire article over from scratch), but it's worth keeping in mind that the character archetype and the phrase used to refer to it are two distinct topics.
Having said that, this is in a pretty poor state. As pointed out by LEvalyn and Asilvering, what we want is proper secondary (or tertiary, I suppose) sources discussing and analysing the general concept. This should be obvious: an article on X should be based on sources on X. Basing an article on sources about something else makes for an article of poor quality. The reason for this in the specific context of fiction/popular culture is outlined in the essay WP:CARGO: Simply amassing raw data, and hoping that an encyclopaedia article will magically arise from it, doesn't work. [...] Collecting raw data does not produce an analysis. The raw data can be examples, that demonstrate the analysis. (There are some elephant jokes in elephant joke, for example.) But simply amassing huge piles of them doesn't make an analysis. What makes an analysis is finding the works of experts in the field who have done analyses of the raw data, and then condensing and summarizing their published analyses into the article. (Collecting raw data and then producing our own novel analyses of those data is, of course, original research that is forbidden here.) This is also in line with WP:WHYN—we need quality sources to make a quality article. The sources do not need to be exclusively on the topic at hand, but they do need to be significantly on the topic at hand and in-depth in their coverage (WP:Significant coverage). Likewise, the article need not exclusively cite these kinds of top-quality sources—sources on adjacent topics can be useful for fleshing out the details—but they do need to provide the foundation and backbone of the article.
With all this in mind, we can't really keep the article in its current state, because it is—to be blunt—bad. We have a few different options available to us.
At minimum, this should be redirected to List of stock characters (and an WP:ANCHOR for direct linking to the relevant entry should be added) if we don't keep it as a stand-alone article. I don't think it's in dispute that this is a widely-recognized character archetype, and we do have sufficient sourcing for a single-sentence definition.
Another possible solution would be to convert this to an article on the broader topic of Prostitution in fiction or similar, as LEvalyn suggested. I would suggest moving the article to draftspace until the conversion is complete in such a case, since this would entail a complete rewrite.
The ideal solution would of course be to locate additional sources focused on and analysing the concept in general and rewrite the article based on those, but then we have to actually follow through on that. If we are to keep this as a stand-alone article, the list of examples needs to go. Merely enumerating examples of X in fiction is what TV Tropes does, but Wikipedia is of course WP:NOTTVTROPES. Examples should be integrated in prose alongside relevant analysis (again, WP:CARGO), and their sourcing should meet the requirements set out by MOS:POPCULT: Cultural references about a subject should not be included simply because they exist. Rather, all such references should be discussed in at least one reliable secondary or tertiary source which specifically links the cultural item to the subject of the article. This source should cover the subject of the article in some depth; it should not be a source that merely mentions the subject's appearance in a movie, song, television show, or other cultural item. TompaDompa (talk) 22:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. People keep citing Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not TV Tropes, but it is not policy just an essay, and in fact was only moved out of the author TenPoundHammer's userspace on 27 April. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTTVTROPES used to redirect to WP:NOT, which is policy. I hadn't realised its destination had changed to an essay. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 08:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good essay, and there is nothing wrong with citing them in various discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not when some/most of the people citing it think it's a redirect to WP:NOT. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What if we merge the list of examples to List of famous prostitutes and courtesans? Many of the existing examples are already there and it would make this article less "TV tropey." Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good shout - I wouldn't normally support something like that, but it might be a good compromise so we can remove the unsightly tags. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:03, 23 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 06:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zoot and the Roots

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

I'm not seeing anything that satisfies WP:BAND or WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found a few mentions in Google books but nothing major. The Google search results only provide Wiki type paged. No indication they meet MUSICBIO. Samanthany (talk) 00:28, 21 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 06:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seid Asrar

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:50, 16 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) 03:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with the nom, GNG is not met. Taken a further look at WP:SPORTBASIC and the subject does not meet these requirements either, owing to the total lack of significant coverage. Such-change47 (talk) 04:03, 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 keep. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Colion Noir

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

This subject barely scratches the surface of notability. There's some stuff in the twitterverse, but not enough secondary in-depth sourcing to prove notability by our standards. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: With respect to the nominator, more than enough in-depth reliable sourcing from WP:NEWSORGS exist: [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], etc. The sources span the course of multiple years so WP:SUSTAINED is met too. There's also mild coverage in academic sources too, see here (Critical Policy Studies) or here (Oxford University Press) Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Never a good thing when I come across an AFD nom and think "I have definitely heard of this public figure before!". Turns out that is because he was on Real Time with Bill Maher as an interviewed guest a while back. Going further, the article includes notable coverage from the LA Times here, a mention (albeit borderline trivial) in the Washington Post here, notable mention in Fox News here and here and here, (plus many more in Google), in the New York Times here, mentioned in this book. I do not think I have ever been able to find so many sources demonstrating significant coverage for an AFD before. Personally I think this is a potential candidate for speedy keep on ground 3 - this nom is erroneous given that there is sufficient secondary sourcing to prove notability. However, I do not consider myself experienced enough to close a nom for this reason and instead defer to any suitably experienced editor who may agree. Such-change47 (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 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. ✗plicit 03:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul A. Merriman

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

Topic fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Source 1 is a link to the subjects main website. Source 2 is unavailable. Source 3 is a link to the Corporations Division of Washington. Source 4 is a blog article written by the subject from the subject's own website. Source 5 is a link to the subject's biography. Source 6 is a small description in a slideshow of about a podcast he was involved in on CNN Money. It's not an article by any means. Source 7 is unavailable. Source 8 is unavailable. Source 9 is unavailable. Source 10, Merriman is quoted a couple times in a book on Google Scholar. The book itself is not notable. Source 11 is unavailable. Source 12 is a link to his biography on a company website he was involved with. In addition to the majority of this article being unsourced, there are a number of personal bios I found online with grandiose claims, i.e. recognized by Forbes, nationally recognized, widely regarded, etc. and I did not find any independent, notable sources to constitute SIGCOV. Most of it is just him stating that, or his bio pasted somewhere. However, he has written several online blogs and articles and so I did consider him for WP:NACADEMIC. Unfortunately, none of it's cited in Google Scholar, and mostly appears to be his opinion and not original research as well. Feels like WP:NOT. Megtetg34 (talk) 01:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 May 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. BLP is full of dross and nobody has cited his work. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. This looks like spam for a financial advising business rather than like a Wikipedia article. If the books had published reviews then there would be a case for WP:AUTHOR but I didn't find any. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
100% agree with that. It does seem like the article is being used to garner trust for financial services. Megtetg34 (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like WP:MASQ and fails to meet WP:GNG. Appropriate sourcing non-existent, per nom. NiklausGerard (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The coverage just isn't there. His co-authored book Market Timing with No-Load Mutual Funds (1987) was reviewed in Library Journal [54], as was his 1996 video How To Succeed at Mutual Fund Investing with Paul Merriman[55], but brutally. A local Seattle Times review[56] of the same or a similar tape contextualizes him a bit and is more positive. There's a short bio in Baker & Taylor Author Biographies[57]. This was important because it confirmed that his radio show was regional on a few stations and not national. Merriman's 1991 book, Investing for a Lifetime was reviewed in Kiplinger's Personal Finance Magazine[58]. Money magazine called Merriman's podcast "The Best Money Podcast" in 2008 and said "Vanguard founder Jack Bogle is a fan."[59]. There are a bunch of citations of him as an expert, but none are super substantial, often his views on market timing are a foil for the author's differing view. There's a couple of alumni or local profiles. All in all, it's just not enough coverage, I think. I hesitate a bit because a lot of 80's and 90's stuff probably isn't available on the internet, but it seems like he's never quote broken through to lasting significance.Jahaza (talk) 01:05, 21 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kataleya and Kandle

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

case of WP:TOOSOON, haven't won any notable awards, no meaningful in depth coverage and what sources do exist are either primary/interviews/not rs or blackhat SEO. PRAXIDICAE💕 20:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Uganda. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2022-04 move to → Draft:Kataleya and Kandle

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article was improved with more reliable secondary sources where linked to the page i.e ^[1], ^[2]--Tnakasos (talk) 10:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

References

^ https://www.newvision.co.ug/articledetails/132489
^ https://www.watchdoguganda.com/entertainment/20220508/135731/kataleya-and-kandle-east-africas-new-sensational-female-duo-bossing-the-airwaves.html as well the page can be improved more by time if its kept live

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My Own

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

Very likely fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG, as it's been unsourced since 2009. Title is hard to search for, but adding keywords did not improve the results. Prod contested. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:52, 1 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?)} 01:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Murphy, Jill (2022-02-28). "My Own. TV review by Jill Murphy, Common Sense Media". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on 2022-05-02. Retrieved 2022-05-02.
  The review notes: "My Own takes celebrity worship to a new low. Not only does it emphasize the importance of appearance, but it goes a step farther and rewards those who happen to resemble someone famous. This is a damaging message to tweens and teens, who are forming their identity and ideas about how dating works -- they're already under enough pressure to look good, but now they need to look like a celebrity too? What ever happened to individuality? The show also offers the confusing idea that the best way to show you're a fan is to date someone who reminds you of your idol...huh?"
2. Jones, Jen (April 2006). "MTV Moves". Dance Spirit. Vol. 10, no. 4. p. 112. ProQuest 209289734. Archived from the original on 2022-05-02. Retrieved 2022-05-02.
  The article notes: "On MTV's new dating show "My Own," enthusiastic wannabes are transformed into carbon copies of the pop stars they idolize, in hopes of capturing a fellow fan's heart. Though training these budding Justins and Ciaras may sound like a tall task, the mission was far from impossible for the show's choreographer, Chantai Robson. Off-screen, Robson has made a career out of coaching up-and-coming artists such as Hope Seven on personality and performance. To prepare choreography for "My Own," Robson watched hours of music videos to adapt the moves for contestants. [The show airs 6 pm EST Monday through Friday.) On a shooting schedule of several shows per week, Robson found herself memorizing the dance steps of everyone from Ashlee Simpson to Jennifer Lopez at a breakneck pace. Added to the pressure was the challenge of getting the contestants camera-ready to perform."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow My Own to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 02:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These two sources are WP:ROUTINE coverage. Fails WP:NOT. Delete.Lurking shadow (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ROUTINE refers to events and thus isn't applicable here. NemesisAT (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can't agree. A TV show is a string of events. One review and one short interview are simply nothing but indication of routine coverage. You can expect this from every single TV show that has existed, ever. Lurking shadow (talk) 13:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUTINE redirects to Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Routine coverage, which does not apply to television series, which are not events. My Own received substantial coverage in a review and significant coverage in an article about the show's choreographer's work on the show. This is sufficient to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 01:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:35, 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. This is a prime example of WP:NOTAVOTE. By strength of arguments, consensus is that this topic is not encyclopedically notable. The quality or lack of quality of the publication is irrelevant to notability. None of the keep arguments have made a case that the topic meets GNG or any other notability requirement, not even COMMONSENSE. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Authority (Magazine)

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

An outlet which churns dozens of pr articles. Fails WP:GNG. Jsfodness (talk) 03:14, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Keep What the content of the magazine is should not matter, that it exists and has a fairly high read rate and notable content where many of the article subjects have their own Wikipedia articles, is the point. This puts out profiles on notable people - not very different than Entrepreneur Magazine, Hampton Magzine etc.Fairlysimple (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Authority Magazine is all about interviews focused on giving advice to the reader. It's an incredible publication and what is being said about it is completely false. 2601:704:100:FA70:1545:8B65:2F56:1EAE (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Articles are written for the reader, not for PR purposes. 2600:387:15:1517:0:0:0:2 (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP! 2600:1700:7DB0:5340:B554:3A47:41ED:A34 (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:26, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When you write, "churns out PR articles", are you referring to the articles that Authority Magazine produces, or the fact that some interviewees put out PR articles on PR Wires about the interview. If you mean the content that Authority Magazine produces, I'd like to politely beg to differ. Please look at the content they produce, all the interviews are reader-facing and are giving advice to the reader rather than promote a company. Please see these as examples:

https://medium.com/authority-magazine/search?q=The%20Great%20Resignation%20%26%20The%20Future%20Of%20Work%3A

https://medium.com/authority-magazine/search?q=Effective%20Leader%20Turbulent

https://medium.com/authority-magazine/search?q=Female%20Founders%3A

Here is the complete list of interview topics

https://medium.com/authority-magazine/ongoing-interview-series-in-authority-magazine-7d633a349753

If you mean that interviewees release PR articles on PR wires, that is out of the control of Authority Magazine's staff, and this is a common practice done when any publication like Entrepreneur or Forbes does an interview PaulPachad (talk) 03:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC) — PaulPachad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. The *content* of the magazine is not actually relevant in any way. It could publish air conditioner user manuals - the question is whether the magazine is reliably covered in reliable, independent sources (WP:GNG) or NCORP. Not finding that. No evidence of notability has been shown so far. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here are several examples where it is cited in reliable, independent sources

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/21/arts/television/willie-garson-dead.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/pamdanziger/2020/09/20/biden-was-right-the-diversity-of-the-hispanic-market-creates-confusion-for-brands/?sh=373df850f3b9

https://www.fastcompany.com/90740236/psychedelic-companies-are-betting-big-on-ketamine-as-the-next-prozac

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/charlotte-kirk-actress-center-ron-001516547.html

https://www.today.com/parents/why-willie-garson-adopted-his-son-nathen-garson-t231855

https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/willie-garsons-son-nathen-shares-throwback-video-after-death/

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-willie-garson-dead-illness-20210922-dmkugotjpjg4na4at5sg4dbjbm-story.html

https://www.vanityfair.it/people/mondo/2021/09/23/willie-garson-storia-decisione-adottare-bambino-papa-single PaulPachad (talk) 02:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Authority Magazine is cited in authoritative sources such as Yahoo News. Here is a sample: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/10-women-leaders-finance-shares-150000186.html. Better to improve the article and ensure it conforms with Wikipedia guidelines. Owoyed (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Again, the content is as much read and informative as any other business profile magazine. What makes it relevant is that people of note, people of influence and people who are written about here OM Wikipedia itself submit to interviews and stories. Some may not like it, but it's a bona fide journal.2600:1001:B129:B6DA:D8B3:C29:6874:513A (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC) — 2600:1001:B129:B6DA:D8B3:C29:6874:513A (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fairlysimple. Jsfodness (talk) 11:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The content is educational and informative. And then a reason why the challenge is wrong and why they should keep it. 96.232.247.134 (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! great interviews with reputable interviewees, on important relevant topics AaronTwo12fashion (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Their interviews really are educational for the reader and also had so many reputable guests join them for interviews. Not everyone is going to like the content or style of a publication but it doesn't change the fact that it is a legitimate publication. 75.80.159.95 (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hundreds of interviews have ranged from cancer survivor stories, resourcing touted cancer doctors, themes in the area of resilience and overcoming the fear of failure. These are human interest and self-help topics that benefit not only the reader, but collectively showcase the human spirit to endure and overcome. These are not promotional pieces, they help to motivate, inspire and offer hope. 69.127.214.77 (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP

The content is relevant and it is very helpful to the readers. I was actually featured in one of the articles, "I Survived Cancer and Here is How I Did It". Many people shared with me how helpful my story was as well as the stories of others in the interview series. The topics are important and relevant! They also let people know that they are not alone when facing real life challenges! 2601:444:8300:6470:B8B2:C984:AC68:6DDC (talk) 17:20, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this publication. It is relevant to all of society and should not be deleted for unambiguous reasons. It is educational, relevant and a legitimate publication. 2604:5500:41C0:EE00:FD1D:58E9:E2BF:E351 (talk) 17:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP

It publishes an array of well researched, superbly communicated information that features the voices of incredible though leaders across different industries that help readers gain relevant and pertinent knowledge. 104.172.21.245 (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closer This AfD has been WP:CANVASSED by several IPs with 0-1 edits outside this AfD. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reference to Willie Garson's interview in Authority is not GNG level coverage, and they do not acquire notability from their subjects. A BEFORE provides no indication that Authority has been discussed as a notable magazine. Star Mississippi 02:46, 25 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

National Foundation for Cancer Research

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted in 2016. Current incarnation of article seems to be making no better attempt at asserting notability than the previous one, but I don't know if it qualifies for G4. The award granted does not seem to be a major one worthy of WP:GNG Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, and United States of America. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many sources in GScholar confirming the award, the funds they donate and how the research is being done. Oaktree b (talk) 01:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is a notable, national organisation with a 49 year history, passes WP:NGO:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1505022/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/tamara-p-salisbury-cancer-foundation-co-founder/2013/11/23/4e23fbf2-5394-11e3-a7f0-b790929232e1_story.html
Their records are part of the permanent collection here http://scarc.library.oregonstate.edu/coll/cameron/catalogue/cameron12_1-10.html

I could go on, but it would seem like bludgeoning. CT55555 (talk) 01:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The National Foundation for Cancer Research is referenced in a wealth of sources. The WP article needs some work but that's not a reason to nominate for deletion.Greenshed (talk) 10:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Referenced" is not the same as "notable". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:34, 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 keep. ✗plicit 03:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska Wing Men

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

Prod declined in 2018. Prodder at the time could find nothing beyond a single article in the Anchorage paper, and I fared no better. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:53, 16 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?)} 00:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Keep It has a small mention in a TV Guide article about shows filmed in Alaska, with the newspaper, I think it just meets notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Alaska. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Heimbuch, Hannah (2012-01-29). "National Geographic's female factor on 'Alaska Wing Men'". Anchorage Daily News. Archived from the original on 2022-05-16. Retrieved 2022-05-16.
  The article notes: "The National Geographic show "Alaska Wing Men" is in its second season now, and features the 24-year-old Kiana pilot, along with a number of other wing men from around the state. Staheli is the only female pilot featured this season, making her place in a field historically dominated by men. ... In fact, when National Geographic first approached the Staheli family about featuring their air taxi service in the show, Staheli's dad gave them a big negative. ... The show was filmed last March and part of last summer, and is currently airing on the National Geographic channel."
2. Cuthbertson, Ian (2012-06-02). "Quick bites - - Pay TV". The Australian. Archived from the original on 2022-05-16. Retrieved 2022-05-16.
  The article provides 223 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "The skies above Alaska are the most dangerous in the US. In this reality series we meet the brave men (no women) who fly there. Meet Keller, Don, Jay and Drake -- the Alaska wing men. ... The plots and adventures here are nothing to write home about, but the scenery is awesome. Wing Men won't be everybody's cup of cocoa, but if you've ever wondered what Alaska is really like beyond the brochures, this is a great place to start."
3. Caldwell, Suzanna (2012-01-27). "Alaska pilot navigates wild skies on 'Alaska Wing Men'". Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. Archived from the original on 2022-05-16. Retrieved 2022-05-16.
  The article notes: "Count Kiana resident Zaz Staheli as one of them. She is the only part-Alaska Native and only female on National Geographic’s "Alaska Wing Men," a show that chronicles the lives and experiences of Alaska bush pilots. Three of the show’s 10 first-season episodes have aired. "Alaska Wing Men" focuses on the men and women who fly the planes, similar to the Discovery Channel’s "Flying Wild Alaska," which depicts the Tweto family operating its air service out of Unalakleet. However, "Alaska Wing Men" features a handful of pilots from different companies that navigate air space across the state."
4. Newsome, Brad (2012-06-08). "Alaska Wing Men, Friday, June 8". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2022-05-16. Retrieved 2022-05-16.
  The article provides 127 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Elsewhere, other pilots face tricky landings on water and snow as they drop off hunters and skiers. Worth a look."
5. Newsome, Brad (2011-04-04). "Alaska Wing Men, Monday April 4". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2022-05-16. Retrieved 2022-05-16.
  The article notes: "This series about Alaskan aviation begins in the most ominous tone: ..."
6. "8 p.m." Connecticut Post. 2012-01-06. Archived from the original on 2022-05-16. Retrieved 2022-05-16.
  The article notes: "For the Alaska Wing Men, unpredictable weather and difficult terrain can turn even the most ordinary flights into a battle for survival. But once in a while, the skies clear and a secret mission comes along that is more fun than dangerous. That's the case in the new episode "Ski Chopper Daredevils."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Alaska Wing Men to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as The Australian and Anchorage Daily News identified above so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 09:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on sources listed above, at the very least it pass WP:GNG. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:32, 21 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 03:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Property Ladder (TV series)

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

All hits I got on ProQuest for the UK version were the likes of "Property Ladder host Sarah Beeny to do blah blah blah". The US version turned up a single Chicago Tribune review, but everything else was just press releases or gossip about their host, too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, United Kingdom, and United States of America. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Sources about the UK version of Property Ladder:
  1. Starke, Petra (2010-12-15). "Property Ladder host Sarah Beeny's a hero on the home front". Sunday Mail. Archived from the original on 2022-05-16. Retrieved 2022-05-16.
    The review notes: "For the uninitiated, Property Ladder is an English real estate show which follows the exploits of would-be developers from property purchase to re-sale, documenting all their expensive renovation disasters along the way. For the uninitiated, Property Ladder is an English real estate show which follows the exploits of would-be developers from property purchase to re-sale, documenting all their expensive renovation disasters along the way. ... All of this makes for great viewing, but it's Beeny that makes Property Ladder truly unmissable. ... Of course, the best part is most people on Property Ladder don't listen to Sarah Beeny, because they're morons and don't realise what amazing superhuman abilities she has."
  2. McLean, Gareth (2007-05-09). "'I get a kick from risk'". TheGuardian.com. Archived from the original on 2022-05-16. Retrieved 2022-05-16.
    The review notes: "... Sarah Beeny muses on the seemingly inevitable moment that occurs in every episode of the TV home-renovation show Property Ladder. The pig-headed, deluded and occasionally downright stupid wannabe developers have finally finished their project, months behind schedule and thousands over budget. Throughout the development, they have comprehensively ignored Beeny's advice, choosing the most expensive of everything rather than the best value options. ... And so it is, making Property Ladder compulsive viewing and Beeny, 35, a bona fide TV star. She comes across as capable, knowledgeable, patient to a fault - and, crucially, smarter than some of the participants who think they are cleverer than she is. She's foxy, on television and in the flesh, fun and funny. Some of her male fan base also imagine her to be bossy - in a good way."
2. Sources about the US version of Property Ladder:
  1. Barger, Theresa Sullivan (2005-11-04). "TV Spotlight". Hartford Courant. Archived from the original on 2022-05-16. Retrieved 2022-05-16.
    The review notes: "The verdict: One of several shows on the practice of trying to make a quick buck with tons of sweat and steep risk, Property Ladder reveals the dangers that come with the territory. Kemp's advice is informative to anyone considering becoming a real estate developer. Part cautionary tale, part disaster, Property Ladder is compelling. A must-see for anyone considering flipping."
  2. Stevens, Kimberly (2004-09-26). "Next Up on Reality TV: Flipping Real Estate, for Fun and Profit". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-16. Retrieved 2022-05-16.
    The article notes: "Production began here last week for a show tentatively titled "Property Ladder" that will follow 12 people as they fix up places they have recently bought with the idea of selling them quickly. The drama lies in whether the "flip" is a flop or a success. ... Unlike reality shows like "Survivor," where the prize for winning is $1 million, in this one, the reward is the glory of being on television, and the chance to get some expert opinion from the host, Kirsten Kemp. ... Each one-hour episode will show owners grappling with renovation, budgets, neighbors, community boards, significant others and anything else that comes their way during the process. The show is scheduled to air on the Learning Channel in early 2005."
  3. Carrillo, Carmel (2005-06-19). "'Property Ladder' hinges on risks". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on 2022-05-16. Retrieved 2022-05-16.
    The article notes: " TLC's new series, "Property Ladder," should come with a warning: "This program contains reckless content. Prospective buyers' discretion is advised."The show documents investors' experiences with "flipping" -- buying a home, fixing it up and (hopefully) selling it for a profit. In an unabashed attempt to heighten interest in the outcome, "Property Ladder" focuses on people who have little or no experience. ... The cautionary tales are framed by extreme foolishness: Ashley pays an acquaintance to repaint her kitchen cabinets. He makes off with her money and the cabinets, never to return. Anthony buffs his hardwood floors without professional help, resulting in a perilous- yet-madcap dance between homeowner and high-powered floor sander."
  4. Umberger, Mary (2003-12-07). "Wanted: A 'fun' host, rehabbers with thick skin". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on 2022-05-16. Retrieved 2022-05-16.
    The article notes: " A British television production company is looking for an American real estate agent or small-property renovator to host, yes, yet another reality show.The program will be the U.S. version of "Property Ladder," a popular British how-to that follows first-timers through their travails as they renovate and resell properties. ... And for the 13 hour-long presentations that will follow a different American renovator each week, "Property Ladder USA" (as it is tentatively being called) needs a host -- or, as they say in the United Kingdom, "a presenter." ... The show also wants people who are willing to be on the receiving end of that blunt advice, ideally someone who is about to buy his or her first investment property."
  5. Deggans, Eric (2008-08-09). "Show builds off of reality". Tampa Bay Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-16. Retrieved 2022-05-16.
    The review notes: "Hard-nosed real estate expert Kirsten Kemp Becker - you know, the consultant rehabbers regularly ignore on TLC's Property Ladder series - offers Hope for Your Home, a show providing participants with $10,000 in cash, a contractor consultant and loads of advice on how to boost a home's value for a new loan or sale. It debuts tonight. ... Best of all, TLC has crafted a series that acknowledges the bitter reality homeowners face today, while offering a makeover tale that could help viewers deal with their own housing nightmares."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Property Ladder to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All but one of those is a trivial mention. The NYT and Chicago Tribune sources are projected sources on before the show even existed, and the Tampa Bay one dedicates less than a sentence to it. Both of the first two sources are just fluff pieces on the host that again, dedicate less than a full sentence to the show. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Hartford Courant article provides substantial coverage about the show in three sections: "the shtick", "the verdict", and "the details". It is not a "fluff piece". The New York Times provides substantial coverage about the show's production and history. That it was published before the show aired does not detract from its being significant coverage about the show. The article in the Chicago Tribune was published after the show premiered because it discusses in detail what happens in one of the episodes. Cunard (talk) 10:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That still doesn't change the fact that most of the other sources are speculative, or that the Hartford source is only a single paragraph. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Hartford Courant article provides 270 words of coverage about Property Ladder. This is significant coverage. Cunard (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIGNUMBER. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIGNUMBER says: "A commonly seen argument at AfD is "Subject has X number of Y, that's notable/non-notable". Notability isn't determined by something's quantity of members, but rather by the quality of the subject's verifiable, reliable sources. An article on a topic is more likely to pass the notability test with a single article in Encyclopedia Britannica than because it has 1 million views on YouTube."
I am not making the argument that the subject is notable through "quantity of members". I am making the argument that the subject is notable through having received coverage in 270 quality words of coverage in the Hartford Courant article. Cunard (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's still only one valid source. The rest is just fluff about the hosts. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Chicago Tribune article (published after the show premiered) and The New York Times article (published before the show premiered) are not "just fluff about the hosts". They provide significant coverage about the show itself. Cunard (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT article says "tentatively titled". It was written before the show had even started production or even had a name. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough in the Sunday Mail and The Hartford Courant articles to establish notability per WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For what? A bunch of stupid bullshit on the host's personal life? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The general notability guidelines have been kept. The sourcing found is sufficient. Dream Focus 22:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sufficient for what? A bunch of BS about the host and speculation from back when the show didn't even have a title? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on sources listed above, at the very least it passes WP:GNG. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep checked three of the listed sources and they all provided what I would consider significant coverage about the show, with mentions of the host who is a part of the show, but the focus was the show. When the significant coverage happened absolutely does not matter. Coverage before it airs, while it's airing, and after it's done airing all qualify. It is actually better for it to be like that, rather than a bunch of coverage once it aired and then never again with nothing before. The fact that The New York Times decided to give a full article about a show that was only a week into production is telling. Anyways once this is closed if kept, I'd suggest a merge discussion for the talk pages. Unless the articles are expanded, plenty of sources here, the merge could at least be discussed. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:00, 21 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 03:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hurl!

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

Non-notable show. "tom crehan" "hurl" turned up literally no results on GNews, GBooks, or newspapers.com. Prod declined Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:10, 1 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?)} 01:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Stanley, Alessandra (2008-07-17). "Gross Out and Knockoff, but Hardly Any Sendup". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
  The article notes: "“Hurl!,” an extreme eating contest on the cable channel G4, has a certain elegance, an economy of action and intent that is too often lacking in contemporary ballet or fine dining. Contestants, almost all male, eat as much as they can in one sitting, then exert themselves in a strenuous physical activity. He who eats the most and vomits the least wins $1,000."
2. Farhi, Paul (2008-07-16). "'Hurl!': Gag Reflux; G4's Game Show Earns Two Fingers Down the Throat". The Washington Post. ProQuest 410202661.
  The article notes:
  
  It's "Hurl!," a new TV game show that oozes under the lowest bar ever set by reality television. It also emerges as the inglorious new standard-setter in the how-low-can-they-go derby. Oh, yes, this is award-worthy retch-edness.
  "Hurl!," which debuted last night on the G4 cable channel, is the first half-hour series that combines physical rigor with eating disorders and gastric distress. Contestants consume massive quantities of sure-to-bloat foods -- chicken pot pie, franks 'n' beans, New England clam chowder -- then engage in such activities as riding an amusement park Tilt-A-Whirl. The "winner" is the contestant who doesn't lose his lunch. Or to be technical about it, who holds out the longest before he releases the hounds. Call it a pas de spew.
  "Hurl!," in other words, is for people who found "Fear Factor" much too nuanced and intellectually complex.
3. Roberds, Michael (2008-07-18). "G4 'wins' with disgusting game show called Hurl!". Surrey Now-Leader. p. 36. ProQuest 359014283.
  The article notes: "If they made a movie in 1988 that was a satire on life in 2008, they would have television shows that would've looked outrageous by their standards. They might even have a game show, in which the object was to be the last to vomit. Well, I have seen the future and it is Hurl! G4, a cable channel devoted mostly to video game news, has come up with this bizarre concoction. In Hurl!, contestants are involved in eating contests (hot dogs, fish sticks, etc.) with those who can keep the most down continuing on to the next level. In this part, they are subjected to different activities (belly flops, mechanical bulls) designed to shake things up. ... Congratulations, G4, you've come up with the most disgusting show of the year. I hope."
4. "News of the Weird for August 24, 2008". Andrews McMeel Syndication. 2008-08-24. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
  The article notes: "Though it has been on national cable TV since mid-July, ratings have not been spectacular for the G4 channel's show, "Hurl!" leaving many Americans unaware of precisely how far standards of taste have fallen. "Hurl!" contestants are forced to gorge themselves, then are purposely, rapidly, twirted and shaken on carnival-type rides, with the last player to retain his stomach contents declared the winner. Wrote a Washington Post reviewer, it's "for people who found 'Fear Factor' much too nuanced.""
5. Darling, Cary (2008-07-13). "Japanese Game Shows Exploding Across the Airwaves in U.S." The Ledger. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
  The article notes: "This show certainly taps into the extreme spirit of Japanese TV. Because the only thing harder than taking part in this eating contest is watching it. Not only do competitors have to choke down mountains of mac 'n' cheese and pumpkin pie in record time, they are forced to compete in some belly-churning physical activity until one or more of them, you know, hurls. The last one standing, however woozily, who hasn't given up his lunch gets $1,000 and the Iron Stomach Award. "Hurl!" is helped by its cheeky sense of humor: ..."
6. Weiss, Joanna (2008-07-14). "'Hurl' serves up gross-out reality". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
  The article notes: ""Hurl!" doesn't take itself the least bit seriously and doesn't suggest that anyone ought to watch unless absolutely willing. It's less hazardous than "Jackass" and not much more disgusting than "Fear Factor," and if it finds a doofus audience, so be it."
7. Glazer, Teressa Hamrick (2008-05-29). "Glazer: The TV show you dont want to watch at dinner". The Gainesville Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
  The article notes: "Just when I think modern day culture has finally bottomed out and can sink no further, along comes the likes of Neal Tiles who digs a hole so the bar can be lowered even more. It makes me want to hurl."
8. Gillette, Amelie (2008-06-20). "This Week In Terrifying Hybrids". The A.V. Club. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
  The article notes: "Jackass + Competitive Eating - Bam Margera + G4's beautiful vision of a vomit spirograph = g4's Hurl!"
9. Bell, Josh (2008-07-24). "Falling Down. A new crop of game shows take on-air debasement to a new low". Las Vegas Sun. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
  The article notes: "As dumb as Wipeout is, it’s genius compared to Hurl! (G4, Sundays, 7 p.m.), a crude, low-budget game show that forces participants to gorge themselves on some sort of rich food and then engage in some potentially vomit-inducing activity, like being rolled around in a giant metal ball."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Hurl! to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per the many sources listed above. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am impressed with the sources found and consider them to constitute significant coverage, and so the article ought not be deleted. Such-change47 (talk) 04:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on sources listed above, at the very least it passes WP:GNG. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:37, 21 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. Very nice work by BD2412 and ChrisTheDude. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John McKnight (English footballer)

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Joeykai (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:OFFLINESOURCES, being yet another example of an AFD about a pre-internet footballer where there is zero evidence that nominator has complied with BEFORE. Big sigh. Giant Snowman 19:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: Please WP:AGF; there is zero evidence that the nominator has not complied with BEFORE. BilledMammal (talk) 23:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is also zero evidence that they have... Giant Snowman 05:58, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: Per WP:AGF we assume that an editor is acting in good faith unless there is evidence they are not. BilledMammal (talk) 11:43, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:FPL. He played some matches in the Football League First Division. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 02:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@KingSkyLord Please note that playing in a fully professional league is not grounds for an article to be kept per WP:NSPORT. Alvaldi (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. But dozens of caps for a fully-professional league in the 1800s? That certainly suggest a significant BEFORE must be done before nomination. Nfitz (talk) 05:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there are surely offline sources for this early footballer who played in a significant professional league.--Mvqr (talk) 10:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As no WP:SIGCOV can be found, WP:GNG is not met, and more importantly WP:SPORTCRIT #5, which requires that articles with no significant coverage are deleted, is failed. WP:OFFLINESOURCES supports the use of offline sources, it doesn't allow us to assume they exist without finding them, and WP:FPL is neither a policy nor a guideline. BilledMammal (talk) 14:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vaguewaves toward a presumption of sources existing, based on his meeting a criterion that was eliminated specifically because it was a garbage predictor of sources existing, have no grounding in our notability guidelines. If someone in the future can uncover offline SIGCOV then the article can be recreated; otherwise we are just hosting yet another pointless database-dump microstub on an athlete in contravention of NOT. Being listed as a "professional" footballer should not afford a subject a stay of deletion any more than being listed in almost any other profession should; there is nothing in our PAGs to suggest otherwise. JoelleJay (talk) 01:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's certainly a lot of hits in the British Newspaper Archive - though I can't access the articles. Did you review these @Joeykai:? Nfitz (talk) 05:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More likely than not that offline sources exist; player is completely notable, no need to go book-burning just because you "won" your fight to repeal NFOOTY. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing interesting here. Nwhyte (talk) 10:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTINTERESTING. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per WP:HEY. @BilledMammal, JoelleJay, and Nwhyte: I just made it interesting, with coverage of McKnight's amusing performance in an 1894 English Cup match, and others. BD2412 T 06:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find soccer dull as dirt personally but this subject very clearly meets general notability guidelines, the article is well referenced, and the additions add a lot of color and interest. This should never have been listed for deletion in the first place. Too many of these listings appear indiscriminate. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 11:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate TV (TV series)

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

All I could find was IMDb, YouTube uploads, and a personal blog. No better sourcing found. Prod contested. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:38, 1 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?)} 01:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per TenPoundHammer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.145.163.110 (talk) 06:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Waters, Harry F. (1990-03-19). "Down to the sea in shtik. MTV's undry humor". Newsweek. Vol. 115, no. 12. p. 55. ISSN 0028-9604. EBSCOhost 9003191019.
  The article notes: "Each week "Pirate TV's" scruffy crew. supposedly transmitting from a barge off Manhattan, take aim at the deadliest forms of airwave pollution. Commercials, for openers. Among the products pitched so far are a cat food called Ingmar Bergman's Cries and Whiskers and a fantasy-based video game known as Dungeons and Drag Queens. A spoof of ESPN introduced the Extra-Sensory Perception Network (Filmed highlights of tomorrow's games! Lists of players who are going to be injured!) Semiregular features include "Rastapiece Theater," which presents dreadlock versions of the classics, and "The Above Sea World of Jacques Cousteau," wherein the crew of the Calypso invades dry land to liberate the fish in pet stores. ("Fortunately, Armand's spear gun makes quick work of the would-be slave trader and we are able to free our tiny friends.") ... MTV's programmers are so delighted with "Pirate TV"--it has tripled the ratings for its Friday-night slot--that they're considering moving it to Saturday night to compete with NBC's comedic powerhouse."
2. Takiff, Jonathan. (1990-01-25). "Just When You Thought It Was Boring ... MTV Gets a New Attitude" (pages 1 and 2). Philadelphia Daily News. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2022-05-02. Retrieved 2022-05-02 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Primo pick of the new MTV litter is "Pirate TV," debuting tomorrow night at 10 with a repeat broadcast at 7 p.m. Spinning of Britain's real-life pirate radio stations — illegal broadcasters headquartered on boats in international waters — this hour-long fantasy imagines a troupe of technocrats commandeering MTV's signal from a beat-up barge off the coast of New York City. Like SCTV, Pirate TV sends up TV shows and commercials with gambits like "The Above Sea World of Jacques Cousteau," wherein our daring, wet-suited explorers venture onto dry land to free the captive animals in a pet store. Maury Povich makes a guest appearance to claim credit for the "Pirate TV" concept (actually, a couple of his former writers now produce this MTV show) and ... "Pirate TV" is so densely packed with gags and mimicry that I can't believe the show can be cranked out on a weekly basis for long."
3. Swift, David (1990-04-04). "Doublespeak, anguished English, life after videos". Jackson Hole News. Archived from the original on 2022-05-02. Retrieved 2022-05-02.
  The article notes: "I hope "Pirate TV" shows up, at any rate, because it's the first television show I've seen to come close to matching the sheer energy and irreverence of underground radio in the Sixties. SCTV-style, the "Pirate TV" cast, a collection of ne'er-do-wells, cruises off the coast, in international waters, interrupting normal broadcasting with their version of good television. Among their offerings: [a list with four bullet points]"
4. Miller, Ron (1990-01-22). "Some radical changes at revolutionary MTV". Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Archived from the original on 2022-05-02. Retrieved 2022-05-02 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "I've seen clips from one new show, Pirate TV, which premieres Friday night, and it's truly different from the usual MTV fare. It has a cast of "regulars," bizarre characters who are supposed to be running a pirate TV station in a barge off the coast of New York. They put on parodies of commercials, movie trailers and other short comedy bits. ... Maybe the funniest, though, was the takeoff on the anti-drug ads that show an egg frying in a pan to illustrate what your brain is like on drugs. This shows you what your brain looks like on drugs — with a side of bacon and whole wheat toast."
5. Duffy, Mike (1990-02-04). "Newcomers to MTV are musical — and a whole lot more". Detroit Free Press. Archived from the original on 2022-05-02. Retrieved 2022-05-02.
  The article provides a paragraph of coverage about the subject. The article notes: ""Pirate TV": Floating around on their own barge while transmitting a whacked mix of commercial parodies and weirdo programming, a gang of youthful pirates takes control of MTV for an hour of comedy and videos every week. Program manager Brian, sidekick Skip and a crew of addled assistants create the mayhem. Including such nutcase moments as pro wrestler Sargeant Slaughter singing "Sunrise, Sunset" or tabloid TV star Maury Povich reading "A Current Affair Bedtime Story." Fridays at 10 p.m."
6. Larson, Lanny (1990-02-09). "'Pirate TV' Crew Takes Over MTV". The Fresno Bee. Archived from the original on 2022-05-02. Retrieved 2022-05-02.
  The caption provides a few sentences of coverage about the subject. The caption notes: "It looks like MTV until the "pirates," a crew of comics, take over twice each weekend, substituting off-the-wall weirdness and a few videos from the relatively staid programming on the cable music network."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Pirate TV to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on sources listed above by Cunard, at the very least it passes WP:GNG. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several sources, some dedicated to the show, someone with dedicated coverage about the show in wider article about MTV shows. Passess GNG. I have cited two of Cunard's sources in article to deal with no citations maintained tag. WikiVirusC^(talk) 21:02, 23 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. While sourcing has been identified, there remain concerns about whether it's of the depth and refers to the subject. I don't see a third relist changing that. As this is not a BLP, and in fact not a person, sourcing concerns are less a reason to lean delete when consensus is thin. Star Mississippi 01:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Germany Philatelic Society

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

No indication of notability (as the concept is understood in en:Wikipedia) in this polite advertisement for a US organization for the study of German stamps.

Editors more energetic than I am may wish to look for examples of the same thing in Category:Philatelic organizations. (I've already noticed a number that look similar.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Germany, and Canada. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this organization is clearly not notable. We have a lot of coverage of things and people related to stamps that do not meet inclusion guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To my surprise, I'm finding significant coverage about this group over the decade. Baltimore Sun 1965, Daily Herald 2005, Annapolis Capita 2003. Nfitz (talk) 00:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nfitz. Atchom (talk) 20:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails the notability criterion. I just cannot duplicate the subject's "significant coverage" claimed by colleague Nfitz. We have already in the article the link to the society's own page, the only citation so far, and then: A Baltimore Sun piece back from 1965 that is inaccessible without registration; a clip from Arlington Heights' Daily Herald about the "48th COMPEX stamp show in Arlington Heights" and not about our subejct, which is simply listed among other organizations; and lastly a report from The Capital newspaper whose subject is a stamps collector and not our subject. We are trying to assign notability to this oganization on the basis of the possible notability of others, such as that teacher interviewed by The Capital. Additional search scares up sources such as this, i.e. of little worthiness, which is the same thing one could say about our subject's merits. Wikipedia is not a collection of random information, nor is it a catalog. -The Gnome (talk) 17:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no doubt @The Gnome:, that the Daily Herald reference is the weakest of the three I provided, and more of a mention - and I agree if that was the only one I provided, this would be a delete. But to say that The Capital article, that the subject is a stamp collector rather than the Society, seems exaggerated to me, given that the collector (Christopher Deterding) was the secretary-treasurer of the Germany Philatelic Society, and the 18-paragraph article, that's the centrepiece of the page, and continued on the following page, does discuss the Society itself; I'm not sure the concern about this article. While the one you cannot see, the 20-paragraph article in the Baltimore Sun is primarily about the organization and their 1965 convention. Can you see this clip? Nfitz (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mild Keep I get more than a few hits in Linn's Stamp News about them, [60], with the newspaper article above, I think we have enough to keep. Oaktree b (talk) 01:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this reference as well is about something else and not our subject. It's a 2016 letter about an esoteric issue ("shades" on a stamp) published in Linn's Stamp News, a "newsmagazine for stamp collectors", in which it is mentioned, in passing, that the letter writer used to be a member of the philatelic society. Nothing more. -The Gnome (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I also found news coverage just by casually Googling it. It’s clearly a significant organization that meets general notability guidelines. I’m not sure why there is a sudden flood of calls to delete these stamp-related articles either. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:36, 25 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. ✗plicit 03:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Faith in Place

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NORG, lack of reliable sources. Press release-like writing doesn't help. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've boldly reverted the article to before this edit, which added all of of the fluff and nuked the refs.
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Religion, Environment, and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the rv'ed version of the article seems to pass WP:NORG. --interstatefive (talk) - just another roadgeek 15:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does it though? I don't see it. Between the dead links and its own website, there's not a lot of coverage.-KH-1 (talk) 05:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of the nine citations, two are the organisation's own website, and four are dead links. That leaves a book and two Chicago Tribune articles which incidentally mention it, which I wouldn't really say is significant coverage. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:15, 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. While a ten year old afD has no direct bearing on this discussion, there is no clear consensus here either. Star Mississippi 02:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carmel School, Giridih

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

I propose that this article be deleted. This school is not notable enough to be featured on Wikipedia and reads more like a Yellow Pages entry. For example, there is no information about the school having produced notable alumni, or the school having produced outstanding academic results in relation to other schools, or the school or its faculty having won any notable awards, or the school having any special historical significance. As a point of comparison, one may refer to articles of other schools in eastern India.

Capital School, Bhubaneswar (state of Odisha): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_High_School,_Bhubaneswar

a) Postage stamp issued in recognition of the school b) Prominent past pupils

St Xavier's School, Hazaribagh (state of Jharkhand): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Xavier%27s_School,_Hazaribagh

a) Founder won the National Teaching Award b) Prominent past pupils

St Paul's School, Darjeeling (state of West Bengal): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Paul%27s_School,_Darjeeling

a) Historically significant b) Illustrious alumni, including heads of state c) Awards d) Location of film shoots — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemonntree (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and India. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 May 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the previous discussion can be found here Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per previous AFD here this school is 68 year old and sources are in the Print media and in Hindi. It is one of the leading schools in Giridh.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would like to see actual significant coverage in reliable sources than just handwaves. Lorstaking 10:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see listings and related sources but no independent, in-depth sources. The text makes not clear why this school should be notable for inclusion. The Banner talk 15:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Pharaoh of the Wizards and previous discussion. Nanpofira (talk) 21:54, 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 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 03:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uzungöl Dursun Ali İnan Museum

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

I worked on the article but I have question marks in my head about the article's notability. I'm closer to the deletion of the article. Kadı Message 19:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Organizations, and Turkey. Kadı Message 19:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 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 merge to Jacques Torres. ✗plicit 03:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate with Jacques Torres

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

Found only passing mentions on proquest and newspapers.com. Most of what I found was just one-sentence TV Guide type blurbs or name-drops in the greater context of "TV shows about chocolate". Prod contested Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jacques Torres. While there may not be enough for a stand-alone article, the content could be merged into the article about the host, which could use improvement in its content related to his television shows. The redirect seems appropriate too. --Bsherr (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Second the suggestion to merge, makes sense Dexxtrall (talk) 11:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jacques Torres: There is nothing on this page that I see worthwhile as mergeable content. His article already has two mentions of the show, so I think a simple redirect would suffice. TartarTorte 02:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest the external link; and the sentence describing the show, if a reference can be identified. Neither of those are in the target article. --Bsherr (talk) 12:02, 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 redirect to WTKS-FM#Programming as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 00:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Monsters in the Morning

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable morning zoo show. Current sourcing barely mentions the show and I could find no better. Previous AFDs closed as "no consensus" due to a myriad of WP:ITSNOTABLE-type votes. That it's broadcast on SiriusXM is not an argument in favor of WP:GNG if no sources exist. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WTKS-FM#Programming. Fails WP:RPRGM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 03:58, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- A WP:BEFORE shows a handful of articles mentioning the program being part of the station like [61].
SBKSPP (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Enough hits in GNews about one host getting Covid, they mention the program, not sure how they support notability. There are enough of them it might just pass. Oaktree b (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of its non-Orlando-limited N came from the unnotable Sirius XM run, along with being one of the many over-the-air replacements of Howard Stern to fail in syndication; and no, getting COVID doesn't add N to anything. In 2022, being a mobile radio app is completely WP:ROUTINE and not special in any way. I don't know how many times I can repeat the same rationale, but the third time should be the charm. No redirect, as none of the station's other programming is notable either. Nate • (chatter) 02:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the current sources even mention the show itself, and I can't really find anything else to establish notability Dexxtrall (talk) 11:39, 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. ✗plicit 03:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Megdet Rahimkulov

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

No hint of person's significance. Huge problems with WP:GNG and WP:BIO, poor sources Bash7oven (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unreliable reasoning! He is clearly a notable businessman as sources shows! —Natalie RicciNatalie 00:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What the sources, or at least those that can be considered as reliable, actually show is our subject's lack of significant, independent notability. We get the typical claim that a laconic Forbes appearance in the 2022 listing of billionaires constitutes a "profile"; it does not, although the citation appears twice in the article under different titles. Then, we are presented with the Hungarian edition of Forbes that carried in 2021 a report about the financial woes of Gattyán Rahimkulov; we can locate various online reports about other persons that mention the name "Rahimkulov" but are not about Megdet, such as this one about billionaire and politician György Gattyán's connections to the Rahimkulovs. Sourcing then degenerates into pure irrelevancy such as an OTPBank link that does not even mention "Rahimkulov" or this out-of-sevice url. What we have here is a failure of the notability claim. -The Gnome (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the source analysis above. Oaktree b (talk) 01:37, 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. ✗plicit 03:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Ikonnikov

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

No hint of person's significance. Huge problems with WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Poor or no reliable sources Bash7oven (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You have nominated several articles by a statement for all the nominations! If you check out the article and the sources on Google, you will easily understand he is notable!—Natalie RicciNatalie 01:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject's a typical administator in business ("supervisory board", "Independent Directors Association", "member of the Board of Directors of several Russian and international companies", etc). His sole serious claim to notability appears to be some Wall Street Journal "profile" but the url leads nowhere. From then on, all we have are appearances in listings and directories, of which one would have at least have expected more, even though they do not by themselves offer proof of notability. There is truly nothing on which to hang a significant notion of notability. And the fact that the article was created by a single-purpose account does not help. -The Gnome (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't see any claims to notability in the article CT55555 (talk) 02:05, 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. ✗plicit 03:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Brody

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

The article lacks, and I wasn't able to locate, reliable sources establishing the notability of the subject. Bsherr (talk) 22:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bsherr (talk) 22:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article's purpose/notability has been questioned since 2006 with seemingly no good answer - and repeated vandalism such as the current statement "Often seen about town with one or more dogs, Larry continues to age like wine." by what appear to be sockpuppet accounts seem to reinforce the lack of genuine notability of the individual. It should be noted that the individual *does* appear to actually be a writer for several shows, though from what I could tell in a rather limited role - being responsible for maybe one episode in the span of a given series. A MINOTAUR (talk) 03:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find much for sourcing, credit lists for a few shows. He seems to just toil along quietly, non-notable for our purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 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 keep. Stifle (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Ferrer

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

This stub was created shortly after Ferrer's death, which made some news due to her family's role within the broader entertainment industry. However I'm unable to find evidence she was notable as a screenwriter, blogger, or fundraiser for her son's health condition. There's no lasting coverage beyond June 2021 and I'm unable to identify a viable merger target Star Mississippi 23:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, and COVID-19. Star Mississippi 23:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and California. TJMSmith (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral There appears to be plenty of RS'ed aftermath of her death via Google News, to include stuff her husband has been doing in her honor that has been getting plenty of press. Still, absent notability during life... why cover her? Maybe an entry on a list of those dead by suicide after long haul covid? Seems morbid to me, but I don't make the rules on good taste around here. Jclemens (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is two obits and more coverage available. The obits push it over the line. I think a lot of it is because it was suicide due to Long Covid, but the obits are genuine secondary sources. scope_creep^Talk 14:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The New York Times and People have features about her, I think with the other sources we have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:14, 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.

[1] ttps://www.newvision.co.ug/articledetails/132489

[2] ttps://www.watchdoguganda.com/entertainment/20220508/135731/kataleya-and-kandle-east-africas-new-sensational-female-duo-bossing-the-airwaves.html as well the page can be improved more by time if its kept live

[1]

[2]