Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 03 May 05 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect‎ to Freaky Styley. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 23:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Catholic School Girls Rule

Catholic School Girls Rule (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Coverage on page is limited to Kiedis' biography and unreliable Setlist.fm. I found other mentions which were pretty much just restating the biography and not really focusing on the song itself (the biography is arguably all passing mentions as well) or older coverage which was also just passing mentions. The background section (minus the unsourced Black Flag part) already exists in Freaky Styley, but if the rest can be reliably sourced then it would be worth keeping there. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 23:54, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 00:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Viasat Ticket

Viasat Ticket (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A short-lived and now-defunct pay-per-view TV service. It appears that it has never crossed the threshold of notability sufficient for an encyclopaedia article. At the height of the service's success, this article was 14 word long. [1] It was expanded to the current six sentences after the business went belly up; however, no information in the article has ever indicated any sort of notability, present or past. — kashmīrī  TALK 23:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Three weeks on, and this is al the discussion has produced. No one could call anything here a consensus. No prejudice if someone wants to run it back in a little while and see if a clearer consensus emerges. . Courcelles ( talk) 13:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Dragon Street Records

Dragon Street Records (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is not eligible for PROD, so I have brought this to AFD. I found some online book sources in my search; sources that are not good enough to meet GNG. I think an AFD discussion could help to improve this before getting deleted. Thilsebatti ( talk) 12:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. Thilsebatti ( talk) 12:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Texas. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment If the nominator has book sources that could be brought to bear to save the article, then by all means we should add those. Please add those. Chubbles ( talk) 02:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    The book sources only mention about the subject. They are not good enough to meet GNG. Thilsebatti ( talk) 04:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep I initially thought "keep" as the article claims the label started the career of the Dixie Chicks. But I can't verify that, and I think it's a false claim that should be removed. However, There is a full article about the label on the first page of Section 4 of the December 28, 1990 issue of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Also information from same newspaper February 2, 1990 page 16. Casual mention on July 20, 1990 page 12 from same newspaper. A bit more than a passing mention on June 29, 1990, page 10. Information about their re-release program on [2]. Although most of the mentions are photo credits, there is information about the label in the Handbook of Texas Music. Also information about the label [3]. I have not exhausted the Newspapes.com search or Google Books. But there is certainly enough here upon which to build an informational encyclopedia article. Although it fails Dixie Chicks, I can confirm several of the other bands, therefore the article is of interest to musicologists and music historians. The information can not be merged to any other article that I can think of, because too much information would be irrelevant to that topic. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 01:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    That's sufficient for me; keep per 78.26. Chubbles ( talk) 15:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

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


The result was refactored to Irudayaraj. Although this action has already been taken, the consensus formed in the discussion supports it. I will fix the edit histories. BD2412 T 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Iruthayaraj

Iruthayaraj (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD; information added in an attempt to address issues are not sufficient. Fails WP:NNAME, as not enough notable persons have this name. Jalen Folf (talk) 06:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete: per nom. In fact, no links at all of anybody by this name (and only 1 (!) entry in WD with this name). -- P 1 9 9   ✉ 15:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC) reply
This AFD is for Iruthayaraj, not Irudayaraj. We don't need a surname page for only 1 entry. I checked WD, and it is true that Irudayaraj is more common, and we have 3 articles here at en.wp. So I would support a move to Irudayaraj (with redirect from Iruthayaraj). -- P 1 9 9   ✉ 13:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Move content to and redirect link to Irudayaraj as per P199 (basically the reverse of the current state). This page does need to exist for the 4 individuals who share this surname, but the lead paragraph and the infobox should be removed for lack of supporting sources. Tutwakhamoe ( talk) 23:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The limited participation suggests either keeping or merging; both of which can be outside the scope of an AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Cincinnati mayoral elections

Cincinnati mayoral elections (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page does not meet the standards of a standalone page. It simply is a statistics page. Other cities this size (and larger) don't have pages listed in this manner. If an individual election is notable, one should be created for that. -- KD0710 ( talk) 18:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nothing sticks out to me saying a third week of this discussion would change the outcome towards a consensus to delete. Given that, there's no real reason to kick this one back in the queue. Courcelles ( talk) 13:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Robert A. Wilson (Virginia politician)

Robert A. Wilson (Virginia politician) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local politician fails WP:NPOL. Novemberjazz 19:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC) reply

SIGCOV describes "significant coverage" as sources that "address the topic directly and in detail." Further "[s]ignificant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." I fail to see how major state newspapers detailing Wilson's education; business, political, and civic careers; as well as his personal life fail to meet this criteria. Rockhead126 ( talk) 22:57, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep. Most of the sources seems to pass WP:GNG, but there are still significant problems with the sourcing of this article. The New York Times article only mentioned the subject in passing, and should be removed; Sources 2 and 7 are reporting on the same thing, so one of them should be removed; sources 3 to 6 were cited for the same claim, at least two of them need to be removed as well. And the "Offices and distinctions" template seems an odd inclusion, since the subject was not named in the template. Tutwakhamoe ( talk) 04:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Agree 100% it's a borderline case, even if I think GNG is ultimately met. I did have some questions and comments though:
  • Regarding the NYT article, if I reword to detail how the firm's acquisition by DDB took place during his tenure as chairman of the board, do you think that would be more acceptable?
  • Re sources 2 and 7: Is it improper to cite to separate articles primarily about the same thing/event, even if they contain different but equally encyclopedia-worthy facts? If there are two separate newspaper articles reporting on the President awarding a soldier the Medal of Honor, I don't see why one can't be used as a source for, say, what town the soldier is from and the other for what unit the soldier was serving with at the time of their heroic action. In the case of this article, the former source provides more detail about Wilson's time with Cargill while the latter talks about his being awarded the Wayne Medal. If necessary, I can probably find a different source for either of the two things.
  • Re sources 3 to 6: While I'll concede that this looks like a textbook case of citation overkill on its face, I found these sources while researching the subject and think each one of them contains valuable biographical information. Unfortunately, I've had very little free time recently and haven't had time to incorporate all of them into the article, so I dumped them all after the sentences about Wilson's career. I agree it's a bit sloppy and needs to be fixed, but it's my intention to clean it all up when I get the time.
Genuinely, thank you for the constructive criticism. Most of my work here on Wikipedia is done solo, and, while this article is certainly not representative of the best of my work...yet...I always really appreciate hearing other editor's feedback. Rockhead126 ( talk) 03:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
One last thing I forgot to address last night: I'm not sure what you mean about the "'Offices and distinctions' template." It's simply a collapsible navbox to house succession boxes. Not completely necessary here, especially with only one succession box used at the moment, but it looks clean in my opinion. Just a stylistic choice. Rockhead126 ( talk) 20:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles ( talk) 13:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Savvas Houvartas

Savvas Houvartas (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced BLP. No apparent notability. Skyerise ( talk) 22:50, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lemon Jelly#Singles. T. Canens ( talk) 02:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Rolled/Oats

Rolled/Oats (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I could find no evidence of notability. Dream Focus 22:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Speedy Delete PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk) 23:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
What speedy delete criteria does it meet? Pawnkingthree ( talk) 23:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Lemon Jelly: I found exactly one brief mention of the single here which does confirm one of the samples, but that's all I got and it's clearly not enough. Title is distinct enough from rolled oats to be a likely search term for this subject so it's a valuable redirect. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 01:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Lemon Jelly#Singles where the release is mentioned. Pawnkingthree ( talk) 18:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Isus Angelov

Isus Angelov (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

With a name that seems to translate to "Jesus, son of Angel", his name did come up a few times in Bulgarian news headlines but the articles themselves contain barely any coverage. Certainly nothing that I could find meets the standards of WP:GNG. He is mentioned in Sportal as having an ACL injury and likely to be out for 6 months but that's about the full extent of the coverage in that piece. Blitz has two articles that mention Angelov in the headline but both only address him once in the main text, 1 and 2, so neither of these can be considered as anything other than trivial coverage. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Blasphemy in Pakistan#Selected cases. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Chinese engineer blasphemy case

Chinese engineer blasphemy case (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested draftification without improvement. Case of WP:NOTNEWS. Onel5969 TT me 19:54, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

There are few similar denials like this one covered in the news.com.pk, for neutrality such denials may be covered in the articles like Blasphemy in Pakistan. But just in 20 days or so there is another blasphemy lynching -that too of a Pakistani cleric itself- covered by Pakistan as well as international media. This is the news.com.pk, Dawn, Washington Post. Even latest Scholarly study like Hate Speech and Atrocity Prevention in Asia: Patterns, Trends and Strategies talks of issues including that of India and Pakistan, there in Pakistan related scholarly article dated 02 May 2023 by Khadija Rashid ( PDF). Wikipedia talk pages are always open to discuss what any Encyclopedia is for including Wikipedia and which content is due and undue for Wikipedia as encyclopedia. Bookku ( talk) 08:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify as per nom. The reportings I found are pretty vague in details, might be safer to wait for further updates. Tutwakhamoe ( talk) 23:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge in ' Blasphemy in Pakistan#Selected cases' (with redirect from present title), in selected cases since case is notable enough to denote how Pakistan establishment can handle cases of blasphemy differently in case China-Pakistan foreign relations are involved. IMO meets enough WP:SIGCOV, but looking at China-Pakistan relation case likely to be played down in due course and do not expect much further updates. Bookku ( talk) 01:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Blasphemy in Pakistan#Selected cases as preferred WP:ATD. ~ Kvng ( talk) 02:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Coverage was pretty widespread on the arrest (beyond the sources in the article, there's also e.g. NYT: [5], The Independent: [6], SCMP: [7]), and again when the subject was released on bail (e.g. Reuters: [8], Bloomberg: [9]). The Bloomberg article states an anti-terror court ruled that no offense had been committed and The main accuser in the blasphemy case kept changing his statement and bail has been granted until the case is concluded, which may take a few months, according to a police official, which makes it seem like there won't be many further developments here. I'm pretty unsure but providing these sources for others to judge; this feels borderline notable to me given the international attention. Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits) 02:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Blasphemy in Pakistan. Not notable enough for its own article per WP:NEVENTS. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 23:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Márk Farkas

Márk Farkas (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stats stub with no evidence of notability presented. A Hungarian source search did not yield anything decent. Behir has a few sentences about him joining Békéscsaba, which does not address him in enough detail for WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. The only other piece that I can find about him is Szeged Ma but these are just mentions in a match report about being on the squad list and then scoring a header. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Julian Gingell

Julian Gingell (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV. The only sources I've found mostly consisted of his name as a part of a list of other names, while the few others remained passing mentions. From my search, the only reliable facts about him were that he won ASCAP awards for American Idol work in 2004, 2009, 2011, 2016 ( [10] [11] [12]), and 2022, and an honoree in 2008; produced for Steps (pop group) ( [13] [14]) and Sybil (singer) ( [15]); and signed on at one point to a label called Diggermusic ( [16]). There's also an interview, but that isn't an RS. While he may have won awards, there is no reliable in-depth coverage about him to meet SIGCOV. SWinxy ( talk) 19:36, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 John William Friso. After the close script does the tagging, I will redirect and protect this title. As an edge case, the problem here is that the chart was copied into the article. So we can't just do a straight delete, even if consensus would allow it, we have to preserve the attribution history.

So for that reason, and reading it as a reasonable conclusion based on this discussion, I will let the script tag the talk pages for attribution, redirect the current title to the biography, and then fully protect the redirect. Doing this both enforces the consensus that this article should not exist and maintains compliance with our licensing terms. Courcelles ( talk) 13:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Royal descendants of John William Friso

AfDs for this article:
Royal descendants of John William Friso (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:G4, it was deleted on 21 August 2013, then recreated on 25 May 2014 and immediately nominated for deletion again, which inexplicably resulted in "no consensus". All the fundamental objections raised against the first and second creation have not been addressed: WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:UNSOURCED, WP:V, WP:RS. Arguments raised by people in the "Keep" camp were, in both cases, that the issues "could be fixed" by finding beter sources etc.. The 2013 closer already said: Simply saying that other sources "could be" found, without providing any, is not good enough: we need actual verifiable sources, not just an editor's speculation that there may be some somewhere. "Keepers" in 2014 again said: some effort and sources have been added. I would address the possible original research issues instead of deleting it altogether. Which hasn't happened. The same 29 sources that were used before the 2014 AfD are still there on the current page. Nobody has bothered doing it, just suggested that somebody should. Most importantly, we still don't have an answer to the question: Why this is relevant? It seems to me that the statement John William Friso and his wife Marie Louise of Hesse-Kassel are the most recent common ancestors of all European monarchs, current and former, that have reigned since World War II. makes for an interesting footnote, but no more than that. And: only if it is supported by a reliable source. Which it still isn't, 9 years later. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 17:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Sidenote: Why does the title only mention John William Friso if Marie Louise of Hesse-Kassel has exactly the same status of "common ancestor blahblahblah"? Typical. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 17:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Death of Caylee Anthony. If there's nothing further worth merging, then someone can simply redirect the title there. But we have a pretty clear consensus this doesn't belong as a standalone article. Courcelles ( talk) 13:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Timeline of the Casey Anthony case

Timeline of the Casey Anthony case (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is an extremely detailed timeline of the Casey Anthony case. I think it's fair to call the timeline granular. We learn that, for example, at 1:44 p.m. on June 16, 2008, Casey called a friend (who's name is included), and that the call ended at 2:21 p.m. The next piece of information offered is that, according to George Anthony's later testimony, he left work at 2:30 p.m. But most of the timeline is geared towards the trial—with day-by-day descriptions of testimony offered. (I should also say that a few of the entries, I think problematically, fail to indicate that they were from testimony.)

I've worked on a few high-profile criminal cases now, and I've seen cases in which separate articles for the court case exist, but usually those cases involve appeals. Compare 1984 New York City Subway shooting#Criminal trial with People v. Goetz, covering one of the many appeals. Conversely, see the many examples of event articles that don't have separate case articles— Central Park jogger case, Murder of Laci Peterson, Killing of Hae Min Lee. We could do a detailed play-by-play of each of those cases—the events leading up to them, the trials, the appeals. But we don't. Maybe that's just because no one has been willing to write them, but I think it's because this kind of granular detail isn't generally appropriate for a encyclopedia.

Normally, I would just suggest a merger, but in this case I've already taken a few of the relevant events that weren't in the Death of Caylee Anthony article ... and I don't think there's anything else here that should be included. The trial section in that article was already overlong before I cut it (and, frankly, it's still a bit long). To perform that cut, I looked at summaries of the trial and what they emphasized. Everything that's left in the timeline article—which, to be clear, documents what happened on every day of the 6-week trial—isn't in those summaries, and I don't think anything in it would add to the article while still complying with summary style. -- Jerome Frank Disciple 17:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Jerome Frank Disciple ( talk) 17:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:36, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Non-standard trial/case summary better converted to prose than staying in a timeline form. Nate • ( chatter) 18:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I am confused by the nominator. What is the exact reasoning based on Wikipedia policies for wanting to delete this article? – The Grid ( talk) 19:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'm confused, too! Here I guess I'm defaulting to the ol' "unencyclopedic" rationale ( WP:DEL-REASON 14—Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia.), but I concede it's mostly vibes. That said, I do think there are some policies that make this kind of content questionable. For example, we normally have to consider WP:DUE WEIGHT and MOS:TIMELINE, which says, "Ensure that list items have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the item to be included in the text of the article ...." But if the article is the timeline ... can that really mean anything goes? No detail is too small? At what point does a timeline become just a split-off chronological trivia section? (To some degree, this is all dancing around WP:INDISCRIMINATE.) As I said, I very well could have gone with a merge, but that, too, would've resulted in an immense amount of content being deleted, because, quite frankly, most of that content wouldn't be appropriate in the Death of Caylee Anthony article. I thought bringing an AfD would be the better option and more fair to anyone who wants to preserve the timeline, but if there's a consensus that a merge is the better option, I'll go for that. (I am, after all, currently merging what I can.)-- Jerome Frank Disciple 19:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Thanks for the reply, I was more confused as there's definitely information that can be merged into the article versus completely deleting it. It would be a prime candidate to merge as a alternative to deleting. – The Grid ( talk) 12:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Fair point—And yeah, I do want to make clear I am working on merging the information, but since so much of that information will end up being ... not merged (er, deleted), and I'd imagine anyone that likes the Timeline as it is would consider that a deletion, it felt to me that a deletion discussion would be appropriate, but perhaps that was a mistake.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Merge into the main article about the case. 15 years later I don't think it helps to know when a cell phone call started and ended. Broadly covered in the article about the case, this level of detail doesn't help the narrative at this point in time. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or Merge: because it is well sourced enough, and the few entries that don't mention they were from testimony can be fixed to explicitly say so, and are easily figured out as such by existing context anyway. Don't usually participate in these, but came across the notice doing my typical gnome work... Huggums537 ( talk) 11:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or Merge I have a tendency to stuff every detail I can find into an article, but I think this is way overdone. - Donald Albury 15:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 14:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply

List of Sikh Footballers

List of Sikh Footballers (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable standalone topic, limited scope and coverage, so should be deleted or redirected to e.g. British Asians in association football. Giant Snowman 16:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi, @ GiantSnowman claims this does not warrant a separate article when articles such as a List of Jewish footballers, List of Indian NHL players exist perfectly fine.
The basis on this doesn't make any sense. Sikhism is a much smaller religion therefore, the list isn't in tends of thousands unlike Muslim or Christian footballers. Furthermore this article still is expanding, and additional information on this it be provided. There are many credible sources discussing sikhs in football from the BBC, The Times etc... Jattlife121 ( talk) 16:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
If you still feel, "List of Sikh Footballers" isn't appropriate the title change can be made of "Sikhs in Football" like this one Islam in association football.
A whole movie was also based on a Sikh girl and her dreams to be a footballer called Bend It Like Beckham "Bend It Like Beckham grossed $76.6 million at the box office, making it the highest-grossing football sports film." Jattlife121 ( talk) 16:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Rebel Racing

Rebel Racing (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be non-notable. A WP:BEFORE returns a few related results but they all seem to mostly just be promotional pieces on the game itself similar to what you would find on an appstore. I did see some Russian sources but as I can't read Cyrillic I'm not entirely sure if those show notability. The current sources are a review and a source for an award it didn't win (which fails WP:SIGCOV). ― Blaze Wolf TalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Michael Xavier Voon

Michael Xavier Voon (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure if WP:CREATIVE or WP:ACTOR would apply to dancers. In any case, complete lack of coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar ( talk) 06:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 06:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 06:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Une sorte de justice

Une sorte de justice (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very few substantial edits for many years and no references that show notability. I do not have much access to sources in French but as far as I can tell there is no page on the topic on fr.wiki and I can't find anything much discussing it. I'd be interested if others can find sources that meet the GNG. JMWt ( talk) 09:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete Appears PROMO, there are no reviews of the book in French, only sites where you can buy old copies. The phrase is too common to search for alone. Oaktree b ( talk) 18:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
I did a French Gscholar search and gave up after 6 pages only hitting on the phrase. Oaktree b ( talk) 18:27, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 11:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Howland Capital Management

Howland Capital Management (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CORP. The two sources cited are obituaries for its founder. All I can find about it in a WP:BEFORE search are press releases. Uncle Spock ( talk) 11:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC) reply

My only concern about a prod was their claim of having $2.6 billion assets under management. Call me a bit over-cautious. :⁠-⁠) Uncle Spock ( talk) 13:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: A financial firm going about its business, but neither obituaries for its founder nor the past sporting achievements of someone at the company suffice for WP:CORPDEPTH. Searches find routine coverage of financial transactions but I am not seeing the coverage about the firm itself which is needed to demonstrate notability here. AllyD ( talk) 10:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 14:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Abubakar Sadiq Yelwa

Abubakar Sadiq Yelwa (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 10:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment I’m pretty sure that the current consensus is that Nigerian state commissioners are notable. Thus subject was apparently “appointed as commissioner of land, housing, and urban development in kebbi state by Atiku Bagudu. He also served as the commissioner of Agricultural and Rural development and local government and chieftaincy affairs as well as work and transportation from 2000 to 2008.” If verified that would make him notable. Mccapra ( talk) 18:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 13:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Nicolai Riise Madsen

Nicolai Riise Madsen (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. There is no significant coverage in the article and I was unable to find any during a search. His profile on Transfermarkt indicates he was never a significant player [20]. Alvaldi ( talk) 13:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 13:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Jagdish Jandu

Jagdish Jandu (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fail in WP:BIO ND WP:POLITICIAN. NO FULLFILL GEN. CRITERA FOR POLITICIAN Worldiswide ( talk) 12:36, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 13:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Ankh (film)

Ankh (film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A typical pumped up film article, winning tons of awards from "film festivals" which no one ever heard of or visits (but which have grand names like the Europe Film Festival" or the "Cannes Film Awards"), "interviews" with standard questions (i.e. no actual interviewer), and in this case one newspaper (HLN) which fell for the "wow, many awards" fake news and wrote an actual article. So, non-notable film without the necessary multiple good sources to establish notability. Fram ( talk) 12:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete even in .be sources, there's nothing about this film. This is about the best [21]. Ref bombed out the wazoo, winning non-notable film awards at festivals that aren't notable enough to have wiki articles and lack of coverage even in Belgium, it's a !Delete for me. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
And the film has already premiered in June 2023? My calendar still says May 2023. This is PROMO. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Someone submitted their honeymoon film to film festivals and they took it and awarded it...which doesn't show the WP:N for this film, but how easy it is to get something submitted to a low-tier film festival. Nate • ( chatter) 18:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This Eurpope Film Festival is bunk: "Europe Film Festival UK has started in early 2020 pandemic time as a filmmaker community-led online film competition. Powered by independent creators, run for independent creators, the initiative became a hub of filmmakers joining forces to add visibility to its winners." They aren't even awarding it anymore and it's an online "thing" started during covid. Independent creators, online. Seriously, we're using this as the notability for the film? And the Patrick J Knight is a redirect to the band mentioned in the article. This is some weird wiki cross promotion rabbit hole ... Oaktree b ( talk) 01:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Notability because awards does not just indiscrimnately attach to just any award from just any film festival on the planet — there's actually this entire circuit out there of fake film festivals that don't even really screen films for the public at all, and instead exist solely as "award mills" where emerging wannabe filmmakers can buy themselves an award or three so that they can promote their film as an "award winner". So NFILM only cares about film festival awards to the extent that reliable source media outlets care about said awards — films are notable if they win awards that are notable by virtue of receiving media coverage, and are not notable for winning awards that you have to depend on the film festival's own self-published website about itself to "reference" the claim because media don't report that festival's award as news. That is, awards from the likes of Berlin, Cannes, TIFF, Venice or Sundance (major festivals of international significance whose awards get reported as news) are clearly notability clinchers, while awards from "Krimson Horyzon", "Hodu" and "Dreamz Catcher" (festivals which get so little coverage that it's difficult to even verify whether they're "award mills" or just real but small-fry film festivals of purely local significance) aren't. Bearcat ( talk) 15:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The Belgian premiere will take place at the end of June. The theater's website provides clear information about the feature film, a performance by Gravity Noir, and even a red carpet moment. I have now omitted this information from the article. This is to avoid giving the impression of advertising. The show is almost completely sold out. We can therefore assume that this will receive the necessary press and media attention. I think it would be premature to have the article removed. [1] Trix18365 ( talk) 07:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Presenting a film is celebrity coverage, nothing detailing the history or development of the film, nor any sort of critical reviews of the film. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ "ANKH - Fakkeltheater". fakkeltheater.be. 20 October 2022. Archived from the original on 7 May 2023. Retrieved 7 May 2023.
  • Deletebecause the article does not pass WP:N and violates WP:PROMO. TipsyElephant ( talk) 16:14, 7 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I have omitted any information that could give the impression that this article is advertising. Notwithstanding, once the event has taken place, it will be discussed afterward. Therefore we can assume that this Belgian film première will receive the necessary press, media attention and any sort of critical reviews of the film. As in third-party sources discussing the film, and detailing its history or development of the film. Once again, I think it would be premature to have the article removed. Trix18365 ( talk) 17:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC) reply
You cannot vote twice. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 14:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No valid rational for deletion. copyvio-revdel has been requested for the revision in question. (non-admin closure) Skynxnex ( talk) 14:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor

Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor of This and Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor of This have the lyrics of こわがりヒーロー. Frederick III, Holy Roman Emperor of This have the lyrics of ツバメ. This is copyright infringement and should be removed.-- ヨッさん6世 ( talk) 11:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy delete‎. CSD G4, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Chinedu Ndukauba Liz Read! Talk! 03:26, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Charles Ndukauba

Charles Ndukauba (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NOT MEET WP:NACTOR. NO RELIABLE SOURCES Worldiswide ( talk) 10:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 10:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Simon Bahne Backmann

Simon Bahne Backmann (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. The lone source in the article mentions him starting a U-17 match and being substituded an hour into the game [22]. Didn't find anything better during a search, only mentions in match reports and routine transfer reports. Looking at his Transfermarkt profile, there is no indication that he was ever a significant player [23]. Alvaldi ( talk) 10:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Ilario Cozzi

Ilario Cozzi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Only one source in article, where he is listed amongst all Livorno players who had birthday on 17 April [24]. Found no significant coverage during a search. While he appeared in one Serie A match, he spent the vast majority of his career in the Italian third and fourth tier [25]. Alvaldi ( talk) 08:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comments There is plenty of room for improvement, he played more than enough games. And I am going to have a go later at fixing it up. Completely disagree with this nomination and feel this is part of the delete culture to remove perfectly valid stub articles. Sources do exist out there, so do WP:OFFLINESOURCES. And if nominator did his WP:BEFORE, he would have found out straight away that Cozzi played a cup game for Inter and not a league game!! Govvy ( talk) 09:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    I did a WP:BEFORE but unfortunately found nothing of significance. The source I linked to above listed him having played one Serie A match which was consistent with what the article stated. I nominated this recently deproded article due to the subjects lack of significant coverage, not due to the article's stub status. Note that being a professional football player, regardless of how many games the individual has played, does not equal notability per WP:NSPORT where it is clearly stated that the subject must pass WP:GNG. This is a career lower league player who seems to rarely have played more than half of his teams games (judging from the above source but I could be mistaken) and for whom we have no evidence that there is any kind of significant coverage of out there. Alvaldi ( talk) 09:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - No non-database sources WP:SPORTBASIC. 128.6.36.94 ( talk) 20:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The more I tried to look into this player, the harder it got. At first I thought he should pass GNG, not so sure if it's the same case. It really is a tough one, the additional sources I found were not much and I can't see this ever passing SPORTCRIT really. Govvy ( talk) 14:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Vijandren Ramadass

Vijandren Ramadass (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I actually nominated this person as part of his company AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lowyat.net (3rd nomination). So this is a proper AfD to consider him separately, fails WP:BIO. Only known for setting up a now non notable website. LibStar ( talk) 05:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 06:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I would Draftify this article but since a Draft already exists, I'm swayed by the arguments that NFF guideline isn't met. If there is a decision down the road, when filming starts, to Merge this article with the draft version or replace the draft version with this one, we can revisit this decision. Liz Read! Talk! 06:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply

A Complete Unknown (film)

A Complete Unknown (film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is of a film that has not entered production. This makes the page not meet the requirements of the WP:NFF guideline, as well as the WP:CRYSTAL policy. In this films case, it has previously been put into uncertainty about it being made. There have been exceptions made in the past such as with Akira (planned film), however in cases such as that the topic has an extensive production history going back years. This film doesn't have that level of production history. Typically I would move this be moved to draftspace I nominate this for deletion as this topic already exists in the draftspace at Draft:A Complete Unknown. There is room for redirect to be possible, and a merge of the histories, however I have issues with the merge option, as the content of this page is essentially similar to the content of the draft, and any content different in the article is either of questionable sourcing, or not sourced at all. Rusted AutoParts 05:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Independent reliable sources about this production starring Timothee Chalamet as Bob Dylan are used in the article, and additional sources can be found by a simple Google search. Notability is further demonstrated by the article averaging hundreds of views per day in its first few days of existence. Note that articles must meet either WP:GNG or WP:NFF; a sub-guideline that is more restrictive than the notability guideline does not trump the basic guideline. If there are any unverifiable facts, they should be removed, but that's a normal editing issue not requiring deletion. I can't think of a good reason why we would want to stop hundreds of readers per day from learning verifiable facts about something in which they have an obvious interest. Station1 ( talk) 06:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Because the film doesn't yet exist? The film is expected to begin filming in August, which is four months away. It could easily slip back into development hell, or fall apart. This is why I invoked WP:CRYSTAL. It is this reason why so many articles relating to film or television go through draftspace, it allows the topic to be fleshed out gradually before it begins filming, allowing for a stronger GNG case to be met. A Complete Unknown doesn't meet this. "I can't think of a good reason why we would want to stop hundreds of readers per day from learning verifiable facts about something in which they have an obvious interest". Hundreds of readers are more than able to locate the topic in draftspace until such time it can be able to exist in mainspace. Rusted AutoParts 06:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Draft:A Complete Unknown has a total of 79 views in the 4 months that it's existed. A Complete Unknown (film) has over 2,300 in the last 5 days. Station1 ( talk) 06:36, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Pageviews do not trump guidelines. My point was that it's not impossible for readers to locate the draft if they need it until the film meets the mandatory guideline requirements for film articles, as well as doesn't stand in defiance of policy when it comes to CRYSTAL. Rusted AutoParts 06:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Guidelines are never mandatory, they're just guidelines. WP:CRYSTAL, which is policy, applies to "unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions." This article notes verifiable facts that have already occurred and been reported (except the first paragraph, which should be tweaked slightly [done 5 May]). Station1 ( talk) 07:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The number one stipulation of CRYSTAL is "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. This film is not at all "almost certain" to take place. "Guidelines are never mandatory, they're just guidelines". So then your main point of it meeting GNG doesn't really hold water then? What's the purpose of establishing these guidelines if they aren't meant to be used to enforce the editing practices they were established to...establish. "This article notes verifiable facts that have already occurred and been reported". Gleeming the page, its at best bare bones production history. All films have an initial announcement of intention to be made, so that's meritless. Next sentence highlights how it was previously delayed (the draft article highlights how the project entire was uncertain given the pandemic too) and just an assertion of intention to make the film. Mike Myers has been asserting he plans to do an Austin Powers 4, yet here we are and it still doesn't exist, so the director asserting still planning to make it is meritless. The second paragraph is built upon casting rumblings that never saw any further corroboration from the more reliable of film sources. Seeking out Bale, Cumberbatch and Taylor-Joy being rumored as involved aren't strong production history indicators. All we are left with basically is the initial announcement, and Barbero's casting. By themselves they do not make a strong case that this film is notable, or definitely going to happen. I really don't want to keep going back and forth here, but the draft system is in place for this exact reason. Merge it or redirect it to the existing draft if needbe, but right now the topic is just not at an acceptable level of notability to justify mainspace existence. That's my case. Rusted AutoParts 07:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
To respond to your point about " WP:NFF; a sub-guideline that is more restrictive than the notability guideline does not trump the basic guideline", NFF is a core arm of GNG for the specific topic of film, and how to weigh what merits notability that way. This is why it has it's own separate guideline page. The film is certainly not a given to exist. We've seen films fall apart before filming or never see further announcements about it and just fade away. What happened with Batgirl or even Gore makes this an even stronger point. A film can go through the production phase and still be cancelled. Depending on the project, it's production and subsequent cancellation makes it able to be notable still. However, A Complete Unknown, as i've said, just does not have that level of development to it. Rusted AutoParts 06:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
A thing can be a notable topic without being a notable film (yet). A Complete Unknown is notable because multiple independent sources and thousands of WP readers have noted it. WP:N (which gets 35 times as many views as NF [26]) says a topic is presumed notable if "it meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline" [emphasis added]. Station1 ( talk) 07:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
And with the writer's strike now, it may never get finished, if they need to do script rewrites or revisions.... Oaktree b ( talk) 18:31, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Now that's speculation. I'm not aware of any source that says that. Station1 ( talk) 04:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Another sound reason why CRYSTAL applies. Rusted AutoParts 04:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Yes, CRYSTAL applies to our speculation that the film might not be made, when no source does so. Station1 ( talk) 04:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Why would there be any source published speculating about whether a film gets made unless there is solid reason to think that? We abide by CRYSTAL so we don't go creating premature articles on a topic that wound up not happening. The two things really aren't comparable. Rusted AutoParts 05:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply
"Why would there be any source published speculating about whether a film gets made unless there is solid reason to think that?" Exactly. There is no solid reason to think that this film will not get made. But the main point is that even in the unlikely event it doesn't get made, what has happened so far is notable. Rolling Stone has written an article about it; no reason we shouldn't too. Station1 ( talk) 05:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply
We aren't a news agency, we are an encyclopedia, and if an article is to be here then it needs notability and to actually be definitively happening. We can't know that until filming actually begins, which is months away. Rusted AutoParts 06:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply
I agree with your first sentence. But a topic is notable when reliable sources take note of it, not based on some arbitrary rule that a handful of editors come up with. Sources expect this film to be made, even if you don't, and in the unlikely event it isn't, that in itself will be notable. Station1 ( talk) 23:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply
By saying “sources expect”, you’re quite literally solidifying while CRYSTAL is a thing. Just because its production history is being reported on, it does not make it any way shape or form a solid guarantee to happen, I really don’t get how that’s confusing here. Just today we saw Blade, a film that was meant to start production this month, delayed due to the Writers Strike. Rusted AutoParts 00:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC) reply
You seem to be caught up on the film, while I'm talking about the topic. The film will probably exist, according to sources, but even if it never exists, the topic already exists and will always exist and is notable, either as a film or as the planned Bob Dylan film starring Timothee Chalamet that didn't get made for some reason. Station1 ( talk) 01:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The topic has no role in this. There’s quite literally thousands of movies that entered development at various points with various avenues of reporting that never came to be. The Akira live action film has an article because it has a couple decades worth of detailed reporting and history. As firmly illustrated here, A Complete Unknown does not. It has enough to be a paragraph in the Bob Dylan or James Mangold articles if it fails to pan out, not a separate Wikipedia article. Your viewpoint seems to hold disregard for guidelines and policy put in place to follow. All the draft articles for movies in the Marvel Cinematic Universe or other major tentpole projects follow them even though they can make an argument they are notable right now even if they haven’t started filming. But that violates CRYSTAL, so they don’t go to mainspace. It’s simply TOOSOON, and in violation of said guidelines and policy that aren’t “arbitrary”. Rusted AutoParts 02:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Every article has a topic. A planned film can be a topic if its notable. I resent the statement that I disregard guidelines and policy. The first thing I said was that this topic meets WP:GNG. I also said this topic does not violate WP:CRYSTAL. I don't claim you disregard them just because we disagree about their application to this article. Both WP:N and CRYSTAL enjoy wide consensus. The idea that an article can't exist before an arbitrary event occurs is contrary to GNG and bad for readers seeking information. In fact there are at least a couple hundred articles about cancelled and unreleased films on WP. And if there are notable topics that are in draft space only because of an arbitrary rule, they too should be in mainspace. A basic idea of WP, and a reason it works to the extent it does, is that everyone gets to create and read and improve articles, not a select few. Station1 ( talk) 02:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC) reply
What does that last sentence even mean? No one is depriving people of participating on Wikipedia. We are simply also bound to the stipulations put in place so we aren't supplying wrong or no longer true things. I said you seem to disregard these things because it feels like you're handwaving their basic restrictions. NFF says "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date" to which you dismiss because "well people are looking at the page". CRYSTAL states in it's first section "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" which you also handwave because you claim we're speculating about it's potential cancellation. When you look at a guideline in the opposite way, of course you find yourself with ample wiggle room to reinterpret them. But it's antithetical to their purpose, and just plays pick and choose with where they apply. The subject of the page is about a film, that makes it beholden to WP:NFILM, which makes its clear a baseline necessity for it to be able to be in mainspace is that it's begun filming. If that had been fulfilled and someone nominated it for deletion I would be fighting for it to stay because it crossed that, but we have a film that is only in film. And since CRYSTAL asks of use not to play fortune teller, we cannot automatically assume it is a lock to happen. There is over 80 days left until the month it begins filming, which leaves it 12 weeks for anything to happen with it. Not just a potential delay, but potential fast-track, conversion into something else, the world could end, etc. There is no rush to get a future event out there, and given this isnt a means to completely remove A Complete Unknown off Wikipedia entire, its just making sure its' in the appropriate location for it's present state. Rusted AutoParts 03:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC) reply
You have proposed deletion and have support for that. It will be "completely removed". That is obviously "depriving people of participating on Wikipedia" with regard to this article. The article is not "wrong or no longer true", so that rationale doesn't hold. Yes, "the world could end" in the next few weeks, but no reliable source is predicting that, nor are any predicting the film won't be made. Only WP editors speculate that it might not be. Station1 ( talk) 07:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC) reply
I nominated it for deletion because you refused it's move into userspace. You've been ardently asserting it's a topic, the topic does indeed exist on Wikipedia in an appropriate location at the draft, so "the topic" is absolutely not being completely removed. Draftspace is easily accessible, so no one is deprived. The "wrong or no longer true" part is in regards to the potential of falling through, which CRYSTAL compels us to take into account. This will also apply to your last point. We are not speculating, we are taking all possibilities into consideration. This is something no one needs a reliable source to do. Rusted AutoParts 08:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC) reply
To avoid further repitition, see my second comment above. Station1 ( talk) 06:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The article does not meet the notability guideline it more immediately pertains to. Rusted AutoParts 08:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Exactly. WP:GNG itself states that it is a low lying threshold which "creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article." An article meeting GNG is meaningless if the article fails to meet other guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia. Martin IIIa ( talk) 12:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC) reply
We disagree as to whether GNG is "meaningless" if NFF applies, or if NFF is trumped by GNG, but either way, guidelines are not being "ignored". Station1 ( talk) 06:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Your own words: "Guidelines are never mandatory, they're just guidelines." Martin IIIa ( talk) 23:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC) reply
It's well-established that there are no "mandatory guidelines", as claimed above. Guidelines are supposed to be helpful synopses of general best practices, to be applied with common sense to specific cases, not "rules" that must be blindly followed. The goal should always be what is best for readers. Station1 ( talk) 06:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ "Bob Dylan Biopic 'A Complete Unknown' Starts Production in August". World of Reel.
  2. ^ McPherson, Christopher (April 7, 2023). "Timothée Chalamet Will Do His Own Singing in Bob Dylan Biopic". Collider. Retrieved 7 April 2023.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 X-League (Japan). Liz Read! Talk! 06:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Yokohama Harbors

Yokohama Harbors (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As a sports club fails WP:ORG, 1 gnews hit. I would reconsider if sources are found in Japanese. LibStar ( talk) 03:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Labour relations in women's association football

Labour relations in women's association football (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod denied. Not really a stand alone article, and likely to rewrite it as such would be OR/SYNTH UtherSRG (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Noting also the context of women's football as part of a broader labour movement: Professional women's footballers striking with Nabisco workers, a women's football union executive director is on the AFL-CIO executive council, women's football union as a founding member of AFL-CIO's sports council, PFA founding a women's department in 2020 and facilitating maternity rights, Sara Bjork Gunnarsdottir's materinty pay case vs. Olympique Lyon. Draftifying this article would allow broader themes to be connected with a scope that would be inappropriate as sections of club or league pages. - 71.34.68.140 ( talk) 02:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Incorporated some of the above sources. - Socccc ( talk) 19:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply

African Youth Olympic Futsal Qualifying Tournament

African Youth Olympic Futsal Qualifying Tournament (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. Could not find any third party coverage. LibStar ( talk) 02:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Camp Orange. ✗ plicit 03:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Camp Orange: The Curse of the Emerald Eye

Camp Orange: The Curse of the Emerald Eye (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article. Found no significant coverage of the program, does not seem to pass WP:GNG Tutwakhamoe ( talk) 01:11, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Merge not notable but salvageable content. Jack4576 ( talk) 14:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_May_4&oldid=1154480825"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 03 May 05 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect‎ to Freaky Styley. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 23:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Catholic School Girls Rule

Catholic School Girls Rule (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Coverage on page is limited to Kiedis' biography and unreliable Setlist.fm. I found other mentions which were pretty much just restating the biography and not really focusing on the song itself (the biography is arguably all passing mentions as well) or older coverage which was also just passing mentions. The background section (minus the unsourced Black Flag part) already exists in Freaky Styley, but if the rest can be reliably sourced then it would be worth keeping there. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 23:54, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 00:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Viasat Ticket

Viasat Ticket (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A short-lived and now-defunct pay-per-view TV service. It appears that it has never crossed the threshold of notability sufficient for an encyclopaedia article. At the height of the service's success, this article was 14 word long. [1] It was expanded to the current six sentences after the business went belly up; however, no information in the article has ever indicated any sort of notability, present or past. — kashmīrī  TALK 23:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Three weeks on, and this is al the discussion has produced. No one could call anything here a consensus. No prejudice if someone wants to run it back in a little while and see if a clearer consensus emerges. . Courcelles ( talk) 13:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Dragon Street Records

Dragon Street Records (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is not eligible for PROD, so I have brought this to AFD. I found some online book sources in my search; sources that are not good enough to meet GNG. I think an AFD discussion could help to improve this before getting deleted. Thilsebatti ( talk) 12:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. Thilsebatti ( talk) 12:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Texas. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment If the nominator has book sources that could be brought to bear to save the article, then by all means we should add those. Please add those. Chubbles ( talk) 02:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    The book sources only mention about the subject. They are not good enough to meet GNG. Thilsebatti ( talk) 04:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep I initially thought "keep" as the article claims the label started the career of the Dixie Chicks. But I can't verify that, and I think it's a false claim that should be removed. However, There is a full article about the label on the first page of Section 4 of the December 28, 1990 issue of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Also information from same newspaper February 2, 1990 page 16. Casual mention on July 20, 1990 page 12 from same newspaper. A bit more than a passing mention on June 29, 1990, page 10. Information about their re-release program on [2]. Although most of the mentions are photo credits, there is information about the label in the Handbook of Texas Music. Also information about the label [3]. I have not exhausted the Newspapes.com search or Google Books. But there is certainly enough here upon which to build an informational encyclopedia article. Although it fails Dixie Chicks, I can confirm several of the other bands, therefore the article is of interest to musicologists and music historians. The information can not be merged to any other article that I can think of, because too much information would be irrelevant to that topic. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 01:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    That's sufficient for me; keep per 78.26. Chubbles ( talk) 15:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

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


The result was refactored to Irudayaraj. Although this action has already been taken, the consensus formed in the discussion supports it. I will fix the edit histories. BD2412 T 18:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Iruthayaraj

Iruthayaraj (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD; information added in an attempt to address issues are not sufficient. Fails WP:NNAME, as not enough notable persons have this name. Jalen Folf (talk) 06:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete: per nom. In fact, no links at all of anybody by this name (and only 1 (!) entry in WD with this name). -- P 1 9 9   ✉ 15:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC) reply
This AFD is for Iruthayaraj, not Irudayaraj. We don't need a surname page for only 1 entry. I checked WD, and it is true that Irudayaraj is more common, and we have 3 articles here at en.wp. So I would support a move to Irudayaraj (with redirect from Iruthayaraj). -- P 1 9 9   ✉ 13:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Move content to and redirect link to Irudayaraj as per P199 (basically the reverse of the current state). This page does need to exist for the 4 individuals who share this surname, but the lead paragraph and the infobox should be removed for lack of supporting sources. Tutwakhamoe ( talk) 23:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The limited participation suggests either keeping or merging; both of which can be outside the scope of an AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Cincinnati mayoral elections

Cincinnati mayoral elections (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page does not meet the standards of a standalone page. It simply is a statistics page. Other cities this size (and larger) don't have pages listed in this manner. If an individual election is notable, one should be created for that. -- KD0710 ( talk) 18:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nothing sticks out to me saying a third week of this discussion would change the outcome towards a consensus to delete. Given that, there's no real reason to kick this one back in the queue. Courcelles ( talk) 13:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Robert A. Wilson (Virginia politician)

Robert A. Wilson (Virginia politician) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local politician fails WP:NPOL. Novemberjazz 19:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC) reply

SIGCOV describes "significant coverage" as sources that "address the topic directly and in detail." Further "[s]ignificant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." I fail to see how major state newspapers detailing Wilson's education; business, political, and civic careers; as well as his personal life fail to meet this criteria. Rockhead126 ( talk) 22:57, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep. Most of the sources seems to pass WP:GNG, but there are still significant problems with the sourcing of this article. The New York Times article only mentioned the subject in passing, and should be removed; Sources 2 and 7 are reporting on the same thing, so one of them should be removed; sources 3 to 6 were cited for the same claim, at least two of them need to be removed as well. And the "Offices and distinctions" template seems an odd inclusion, since the subject was not named in the template. Tutwakhamoe ( talk) 04:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Agree 100% it's a borderline case, even if I think GNG is ultimately met. I did have some questions and comments though:
  • Regarding the NYT article, if I reword to detail how the firm's acquisition by DDB took place during his tenure as chairman of the board, do you think that would be more acceptable?
  • Re sources 2 and 7: Is it improper to cite to separate articles primarily about the same thing/event, even if they contain different but equally encyclopedia-worthy facts? If there are two separate newspaper articles reporting on the President awarding a soldier the Medal of Honor, I don't see why one can't be used as a source for, say, what town the soldier is from and the other for what unit the soldier was serving with at the time of their heroic action. In the case of this article, the former source provides more detail about Wilson's time with Cargill while the latter talks about his being awarded the Wayne Medal. If necessary, I can probably find a different source for either of the two things.
  • Re sources 3 to 6: While I'll concede that this looks like a textbook case of citation overkill on its face, I found these sources while researching the subject and think each one of them contains valuable biographical information. Unfortunately, I've had very little free time recently and haven't had time to incorporate all of them into the article, so I dumped them all after the sentences about Wilson's career. I agree it's a bit sloppy and needs to be fixed, but it's my intention to clean it all up when I get the time.
Genuinely, thank you for the constructive criticism. Most of my work here on Wikipedia is done solo, and, while this article is certainly not representative of the best of my work...yet...I always really appreciate hearing other editor's feedback. Rockhead126 ( talk) 03:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
One last thing I forgot to address last night: I'm not sure what you mean about the "'Offices and distinctions' template." It's simply a collapsible navbox to house succession boxes. Not completely necessary here, especially with only one succession box used at the moment, but it looks clean in my opinion. Just a stylistic choice. Rockhead126 ( talk) 20:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles ( talk) 13:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Savvas Houvartas

Savvas Houvartas (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced BLP. No apparent notability. Skyerise ( talk) 22:50, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lemon Jelly#Singles. T. Canens ( talk) 02:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Rolled/Oats

Rolled/Oats (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I could find no evidence of notability. Dream Focus 22:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Speedy Delete PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk) 23:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
What speedy delete criteria does it meet? Pawnkingthree ( talk) 23:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Lemon Jelly: I found exactly one brief mention of the single here which does confirm one of the samples, but that's all I got and it's clearly not enough. Title is distinct enough from rolled oats to be a likely search term for this subject so it's a valuable redirect. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 01:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Lemon Jelly#Singles where the release is mentioned. Pawnkingthree ( talk) 18:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Isus Angelov

Isus Angelov (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

With a name that seems to translate to "Jesus, son of Angel", his name did come up a few times in Bulgarian news headlines but the articles themselves contain barely any coverage. Certainly nothing that I could find meets the standards of WP:GNG. He is mentioned in Sportal as having an ACL injury and likely to be out for 6 months but that's about the full extent of the coverage in that piece. Blitz has two articles that mention Angelov in the headline but both only address him once in the main text, 1 and 2, so neither of these can be considered as anything other than trivial coverage. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Blasphemy in Pakistan#Selected cases. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Chinese engineer blasphemy case

Chinese engineer blasphemy case (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested draftification without improvement. Case of WP:NOTNEWS. Onel5969 TT me 19:54, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

There are few similar denials like this one covered in the news.com.pk, for neutrality such denials may be covered in the articles like Blasphemy in Pakistan. But just in 20 days or so there is another blasphemy lynching -that too of a Pakistani cleric itself- covered by Pakistan as well as international media. This is the news.com.pk, Dawn, Washington Post. Even latest Scholarly study like Hate Speech and Atrocity Prevention in Asia: Patterns, Trends and Strategies talks of issues including that of India and Pakistan, there in Pakistan related scholarly article dated 02 May 2023 by Khadija Rashid ( PDF). Wikipedia talk pages are always open to discuss what any Encyclopedia is for including Wikipedia and which content is due and undue for Wikipedia as encyclopedia. Bookku ( talk) 08:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify as per nom. The reportings I found are pretty vague in details, might be safer to wait for further updates. Tutwakhamoe ( talk) 23:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge in ' Blasphemy in Pakistan#Selected cases' (with redirect from present title), in selected cases since case is notable enough to denote how Pakistan establishment can handle cases of blasphemy differently in case China-Pakistan foreign relations are involved. IMO meets enough WP:SIGCOV, but looking at China-Pakistan relation case likely to be played down in due course and do not expect much further updates. Bookku ( talk) 01:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Blasphemy in Pakistan#Selected cases as preferred WP:ATD. ~ Kvng ( talk) 02:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Coverage was pretty widespread on the arrest (beyond the sources in the article, there's also e.g. NYT: [5], The Independent: [6], SCMP: [7]), and again when the subject was released on bail (e.g. Reuters: [8], Bloomberg: [9]). The Bloomberg article states an anti-terror court ruled that no offense had been committed and The main accuser in the blasphemy case kept changing his statement and bail has been granted until the case is concluded, which may take a few months, according to a police official, which makes it seem like there won't be many further developments here. I'm pretty unsure but providing these sources for others to judge; this feels borderline notable to me given the international attention. Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits) 02:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Blasphemy in Pakistan. Not notable enough for its own article per WP:NEVENTS. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 23:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Márk Farkas

Márk Farkas (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stats stub with no evidence of notability presented. A Hungarian source search did not yield anything decent. Behir has a few sentences about him joining Békéscsaba, which does not address him in enough detail for WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. The only other piece that I can find about him is Szeged Ma but these are just mentions in a match report about being on the squad list and then scoring a header. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Julian Gingell

Julian Gingell (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV. The only sources I've found mostly consisted of his name as a part of a list of other names, while the few others remained passing mentions. From my search, the only reliable facts about him were that he won ASCAP awards for American Idol work in 2004, 2009, 2011, 2016 ( [10] [11] [12]), and 2022, and an honoree in 2008; produced for Steps (pop group) ( [13] [14]) and Sybil (singer) ( [15]); and signed on at one point to a label called Diggermusic ( [16]). There's also an interview, but that isn't an RS. While he may have won awards, there is no reliable in-depth coverage about him to meet SIGCOV. SWinxy ( talk) 19:36, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 John William Friso. After the close script does the tagging, I will redirect and protect this title. As an edge case, the problem here is that the chart was copied into the article. So we can't just do a straight delete, even if consensus would allow it, we have to preserve the attribution history.

So for that reason, and reading it as a reasonable conclusion based on this discussion, I will let the script tag the talk pages for attribution, redirect the current title to the biography, and then fully protect the redirect. Doing this both enforces the consensus that this article should not exist and maintains compliance with our licensing terms. Courcelles ( talk) 13:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Royal descendants of John William Friso

AfDs for this article:
Royal descendants of John William Friso (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:G4, it was deleted on 21 August 2013, then recreated on 25 May 2014 and immediately nominated for deletion again, which inexplicably resulted in "no consensus". All the fundamental objections raised against the first and second creation have not been addressed: WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:UNSOURCED, WP:V, WP:RS. Arguments raised by people in the "Keep" camp were, in both cases, that the issues "could be fixed" by finding beter sources etc.. The 2013 closer already said: Simply saying that other sources "could be" found, without providing any, is not good enough: we need actual verifiable sources, not just an editor's speculation that there may be some somewhere. "Keepers" in 2014 again said: some effort and sources have been added. I would address the possible original research issues instead of deleting it altogether. Which hasn't happened. The same 29 sources that were used before the 2014 AfD are still there on the current page. Nobody has bothered doing it, just suggested that somebody should. Most importantly, we still don't have an answer to the question: Why this is relevant? It seems to me that the statement John William Friso and his wife Marie Louise of Hesse-Kassel are the most recent common ancestors of all European monarchs, current and former, that have reigned since World War II. makes for an interesting footnote, but no more than that. And: only if it is supported by a reliable source. Which it still isn't, 9 years later. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 17:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Sidenote: Why does the title only mention John William Friso if Marie Louise of Hesse-Kassel has exactly the same status of "common ancestor blahblahblah"? Typical. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 17:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Death of Caylee Anthony. If there's nothing further worth merging, then someone can simply redirect the title there. But we have a pretty clear consensus this doesn't belong as a standalone article. Courcelles ( talk) 13:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Timeline of the Casey Anthony case

Timeline of the Casey Anthony case (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is an extremely detailed timeline of the Casey Anthony case. I think it's fair to call the timeline granular. We learn that, for example, at 1:44 p.m. on June 16, 2008, Casey called a friend (who's name is included), and that the call ended at 2:21 p.m. The next piece of information offered is that, according to George Anthony's later testimony, he left work at 2:30 p.m. But most of the timeline is geared towards the trial—with day-by-day descriptions of testimony offered. (I should also say that a few of the entries, I think problematically, fail to indicate that they were from testimony.)

I've worked on a few high-profile criminal cases now, and I've seen cases in which separate articles for the court case exist, but usually those cases involve appeals. Compare 1984 New York City Subway shooting#Criminal trial with People v. Goetz, covering one of the many appeals. Conversely, see the many examples of event articles that don't have separate case articles— Central Park jogger case, Murder of Laci Peterson, Killing of Hae Min Lee. We could do a detailed play-by-play of each of those cases—the events leading up to them, the trials, the appeals. But we don't. Maybe that's just because no one has been willing to write them, but I think it's because this kind of granular detail isn't generally appropriate for a encyclopedia.

Normally, I would just suggest a merger, but in this case I've already taken a few of the relevant events that weren't in the Death of Caylee Anthony article ... and I don't think there's anything else here that should be included. The trial section in that article was already overlong before I cut it (and, frankly, it's still a bit long). To perform that cut, I looked at summaries of the trial and what they emphasized. Everything that's left in the timeline article—which, to be clear, documents what happened on every day of the 6-week trial—isn't in those summaries, and I don't think anything in it would add to the article while still complying with summary style. -- Jerome Frank Disciple 17:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Jerome Frank Disciple ( talk) 17:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:36, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Non-standard trial/case summary better converted to prose than staying in a timeline form. Nate • ( chatter) 18:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I am confused by the nominator. What is the exact reasoning based on Wikipedia policies for wanting to delete this article? – The Grid ( talk) 19:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'm confused, too! Here I guess I'm defaulting to the ol' "unencyclopedic" rationale ( WP:DEL-REASON 14—Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia.), but I concede it's mostly vibes. That said, I do think there are some policies that make this kind of content questionable. For example, we normally have to consider WP:DUE WEIGHT and MOS:TIMELINE, which says, "Ensure that list items have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the item to be included in the text of the article ...." But if the article is the timeline ... can that really mean anything goes? No detail is too small? At what point does a timeline become just a split-off chronological trivia section? (To some degree, this is all dancing around WP:INDISCRIMINATE.) As I said, I very well could have gone with a merge, but that, too, would've resulted in an immense amount of content being deleted, because, quite frankly, most of that content wouldn't be appropriate in the Death of Caylee Anthony article. I thought bringing an AfD would be the better option and more fair to anyone who wants to preserve the timeline, but if there's a consensus that a merge is the better option, I'll go for that. (I am, after all, currently merging what I can.)-- Jerome Frank Disciple 19:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Thanks for the reply, I was more confused as there's definitely information that can be merged into the article versus completely deleting it. It would be a prime candidate to merge as a alternative to deleting. – The Grid ( talk) 12:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Fair point—And yeah, I do want to make clear I am working on merging the information, but since so much of that information will end up being ... not merged (er, deleted), and I'd imagine anyone that likes the Timeline as it is would consider that a deletion, it felt to me that a deletion discussion would be appropriate, but perhaps that was a mistake.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Merge into the main article about the case. 15 years later I don't think it helps to know when a cell phone call started and ended. Broadly covered in the article about the case, this level of detail doesn't help the narrative at this point in time. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or Merge: because it is well sourced enough, and the few entries that don't mention they were from testimony can be fixed to explicitly say so, and are easily figured out as such by existing context anyway. Don't usually participate in these, but came across the notice doing my typical gnome work... Huggums537 ( talk) 11:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or Merge I have a tendency to stuff every detail I can find into an article, but I think this is way overdone. - Donald Albury 15:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 14:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply

List of Sikh Footballers

List of Sikh Footballers (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable standalone topic, limited scope and coverage, so should be deleted or redirected to e.g. British Asians in association football. Giant Snowman 16:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi, @ GiantSnowman claims this does not warrant a separate article when articles such as a List of Jewish footballers, List of Indian NHL players exist perfectly fine.
The basis on this doesn't make any sense. Sikhism is a much smaller religion therefore, the list isn't in tends of thousands unlike Muslim or Christian footballers. Furthermore this article still is expanding, and additional information on this it be provided. There are many credible sources discussing sikhs in football from the BBC, The Times etc... Jattlife121 ( talk) 16:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
If you still feel, "List of Sikh Footballers" isn't appropriate the title change can be made of "Sikhs in Football" like this one Islam in association football.
A whole movie was also based on a Sikh girl and her dreams to be a footballer called Bend It Like Beckham "Bend It Like Beckham grossed $76.6 million at the box office, making it the highest-grossing football sports film." Jattlife121 ( talk) 16:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Rebel Racing

Rebel Racing (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be non-notable. A WP:BEFORE returns a few related results but they all seem to mostly just be promotional pieces on the game itself similar to what you would find on an appstore. I did see some Russian sources but as I can't read Cyrillic I'm not entirely sure if those show notability. The current sources are a review and a source for an award it didn't win (which fails WP:SIGCOV). ― Blaze Wolf TalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Michael Xavier Voon

Michael Xavier Voon (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure if WP:CREATIVE or WP:ACTOR would apply to dancers. In any case, complete lack of coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar ( talk) 06:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 06:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 06:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Une sorte de justice

Une sorte de justice (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very few substantial edits for many years and no references that show notability. I do not have much access to sources in French but as far as I can tell there is no page on the topic on fr.wiki and I can't find anything much discussing it. I'd be interested if others can find sources that meet the GNG. JMWt ( talk) 09:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete Appears PROMO, there are no reviews of the book in French, only sites where you can buy old copies. The phrase is too common to search for alone. Oaktree b ( talk) 18:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
I did a French Gscholar search and gave up after 6 pages only hitting on the phrase. Oaktree b ( talk) 18:27, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 11:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Howland Capital Management

Howland Capital Management (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CORP. The two sources cited are obituaries for its founder. All I can find about it in a WP:BEFORE search are press releases. Uncle Spock ( talk) 11:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC) reply

My only concern about a prod was their claim of having $2.6 billion assets under management. Call me a bit over-cautious. :⁠-⁠) Uncle Spock ( talk) 13:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: A financial firm going about its business, but neither obituaries for its founder nor the past sporting achievements of someone at the company suffice for WP:CORPDEPTH. Searches find routine coverage of financial transactions but I am not seeing the coverage about the firm itself which is needed to demonstrate notability here. AllyD ( talk) 10:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 14:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Abubakar Sadiq Yelwa

Abubakar Sadiq Yelwa (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 10:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment I’m pretty sure that the current consensus is that Nigerian state commissioners are notable. Thus subject was apparently “appointed as commissioner of land, housing, and urban development in kebbi state by Atiku Bagudu. He also served as the commissioner of Agricultural and Rural development and local government and chieftaincy affairs as well as work and transportation from 2000 to 2008.” If verified that would make him notable. Mccapra ( talk) 18:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 13:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Nicolai Riise Madsen

Nicolai Riise Madsen (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. There is no significant coverage in the article and I was unable to find any during a search. His profile on Transfermarkt indicates he was never a significant player [20]. Alvaldi ( talk) 13:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 13:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Jagdish Jandu

Jagdish Jandu (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fail in WP:BIO ND WP:POLITICIAN. NO FULLFILL GEN. CRITERA FOR POLITICIAN Worldiswide ( talk) 12:36, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 13:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Ankh (film)

Ankh (film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A typical pumped up film article, winning tons of awards from "film festivals" which no one ever heard of or visits (but which have grand names like the Europe Film Festival" or the "Cannes Film Awards"), "interviews" with standard questions (i.e. no actual interviewer), and in this case one newspaper (HLN) which fell for the "wow, many awards" fake news and wrote an actual article. So, non-notable film without the necessary multiple good sources to establish notability. Fram ( talk) 12:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete even in .be sources, there's nothing about this film. This is about the best [21]. Ref bombed out the wazoo, winning non-notable film awards at festivals that aren't notable enough to have wiki articles and lack of coverage even in Belgium, it's a !Delete for me. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
And the film has already premiered in June 2023? My calendar still says May 2023. This is PROMO. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Someone submitted their honeymoon film to film festivals and they took it and awarded it...which doesn't show the WP:N for this film, but how easy it is to get something submitted to a low-tier film festival. Nate • ( chatter) 18:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This Eurpope Film Festival is bunk: "Europe Film Festival UK has started in early 2020 pandemic time as a filmmaker community-led online film competition. Powered by independent creators, run for independent creators, the initiative became a hub of filmmakers joining forces to add visibility to its winners." They aren't even awarding it anymore and it's an online "thing" started during covid. Independent creators, online. Seriously, we're using this as the notability for the film? And the Patrick J Knight is a redirect to the band mentioned in the article. This is some weird wiki cross promotion rabbit hole ... Oaktree b ( talk) 01:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Notability because awards does not just indiscrimnately attach to just any award from just any film festival on the planet — there's actually this entire circuit out there of fake film festivals that don't even really screen films for the public at all, and instead exist solely as "award mills" where emerging wannabe filmmakers can buy themselves an award or three so that they can promote their film as an "award winner". So NFILM only cares about film festival awards to the extent that reliable source media outlets care about said awards — films are notable if they win awards that are notable by virtue of receiving media coverage, and are not notable for winning awards that you have to depend on the film festival's own self-published website about itself to "reference" the claim because media don't report that festival's award as news. That is, awards from the likes of Berlin, Cannes, TIFF, Venice or Sundance (major festivals of international significance whose awards get reported as news) are clearly notability clinchers, while awards from "Krimson Horyzon", "Hodu" and "Dreamz Catcher" (festivals which get so little coverage that it's difficult to even verify whether they're "award mills" or just real but small-fry film festivals of purely local significance) aren't. Bearcat ( talk) 15:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The Belgian premiere will take place at the end of June. The theater's website provides clear information about the feature film, a performance by Gravity Noir, and even a red carpet moment. I have now omitted this information from the article. This is to avoid giving the impression of advertising. The show is almost completely sold out. We can therefore assume that this will receive the necessary press and media attention. I think it would be premature to have the article removed. [1] Trix18365 ( talk) 07:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Presenting a film is celebrity coverage, nothing detailing the history or development of the film, nor any sort of critical reviews of the film. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ "ANKH - Fakkeltheater". fakkeltheater.be. 20 October 2022. Archived from the original on 7 May 2023. Retrieved 7 May 2023.
  • Deletebecause the article does not pass WP:N and violates WP:PROMO. TipsyElephant ( talk) 16:14, 7 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I have omitted any information that could give the impression that this article is advertising. Notwithstanding, once the event has taken place, it will be discussed afterward. Therefore we can assume that this Belgian film première will receive the necessary press, media attention and any sort of critical reviews of the film. As in third-party sources discussing the film, and detailing its history or development of the film. Once again, I think it would be premature to have the article removed. Trix18365 ( talk) 17:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC) reply
You cannot vote twice. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 14:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No valid rational for deletion. copyvio-revdel has been requested for the revision in question. (non-admin closure) Skynxnex ( talk) 14:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor

Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor of This and Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor of This have the lyrics of こわがりヒーロー. Frederick III, Holy Roman Emperor of This have the lyrics of ツバメ. This is copyright infringement and should be removed.-- ヨッさん6世 ( talk) 11:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy delete‎. CSD G4, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Chinedu Ndukauba Liz Read! Talk! 03:26, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Charles Ndukauba

Charles Ndukauba (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NOT MEET WP:NACTOR. NO RELIABLE SOURCES Worldiswide ( talk) 10:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 10:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Simon Bahne Backmann

Simon Bahne Backmann (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. The lone source in the article mentions him starting a U-17 match and being substituded an hour into the game [22]. Didn't find anything better during a search, only mentions in match reports and routine transfer reports. Looking at his Transfermarkt profile, there is no indication that he was ever a significant player [23]. Alvaldi ( talk) 10:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Ilario Cozzi

Ilario Cozzi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Only one source in article, where he is listed amongst all Livorno players who had birthday on 17 April [24]. Found no significant coverage during a search. While he appeared in one Serie A match, he spent the vast majority of his career in the Italian third and fourth tier [25]. Alvaldi ( talk) 08:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comments There is plenty of room for improvement, he played more than enough games. And I am going to have a go later at fixing it up. Completely disagree with this nomination and feel this is part of the delete culture to remove perfectly valid stub articles. Sources do exist out there, so do WP:OFFLINESOURCES. And if nominator did his WP:BEFORE, he would have found out straight away that Cozzi played a cup game for Inter and not a league game!! Govvy ( talk) 09:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    I did a WP:BEFORE but unfortunately found nothing of significance. The source I linked to above listed him having played one Serie A match which was consistent with what the article stated. I nominated this recently deproded article due to the subjects lack of significant coverage, not due to the article's stub status. Note that being a professional football player, regardless of how many games the individual has played, does not equal notability per WP:NSPORT where it is clearly stated that the subject must pass WP:GNG. This is a career lower league player who seems to rarely have played more than half of his teams games (judging from the above source but I could be mistaken) and for whom we have no evidence that there is any kind of significant coverage of out there. Alvaldi ( talk) 09:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - No non-database sources WP:SPORTBASIC. 128.6.36.94 ( talk) 20:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The more I tried to look into this player, the harder it got. At first I thought he should pass GNG, not so sure if it's the same case. It really is a tough one, the additional sources I found were not much and I can't see this ever passing SPORTCRIT really. Govvy ( talk) 14:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Vijandren Ramadass

Vijandren Ramadass (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I actually nominated this person as part of his company AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lowyat.net (3rd nomination). So this is a proper AfD to consider him separately, fails WP:BIO. Only known for setting up a now non notable website. LibStar ( talk) 05:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 06:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I would Draftify this article but since a Draft already exists, I'm swayed by the arguments that NFF guideline isn't met. If there is a decision down the road, when filming starts, to Merge this article with the draft version or replace the draft version with this one, we can revisit this decision. Liz Read! Talk! 06:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply

A Complete Unknown (film)

A Complete Unknown (film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is of a film that has not entered production. This makes the page not meet the requirements of the WP:NFF guideline, as well as the WP:CRYSTAL policy. In this films case, it has previously been put into uncertainty about it being made. There have been exceptions made in the past such as with Akira (planned film), however in cases such as that the topic has an extensive production history going back years. This film doesn't have that level of production history. Typically I would move this be moved to draftspace I nominate this for deletion as this topic already exists in the draftspace at Draft:A Complete Unknown. There is room for redirect to be possible, and a merge of the histories, however I have issues with the merge option, as the content of this page is essentially similar to the content of the draft, and any content different in the article is either of questionable sourcing, or not sourced at all. Rusted AutoParts 05:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Independent reliable sources about this production starring Timothee Chalamet as Bob Dylan are used in the article, and additional sources can be found by a simple Google search. Notability is further demonstrated by the article averaging hundreds of views per day in its first few days of existence. Note that articles must meet either WP:GNG or WP:NFF; a sub-guideline that is more restrictive than the notability guideline does not trump the basic guideline. If there are any unverifiable facts, they should be removed, but that's a normal editing issue not requiring deletion. I can't think of a good reason why we would want to stop hundreds of readers per day from learning verifiable facts about something in which they have an obvious interest. Station1 ( talk) 06:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Because the film doesn't yet exist? The film is expected to begin filming in August, which is four months away. It could easily slip back into development hell, or fall apart. This is why I invoked WP:CRYSTAL. It is this reason why so many articles relating to film or television go through draftspace, it allows the topic to be fleshed out gradually before it begins filming, allowing for a stronger GNG case to be met. A Complete Unknown doesn't meet this. "I can't think of a good reason why we would want to stop hundreds of readers per day from learning verifiable facts about something in which they have an obvious interest". Hundreds of readers are more than able to locate the topic in draftspace until such time it can be able to exist in mainspace. Rusted AutoParts 06:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Draft:A Complete Unknown has a total of 79 views in the 4 months that it's existed. A Complete Unknown (film) has over 2,300 in the last 5 days. Station1 ( talk) 06:36, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Pageviews do not trump guidelines. My point was that it's not impossible for readers to locate the draft if they need it until the film meets the mandatory guideline requirements for film articles, as well as doesn't stand in defiance of policy when it comes to CRYSTAL. Rusted AutoParts 06:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Guidelines are never mandatory, they're just guidelines. WP:CRYSTAL, which is policy, applies to "unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions." This article notes verifiable facts that have already occurred and been reported (except the first paragraph, which should be tweaked slightly [done 5 May]). Station1 ( talk) 07:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The number one stipulation of CRYSTAL is "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. This film is not at all "almost certain" to take place. "Guidelines are never mandatory, they're just guidelines". So then your main point of it meeting GNG doesn't really hold water then? What's the purpose of establishing these guidelines if they aren't meant to be used to enforce the editing practices they were established to...establish. "This article notes verifiable facts that have already occurred and been reported". Gleeming the page, its at best bare bones production history. All films have an initial announcement of intention to be made, so that's meritless. Next sentence highlights how it was previously delayed (the draft article highlights how the project entire was uncertain given the pandemic too) and just an assertion of intention to make the film. Mike Myers has been asserting he plans to do an Austin Powers 4, yet here we are and it still doesn't exist, so the director asserting still planning to make it is meritless. The second paragraph is built upon casting rumblings that never saw any further corroboration from the more reliable of film sources. Seeking out Bale, Cumberbatch and Taylor-Joy being rumored as involved aren't strong production history indicators. All we are left with basically is the initial announcement, and Barbero's casting. By themselves they do not make a strong case that this film is notable, or definitely going to happen. I really don't want to keep going back and forth here, but the draft system is in place for this exact reason. Merge it or redirect it to the existing draft if needbe, but right now the topic is just not at an acceptable level of notability to justify mainspace existence. That's my case. Rusted AutoParts 07:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
To respond to your point about " WP:NFF; a sub-guideline that is more restrictive than the notability guideline does not trump the basic guideline", NFF is a core arm of GNG for the specific topic of film, and how to weigh what merits notability that way. This is why it has it's own separate guideline page. The film is certainly not a given to exist. We've seen films fall apart before filming or never see further announcements about it and just fade away. What happened with Batgirl or even Gore makes this an even stronger point. A film can go through the production phase and still be cancelled. Depending on the project, it's production and subsequent cancellation makes it able to be notable still. However, A Complete Unknown, as i've said, just does not have that level of development to it. Rusted AutoParts 06:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
A thing can be a notable topic without being a notable film (yet). A Complete Unknown is notable because multiple independent sources and thousands of WP readers have noted it. WP:N (which gets 35 times as many views as NF [26]) says a topic is presumed notable if "it meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline" [emphasis added]. Station1 ( talk) 07:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
And with the writer's strike now, it may never get finished, if they need to do script rewrites or revisions.... Oaktree b ( talk) 18:31, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Now that's speculation. I'm not aware of any source that says that. Station1 ( talk) 04:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Another sound reason why CRYSTAL applies. Rusted AutoParts 04:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Yes, CRYSTAL applies to our speculation that the film might not be made, when no source does so. Station1 ( talk) 04:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Why would there be any source published speculating about whether a film gets made unless there is solid reason to think that? We abide by CRYSTAL so we don't go creating premature articles on a topic that wound up not happening. The two things really aren't comparable. Rusted AutoParts 05:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply
"Why would there be any source published speculating about whether a film gets made unless there is solid reason to think that?" Exactly. There is no solid reason to think that this film will not get made. But the main point is that even in the unlikely event it doesn't get made, what has happened so far is notable. Rolling Stone has written an article about it; no reason we shouldn't too. Station1 ( talk) 05:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply
We aren't a news agency, we are an encyclopedia, and if an article is to be here then it needs notability and to actually be definitively happening. We can't know that until filming actually begins, which is months away. Rusted AutoParts 06:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply
I agree with your first sentence. But a topic is notable when reliable sources take note of it, not based on some arbitrary rule that a handful of editors come up with. Sources expect this film to be made, even if you don't, and in the unlikely event it isn't, that in itself will be notable. Station1 ( talk) 23:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply
By saying “sources expect”, you’re quite literally solidifying while CRYSTAL is a thing. Just because its production history is being reported on, it does not make it any way shape or form a solid guarantee to happen, I really don’t get how that’s confusing here. Just today we saw Blade, a film that was meant to start production this month, delayed due to the Writers Strike. Rusted AutoParts 00:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC) reply
You seem to be caught up on the film, while I'm talking about the topic. The film will probably exist, according to sources, but even if it never exists, the topic already exists and will always exist and is notable, either as a film or as the planned Bob Dylan film starring Timothee Chalamet that didn't get made for some reason. Station1 ( talk) 01:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The topic has no role in this. There’s quite literally thousands of movies that entered development at various points with various avenues of reporting that never came to be. The Akira live action film has an article because it has a couple decades worth of detailed reporting and history. As firmly illustrated here, A Complete Unknown does not. It has enough to be a paragraph in the Bob Dylan or James Mangold articles if it fails to pan out, not a separate Wikipedia article. Your viewpoint seems to hold disregard for guidelines and policy put in place to follow. All the draft articles for movies in the Marvel Cinematic Universe or other major tentpole projects follow them even though they can make an argument they are notable right now even if they haven’t started filming. But that violates CRYSTAL, so they don’t go to mainspace. It’s simply TOOSOON, and in violation of said guidelines and policy that aren’t “arbitrary”. Rusted AutoParts 02:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Every article has a topic. A planned film can be a topic if its notable. I resent the statement that I disregard guidelines and policy. The first thing I said was that this topic meets WP:GNG. I also said this topic does not violate WP:CRYSTAL. I don't claim you disregard them just because we disagree about their application to this article. Both WP:N and CRYSTAL enjoy wide consensus. The idea that an article can't exist before an arbitrary event occurs is contrary to GNG and bad for readers seeking information. In fact there are at least a couple hundred articles about cancelled and unreleased films on WP. And if there are notable topics that are in draft space only because of an arbitrary rule, they too should be in mainspace. A basic idea of WP, and a reason it works to the extent it does, is that everyone gets to create and read and improve articles, not a select few. Station1 ( talk) 02:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC) reply
What does that last sentence even mean? No one is depriving people of participating on Wikipedia. We are simply also bound to the stipulations put in place so we aren't supplying wrong or no longer true things. I said you seem to disregard these things because it feels like you're handwaving their basic restrictions. NFF says "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date" to which you dismiss because "well people are looking at the page". CRYSTAL states in it's first section "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" which you also handwave because you claim we're speculating about it's potential cancellation. When you look at a guideline in the opposite way, of course you find yourself with ample wiggle room to reinterpret them. But it's antithetical to their purpose, and just plays pick and choose with where they apply. The subject of the page is about a film, that makes it beholden to WP:NFILM, which makes its clear a baseline necessity for it to be able to be in mainspace is that it's begun filming. If that had been fulfilled and someone nominated it for deletion I would be fighting for it to stay because it crossed that, but we have a film that is only in film. And since CRYSTAL asks of use not to play fortune teller, we cannot automatically assume it is a lock to happen. There is over 80 days left until the month it begins filming, which leaves it 12 weeks for anything to happen with it. Not just a potential delay, but potential fast-track, conversion into something else, the world could end, etc. There is no rush to get a future event out there, and given this isnt a means to completely remove A Complete Unknown off Wikipedia entire, its just making sure its' in the appropriate location for it's present state. Rusted AutoParts 03:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC) reply
You have proposed deletion and have support for that. It will be "completely removed". That is obviously "depriving people of participating on Wikipedia" with regard to this article. The article is not "wrong or no longer true", so that rationale doesn't hold. Yes, "the world could end" in the next few weeks, but no reliable source is predicting that, nor are any predicting the film won't be made. Only WP editors speculate that it might not be. Station1 ( talk) 07:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC) reply
I nominated it for deletion because you refused it's move into userspace. You've been ardently asserting it's a topic, the topic does indeed exist on Wikipedia in an appropriate location at the draft, so "the topic" is absolutely not being completely removed. Draftspace is easily accessible, so no one is deprived. The "wrong or no longer true" part is in regards to the potential of falling through, which CRYSTAL compels us to take into account. This will also apply to your last point. We are not speculating, we are taking all possibilities into consideration. This is something no one needs a reliable source to do. Rusted AutoParts 08:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC) reply
To avoid further repitition, see my second comment above. Station1 ( talk) 06:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The article does not meet the notability guideline it more immediately pertains to. Rusted AutoParts 08:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Exactly. WP:GNG itself states that it is a low lying threshold which "creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article." An article meeting GNG is meaningless if the article fails to meet other guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia. Martin IIIa ( talk) 12:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC) reply
We disagree as to whether GNG is "meaningless" if NFF applies, or if NFF is trumped by GNG, but either way, guidelines are not being "ignored". Station1 ( talk) 06:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Your own words: "Guidelines are never mandatory, they're just guidelines." Martin IIIa ( talk) 23:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC) reply
It's well-established that there are no "mandatory guidelines", as claimed above. Guidelines are supposed to be helpful synopses of general best practices, to be applied with common sense to specific cases, not "rules" that must be blindly followed. The goal should always be what is best for readers. Station1 ( talk) 06:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ "Bob Dylan Biopic 'A Complete Unknown' Starts Production in August". World of Reel.
  2. ^ McPherson, Christopher (April 7, 2023). "Timothée Chalamet Will Do His Own Singing in Bob Dylan Biopic". Collider. Retrieved 7 April 2023.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 X-League (Japan). Liz Read! Talk! 06:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Yokohama Harbors

Yokohama Harbors (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As a sports club fails WP:ORG, 1 gnews hit. I would reconsider if sources are found in Japanese. LibStar ( talk) 03:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Labour relations in women's association football

Labour relations in women's association football (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod denied. Not really a stand alone article, and likely to rewrite it as such would be OR/SYNTH UtherSRG (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Noting also the context of women's football as part of a broader labour movement: Professional women's footballers striking with Nabisco workers, a women's football union executive director is on the AFL-CIO executive council, women's football union as a founding member of AFL-CIO's sports council, PFA founding a women's department in 2020 and facilitating maternity rights, Sara Bjork Gunnarsdottir's materinty pay case vs. Olympique Lyon. Draftifying this article would allow broader themes to be connected with a scope that would be inappropriate as sections of club or league pages. - 71.34.68.140 ( talk) 02:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Incorporated some of the above sources. - Socccc ( talk) 19:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply

African Youth Olympic Futsal Qualifying Tournament

African Youth Olympic Futsal Qualifying Tournament (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. Could not find any third party coverage. LibStar ( talk) 02:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Camp Orange. ✗ plicit 03:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Camp Orange: The Curse of the Emerald Eye

Camp Orange: The Curse of the Emerald Eye (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article. Found no significant coverage of the program, does not seem to pass WP:GNG Tutwakhamoe ( talk) 01:11, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Merge not notable but salvageable content. Jack4576 ( talk) 14:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_May_4&oldid=1154480825"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE