Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 01 May 03 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Greenwell Matongo Community Library

Greenwell Matongo Community Library (  | 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. No significant coverage. Just a run of the mill local library. LibStar ( talk) 23:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Daniel Kehr

Daniel Kehr (  | 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, WP:SPORTCRIT #5, and violates the general criteria of WP:NOTDATABASE. BilledMammal ( talk) 00:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom, redirect not needed. Not notable. LizardJr8 ( talk) 06:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. In addition to the beforementioned lack of sources, I did a newspapers.com search and found no WP:SIGCOV. Jacona ( talk) 13:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Samuel Roche

Samuel Roche (  | 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, WP:SPORTCRIT #5, and violates the general criteria of WP:NOTDATABASE. All we know about him is his name, his nationality, and that he competed in the 1900 Olympics. BilledMammal ( talk) 23:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom, redirect not needed. Not notable. LizardJr8 ( talk) 06:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I couldn't find anything worthwhile, including a newspapers.com search Jacona ( talk) 13:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 04:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC) reply

BerriBlue

AfDs for this article:
BerriBlue (  | 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 article was deleted three months ago and recreated by the same COI editor (see the first AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BerriBlue). While I fully support notable women artists for inclusion in the encyclopedia, it is still WP:TOOSOON for this artist, as there has not been significant improvement to the article, or to her career accomplishments since it was deleted. She does not meet WP:NARTIST and I'm still not convinced that the sourcing meets our general notability criteria. She has had a few shows but that's what artists do WP:MILL, however none have been at notable venues, there are no museum collections, no significant exhibitions, etc.). In good faith, I'm bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone ( talk) 23:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - I'll try to address this to Netherzone's comments above as well as some of the previous reasons for deletion in the first version (though this version is significantly different). I am kind of annoyed to be back here because after the last deletion, I was very careful and took my time to redo the article before submitting.
If there are any suggested changes to make, I'm happy to make further edits.
Extended commentary
Deleted and then recreated by COI author
  • The original COI was due to it being my only article (I only had another draft), and then because my name is similar to the subject's husband's name, and tbh I didn't want to get into all that. I will say that Will is a very common name. Go figure.
  • In the course of trying to find better sources during the last deletion discussion, I directly contacted the artist by email. I was informed that this was a COI in itself. Annoying, but fair enough so I declared it clearly in the talk page, as recommended.
  • When re-writing the article, I tried to be extremely careful with he impartiality of the article's tone, to counter the potential for COI.
  • I removed all references relating to the subject's fashion design as that could be considered promotion of an existing small business and so would be spam / promotional.
  • Most importantly, I've been advised that it's not deletable just to have a COI, that's why we have the protocol for declaring it.


WP:Artist
This article is about a street artist, not a gallery artist.
  • The criteria of having work in museums and international exhibitions etc etc don't really apply to a street artist. Their work tends to be temporary, unofficial, illegal, and does not often end up in museums.
  • Moreover, street artists have a particular local cultural significance. Their work is part of the public-domain culture of a city and can't be measured simply by commercial success.
  • This touches on WP:MILL also, since yes - having a few exhibitions is run of the mill, but a street artist working in azulejos and very large murals in the city centres of major cities (In this case Lisbon and Porto) has an impact that goes beyond a mid level gallery artist.
  • This also pertains to the issue of significant awards - street artists don't tend to get these.


Citations
There are plenty of references, but I tried to go for quality over quantity.
  • The most important references to look at, I think, are the inclusion in a book on Irish street artists, and the mention in an academic book on the Irish abortion rights campaign.
  • The reason I point to that reference in particular is that it is notable to an academic work which is not about art or street art, implying cultural significance.
  • Among the other references, there are national newspapers - Jornal de Noticias & Publico - and a feature on a very large regional TV station - Porto Canal.


Notability
Again, I tried to go with good, reputable sources. It was a bit of a struggle to express the significance over here locally.
  • In Porto, Portugal's second city, this artist's work is a very common familiar sight and part of the cultural fabric of the city. for example, she was an answer on Who Wants to be a Millionaire a while back (I'll try to dig that up)
  • I included the exhibition in DESA as one of the main sources - for those not in the know, DESA is not a small auction house. It's the biggest and most prestigious Polish auction house. Being included in the street art exhibition and auction I would consider fairly notable.
  • For some nice examples of some absurd obscure things that are considered fine, I recommend checking Depths of Wikipedia.


Why do I care?
I thought I'd address this since I've added a novel here, and it came up during the last discussion. Some people seemed to think that my getting annoyed or putting up a defence of the article constituted proof of treachery and deep COI, etc etc.
  • In actual fact I'm really annoyed because I spent a lot of time carefully rewriting this article in as impartial a manner as possible, with the best citations I could find.
  • It was then accepted, with the caveat that it's borderline, but would be suited to growth and incubation in the main space.
  • I'm also really annoyed over the whole idea of street artists being held to standards that simply don't apply. I'm really interested in street art, and I'd like to write more articles about similar artists.


Finishing off my massive rant
  • @ Netherzone: I'll try not to take it personally. I get that you have a different point of view. I would suggest that recommendations for improvement are a more suitable action than another deletion nomination.
  • I'd like to ask some of the other editors, who were quite supportive before, to weigh in if they have the time? I'd really appreciate it. Wil57 ( talk) 19:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the heads up. Going to decline to participate for the reasons above, mainly a lack of time/interest in the subject to research an informed !vote. Happy with wherever the community lands on this Star Mississippi 01:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment to Wil57 - you forgot to ping other members of the community who contributed to the first AfD: @ Vexations:, @ JakubDeWisniewski:, @ WomenArtistUpdates:, @ Scopecreep:, @ Onel5969:, @ Spleodrach: - important otherwise it might be perceived as not neutral as only the K**p !voters were pinged see WP:CANVAS. Please understand nothing here is personal, including AfDs; we go by guidelines that were created through community consensus. I totally get it that it can be frustrating when "our" work is deleted or changed, we have all experienced that in some way, shape or form. I'm very sorry for your frustration. Netherzone ( talk) 20:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Netherzone:, Fair enough - I did only ping those who agreed with me. Just read the deletion guidelines and it is very clear so sorry about that.
    Since we're getting the old gang back together, there are a couple of things I'd like to mention:
    • I'm not getting into a debate on my identity - I found that really aggravating to put it mildly. I've disclosed COI (because of being in contact through email, which gave me one new citation) so let's leave it at that please.
    • I think the argument about this belonging on the Polish or Portuguese wiki, not the EN one is really moot and quite offensive. I live in Portugal but I'm British; the subject of the article is Polish/Irish/living in Portugal for a long time. Let's be cosmopolitan about this.
    • I have a full time job, so won't have time to respond extensively like this every time, so please don't make any snap decisions. I think there's a conversation worth having here, and the last discussion ended fairly suddenly, without giving me time to respond to some fairly outright accusations. Wil57 ( talk) 21:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Wil57 thank you for clarification, of course you do not have to identify yourself. As to the COI how about we put that to rest? AfD is a process in which the community weighs in on notability in relation to the established wikipedia guidelines and policies. I did not say anything about other Wikipedias such as Poland or Portugal, that was another editor in the first AfD. Just so you know where I'm coming from, I too have a full time job as do most of us volunteers; I work on a lot of articles here on women artists. AfDs generally last 7 days, and are closed by an uninvolved administrator who evaluates the !votes (not a vote) based on policy. It is not my decision to make whether or not the article is kept, it's the community's decision. BTW, Street artists do have museum shows, projects, and get collected/commissioned by museums, and WP has many articles on them. But in this case I do think it is still TOOSOON. The community of editors here may or may not agree with that - that's how consensus works here. The process unfolds naturally on its own. There are some links at the top of this page that will give you more info on how AfD works. My suggestion is to read those, continue to try to improve the article if more verifiable secondary sources can be found (tho I do understand from your note that you are busy.) Netherzone ( talk) 23:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and SALT this time, no notability at all. Spleodrach ( talk) 00:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    How is there no notability?
    Again, work appearing in books, mentioned in academic texts, multiple articles in national newspapers, participation in exhibitions & auction internationally Wil57 ( talk) 09:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I have nothing to add other than my original comments as of the AfC acceptance, which is that I saw 3-4 sources in the citations which were primarily about her. I generally do not !vote in discussion to do with my AfC reviews, since I consider myself to have said my piece, but Wil57, I'm sorry you're being jerked back and forth like this. Rusalkii ( talk) 00:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I've gone digging and added a couple more citations - articles in national newspaper and magazine - plus fixed one broken link in an earlier citaiton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wil57 ( talk • contribs) 10:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    regardless of your hesitation to disclose COI, you noted on the Talk that you would not edit it directly. Please use edit requests as you are connected per your own note above. If you don't, you risk being blocked from the article Star Mississippi 13:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete BerriBlue's bio after 3 months comes back again..Did any ground breaking changes occured to her career in this short period? NO. There is no point improving the article, when the subject is not notable. As I said before, Desa Auction is nothing prestigious, an event without curatorial overview. After three months the bio is still TOO SOON, and we cannot make an expection for her lack of signigicant exhibition history /scholarly articles /collections/ awards. They do exist in the realm of street art, and she has not received such an honors so far. Please come back again, if/ when it happens.-- JakubDeWisniewski ( talk) 12:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I've received the ping, but I have an aversion to the subject's work that prevents me from rendering an objective assessment of the quality of the sourcing and the notability of the subject. 14:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment@ JakubDeWisniewski:The changes were made to the article, rather than the subject. The first article was poorly referenced, the images weren't uploaded correctly (no permissions).
The changes over the past 3 months were me starting again and trying to create a much more impartial, better cited article, which I cautiously submitted, asking for plenty of advice along the way. It was then accepted, and a couple of weeks later I have the same arguments coming back again. If it was accepted after all the changes I made, it should stay.
@ Star Mississippi: You're right about the edit requests - apologies. I hope you guys can understand my adding a couple more citations since that's one of the things people are mentioning is missing (again) and I'm really frustrated about all this (again)
Basically, if this one still can't be accepted then my other article ( Hazul and ones I hoped to write (about street artists I'm interested in from my city and beyond) are all unacceptable, and I may as well just quit. The first deletion process was obviously frustrating, but also informative and I thought it helped me to be a better contributor. This one just feels personal.
Again - many mentions and dedicated articles in national news sources & magazines, working in an unusual medium, appearances on TV, work widely recognised in Lisboa and Porto, included in anthology off main Irish street artists, cultural impact of work mentioned in academic text.
Do what you want, I'm out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wil57 ( talk • contribs) 17:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
I understand you're frustrated, but you have some basic misconceptions about how Wikipedia works including If it was accepted after all the changes I made, it should stay. One editor's opinion does not negate/overrule others, which is why @ Netherzone brought it here for discussion. This is also a challenge when you're connected to the subject. You have a more vested interest than I do in say Bonnie Milligan, taking my most recent article. If someone feels she isn't notable, I would disagree and might vote as such depending on the nom, but it's not "frustrating" because it's not personal. Star Mississippi 17:53, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment No, Will57. It was not "accepted" in this sense. Most of the editors agreed that your subject is failing notability.(per first AFD) then you made cosmetic changes, promptly resubmitted, but her notability is still lackimg. Yes, someone accepted your AFC submission, but this doesn't represent consesus of the wikipedians. What we have is a COI editor trying to convince us (again) that his subject is "notable" in his opinion..yet there is no evidence whowing significant exhibitions, collections, residencies, awards to show::*@ Netherzone: JakubDeWisniewski ( talk) 18:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:NARTIST. Reiterating my vote from February. The subject has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 18:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The author has declared their COI, yet continues to edit this one article. No attempt has been made by the author to understand the guidelines of Wikipedia. The photo of the subject is nominated for deletion and the other photos of artwork has the author of the article claiming the work as their own, which would mean the author is the painter and the photographer. The editor on one hand is passionate about keeping this particular article, yet maintains they don't have time to become part of the Wikipedia community. One article about one dead Portuguese artist would show some good faith that they are doing more than promoting one living artist's work. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 18:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Not a vote, since I'm not familiar with how WP:NARTIST gets applied in practice, but from just looking around at similar pages and topics, I'd rather see an article on Street art in Porto, Portugal (similar to Street art in Ponce, Puerto Rico or Street art in Sarajevo) than this article on an artist who seems to have, at best, arguable notability. The author says things in the discussion like "well, in Porto..." and wrote another page on a different street artist in Porto, Hazul, and so seems knowlegable about street art in Porto. I'd love to see that article, which would be informative, more than this one, that seems like it's trying create notability a little more than demonstrate it. Then there could be a discussion of Hazul and BerriBlu, along with relevant history and context of the area. The writer is frustrated that they spent a lot of time on this, but I would offer my encouragement that it doesn't have to be that hard. Try creating stubs of obviously notable people, that other people will then join in and edit with you. Wikipedia at its best, in my experience, is collaborative, not a place for me to show off my knowledge or research. And I've had pages deleted and edits undone, and it's not the end of the world. Just my two cents. Engelhardt ( talk) 16:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Excellent suggestions! Netherzone ( talk) 21:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Rare Americans

Rare Americans (  | 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 about a band, not reliably sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The only real notability claim being attempted here is of the "got X views on YouTube" variety, which is not part of our inclusion criteria for musical artists at all, and the article otherwise amounts to "they exist" -- but when it comes to the sourcing, two of the five footnotes are the band's own self-published marketing materials from their record label and their public relations agent (which are not support for notability), one is a user-generated platform (which is not support for notability), and two are purely local media coverage in their own hometown media market in purely local-interest contexts (the robbery of the bandleader's home studio and a piece of "local band releases song"), with no strong evidence of wider nationalizing coverage. And even on a Google search for other sources, I'm not finding anything particularly strong: just blogs, Q&A interviews in which the band members are talking about themselves in the first person, and glancing namechecks of their existence in coverage of other things or people, with nothing solid enough to turn the tide.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when they actually accomplish something that passes NMUSIC and garner the reliable source coverage to match, but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to be referenced better than this.
(Also worth noting that it was first created by an editor who's been cross-wiki blocked for sockpuppeteering and persistently violating copyright by copy-pasting content directly from primary sources, thus implying a strong possibility of paid WP:COI editing.) Bearcat ( talk) 21:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

International reactions to the 2020 United States presidential election

International reactions to the 2020 United States presidential election (  | 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 is a flagrant violation of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The vast majority (read: I tried to fix it by removing them, but that would essentially have left not much of the article, so here we are) of the "reactions" listed are nothing but trivial and insignificant, nigh-generic expressions of congratulations, which got mentioned in some newspaper or the other (or often didn't even go that far: far too much of this is based solely on tweets). I'm not sure whether this was originally split-out from the main election article (maybe in a hope to avoid the flagcruft listing this has devolved into), but the few mentions which are significantly out-of-the-ordinary or otherwise noteworthy should probably be covered there, in a proper prose section, instead of attempting to fix the indiscriminate-trivial-stuff problem by not fixing it but moving it to another page.

In short, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which is supposed to be a summary of the most important information about a topic, not a trivial collection of factoids like this. The page should probably be redirected, with maybe a very selective merge (this is not actually covered on the main article, although this is a very poor place to start from, so starting a short section there WP:TNT-style would be more appropriate) RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 19:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted to consider an appropriate redirect or merge target as suggested by the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete A concise prose summary of types of reactions may be appropariate, but there is no need to catalogue the routine tweets and announcements every country makes about every other countries' elections, even a major US one. Reywas92 Talk 02:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 ( talk) 17:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Christopher Burnham

AfDs for this article:
Christopher Burnham (  | 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 article contains no third-party sources and, as noted on the Talk page has already been flagged as an autobiography. Does this meet WP:notability? Does it belong in an encyclopedia? Volcom95 ( talk) 22:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and New York. Shellwood ( talk) 23:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. He was a state legislator which meets WP:POLITICIAN, and various other quite senior things. The concerns raised by OP have to do with content, not notability. Atchom ( talk) 00:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    There are only two third-party sources in this article -- Washington Post and Hartford Courant -- that indicate that the subject was a politician. Neither source provides any of the detail included in the infobox. The rest is pulled from the website of his investment firm. There is not enough Wikipedia:Reliable sources to support this article remaining on WP. Volcom95 ( talk) 01:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Why not improve the article instead? Details of US state legislators aren't that hard to find. Atchom ( talk) 02:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    You would think so, but without using material drawn from his investment firm's website, details are few and far between. Seems like it will be something of a tear-down to improve. Volcom95 ( talk) 14:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Atchom and WP:ARTN. Article content does not determine notability. In addition to his elected service in Connecticut, he has served at a high and presumably verifiable level at major national and international agencies. Sandy267 ( talk) 02:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep was a member of the Connecticut House of Representatives and the elected State Treasurer. Easy WP:NPOL pass. -- Enos733 ( talk) 04:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It passes WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. JoyStick101 ( talk) 06:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Angie Greenup

Angie Greenup (  | 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 notable. Only hosted one show and then disappeared. No sourcing found Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 18:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Riyanka Chanda

Riyanka Chanda (  | 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)

Though the subject has played many roles, but these roles are minor and aren't significant enough to pass WP:NBIO and fails WP:GNG too. ManaliJain ( talk) 16:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Pulp Secret

Pulp Secret (  | 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 about a video blog, not reliably sourced as passing our inclusion criteria for web content. The notability claim here is that it exists, which is not automatically enough in and of itself, and it is single-sourced to just one footnote from a not-ideal source (Tubefilter), which isn't enough coverage to singlehandedly get a topic over WP:GNG all by itself. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this from having to have a lot more than just one hit of coverage. Bearcat ( talk) 16:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete fails WEBCRIT, little to no third party coverage.- KH-1 ( talk) 06:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above and nomination. - eco talk to me 19:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 20:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Plantagenet Alliance

Plantagenet Alliance (  | 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 very small organization, the entire covereage for which was in sources dealing with the Exhumation and reburial of Richard III of England, to which they launched an unsuccessful court case to divert. They have no coverage, or as far as we know from the article, existence, separate from this historical episode and the group disappears from public view entirely after losing their court case over the burial. When a group is so inextricably linked to WP:ONEEVENT, and is adequately described there - we don't need a separate article reporting the individual genealogies of specific members, or that one of them is a night club owner, one a gardener and one runs a farm. This should be minimally merged to Exhumation and reburial of Richard III of England. Agricolae ( talk) 14:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Extensive and substantial coverage at the time - per sources included in the article. Don’t see the relevance that “the group disappears from public view” per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. WP:ONEEVENT doesn’t apply - which event? They ran a campaign in 2013 and 2014 that involved various activities including the court case Plantagenet Alliance v Secretary of state. Exhumation and reburial of Richard III of England has 2 paragraphs on the court case but nothing on the Alliance itself or the rest of its campaign, which would be WP:UNDUE for that article. There’s also more detail on the court case in this article which would be UNDUE in the Richard II article, which has general significance outside of the exhumation (eg the protective costs order, defining “legitimate expectations” etc As far as “the individual genealogies of specific members” is concerned - that’s an odd criticism. The whole point of the Alliance was that their claimed descent from the Plantagenets gave them a legal and moral rights. Btw, this was at DYK and no one raised the nominator’s points. DeCausa ( talk) 15:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
And that would be adequately described in the collective, as is also done in the article, without stating precisely how each member named fulfills this - we don't do this for other lineage societies, describe the individual pedigrees of the members. We just provide the qualifying criteria in general. Agricolae ( talk) 22:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge; although I take DeCausa's point that the story was big and well covered, there's no point in trying to tell the story in two places. Everything this group did was a result of Exhumation and reburial of Richard III of England, and a contemporary part of that story. That story is incomplete without this group, this group is utterly meaningless without that event; and anyone wishing to understand either, must read about both. So let's put both in one place. The only reason for spinning them out into a second article would be if they became too bulky a part of the main article, but I don't believe that needs to be the case. Elemimele ( talk) 16:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • At most merge -- This is a campaign group that sought to have Richard III's remains buried in Yorkshire (where he had at one stage lived) rather than in Leicester, where he had originally been buried. The group attempted but failed in its objective. That topic is covered in two paragraphs of Exhumation and reburial of Richard III of England. Leave was granted for a Judicial Review (a preliminary step, indicating that there was an arguable case), but the the Alliance lost its case and presumably became defunct. It is thus NN. I might have voted to delete, but would not oppose a merger that would slightly expand the two paragraphs. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Just a point of fact: it wasn’t just leave for judicial review that was heard, the judicial review itself took place. They did lose the case but the decision in Plantagenet Alliance v Secretary of State is authority for the parameters for the “duty to consult” in administrative law generally - nothing to do with the exhumation, with multiple citations in subsequent Public Law and Administrative Law texts. Unusually, and controversially, they were also granted a protective costs order ensuring that if they lost they would not pay the winner’s costs (the normal English law principle). That’s only granted if a point of law of “public interest” is at stake. (Here it was about the parameters of the duty to consult, not the exhumation that was of public interest). DeCausa ( talk) 19:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply
I stand corrected, but maintain my view that we do not need a separate article on a group whose existence was quite brief. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Except most of that detail that would bloat the main article is completely gratuitous. We don't carve off separate pages for every plaintiff and defendent in a noteworthy case just because detail on them has been given as part of the coverage of the case, let alone do so when the individual case is itself not independently notable and is only deemed to merit a short section in the story about the actual notable topic. Coverage of a court case may give a good bit of information about the judge, the plaintiffs, the jurors, the geographical context, but that is all just adding colour to the real story, and is not an indication of notability independent of that WP:ONEEVENT. Agricolae ( talk) 22:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC) reply
It’s gratuitous if the topic is the Exhumation. It’s not gratuitous if the topic is the Plantagenet Alliance. And given that the substantial coverage of who they are, their views etc is concerned, that topic passes GNG. Essentially you are attacking the principle of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. As already mentioned (a) there’s the PA activity outside of the court case and (b) the court case itself has (legal) significance outside of the exhumation and the PA’s campaign (This isn’t just the point of law on the duty to consult mentioned above, cited in multiple law books, but the the political criticism of the “misuse” of the Human Rights Act, which fits into a broader political criticism by the government). Both (a) and (b) are far more than “colour” to the so-called “real story”. DeCausa ( talk) 23:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Actually, there is a good bit that is gratuitous either way, like that a spokesman happens to be a Kansas City night club owner. And no, it is not "essentially attacking . . . WP:SUMMARYSTYLE" to argue that we shouldn't blow up a WP:MINORASPECT of a subject into a separate article bloated with excessively detail and trivia and then argue that has to have a separate article because it would bloat the main article, when appropraitely proportionate coverage would not. As to the rest of your argument, a) all of the PA activity relates to the Exhumation, which is the proposed target, so the fact that all of their exhumation-related activities do not relate to the case isn't relevant, and b) you personally considering the court case important because of how it represents broader aspects of British politics does not make the it notable by Wikipedia standards, which requires reliable sources making that observation, but even if it did, it wouldn't make the court case's plaintiff notable. Agricolae ( talk) 00:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The only (arguably) frivolous detail is in 2 or 3 sentences in the "Name and composition" section. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 04:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
It’s not me “personally” saying it’s legally notable. The case and the point of law it’s authority for is cited in multiple standard Public/Admin Law books (e.g search google books for "Plantagenet Alliance v Secretary of State”) two of which are also cited in the article. This is one example. The legal issue at stake, and the precedent set out by the High Court, is the parameters of the duty to consult, which is a broader issue than the exhumation. As far as the wider political significance of the case is concerned it was the Secretary of State for Justice, as reported in the media, that made the comment, not me. DeCausa ( talk) 09:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Again the latter would make the case notable, not the plaintiff. Agricolae ( talk) 17:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

The case is within scope of the article - you can’t distinguish notability in that way. (And don’t forget there was extensive coverage on the PA as an organisation/grouping separate from the case). We don’t have an article on the case to merge it into it. The only place to “merge” it into is the Exhumation article, which would be out of scope for that point. This is the nub of the issue. It isn’t just about that specific legal issue. If there were Plantagenet Alliance v Secretary of State then I wouldn’t object to merging it into that and the Exhumation article. As it is, there’s too much that would be either WP:UNDUE or out of scope for the Exhumation article and that’s not trivia (as you would like to portray it) that would be lost without this article. (You effectively recognize that when you say you want to merge it mnimimally) DeCausa ( talk) 18:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC) reply
For the sake of finding middle ground, would you be open to retasking the article - switching its primary focus and moving it to a namespace about the case? Agricolae ( talk) 22:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • keep Per DeCausa and Ficaia. Notability seems satisfied, but they do not seem to warrant coverage in depth on the main article on the topic. Boynamedsue ( talk) 08:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Stevie and Zoya

Stevie and Zoya (  | 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 series of shorts that aired very early in the history of MTV. Found only passing mentions; WP:NOTINHERITED in full force. Deprodded without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 20:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion, declined PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ( talk • contribs) 22:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete fails WP:GNG. Nothing in gnews, no significant coverage. LibStar ( talk) 23:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I did a newspaper archive search and came up with nothing, which is unusual for anything TV related; usually that brings up tons of garbage hits. This didn't even get those. Jacona ( talk) 13:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Zero GNews hits is always a very bad sign, especially for media topics. This article also included a major copyright violation that went unnoticed since shortly before the article's creation in 2007, until after the PROD went up. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 07:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Tom Brier

AfDs for this article:
Tom Brier (  | 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)

Third time nominated, still no evidence of notabillity. WP:BEFORE search only brought up questionable sources. I would also recomend salting. NW1223< Howl at me• My hunts> 21:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NW1223< Howl at me• My hunts> 21:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Shellwood ( talk) 22:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • DELETE and Salt Yet again. No new content, sources or reason for notability for inclusion. Why does this article keep being approved for main space? Enough already. Maineartists ( talk) 23:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and Salt - I wonder if the same person keeps re-creating the article. Mr. Brier seems to have gained some fans but he has no reliable and significant media notice. The description of his tragic accident almost looks like a dishonest attempt to add a little more material to his thin biography. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 13:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Tom Brier is a notable name in both the ragtime community and he is a highly respected composer. He is no doubt niche, hence the absence of his presence from media. He is comparable to James Scott or Joseph Lamb. The context of his tragedy is absolutely not an dishonest attempt to add material to his "thin" biography as has been suggested by DoomsDayer520— it is added because he is a composer who, by having his legs shattered in a tragic car accident, cannot compose. The extraordinary effort to remove him from Wikipedia is as intertwined with petty technical pedantics as it is with an ignorance of Brier's ragtime scholarship. GuardianH ( talk) 03:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The reason we are ignorant about Brier's ragtime scholarship is because none of us can find any independent sources in which it was discussed and analyzed for informed readers. If such sources exist, you are welcome to list them here. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 13:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and SALT Per Doomsdayer520's sentiments in the reply above. Not having the coverage by independent, reliable sources to establish that a subject passes notability guidelines is not really "pedantics". Best, GPL93 ( talk) 21:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Antigone (journal)

Antigone (journal) (  | 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)

At first sight, this is a well-sourced article on a new journal. However, it's unusual that a new journal would receive so much attention that it meets WP:GNG basically from before it even has published a first issue (several articles have been published now), so I had a closer look at the sources. This was revealing. A number of references are clearly not independent (journal's own website, press releases). The other sources are, at best, in-passing mentions, some do not even mention the journal (current reference #6 to The Times Diary). In sum, this does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NJournals and at best is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Hence: delete. Randykitty ( talk) 21:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

This online-only website runs articles (3 a week) rather than publishes issues, and may be better described as a magazine or educational website than an "(academic) journal". Perhaps it needs recategorizing?
Could you expand on what you mean by "before it even has published a first issue" and "several articles have been published now"? Won't there have been 100+ articles published before this Wiki page was created?
The article from the Times mentions the journal as follows: "The writer [Stephen Fry] twangs the cithara on behalf of antiquity in Antigone, a new online magazine that aims to dust down the Greeks and Romans and make them fresh."
A Google search gives other mentions than those on the page, such as
https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/wrong-but-romantic-blog-post-mary-beard/
https://www.thedailybeast.com/ukraine-island-is-where-achilles-supposedly-went-mad-and-wiped-out-the-amazons
https://www.dotyk.cz/magazin/poppaea-sabina-30000210.html
https://thewire.in/history/awakening-indo-european-philology-to-bring-us-words-from-the-ghosts
https://www.trinity.ox.ac.uk/news/imaginative-platonic-dialogue-partygate-wins-classics-writing-prize
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eMVcEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA61
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8B1YEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA172 Kuyaviana ( talk) 21:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There's a consensus on the notability of the subject. The article was meanwhile improved, new references added. Less Unless ( talk) 15:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Haji Naim Brahim

Haji Naim Brahim (  | 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 Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 18:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Brunei. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 18:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It does not fail WP:GNG, the person is twice an Asian Champion, twice South east Asian Games champion, which is pretty significant bearing in mind that he is a champion of an entire continent within his sport. He also competed in SIX Commonwealth Games and the THREE World Championships. (Furthermore it is a stub). The sources include the Commonwealth Games Federation profile and the Brunei Darussalam National Olympic Council. I cannot understand why the article has been proposed for deletion. Pipesmoking Legend ( talk) 11:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Pipesmoking Legend Of the three sources in the article, the first one is a database listing, the second one is a brief mention and the third one is both a brief mention and a primary source. None of these sources count as significant coverage which is the reason why the article is being proposed for deletion. Unless multiple significant sources can be found, the article should be deleted. Alvaldi ( talk) 15:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ( talk • contribs) 21:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

@ DownTownRich With all due respect, their reasoning for GNG, does not prove the article in fact does meet GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 19:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Sportsfan 1234 I will have to agree with you and @ Alvaldi on this one after looking at the sources and more research on the subject WP:GNG does not apply but rather WP:ATHLETE. The subject has participated in Asian Lawn Bowls Championship ( World Bowls) and Southeast Asian Games from 2007. I would suggest adding tags for article improvement instead of deleting the article and notifying WikiProject Brunei and WikiProject Southeast Asia contributors - DownTownRich ( talk) 19:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Pipesmoking Legend I would recommend adding more reliable sources to the subject article and not just leave it as stub, I noticed you did the same thing with your other subjects (ie Katie Nixon). - DownTownRich ( talk) 20:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 22:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Tuckerville

Tuckerville (  | 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)

Seems to fail WP:GNG. Passingly mentioned in a few articles on Tanya Tucker, but WP:NOTINHERITED is in play. Found several reprints of a less-than-paragraph long PR blurb that appeared in several newspapers and magazines. Country music focused sites like CMT, Country Standard Time, Roughstock, Country Universe give no mention of the show. I even dug out my old issues of Country Weekly and found nothing but ads and sidebars.

Deprodded because "hundreds of hits in Proquest", but deprodder has not proven this to those of us without Proquest accounts. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 21:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Television. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 21:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Everyone has access to Proquest through WP:The Wikipedia Library - which is why it's listed in WP:BEFORE. I've already told you this. Sure, if there's a single AFD, adding a source to the article, or at least listing it here is reasonable; but when someone is creating dozens of simultaneous AFDs (very few of which are looking like there's consensus for deletion), that's asking a bit much. I'm this close to making an ANI complaint about excessive prods and AFDs. There's barely any of the hundreds of articles you've talked that shouldn't, at a minimum, be redirects. Tuckerville, though, is easily one of the most notable shows you've tried to delete. Here's one. Nfitz ( talk) 21:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    I pointed out the extent of my WP:BEFORE, and considered it a red flag that not even publications explicitly about country music dedicated so much a single sentence to the work whatsoever. To me, that was as much of a red flag as no reputable sources even giving so much as a start or end date for Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields (one of the many AFDs I started where there does seem to be a consensus to either delete or redirect, by the way). You pointed out further content in a resource I didn't know I had access to. I'd still greatly prefer that the "keep, I found sources" crowd show the sources they find, but at the very least you've made me aware of the power of Proquest. Perhaps that's what @ Cunard: uses in their source-finding wizardry? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 21:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Even I remember hearing about this show at the time - and I don't particularly like the artist or the genre. I don't know how you checked these articles in country music magazine. Where's the archive - does it stretch back to 2006? Nfitz ( talk) 21:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    They're magazines within my personal collection. As far as I know they're not archived online. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 22:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to New Renaissance Pictures. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 00:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply

The Black Dawn

The Black Dawn (  | 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 about a web series, not properly sourced as passing our notability criteria for web content. The footnoting here is mainly to directly affiliated primary sources like YouTube and VisioWeb -- and the only third-party sourcing is TubeFilter, a non-ideal source that would be acceptable among a mix of more solid sourcing but isn't strong enough to singlehandedly vault this over WP:GNG all by itself if it's all this has. And this has been flagged for sourcing and tone problems since 2011 without ever seeing any significant improvement.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to be referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat ( talk) 20:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Poor Richard's Almanack (TV series)

Poor Richard's Almanack (TV series) (  | 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 about a dropped television pilot that never advanced to series, not demonstrating a strong case why it would pass the ten year test for enduring significance despite its failure to ever air. This series was dropped six full years ago, so there's no case to be made that it might still air in the future, and the sourcing is just standard casting and production announcements of the type that every pilot can always show whether it gets picked up to series or not. So this article just isn't demonstrating a reason why this failed pilot should be seen as a special case of greater notability than other failed pilots, which is the bar that it would have to clear to keep an article six years after its failure. Bearcat ( talk) 19:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

I Do (Cardi B song)

I Do (Cardi B song) (  | 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:NSONGS says that charting might indicate notability, but charting alone does not suffice. This song has not received extensive coverage, independent of sources covering the album. Some of the information (if not all) is already included on the parent album page. What isn't covered can be easily added. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 19:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 19:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. List in EW plus this extensive Pitchfork article reviewing the track (not currently cited in article) demonstrate a bit of notability. With other content from articles about the album this can probably make for a reasonably detailed article. I think it's worth keeping, it just needs some expansion. Heartfox ( talk) 07:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This article has enough references and the sources are reliable, and it passes WP:NSINGLE, WP:NALBUM. JoyStick101 ( talk) 08:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • You are aware that coverage has to be independent of the parent album? It has to receive coverage as a song in its own right not just a track on an album. The album page is complete and this information could/should be added there. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 08:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - meets GNG, I'm seeing more than one source that is not an album review. Rlendog ( talk) 13:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Meets WP:NSONG per above arguments. SBKSPP ( talk) 01:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Invasion of Privacy (album) as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 23:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

She Bad

She Bad (  | 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:NSONGS says that charting might indicate notability, but charting alone does not suffice. This song has not received extensive coverage, independent of sources covering the album. Some of the information (if not all) is already included on the parent album page. What isn't covered can be easily added. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 19:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect to Invasion of Privacy (album) as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 23:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Best Life (song)

Best Life (song) (  | 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:NSONGS says that charting might indicate notability, but charting alone does not suffice. This song has not received extensive coverage, independent of sources covering the album. Some of the information (if not all) is already included on the parent album page. What isn't covered can be easily added. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 19:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect to Invasion of Privacy (album) as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 23:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Get Up 10

Get Up 10 (  | 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:NSONGS says that charting might indicate notability, but charting alone does not suffice. This song has not received extensive coverage, independent of sources covering the album. Some of the information (if not all) is already included on the parent album page. What isn't covered can be easily added. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 19:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect to Highline College. Any content worth saving can be merged there from the history. –  Joe ( talk) 00:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Highline College Library

Highline College Library (  | 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 community college library lacks any significant coverage. I don't see any claim to notability within the article. MarchOfTheGreyhounds ( talk) 19:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Edit: Change redirect target per below. I still think a redirect may be useful, but we shouldn't cause a circular redirect as explained below. FozzieHey ( talk) 13:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge A redirect to Highline College#Library makes no sense as in that section of the article, there is only a redirect pointing to the article that is being considered for deletion. There is no other content so merge the content of this article to the Highline College#Library section. No point in having a circular redirect. Liz Read! Talk! 00:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    The reason I didn't suggest merge is Highline Library has a collection of over 145,000 print, media, and electronic resources. may be the only thing worth merging, although it's unsourced. The entire article is copypasta of an old version of the library's website. There's nothing encyclopedic to merge. Star Mississippi 03:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply

The Bully Police Squad

The Bully Police Squad (  | 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)

Non-notable per WP:ORG. SL93 ( talk) 18:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Illinois. SL93 ( talk) 18:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Lacks substantial independent coverage. It received a couple mentions in local Chicago media back in 2012, but not really anything significant, and WP:AUD applies anyways. - Apocheir ( talk) 03:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was snow keep Cranloa12n / talk / contribs / 17:48, 8 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Year 2038 problem

Year 2038 problem (  | 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)

Highly speculative. It makes sense to think that this is fixed way before 2038. Nononsense101 ( talk) 17:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep. Firstly, there may be some legacy systems / software libraries in use where this will still be a problem in 2038. Secondly, this problem already manifests when 32-bit systems try to refer to times later than 2038 (see the 'early problems' section). Thirdly, even if this is widely fixed before 2038, the term 'Year 2038 problem' still refers to a problem with the 32-bit time system. It still exists even if it does not manifest. For example, imagine trying to explain why times are stored as 64-bit integers to a colleague: "You could use 32-bit, but then you can't cover a very wide range of times. Go and look up 'Year 2038 problem' for details." Harrybraviner ( talk) 12:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This article is more relevant and possibly even more potential to be destructive than even the Y2K problem. Urbanracer34 ( talk) 17:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Even though this is a speculative article about an event in 16 years, there has been significant coverage about the effects of the end of 32-bit UNIX time. While this issue will (hopefully) be resolved before it comes to pass, it is a significant possible future event. Balon Greyjoy ( talk) 17:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Struck; double-voting isn't allowed and was effectively given already by your nomination. Nate • ( chatter) 01:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: A quick google search found significant coverage 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Sourcing is not the greatest but the article from The Guardian and the sources I found should be enough to pass GNG. It's also worth noting that WP:Crystal states that "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place, as even otherwise-notable events can be cancelled or postponed at the last minute by a major incident. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." Since this is technically an event and has been well documented, WP:CRYSTAL does not apply. ColinBear ( talk - contributions) 21:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Even if every system is fixed by 1/19/38, the work to do so is just as notable, and will affect multiple computer operating systems. Nate • ( chatter) 01:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strongly keep: it might be seen as too far in the future, except it isn't. Y2K38 bugs have struck important systems such as AOLserver (which was a popular server) in 2006 ( https://www.mail-archive.com/aolserver@listserv.aol.com/msg09820.html), and there are documented systems (like actuarial programs used by insurance companies) where dates beyond 2038 are actually being calculated now. Additionally, this discusses why it happens in 2038/01/19 and not another date (like how the truncation of centuries and millennia in dates due to necessary space-saving in 1960s lead to Year 2000 problem). - 2001:4453:581:9400:E82C:91AA:B31B:7FD ( talk) 09:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • keep I work in IT as a programmer - this is something that I am already encountering and coding for. Although the dating system is outdated, it is still used. As has been suggested, lots of people are working on fixes and they will be implemented by 2038, however, which systems will be missed? There can be tiny but critical systems that nobody thought of. Vespasianvs ( talk) 09:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (and honestly this could at least be a WP:SNOWCLOSE). It is happening now so not speculative and even if it had been completely fixed yesterday, it still is a notable topic with more than sufficient coverage in WP:RSs. Skynxnex ( talk) 14:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep Echoing what others have said, basically. This isn't a WP:CRYSTAL situation any more than List of future astronomical events is. This is a set of problems that will, with mathematical certainty, occur unless a way is found to mitigate them - and even if such a mitigation is found, even the search for those solutions is already noteworthy enough for inclusion now, as it has been widely covered in reputable media sources. Sleddog116 ( talk) 15:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep Obviously notable topic. Cranloa12n / talk / contribs / 20:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep Obviously notable topic, see also Year 2000 problem. ~ Matthewrb Talk to me · Changes I've made 21:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep No reason to delete this, very notable and is verified to happen. See you in 16 years. Pyraminxsolver ( talk) 02:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I don't like it when knowledge is erased, period. This article contains interesting and meaningful, and at that pertinent, content, and like other people have said is worth keeping. Kiril kovachev ( talk) 22:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep Even if the problem were to be fixed before this date, it would still meet WP:N as there is currently significant coverage. Additionally, as per ColinBear, WP:CRYSTAL does not apply. GoodCrossing ( talk) 22:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep As many others have explained, not a WP:CRYSTAL situation; serious and notable subject in Unix circles. The fact whether these will, or will not, be fixed "in time" is of no concern to the decision to keep or delete; as long as it is a notable thing, it has its place on Wikipedia. Lionel Elie Mamane ( talk) 08:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep even if it is fixed before 2038, of course, it seems a reasonable topic that might be historically interesting for quite some time. W Nowicki ( talk) 20:24, 6 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Tomasz Pohl

Tomasz Pohl (  | 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)

Following a discussion on Polish Wikipedia, it was decided to remove the page Tomasz Pohl. He is an author and poet with no encyclopaedic standing, it was probably a self-promotion with niche and unrecognizable publications. It is certainly a noncyclopedic biography also on English Wikipedia. Zsuetam ( talk) 16:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Draftify.. Liz Read! Talk! 00:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Miles Fenton

Miles Fenton (  | 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)

No evidence of notability. No reliable, independent, indepth sources are available (the Burnley sources in the article are passing mentions only, and looking for better sources gave no results [1]). Something like this is the best I could find, but it is neither substantive nor independent. Fram ( talk) 16:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 21:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Mathias Callero

Mathias Callero (  | 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 about non-notable footballer who has played in 12 Uruguayan first division matches and a handful of Mexican second division matches, but which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. There is no significant coverage online in English- or Spanish-language sources - just routine/trivial database entries, match reports and transfer/injury announcements. Jogurney ( talk) 15:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5. ✗ plicit 11:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Jungo Plus

Jungo Plus (  | 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)

Most of the content is copied from Jungo TV. Refs are all routine launch announcements. All of them, including The Hindu article, share similar wording; carry extensive quotes of the same insider and do not appear independent. Can't find a single non-PR source after the March 2021 launch. Both my redirect to Jungo TV and PROD on the basis of not meeting WP:NWEB, were reverted by DMySon. Hemantha ( talk) 15:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment On a neutral side, i think the PROD was not correct for this page. Afd is the correct way to deal this. And i am in favor to redirect this page to Jungo TV. DMySon ( talk) 05:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: DMySon is a sock of GermanKitty and was blocked today, 3 May 2022. Article was reviewed on NPP by DMySon. See here -- Whiteguru ( talk) 22:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep but perhaps merge to Isshoni Training. That can be discussed further elsewhere. –  Joe ( talk) 00:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Hinako (anime character)

Hinako (anime character) (  | 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 character fails WP:Notability. The only sources listed in the article are either primary sources or promotional articles published in English. Furthermore, the series that Hinako appears in are also non-notable. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 15:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 15:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (Disclaimer: I am the creator of this article.) I disagree with the assessment that "the only sources listed in the article are either primary sources or promotional articles". I do not know if the citations for the home video releases count as primary, I guess they could count as such. Citation No. 5 is primary, I agree, as it is an interview, but citing an interview for information about the production of a work seems okay to me, even if it can't be used for establishing notability. Citation No. 23 could also count as primary, although I guess a non-primary source for that may exist? I do not see which of the other sources count as primary. WP:PRIMARY says "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved". I do not think any of the other cited sources were written by people associated with Primastea or Studio Hibari, the two production companies behind the three OVAs. So I think the sources can be used for establishing notability. Regarding the promotional part: I do not think the secondary sources are particularly promotional. Citation No. 7, for example, is rather critical of the work in question. Also, regarding " the series that Hinako appears in are also non-notable": this is a primary reason why I created an article about the main character of the OVAs, rather than individual articles for the three OVAs. I haven't checked if there are enough sources to establish the notability of the three OVAs individually. So in conclusion: I believe there are enough secondary sources to establish the notability of the character. Toshio Yamaguchi ( talk) 18:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No notability. Needs critical reception from notable reviewers to at least give it some semblance of notability. lullabying ( talk) 22:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I saw a review by Japanator [3] which is a WP:RS per WP:A&M/RS. This linked thesis [4] also would be useful to look into in regards on Hinako's effect on the viewer. In my opinion the article just needs a rewrite via cleanup and cleanup isn't deletion. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 06:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, but rewrite to series article & move to Isshoni Training Along with the Japantor review, here are some other reviews about the series:
  • "THEM Anime Reviews 4.0 - Sleeping with Hinako". www.themanime.org. Retrieved 2022-05-04.
  • "Critique du DVD Training with Hinako - Anime Dvd". manga-news.com (in French). Retrieved 2022-05-04.
  • Clements, Jonathan; McCarthy, Helen (2015-02-09). The Anime Encyclopedia, 3rd Revised Edition: A Century of Japanese Animation. Stone Bridge Press. ISBN  978-1-61172-909-2.
However, it is unusual to write an article on the main character, but not on the series. I think it would be better to rewrite this to a series article and move to Isshoni Training. Jumpytoo Talk 05:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I agree that if kept the article should be moved from the character to that of the series - I doubt Hinako has received coverage independent of the series she's from. Perhaps Draftify for now. Satellizer el Bridget  (Talk) 05:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but convert to an overall series article. I agree with others that the character itself may not meet GNG, but the overall series certainly does. It even has an article in Japanese. Link20XX ( talk) 05:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I just created Isshoni Training with some information from the above sources and various ANN articles. Perhaps merging it to there would be a good course of action? Link20XX ( talk) 04:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. North America 1000 01:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply

List of photovoltaics companies

AfDs for this article:
List of photovoltaics companies (  | 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)

Impossible to keep up to date Chidgk1 ( talk) 14:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Weak Keep The article features a lot of random statistics and everything. The article would be easier to manage if it were a simple list. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 16:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
You think someone might change it to a simple list? Chidgk1 ( talk) 11:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Valid navigational and information list. Not being able to keep something up to date is not a valid reason to delete it. Dream Focus 21:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
It has a tag saying its factual accuracy is disputed so how do you know it is valid? Re being dated the deletion policy says that deletion "is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved". Chidgk1 ( talk) 11:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
It says "This article's factual accuracy is disputed. (June 2016)". So the tag is outdated. I see references throughout the article. The information is listed by year, so people know when it was last updated. Dream Focus 11:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep it, but it would be nice if it was updated. 2603:7081:7C03:21AA:D860:4F31:C37E:1B4B ( talk) 10:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC) reply
You think someone might update it? Chidgk1 ( talk) 10:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC) reply
But the deletion policy says that deletion "is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved". I suppose in theory given enormous editor effort it could be improved - but I contend that in practice it is obvious that it will not be kept up to date. Chidgk1 ( talk) 14:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 00:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Brad Wolf

Brad Wolf (  | 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 created this many years ago, but it turns out there's just nothing to say about the guy. He charted for one week and completely disappeared. I found one singular sentence about "Strictly Business" being used in an ad, but that's it. Nothing in back issues of Billboard or Country Weekly, nothing on CMT.com (the current CMT link is dead), nothing on Newspapers.com. I think per the precedent of such AFDs as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waycross (band) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Born (rapper), the utter lack of sourcing outweighs the fact that he charted. Given the article's age I decided against a G7, and NemesisAT ( talk · contribs) thought I shouldn't be prodding something I made myself. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 14:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 14:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I think he lives in upstate NY now, one story in the Adirondck Daily Enterprise paper [5]. Seems to pass the notability bar. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    That source isn't even about Brad Wolf though. It's about Patrick Darrah, and says that Brad Wolf wrote some of the songs. For all we know, that might not even be the same Brad Wolf. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    The Joel Whitburn book lists Brad Wolf as a co-writer of "Strictly Business", and this is corroborated by Broadcast Music Incorporated which lists several songs (although most under his real name of "Bradford Dee Carson"). None of the titles in the Adirondack source you cited come up on BMI at all, credited to Brad Wolf, Bradford Carson, or otherwise, so I'm inclined to think the guy in your source is someone else.Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Delete IMO, the listed sources are not enough to meet GNG and one of them is a dead link.
NW1223< Howl at me• My hunts> 17:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment: Hat tip to Nfitz ( talk · contribs) for pointing out the existence of Proquest. They, too, yielded no results on "Brad Wolf" "Strictly Business". Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 22:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment So wiki formatting isn't my thing and I can't find how to strike-out my vote above. As it's not the same guy or only marginally mentions him in the Adirondack paper, I'm not seeing notability, leaning delete. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Just use HTML tags: <s> and </s> at the beginning and end of what you want to strike out. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 20:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep a charting single meets WP:MUSIC. We also have other sources to fill out biographical information, which is nice, though not necessary for retention of the article. Chubbles ( talk) 04:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    "We also have other sources". Where are they? Prove it. Saying sources exist doesn't make them magically appear. And you mean to tell me that an article can be left unsourced forever? Funny, I didn't know WP:V was optional now. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Susantha Sisilchandra

AfDs for this article:
Susantha Sisilchandra (  | 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 per the previous AfD discussion. There has been no substantial change since this article was previously deleted. It fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT - the Stevie Awards are non-notable minor regional awards (pay to enter and multiple winners), also simply being an consul for a country does not confer automatic notability. Dan arndt ( talk) 12:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

List of mayors of Margate

List of mayors of Margate (  | 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)

List of non-notable local ceremonial mayors. Note the local government authority was abolished in 1974, the role of "mayor" is appointed by Margate Charter Trustees. Fails WP:NLIST, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. AusLondonder ( talk) 13:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect to University of Sussex#Campus media. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 14:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

University Radio Falmer

AfDs for this article:
University Radio Falmer (  | 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)

Consensus for the last AFD was to redirect, but that was five years ago. Since then, not a lot has happened to improve its notability: they had a content-sharing agreement with Australian university station SURG; they started a column in the student newspaper; they shut down for two years during the COVID pandemic. Likewise, there's no greater depth of coverage since 2017 in reliable secondary sources: the redirect target of University of Sussex#Campus media pretty much covers it. Storchy ( talk) 14:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 15:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Edward Dutton (author)

Edward Dutton (author) (  | 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 fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG. To the untrained eye the article looks very well sourced however when you actually look at the sources most of them are promotional, self-published, hardly mention Dutton or are off-topic. If you actually remove all the primary or unreliable sources hardly any of the article would be left and the man is not notable. He is not a notable academic or a professor. His books are published by Washington Summit Publishers a white nationalist publisher not taken seriously in academia. The only detailed source that seems to mention Dutton's views is a piece written by Aiden Bridgeman [6], a student newspaper from the University of Aberdeen but this source has often been debated on the talk-page.

Sources 12-18 do not mention Dutton, they merely mention that the Mankind Quarterly is a racist journal. References 8, 24 (YouTube), 28, 29, 32, 35, 42 are all published by Dutton and are clearly primary sources added to "pad" out the article. In regard to reference 1 published by Zúquete, J. P. (2020) apparently this is a failed citation and was not properly published, there has been a conversation about that on the talk-page.

Likewise the Mankind Quarterly is also cited twice on the article, as is the white nationalist website Red Ice (references 37 and 38), Richard Spencer's Radix Journal (reference 22). These are all primary sources.

References 42, 43 and 44 are just books which Dutton contributed to. There is no reason they should be references. There are many other unreliable references on the article for example [7] a review of Dutton's book on race in "prescottenews" written by white supremacist Jared Taylor (reference 23). There is also a reference by "Egyptology student Julien Delhez" (reference 31) published in a peer-reviewed journal, looks good right? The truth is Julien Delhez is actually a close friend of Edward Dutton and writes for the Mankind Quarterly which Dutton edits [8]. This is not a neutral review. Some of the other sources are newspapers but they only mention Dutton in brief.

The Hope Not Hate profile pieces on Dutton are only a few lines, they are not complete biographies. The Edward Dutton article has repeatedly been edited by anonymous IPs and accounts associated with Dutton to remove criticisms. If you weigh up the fact that most of the sourcing on this article is promotion and unreliable and the fact that Dutton wants his Wikipedia article for Google traffic I believe the article should be deleted. The same thing happened with Dutton's colleague Michael Woodley [9]. These articles are being written fraudulently from a promotional POV by fans of Dutton to get him Google hits when in reality the man is not notable outside of his alt-right racist community. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 14:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Not a lot else we can do with muck like this for sourcing. XOR'easter ( talk) 14:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete For the carefully explained reasons of Psychologist Guy, especially Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Woodley (2nd nomination) — two peas in a pod. Mathsci ( talk) 14:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and United Kingdom. Shellwood ( talk) 14:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete ID be lying if i claimed to have looked at all the references in this article, but Psychologist Guy's take is what i noticed as well, a lot of citations, but not many, if any good ones. If anyone is interested in trying to save this article, i would like to see a lot of the garbage refs culled, at a minimum. Bonewah ( talk) 15:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Subject definitely fails WP:PROF. Has popped up in news coverage of varying quality from time to time, but none appears to constitute significant coverage of him –– other than the student newspaper article which has been described above, and it is not at all clear that this source is reliable enough for BLP purposes. As with other WP:FRINGEBLPs, the struggle with the current article is in threading the needle between BLP violation and using Wikipedia as a platform for laundering the public image of a charlatan. And as with previous cases like this (the recent Woodley AfD mentioned above and also this one from 2020) the best solution to the problem appears to be deletion. Generalrelative ( talk) 16:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The Edward Dutton article has repeatedly been edited by anonymous IPs and accounts associated with Dutton to remove criticisms. Is this true, or are we just assuming that they're associated with him? Those are two different things and I think it's important to be clear. Pyrrho the Skipper ( talk) 16:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    I cannot answer for Psychologist Guy, but for context Dutton has encouraged meatpuppets to edit his BLP on Twitter: Computer types: My wikipedia page seems to be under assault from leftists determined to write in POV and use Marxist sources. They've even deleted the 'History' to cover-up their changes and who has made them. [10]. Generalrelative ( talk) 16:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Pyrrho the Skipper I have seen some off-site evidence that one account heavily editing this article is associated with Dutton. I cannot publicly link to that but if you go through the history of the article from January 2021, there has been non-stop edit-warring and vandalism, I have not seen any other biography quite as bad as this that is why it was locked. Single purpose accounts and new IPs kept showing up to remove criticisms. Dutton has often complained about his Wikipedia article on his podcasts and his supporters clearly have edited it so yes my statement that accounts/IPS associated with Dutton I believe to be true. As for the meat-puppetry, yes this has happened. Lute Currie who has written for Mankind Quarterly has edited Dutton's article. After he left Wikipedia on his main account he used many IPS. This user has publicly admitted to having autism and an obsession with "race realism". It might explain his obsessive edits on many IPS. There are many others Saxon Celt (banned). HiramWikiMan looks like an account who personally knows Dutton, Wikiwall32 is clearly another close supporter and probably a sock. All these accounts make some edits then never edit again. I suspect that two of the IPs editing heavily are associated with Mankind Quarterly. Yes this is my own research as admins do not link IPs to accounts so an SPI would be pointless but I have filed many successful SPIs in the past and I have been in private communication with people about certain accounts on the article and they agree with me. There was also a long-term vandal editing the article [11] full list of their IPs collected by Beyond My Ken [12]. In conclusion, the editing history of the article is a mess. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 19:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Wow, I see what you mean. Thanks for providing that. Pyrrho the Skipper ( talk) 19:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. If someone can pull a really convincing WP:HEY on it, maybe it would be worth revisiting (I think there's a decent chance someone could argue for WP:NAUTHOR), but threading the needle between BLP violation and using Wikipedia as a platform for laundering the public image of a charlatan is right. Thanks to Psychologist Guy for showing your work so clearly for the rest of us. -- asilvering ( talk) 20:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: a plausible alternative to deletion could be a redirect to Meeting Jesus at University, in which case biographic information, if any, should probably be limited only to background information relevant to the book itself, lest it become a coatrack or shadow biography dominated by content unrelated to the book. --Animalparty! ( talk) 21:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - As is so often the case with this group of fringe academics, a biography of Dutton without the necessary context would be a bad parody of a resume. Without that context, he fails notability guidelines, but the sources are just too thin. So we can either rely on extremely weak sources or we can delete the article. Grayfell ( talk) 21:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, sometimes when an author is up for deletion i look to WorldCat to see whether their books have been noticed by librarians (the higher the number, the more likely that there are reviews somewhere), trawling thru Dutton's tomes Meeting Jesus is held by around 130 libraries, most of the others are in a miniscule no. of libraries ie. low 1 or 2 digits, a couple of exceptions though are The genius famine ( held by around 500 libraries), and Culture shock and multiculturalism ( in over 700 libraries), surprising that there arent reviews available for those books. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Interesting. Culture Shock and Multiculturalism is from Cambridge Scholars Publishing, which has a checkered reputation. I don't know how that might translate into wider holdings (deals with libraries to take a whole shelf at a bulk rate?), but it could have something to do with an apparent gap between holdings and interest. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    One wonders if they're gifts...? Academic libraries tend to buy off of press lists rather than review lists (by the time an academic review comes out, you probably already want the book in your library), so the gap between holdings and reviews isn't as weird as it might look. But if you can move 700 copies of your book to a bunch of academic libraries basically by flooding them, you think you'd also be able to get some press attention by the same means. -- asilvering ( talk) 20:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Good question. Worldcat lists Culture shock as a physical book, but its genre is 'Electronic books' and (as far as I can see) every single library is an academic library. This seems like it might be some sort of bulk e-book deal for academic libraries. When limiting to physical editions, there are only about 50 physical copies in Wordlcat's libraries. Grayfell ( talk) 01:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Oh that's very interesting! I had no idea that worldcat stats tracked library holdings when it came to e-books and didn't think to check the metadata. That's almost certainly what's going on, then. -- asilvering ( talk) 04:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Good catch! XOR'easter ( talk) 14:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Moot. Article is back in draft where it can incubate until it's release has happened. Keeps were contingent on a release, which didn't happen on schedule. If someone feels strongly that I shouldn't have closed, feel free to revert me Star Mississippi 13:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Ayngaran (film)

AfDs for this article:
Ayngaran (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)

Sufficiently different (actually worse) than the version deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayngaran (film), but still no indication this film is notable. Star Mississippi 14:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was merge to Washington County Technical High School. which the lone delete seems to also be OK with. Star Mississippi 02:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Evening High School (Maryland)

Evening High School (Maryland) (  | 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 particular "high school" doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG, and is technically now called "Antietam Academy," which is part of Washington County Technical High School. it feels like this article should either be deleted, or merged to the Technical High School article, since that's what it's a part of. SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 13:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Merge - This page should be merged with Washington County Technical High School and then deleted as it is not notable as a standalone article. Meatsgains( talk) 16:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Washington County Technical High School. Whatever the official organizational version of things, we can cover in one article all the things that go on in the same space. Sort of like how Harper Woods High School in Meto Detroit housed an outreach center for Wayne State University. We could mention that in the article on Harper Woods High School, even though they are not institutionaly the same. We don't, and I am not sure if I could even find a reliable source that supports that, I know it because when I was a student at Wayne State I knew people who took classes at the Harper Woods High School location, and I also was later on a few occasions a sub at Harper Woods High School and saw the office for Wayne State there. I will say that our current sourcing on Harper Woods High School is not enough to justify an article, but I have not tried doing a deep dive for sources, so they may exist. Articles can be diverse enough to cover adult programs in general high school space, no matter how they are technically organized. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - this should have been a PROD, or a bold redirect to the host school. There is no sourced content to merge, and a redirect would be more confusing than helpful 174.212.227.174 ( talk) 20:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Garrison, North Dakota. Star Mississippi 02:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Garrison Municipal Airport

Garrison Municipal Airport (  | 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)

Airport in small town of 1,500 people without scheduled services which fails WP:NAIRPORT as lacking "Significant, independent and reliable sources specifically about the airport". AusLondonder ( talk) 13:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was merge to University of York or a subsection, as deemed appropriate when a line is added. Viable AtD that solves to the nom and the delete concerns Star Mississippi 02:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC) reply

University of York Music Press

University of York Music Press (  | 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)

Has been tagged for notability since 2013. PROD tag placed by Spaully removed by Espresso Addict. Zero sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Search results show up Wikipedia mirrors. AusLondonder ( talk) 08:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and United Kingdom. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Per my PROD: No reliable sources for notability, all found links are from their own webpage or very brief and do not establish notability. Improvement tags in place since 2013 without improvement. |→  Spaully  ~talk~  20:53, 18 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I declined the prod on purely technical grounds, but as far as I understand it, a music press like this would meet inclusion criteria if supported by (reliable independent) reviews of the music it publishes, rather than the press as a company. These would need searching for specifically. The fact that they aren't currently present does not mean they don't exist, and the fact that there's a long list of blue-linked composers tends to suggest they do exist. Espresso Addict ( talk) 01:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Just one example is the founder David Blake, who has published much of his music with the press since 1994, as reviewed in depth in Tempo: [13]. Espresso Addict ( talk) 01:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC) Got to go offline now, but also the same treatment for Anthony Gilbert [14]. Espresso Addict ( talk) 02:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete A press needs to pass our criteria for organizations. Reviews of works mention and cover the creator, not the press that publishes them, and cannot be used to show the press doing the publishing is notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
That is certainly not my reading of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). There's an entire section on product reviews which says "Product, event, and restaurant reviews (i.e. where author describes personal opinions and experiences) must be handled with great care and diligence. Some types of reviews have a longer history and established traditions (e.g. restaurants, wine, books, movies), while other (e.g. new tech gadgets, travel blogs) are newer and more prone to manipulation by marketing and public relations personnel. Like any other source, reviews must meet the primary criteria to be counted towards the notability requirement..."
My reading is that this states that book reviews (which I'd think print music falls under) are reliable and can count towards notability. If John Pack Lambert's reading were generally followed, one would have to delete almost all our content on small presses. Espresso Addict ( talk) 14:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment It's generally a good idea to have something about publishers, since we cite sources that they publish, and we can help our readers by providing information about where those sources came from. Specialist publishers and presses can be devilishly hard to document, however. UYMP is affiliated with York's Department of Music, so we could reasonably redirect to University of York and add a sentence in some appropriate spot there. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
I don't think this is ideal as there's no material about the (possibly notable, from my searches) music department. Espresso Addict ( talk) 01:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge In this case, there's an obvious merge.I don't think this is adequately covered by the present guidelines, so there's no point in trying to decide by them It would basicaly be an exception to NOT DIRECTORY, and I can see good reaason to make that exception. The question fo whether we should in general have content of this sort from small or specialist publishers would need further discussion., leading ultimately to an AfC. DGG ( talk ) 08:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge I agree with DGG above, there's an obvious Merge target as per WP:ATD. On its own the company fails NCORP criteria. HighKing ++ 19:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to FIR (2022 film). Liz Read! Talk! 03:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Manu Anand

Manu Anand (  | 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)

Film director is not meeting WP:FILMMAKER and WP:GNG. Jeni Wolf ( talk) 10:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to FIR (2022 film) - There are no articles that connect the director to any other project. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 02:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Also, nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. (non-admin closure) HighKing ++ 19:14, 8 May 2022 (UTC) reply

All India Progressive Women's Association

All India Progressive Women's Association (  | 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 non-notable organization fails WP:NORG. Lack of significant coverage from reliable resources which are independent of the subject. Previously deleted under A7 and G11. DMySon ( talk) 08:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Srivastava, Sumit S. (2007). "Violence and Dalit Women's Resistance in Rural Bihar". Indian Anthropologist. 37 (2): 31–44. ISSN  0970-0927.
  2. ^ Wilson, Kalpana (January 1999). "Patterns of accumulation and struggles of rural labour: Some aspects of Agrarian change in Central Bihar". Journal of Peasant Studies. 26 (2–3): 316–354. doi: 10.1080/03066159908438710.
  3. ^ Misra, Amaresh (1995). "Fresh Life for Uttarakhand Movement". Economic and Political Weekly. 30 (2): 82–83. ISSN  0012-9976.
Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 02:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral at this time having not reviewed the sources. The article as written does not establish organizational notability, and an article should speak for itself without requiring the reader to read the sources, which is not why readers use Wikipedia. So if the article is kept, it should be expanded. User:Soman has provided only a URL dump, which is useless, because even if the sources listed as reliable, they may or may not be significant coverage. Providing only a URL dump, rather than adding the references to the article, can even be seen as insulting to the reviewers, but I assume that they simply were in too much of a hurry. I either will or will not review the footnoted sources, and will not review the dump. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • keep - AIPWA is an notable and second biggest organised womens association in India. So It's need to add on WIKIPEDIA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudip Karmakar23 ( talk • contribs) 04:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have a list of URLs and citations, but there are no arguments as to how these sources provide the required substantial coverage of the organization.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Notability is established:
  1. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41920038 (several pages of coverage, using their acronym, 23 mentions)
  2. I wasn't able to access it, but seems like a whole article about them in Times of India: Women exploitation focus at All India Progressive Women’s Association meet. The Times of India, [s. l.], 10 maio. 2012. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsbig&AN=edsbig.A289127995&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 2 maio. 2022.
  3. Likewise here: All India progressive women’s association protests lifeterm to Rupam Pathak. The Times of India, [s. l.], 15 abr. 2012. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsbig&AN=edsbig.A286394719&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 2 maio. 2022.
While it does seem weird to argue based on the headline without being able to see the text, it's difficult to imagine circumstances where the articles did not cover them. CT55555 ( talk) 12:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Withdrawing nomination per GDuwen's improvements and consensus from other editors that said improvements are enough. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 22:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Live at Billy Bob's Texas (Willie Nelson album)

Live at Billy Bob's Texas (Willie Nelson album) (  | 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)

Non-notable album. Didn't chart, no sourcing found. Deprodded because "notability is just your opinion, try citing policy". I thought WP:GNG was a policy? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 00:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 00:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment your PROD didn't mention WP:GNG, it just said, "Non-notable album", which sounds like an opinion which is not a reasonable reason for deletion. I suggest mentioning WP:GNG, or another policy when PRODing an article. And my actual reason for removing the PROD (which I put in the summary) was ""non notable" sounds like a personal opinion. Cite a Wikipedia guideline in your reasoning". DonaldD23 talk to me 02:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    Well then I apologize for being flippant in my AFD. I had thought that "not notable" would read to most viewers as "seems to fail WP:GNG" but I can see how that was vague. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 18:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    Semantics aside, I can't find any significant coverage beyond this Allmusic review. If that's all there is then I can't rationalize a "keep" stance... Sergecross73 msg me 20:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Delete per Sergecross73. See this. -- interstatefive  ( talk) - just another roadgeek 22:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Delete - could not find enough sourcing to meet the WP:GNG, nor would I expect to, as live/compilation albums like this often don't garner much in the way of attention from sources. Sergecross73 msg me 01:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I stand corrected, sources I didn't expect to exist, were found, and it charted. Sergecross73 msg me 14:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I would say that the article can be further improved with the use of templates for the tracks, and the inclusion of some basic information about the concert and such. (I found a bit of it on Newspapers.com).

Granted, there is not much more to be written here, but the Live at Billy Bob's Texas label has enough releases with articles of their own (I see nine different titles after writing it on the search bar), and upon further inspection most of them did not chart either and the information included is rather basic and unsourced.

Yet, I don't see why are we going to start punching holes in the discographies of artists, nor labels (even though Live at Billy Bob's doesn't have an article of its own, though it should! [15]). I don't think that redlinking articles randomly is too useful either. I would get to work on this one, but I've been sick for the last few days and I just don't have the energy at the time.-- GDuwen Holler! 19:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC) Adding to my comment, besides of that Allmusic review, we have two more ( 1, 2). I would say with three reviews that can be added to the body of the article, there is more reason to keep the article and expand it (I gladly would, but I need at least a few days to get down to it. I pretty much forgot the existence of this entry!).-- GDuwen Holler! 19:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Most live albums don't get attention. The Mavericks have a live album that went gold in Canada, but I couldn't find any real info on it beyond that. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 21:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC) reply
You may have accidentally made a good point - perhaps there's potential for a "Live at Billy Bobs" article to merge these non-notable albums to - beyond the WP:DAB article that currently exists. Sergecross73 msg me 01:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC) reply
There'd be no point in merging if no individual one is notable on their own. They wouldn't be notable in a list, either, given that they were not on a major label nor from a major venue. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 01:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC) reply
It's just a thought if we need a compromise or something. Sergecross73 msg me 01:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC) reply
We already located three different reviews for this release. Those are reliable sources. If two newspapers and one music website wrote reviews, does that not make it notable?-- GDuwen Holler! 10:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Sometimes, when we only have a couple sources, an extremely short article, and "not much more to be written" as you say, content is still merged. Kinda surprised neither one if you are following me here. This shouldn't be a foreign concept at AFD. Sergecross73 msg me 11:02, 28 April 2022 (UTC) reply
And merging all of those articles may indeed be the right solution at the end of the day. But for the time being, I've added the information I've discussed to the body of the article.-- GDuwen Holler! 11:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC) reply
It turns out it did appear in three different charts. All visible on the now cited Billboard issue of May 22, 2004.-- GDuwen Holler! 18:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Wow, good catch. Billboard's website is such a clusterfuck what with the rampant paywalling of charts and sometimes not archiving them at all. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 18:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Meets WP:NALBUM with sources added to the article by GDuwen. They're in-depth and reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP ( talk) 01:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    I initially vied for a redirect, but I'm convinced enough with GDuwen's improvements. SBKSPP ( talk) 01:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Ive revised my stance to keep. The sourcing and charts are enough to pass GNG/NALBUMS. Sergecross73 msg me 14:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Justin Jaschke

Justin Jaschke (  | 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 don't see any evidence of notability. Although some sources are provided, they are interviews, mostly focusing on Verio, rather than Jaschke himself. I'm not seeing anything to support a stand alone biographical article on this person. MarchOfTheGreyhounds ( talk) 11:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Business. MarchOfTheGreyhounds ( talk) 11:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as it has no significant coverage. -- Vaco98 ( talk) 11:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - There is some slight coverage in software magazines, however that is it and such coverage is not significant. Hence article subject does not meet notability guidelines and warrants deletion. Such-change47 ( talk) 11:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, Businesswire and a few trivial comments do not a notability establish. Ari T. Benchaim ( talk) 22:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 11:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

S. D. S. Yadava

S. D. S. Yadava (  | 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 am not convinced that this article meets WP:GNG, there are so many retired major general in Indian Army. The personality isn't well known. There are WP:QS references in the article as well, one reference is a book written by him to glorify his community ( suprisingly he isn't historian at all). I think this is bit promotional stuff and fit case for removal. RS6784 ( talk) 10:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 02:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Christoph Steidl Porenta

Christoph Steidl Porenta (  | 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)

Lacks notability Doesn't meet criteria for notability ( WP:BIO). It is of a living person and apparently is an autobiography; see discussion at Help_desk. -- R. S. Shaw ( talk) 20:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC) reply

@ R. S. Shaw You need to fix the template somehow, I recommend WP:TWINKLE for starting afd:s, it is so much simpler. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 20:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC) reply
And you did. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 20:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC) reply
I tried Twinkle but could find no way to do it; the documentation only mentioned speedy delete, not AfD. -- R. S. Shaw ( talk) 20:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC) reply
If I'm on an article, I get a "XFD" in my twinkle dropdown, but maybe that is a personal setting somewhere. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 20:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, I am the creator of this article. It is not a WP:AUTO, I have no WP:COI and IMO the subject meets WP:GNG per the sources in the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 20:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Adding to the argument for WP:GNG, check uploader "zlatoruno" Youtube videos. I won't link because reason. Several of these are tv-clips, one, length 4:51, from 2009 is even in English. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 22:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete better than the version I speedied, but still blatant self-promotion with gushing cherry-picked quotes Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    Well, it's not self promoting, I added the quote, and the "gushing" stuff is reliably sourced and attributed. You are welcome to balance it with reliably published opposite/other opinions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 08:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. Subject has been profiled in Mladina, in Dnevnik (Slovenia), and by the Slovenian Press Agency (STA). All three are respectable mainsteam Slovenian news organizations. In addition, he's been profiled in the Delo in Dom supplement to Delo (newspaper) [16] -- Delo is probably the closest thing that Slovenia has to a newspaper of record. "Weak" only because the small size of the Slovenian news market makes the coverage fairly local. Between the multiple sources and time over which he's been profiled, however, I think this is a pass of WP:BASIC. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 13:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 10:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 11:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 11:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - This article has been improved since nom. I cannot see evidence that the reasons for nom are currently accurate. There is independent media coverage, and from the one or two I google translated, may well be significant depending on how known those outlets are in the relevant country. There is no grounds to substantiate a cause for deletion in my view after looking at the article against its nom criteria - Such-change47 ( talk) 11:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - per GNG, knight of the Sovereign Order of Malta. Mary Mark Ockerbloom ( talk) 23:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - meets GNG; claims in nomination that this is an autobiography clearly false. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Comment The claim in the nomination that the article Christoph Steidl Porenta "apparently is an autobiography" was based on the initial post by user:Christoph Steidl Porenta, which said:

    Hello, I would like to post my biography, but I always get rejected. So, who can post my biography? Best regards, Christoph Steidl Porenta

    -- R. S. Shaw ( talk) 21:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    So: no evidence that it is or was an autobiography, whatsoever. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:29, 8 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Nope, that's not evidence it's an autobiography, just evidence supporting the claim in the nomination that there's an appearance that it might be an autobiography. -- R. S. Shaw ( talk) 21:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There is no consensus to delete the article, and sourcing put forth during the discussion counters much of the nom. If folks feel strongly for a redirect, that process can continue editorially. Star Mississippi 14:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC) reply

The Andy Dick Show

The Andy Dick Show (  | 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)

Zero reputable sourcing found. Just found a couple TV encyclopedias that list it in passing, as well as tangential name-drops in articles about Andy Dick himself. "Andy Dick Show" + "MTV" returned only passing name-drops, TV directories, and other unusable content Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 23:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Adams, Jason (2001-04-12). "The Andy Dick Show: Beyond "Jackass" and "The Tom Green Show": MTV reinvents the Dick joke". Rolling Stone. ProQuest  2549079171.

      The article notes: "One would think that a Hollywood fixture wrapping a car around a utility pole in an alcohol-and-drag haze would be the result of discovering his life was a huge joke -- not an impetus for making it one. But composed of off-color comedic sketches, vignettes, short films and music videos, The Andy Dick Show starring and directed by the actor and comedian of the same name - assumes nothing is sacred, especially Dick's own troubled life.  To wit: An E! True Hollywood Story spoof titled "The Little Angel Clown Who ... That Cries" pokes fun at many of Dick's peccadilloes, from the real-life car crash to his purported love of hate crimes ("No, I said I hate crime," he lamely protests), and offers eulogies for the mistakenly thought-to-be-dead actor and praise from Hollywood friends and co-stars ("He's like a beautiful eagle: majestic, endangered, likes fish," gushes NewsRadio co-star Dave Foley). Also fair game is the MTV stable itself:"

    2. Sheffield, Rob (2001-05-10). "Andy Dick's true Hollywood stories". Rolling Stone. No. 868. p. 29. EBSCOhost  220165108.

      The article notes: "... his MTV sketch-comedy series The Andy Dick Show is the funniest thing on the tube right now, even more outrageous than Tom Green or Jackass. Andy is basically Charles Nelson Reilly in hell, twitching and writhing through his own basic-cable torture chamber, getting naked, falling down, and playing a wide range of disturbing characters, all thinly veiled caricatures of Andy himself, who writes and directs every episode. For all the bleeped obscenities and digitalized flesh, the show's one joke is fame: the disgusting lengths people will go to get it, and the disgusting tricks it plays on its minions.  I was hooked from the first minute of the debut episode, which kicks off with the garish spectacle of Andy presenting his own E!-style True Hollywood Story, proclaiming himself "The Little Angel Clown Who ... That ... Cries." It's six minutes of sheer genius, making fun of Dick's real-life screw-ups while adding plenty of fake ones, such as his gay-porn film The Bend Over Stiller Show. "

    3. Ross, Dalton; Snierson, Dan (2002-04-05). "The Andy Dick Show (TV Program)". Entertainment Weekly. No. 647. p. 108. EBSCOhost  6433920.

      The article notes: "He's already wrangled dwarfs, battled gingivitis, and cavorted with a farting sock puppet named Anus. So what's a Dick to do in season 3 of his wack-a-doodle sketch circus? Try more of the insane. He'll swap identities with Tom Green in an extreme version of Flipped and pitch a tent in his living room with a reluctant Master P."

    4. Kit, Zorianna (2001-01-17). "'Andy Dick' gets MTV green light". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 366, no. 28. p. 83. ProQuest  2467918802.

      The article notes: "MTV has given the new half-hour comedy series "The Andy Dick Show" a six-episode commitment and scheduled the show to air Tuesday nights at 10:30 p.m. beginning Feb. 27. Andy Dick, who co-wrote the show with a team of writers, stars in, directs and produces the show, which is executive produced by Jim Biederman. It features a series of three-minute comedy shorts shot on film. Guest stars include Ben Stiller, singer Mandy Moore and actress-model Tyra Banks. The pilot got the greenlit during the summer (HR 8/10)."

    5. Hedegaard, Eric (2001-08-16). "Andy Dick just wants a little love, but he'll settle for a lot of sex". Rolling Stone. No. 875. p. 51. EBSCOhost  4992585.

      The article notes: "Out in Hollywood,  what Andy Dick could really use is some relief from the ladies. He should have on his mind his weekly MTV program, The Andy Dick Show, which features short, lunatic films, mostly starring humorous Andy-played characters such as Daphne Aguilera (Christina's extrahairy sister) and Zitty McGee (eaten up by acne, he wants to be a model). About to enter its second season, the program has become an MTV top-five hit, with 7 million viewers tuning in for each episode's antics."

    6. Feiwell, J. (2001-07-20). "MTV adding 'Dick' segs". Daily Variety. Vol. 272, no. 34. p. 30. EBSCOhost  4885291.

      The article notes: "MTV has given "The Andy Dick Show" a second leg, picking up the sketch show for another seven episodes. Dick's sophomore season, preeming Aug. 5, will feature his sketches, vignettes, short films and musicvid parodies, as well as the introduction of some new characters. Episodes will also include guest appearances from musician Dave Navaro, thesp-musician Tyrese, Johnny Knoxville, Carmen Electra, Jason Biggs and Ashton Kutcher. "

    7. Morrow, Terry (2001-03-16). "'Andy Dick Show' reflects edge of its star". The Journal Gazette. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.

      The article notes: "Promoting "The Andy Dick Show" (10:30 p.m. EST Tuesdays, MTV) has left him worn out. ... With that, "The Andy Dick Show" skewers everything from E! Entertainment Television to Dick's own drug problems. He is not sure how audiences will react to the latter."

    8. Peterson, Jennifer (2001-07-23). "'Andy Dick Show' gets a second season on MTV". Dayton Daily News. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.

      The article notes: "MTV has picked up seven more episodes of The Andy Dick Show, Brian Graden, the cable network's president of programming, announced. The talk show's second season will premiere on Aug. 5 at 9 p.m. Upcoming episodes of the series will feature Dick in comedic sketches, vignettes, short films and music video parodies. New characters include Zitty McGee, an aspiring model/actor with awful acne, and Bee Bop the Clown, a morgue employee who lightens the emotional burden of death."

    9. Levitan, Corey (2002-04-17). "Surreality TV - MTV's twisted comedy show is ad-DICK-tive". Daily Breeze. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.

      The article notes: "They're all characters played by Andy Dick on an MTV sketch comedy series that's already become a classic after a year on the air. "The Andy Dick Show" features material that grates, disgusts and provokes some of the heartiest laughs you'll ever feel guilty enjoying. ... Like all daring comedy, "The Andy Dick Show" is a like-it-or-hate-it proposition. Previous episodes have featured an antichrist nanny named Marilyn Poppins and "Anus and Andy," a talk show co-hosted by Dick and a sphincter puppet that passes wind on their guests."

    10. Eicher, Diane (2001-03-06). "'Not dead' Andy Dick gets new life on MTV". The Denver Post. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.

      The article notes: "The show on MTV - with an initial six-episode run that he is "90 percent sure" will continue with a pickup of more shows - is his most high-profile foray back into entertainment since the arrest. He calls it a "variety" show with "very nice short films.""

    11. Colbourne, Scott (2002-07-06). "Digital Highlights". The Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.

      The article notes: "MTV Canada, 10:30 p.m. MTV Canada is airing our national embarassment, Tom Green, in his creatively titled The Tom Green Show (10 p.m.), back-to-back with the man who dragged down the otherwise laudable NewsRadio, Andy Dick, in his creatively titled The Andy Dick Show. Dick played nerd-boy Matthew on NewsRadio, and he was annoying and manic. On his parody of a talk show, like Green on his parody of a talk show, he is annoying and manic. It's summer and it's a new thing, so do enjoy if these guys are your cup of flat pop, but I'm so sick of Green and Dick I wouldn't cross the street to kick them in their..."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Andy Dick Show to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 22:06, 30 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus. It has been a month, and I don't see a consensus. Before re-nomination in the future, I would suggest whether editorial suggestions including a rename and/or merger might be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 02:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC) reply

2020–2022 Pakistani political crises

2020–2022 Pakistani political crises (  | 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:NOR. This article cites no sources that describe how these various topics or crises are connected to one another, and the article does not make that clear either. It is also internally inconsistent: The lead has the crises start in 2022, whereas the title has them start in 2020. Sandstein 14:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon ( talk) 06:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment – Other incidents were also included, as the country is still going through a political crisis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ainty Painty ( talk • contribs) 19 April 2022 07:05 (UTC)
  • Delete Those !voting keep have not demonstrated that the content of the article is anything other than a series of events over a certain time period. There's not a single source which *both* groups these events (a) together and (b) all as crises; reliable sources doing that is what is required to demonstrate notability. The implicit definition here renders the word crisis meaningless. The article is WP:SYNTH. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 07:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    Agree. Several of these “crises” are just votes of no confidence which are normal enough events in a parliamentary democracy. The first of the two “oath crises” doesn’t appear to be a crisis at all. Any significant crisis in this list already has its own page, and there is little connection between them except a coincidence of timing. Nwhyte ( talk) 04:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Political history of Pakistan. "Crisis" is editorializing. And there is no need for a stand-alone article. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to 2022 Pakistani constitutional crisis per @ Fontaine347 casualdejekyll 16:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to either 2022 Pakistani constitutional crisis or Political history of Pakistan per above Merge !votes. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 ( 💬) 10:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 2601:647:5800:1A1F:C54D:43E:AA67:CA78 ( talk) 20:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Material inadequately sourced is not dumped elsewhere but deleted. Still, the subject is trivially notable and some material is properly sourced, but, quoting from WP:OVERLAP, there are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap and might be redundant. Therefore, a Merge in a distributional manner across the articles 2022 Pakistani constitutional crisis and Political history of Pakistan is suggested of the material that can be salvaged in terms of sourcing. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept. - The Gnome ( talk) 07:55, 1 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural, as last relist doesn't appear to have been performed correctly.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 09:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete  – Not a single source cites anything like "2020-22 political crises". If political events happening in 2020-22 are somehow related, then so is whole political history of Pakistan related. And if we rename it to "2022 Pakistani political crisis" what value it'll bring to this platform, other than being duplicate of 2022 Pakistani constitutional crisis (which was once called "2022 Pakistani political crisis" before this move)? Radioactive ( talk) 14:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Man vs. Machine (video game). czar 09:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC) reply

MuchDifferent

MuchDifferent (  | 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)

Does not meet WP:NCORP - only possible claim of notability is for creating Man vs. Machine (video game), company is not covered in any significant capacity elsewhere - Liance talk/ contribs 05:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 05:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect as this is really just extended coverage of the game. Company has no notability of their own. Shooterwalker ( talk) 14:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is sourcing isn't sufficient Star Mississippi 02:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Underwood Ammo

Underwood Ammo (  | 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 was moved from a draft by the author of the article, despite the fact that it was declined as not sufficiently notable per the AFC reviewers. The sources do not appear to be reliable. There is no indication that this company meets WP:GNG. Bbb23 ( talk) 22:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Most of the nomination statement is irrelevant. Editors with ~30,000 edits are not required to use AFC in the first place, there is no rule against them moving drafts to the mainspace, and there is no compelling reason to assume that an AFC reviewer who has barely made 2,000 edits is always going to be correct when they decline an article. Also, while I know nothing about this subject area, even I recognize Field & Stream as a reliable source for information about hunting.
    Did you do a WP:BEFORE search yourself? I don't know what the go-to sources are for this area, but I put "Underwood Ammo" in Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library and got 13 hits, plus a couple more under "Underwood Ammunition". I didn't notice any overlapping with the eight sources that are already cited in the article. I imagine that this one – Beckstrand, Tom (September 2016), "A bigger hammer: the .458 SOCOM puts maximum wallop in any AR-pattern rifle", Guns & Ammo, vol. 60, no. 9, InterMedia Outdoors, Inc. – would be one of the more useful. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment All refs 2 & 3 do is confirm Underwood makes two caliber of ammo. Refs 4-7 are not about Underwood. David notMD ( talk) 07:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    Some of the refs are indeed about the industry within which Underwood is involved, and some of the claims regarding the content of the article. Thank you. ♥ Th78blue ( talk)♥ 14:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    I would kindly ask that we leave as is, but remove any refs that other editors may feel are inappropriate or inadequate. I request that this nomination for deletion be ended in favor of keeping. Thank you. ♥ Th78blue ( talk)♥ 17:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 09:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

How long do we wait for this? I'd like for the article to stay, and would be willing to make changes if someone has specific pieces they want to cut or add. Thank you. ♥ Th78blue ( talk)♥ 19:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and I can't find any, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing ++ 21:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. There's essentially nothing to say about this company and their run-of-the-mill ammo. Couldn't find things for WP:NCORP. FalconK ( talk) 05:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    How many other companies are making solid-copper-monolithic-fluted projectile rounds with lead free components that you know of to make that "run-of-the-mill" statement? Thank you. ♥ Th78blue ( talk)♥ 12:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Most of the refs in the article are product reviews (not about the company). Four of the refs don't even mention Underwood. I could not find significant coverage of the company to support WP:NCORP notability. Schazjmd  (talk) 22:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    That is unfortunate, I just spent some time digging further and added several more. I'd ask you to reconsider. In fact, this article is more deeply cited than many others in the same industry at this point. ♥ Th78blue ( talk)♥ 00:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Th78blue, I posted my opinion above after reviewing the sources that you added to the article. The problem is that none of those sources provide significant coverage of the company. Schazjmd  (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗ plicit 11:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Blowin' Up

Blowin' Up (  | 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)

Zero sourcing found. Deprodded because "notability is just your opinion". Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 00:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Berkovitz, Jamie (2006-06-30). "Kennedy's No Rapper, but Funny All the Same". Sun-Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.

      The article notes: "Kennedy ... teams with his buddy StoneStone in Jamie Kennedy's Blowin' Up to try to land a hip-hop record deal (in case you aren't familiar, both are two white kids from Malibu -- not exactly "rapper material.") With barely any support from friends and relatives, the two make it their mission to fulfill their dreams of becoming rappers, all in the presence of conveniently located cameras that create the scripted reality show. ... The show also pokes fun at the entertainment industry and is an obvious display of the outrageous things that celebrities do for publicity. ... In between the hilarious one-liners and beat-boxing about ridiculous things from bologna to the far more explicit, Kennedy and Stone manage to do what every rising rapper seems to be doing -- they get grillz (yes, the ones Nelly sings about)."

    2. Thompson, Ethan (Fall 2007). "Comedy verite? The observational documentary meets the televisual sitcom". The Velvet Light Trap. University of Texas Press. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30 – via Gale.

      The article notes: "Blowin' Up (2006) follows the exploits of comic actor Jamie Kennedy and his friend Stu Stone as they labor to achieve their childhood dreams of becoming rap stars. Most episodes consist of loosely scripted scenes of the duo driving around Los Angeles and meeting up with celebrities in order to seek advice about what they need to do in order to make it big. These scenes are fit into the A/B plot structure typical of a sitcom. Though structured like an ordinary sitcom, the program is taped with digital cameras, is shot on-location, and looks like a reality program (that, or the type of documentary that might exist if a legion of D.A. Pennebakers were unleashed to capture the early years of bands whose later exploits would be documented in the expositional style, a la Behind the Music). In the fourth episode of Blowin' Up, Kennedy decides ..."

    3. Wallenstein, Andrew (2005-11-04). "Kennedy to do reality/written series for MTV". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 391, no. 35. pp. 4, 60. ProQuest  2470988954.

      The article notes: "MTV has greenlighted a hybrid scripted/reality series starring Jamie Kennedy. "Jamie Kennedy's Blowin' Up" is something like a combination of the actor's two best-known works, the Warner Bros. theatrical film, "Malibu's Most Wanted," in which he played a wannabe rapper, and WB Network series "JKX: The Jamie Kennedy Experiment," in which he played pranks. ... In "Blowin' Up," Kennedy and his best friend, Stu Stone, try to become legitimate hip-hop stars by crashing meetings with music moguls and artists in hopes of landing a record deal. The duo will original music to back the effort."

    4. Wiener, Rebecca (Fall 2006). "Seriously Folks: Jamie Kennedy and Stu Stone are Blowin' Up". Heeb. No. 11. p. 31. ISSN  1535-0134. EBSCOhost  IJP0000384174.

      This is a citation-only reference.

    5. McDaniel, Mike (2005-05-05). "Inventor, Jamie can stay, but some shows have to go". Houston Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.

      The article notes: "The Jamie Kennedy experiment is not done. Coming May 16 to MTV, he has a comedy series called Blowin' Up in which he tries to become a hip-hop star. Look for him and his sidekick, Stu Stone, to encounter the likes of Three 6 Mafia, Jason Biggs, Russell Simmons, Mena Suvari, George Lucas and Ice-T."

    6. Morrow, Terry (2006-05-16). "'Scream' star feels 'Up' for MTV comedy". The Journal Gazette. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.

      The article notes: "His quest to be a rapper is documented in the eight-episode comedy series "Blowin' Up" (10:30 p.m. Fort Wayne time today on MTV, Comcast Channel 50). The series follows Kennedy and best friend Stu Smith as they try to convince Hollywood that they can rap. The doors don't exactly swing open wide. In the series, Kennedy's real-life parents tell him to not pursue it. His agent and managers walk out of the meeting. No one on "Blowin' Up" thinks it's a good idea for a 36-year-old white man to try to break into the world of rap."

    7. Core, Sarah (2005-06-05). "TV Review: Jamie Kennedy's new gig is so awful it's funny". UWIRE. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.

      The article notes: ""Blowin' Up," the new reality show on MTV about Kennedy's humorous ascent to stardom as a rapper, should really be called "Suckin' Up." After all, that's what he and his buddy Stu Stone spend their time doing -- in between driving around in Kennedy's Hummer, rapping and waving to everyone else in California. Apparently, you have to do a lot of sucking up in showbiz, but hitting on Ice-T's woman is not the way to go about doing that. ... And like anything Kennedy does, it's hard to know what to expect when watching "Blowin' Up." Though critics have been calling the show a tongue-in-cheek look at two guys trying to be rappers, MTV's plays it straight, and viewers end up believing Kennedy's pathetic attempts. It's only after being immersed in a couple of episodes do the sly, humorous moments begin to reveal themselves."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Blowin' Up to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 22:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. ✗ plicit 11:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

King Hippo

King Hippo (  | 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)

Character notability highly dubious with the reception made up of trivial mentions from articles unrelated to him, as well as unreliable sources. Does not seem notable enough for a standalone article, fails WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 06:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 06:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Unlike Super Macho Man, I can see enough discussion on King Hippo to keep his article. Looking at the sources that are already in the article, IGN names him as the 64th top villain in all of video games, and actually discusses the character, which has to count for something, when you consider just how many video games there are. And Kotaku has two articles that discusses him. Beyond that, he seems to be a well-known figure in gaming for his obesity. MoonJet ( talk) 02:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    64th best villain does not indicate importance, but even if it did, that mention contains almost no independent commentary, besides calling him "disturbing". It still indicates a lack of SIGCOV, with the sources being cobbled together from slight mentions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 07:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. Looks like a borderline case to me. Overall sourcing isn't that great, but there is some discussion which is not trivial. Unreliable sources can simply be removed from prose. More substantial sources, like character analysis from a page in this book, could be considered. I spotted recurring mentions of the character in multiple published books through a Google Book search, but YMMW. Another article which should not have been considered for deletion, when a merge action that is unilateral or negotiated is a viable WP:ATD. Haleth ( talk) 04:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    Out of curiosity, do you have any access to this book? No previews are showing up on Google. MoonJet ( talk) 05:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    No, I don’t. But it came up when I did a quick Google Books search and I could see the contents of the relevant page at the time. Haleth ( talk) 05:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    Well, with no way to actually check whether that's WP:SIGCOV, it is not really an argument. Still, I did take a browse through Google Books and only found trivial mentions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 07:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. The long reception is quite puffed up from many passing mentions. SIGCOV is an issue, but I just don't have the time&will to review this right now. IMHO there's a ton of articles with zero or next to zero reception that we could prune before we tackle this kind of stuff... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    Arguably, articles with inflated sources are more pernicious because it gives people a false sense of what is considered notable by Wikipedia and what isn't. At least when you have articles with no reception/sources it's quite obvious that it falls short and you shouldn't emulate its example. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 16:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Zxcvbnm Errr, obvious? Looks at the ongoing Megatron discussion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 09:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep per Haleth. I see this as a borderline case, and there is some amount of padding from non-significant coverage here. But I think there are enough quality sources to get this over the hurdle for notability. There is some ambiguity about the misuse of trivial mentions and questionable sources in these types of articles, and it may warrant a wider discussion to get some clarity. But until then, significant coverage in independent reliable sources is supposed to be enough to write an article, even if I'd like to see the meandering padding cleaned up. Shooterwalker ( talk) 18:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Cultural depictions of salamanders. Opinion is split between delete and merge to what is now called Cultural depictions of salamanders. My practice is to close AfDs split between merge and delete as redirect: this allows the editorial process to figure out what if anything sholud be merged from the history. Sandstein 10:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Legendary salamander in popular culture

Legendary salamander in popular culture (  | 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)

Considering we already have a decent article on Salamanders in folklore, why do we need this two-footnote, policy salad-failing ( WP:IPC, WP:GNG, WP:NLIST, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR, WP:V, plus the just created WP:NOTTVTROPES) listicle? At best, I think we can redirect it to the aforementioned 'in folklore' article (which arguably could be renamed to have a bit bigger scope and expanded a bit with something. For the record, I checked and salamander's have no topic entry in The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters , but they are mentioned in passing 12 times in the book and in index, Salamander entry redirects to more general 'Elementals'). PS. Recording for posterity, the candidate for the most trivial passing mention of the topic I have seen so far in the 'popular culture' trivisticles: "In Harry Turtledove's novel The Case of the Toxic Spell Dump, the main character mentions in passing that his apartment building uses a salamander as a water heater." PPS. And I'll mercifuly ignore the usage of the adjective 'legendary' in the title, which is pretty much unused in the article body... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Popular culture. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect to a renamed version of Salamanders in folklore. Did not have time to check notability myself. "in folklore" is not the same as in "popular culture". At least the Encyclopedia of Fantasy-referenced part should be preserved, which attests that secondary sources talk about the concept in fantasy. Again, which is not covered in the current "in folklore" article. The current version of our list here would thus be preserved in the history and could help to write and expanded a section, properly enhanced with secondary sources, if someone was so inclined. If someone were to find more secondary sources after all, please let me know. Daranios ( talk) 11:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Changing my !vote to redirect. Based on Rorshacma's description of the source, the way the introductory sentence is phrased might not be the best one. Still, the topic appears in fantasy as is attested in secondary sources, and a corresponding section in the target article should be created. Some of the examples we have here appear in secondary sources, too, and might be useful there. So I stand by my opinion that the current version should be preserved in the history for potential future use. Daranios ( talk) 20:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Salamanders in folklore and add that single source in the lead of this article to the lead of that article. That is the only thing that should actually be preserved, as the remainder of this list is unsourced trivia that in the vast bulk of the cases are extremely non-notable examples. Rorshacma ( talk) 15:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Delete - So, I took a closer look at the "Encyclopedia of Fantasy" source I initially proposed moving over to the main article, and it turns out that its literally less than a single full sentence of information on the topic. That said, it is completely useless as a source to move over to the main article, so there is nothing that actually should be preserved here at all. Rorshacma ( talk) 06:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
      • I used Special:BookSources/978-1-85723-368-1 from the ref and found a Google Books preview for the 1999 revised edition. There are three search results for salamander: the four (two on the same page) brief mentions are insufficient. A nearby mention of Fictitious Beasts: A Bibliography is a possible lead. Flatscan ( talk) 04:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
        • @ Flatscan and Rorshacma: I don't know how you get access to that source, would it be possible to provide a link? Otherwise, as it seems to be short, could you quote what's there? Or at least say exactly which part of the sentence where the reference is used it actually supports? Thanks! Daranios ( talk) 10:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
        • @ Daranios: - Here you go. The article currently specifically cites the mention in the "elemental" entry of the book. It is mentioned on two other pages, but none of them amount to anything but a few words each, and there is no dedicated entry for the Salamander specifically. Rorshacma ( talk) 15:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
          • @ Rorshacma: Thanks, but unfortunately there is no preview available for me at that link. Probably due to different copyrights in different countries. If the salamander would have a dedicated entry would be important if there should be a stand-alone article or not. I am just arguing that the referenced sentence should be kept if it is supported by the source. If this legendary creature from folklore has found entry into the fantasy genre or not, and in what form, is my view relevant and not "completely useless". It is also affirmed by the Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters. We have a great number of primary sources here, while the lack of secondary sources has been considered a problem. So I don't think that throwing out the one secondary source is the wrong way to go. Daranios ( talk) 17:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
            • Oh, sorry! The text in question on the "Elementals" entry is "Robert S. Heinlein's Magic Inc. (1940) has a simple ball of flame as its fire elemental (or salamander)..." with the remainder of the sentence dedicated to other creatures featured in the book. There is another entry in the book that, during a long listing of many other creatures, states "...the Salamander (a lizard-like creature able to live in fire)...". There is a third page in the book that also shows up when searching for Salamander, but that one simply uses the word without any further text describing it. Rorshacma ( talk) 18:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
              • By the way, The Encyclopedia of Fantasy is available online. The "Elementals" entry can be found here. TompaDompa ( talk) 19:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
                • @ TompaDompa and Rorshacma: Thanks. So the source does attest the use of the legendary creature in fantasy, but I guess I would not have phrased it like it is now. I have adapted my !vote. Daranios ( talk) 20:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
                • I realized that the "Operation Salamander" item was copied from this source, so I removed it. It was present in the original version, but I think it doesn't qualify the whole article for WP:CSD G12 or WP:RD1 on its own. Rewriting it based on "Operation Salamander" directly would be ideal. Flatscan ( talk) 04:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC) reply
                  • @ Flatscan: I have rephrased that passage, do you think it is ok like that? As it was a very short quotation, I think putting quotation marks around it would also have been a solution, so I also don't think this is a problem for the whole article. And again, it shows that our unreferenced list here contains instances which do appear in secondary source, hence my !vote of preserving it for future improvement at least in the form of history. Daranios ( talk) 11:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply
                    • @ Daranios: A quotation is a good idea to avoid the copying concerns, with the small downside that it may appear to be quoted from "Operation Salamander" on first glance. I am not a WP:Copyright problems regular, but your diff seems to be WP:Close paraphrasing. Compare to WP:Close paraphrasing#Example in particular. I disagree that the list items will be useful for research: a source like The Encyclopedia of Fantasy can be found by searching for salamander, not for Glottalphibs ( The New Rebellion). Flatscan ( talk) 04:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply
                      • @ Flatscan: Allright, as the part talking about "Operation Salamander" is quite short, I'd assume it falls within "Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason" and "when there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing" without changing the meaning within that essay. I have added a secondary source for D&D just as a small example, which I don't think would be easy to find by searching for "salamander" alone. Daranios ( talk) 10:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, no redirect: there is no usable content to merge, and popular culture content does not fit in this thinly-sourced popular culture content should not be added to (clarified/retracted Flatscan ( talk) 04:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)) Salamander (legendary creature) or Salamanders in folklore. reply
  • Delete Per nom. Most likely a plausible topic for an article, but WP:TNT applies, as the article is largely unsourced. Any new popcultural information can definitely fit in Salamanders in folklore, which should be moved back to Salamander (legendary creature) as a general article, where it was before it was moved without discussion, consensus, or any commonsense. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 09:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, as this fails WP:OR for not having any basis in reliable independent sources. As such, it also fails WP:V, WP:GNG, and so on. Shooterwalker ( talk) 18:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or merge with Salamanders in folklore or move back to Salamander (legendary creature) as suggested by @ Zxcvbnm:. If it is the former, the mythical salamander information should be in it's own section there. -- Rtkat3 ( talk) 03:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Following the suggestion of Rtkat3, Keep or merge with Salamanders in folklore or move to the previous name of Salamander (legendary creature) as Zxcvbm suggested. Historyday01 ( talk) 01:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - Rtkat3 offered no justification nor addressed the concerns that there is no valid sourcing in the article, so I am not sure what a "Keep" suggestion is being based on here. Keep in mind that AFD is not a vote, so there needs to be more than a simple vote to "Keep" to address the issues brought up in the nomination. Rorshacma ( talk) 04:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    • @ Rtkat3 and Historyday01:
      1. What specific content should be merged? There are only two sources. We discussed The Encyclopedia of Fantasy above, finding little relevant content, and the Monster Manual covers salamanders in the Dungeons & Dragons game system.
      2. Salamanders in folklore was already moved to Cultural depictions of salamanders on 5 May 2022. The name discussion was started above and continues at Talk:Cultural depictions of salamanders#Name. This article has only been moved from Salamander (legendary creature) in popular culture to Legendary salamander in popular culture, back on 6 December 2008.
    • Flatscan ( talk) 04:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply
      Good question and thanks for the background of the page naming. I think any of the sourced content should be moved to Salamanders in folklore, specifically that legendary salamanders are a true fire elemental [1], that in Poul Anderson's short story "Operation Salamander" (1956), there are fire elementals which have lizard-like shape, obscured by flame [1] that in Dungeons & Dragons, salamanders are serpentine beings who dwell in metal cities in the Elemental Plane of Fire, with the Flamewalkers of the Warcraft series are based on these. [2] Those are the only three parts of the page which should be merged / moved to the Salamanders in folklore page. As such, I support Daranios's suggestion that the "Legendary salamander in popular culture" page be a redirect to a Salamanders in folklore, so that the current version of the list can be "preserved in the history and could help to write and expanded a section, properly enhanced with secondary sources, if someone was so inclined" and for any future use. Historyday01 ( talk) 13:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply
      @ Historyday01: As I mentioned in my original comment, the The Encyclopedia of Fantasy ref was present in the source article. If one reviews this diff I provided above, the Monster Manual ref was also available. They can be restored from its history without merging. The other issue is that these sources fail WP:Manual of Style/Trivia sections#"In popular culture" and "Cultural references" material (guideline, shortcut MOS:POPCULT): all such references should be discussed in at least one reliable secondary or tertiary source which specifically links the cultural item to the subject of the article. This source should cover the subject of the article in some depth; it should not be a source that merely mentions the subject's appearance in a movie, song, television show, or other cultural item.
      As a side note, please be mindful of WP:Copying within Wikipedia, as you copied from the article without attribution. Please consider removing the text and referring to them by source. I bear some responsibility because I asked for specifics. Flatscan ( talk) 04:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply
      Ok. I continue to support a redirect as someone could come across one day and add sources, so I wouldn't consider that outside the realm of possibility. As for copying from the page, I am fully aware of that, and thought about removing the text, but it is such a small part of the page, I would say it falls within existing rules, especially since WP:NOATT will apply in the event that the page is deleted, helping anyone who is implementing the results of this AfD. Additionally, my addition of that text was implied to be about Legendary salamander in popular culture page, which is why I didn't directly mention it. Historyday01 ( talk) 12:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply
      Sourcing individual items won't address the lack of sources that tie the topic together. If the article is deleted, the attribution for your comment cannot be repaired, per WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material (shortcut WP:RUD). Flatscan ( talk) 04:29, 11 May 2022 (UTC) reply
      I can agree that there is a lack of sources for the article, hence my vote for a merger, but I also see a value in keeping my comment the way it is for the time being. Historyday01 ( talk) 13:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC) reply
      • I am agreeing with the information that was just mentioned by @ Historyday01:. As I had mentioned, the merge from Salamander (legendary creature) was done without consensus. Plus, we have to list the mythical salamander somewhere in a way it is different from the actual salamanders. -- Rtkat3 ( talk) 17:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply
        Right, exactly. That's why I continue to support a redirect. In fact, if I had more time myself, I would be the type of person who would bring back the page and add sources. I'd venture that there are other users like myself that would do the same thing, granted that they have enough time on their hands. Historyday01 ( talk) 12:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    I have to agree with Historyday01 and believe that the Legendary salamander in popular culture page should be merged with the Salamanders in folklore page. 173.64.72.34 ( talk) 14:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

List of Women Vice Chancellors of Karnataka State Universities

List of Women Vice Chancellors of Karnataka State Universities (  | 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:LISTCRUFT, original research, and only sourced to online academic profiles and resumes. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ ( talk) 08:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was merge to Postage stamps and postal history of Western New Guinea. Sandstein 10:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC) reply

List of people on the postage stamps of Netherlands New Guinea

List of people on the postage stamps of Netherlands New Guinea (  | 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 small, finite list (country as such no longer exists) with no sources showing that this is a topic of direct interest (information extracted from a general stamp catalogue), and with little interest for the biographies of the persons involved (royalty shown on stamps of country they rule, yawn). Fram ( talk) 07:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

I collect stamps of South and Central America and some European countries (including the Netherlands). I use general and specialized catalogues as my sources for this hobby. These are paper editions which are sometimes hard to use to organize a collection (small print, missing pictures, minor errors, etc.). I found the Wikipedia “Lists of people on postage stamps” to be very useful. It provided both reference data and education about people honored on stamps.

I found that many of the lists were either missing or incomplete. I decided to try to update those in my areas of interest. I looked at the format of each page using the overall guidance used in the top level page: Intro, table of contents, list of names, and sources. I did a first round of updates to the Latin American countries in 2013 and a second round this winter. I tried to update the notability aspect of each person listed show why they were portrayed on a stamp. I particularly wanted to ensure that the sources were fully listed. I also chose to update the entries for some of the European countries. When I came to the stamps of the Netherlands and associated entities, I saw that there no pages provided for Netherlands Antillies, Netherlands Indies nor Netherlands New Guinea. The link colour was red. I wanted to provide completeness in the main list so, using the standard model, I created the pages for the 3 entities and published them.

User Fram noted in a post on 12 April 2022 that the list for Netherlands New Guinea is only 2 items long and only lists the king and queen of the Netherlands. I responded that I agreed that the list was short. However stamps were only issued for this entity from 1950 to 1962 with only those 2 people featured (see Talk page for details). Each entry in the list points to a detailed bio of the person and there is a source listing. Netherlands New Guinea became part of Indonesia in 1962. The page was marked for deletion and I manually removed the markup text and stated why on the talk page.

I do not know if there is a prescribed Wikipedia definition for the length of a list to make it valid for inclusion. To me, a list is as long as it needs to be!!

There is precedent for short lists. See Abkazia (3 entries), Central Lithuania (5 entries), French Congo (0 entries), Portugese Africa (0 entries) and possibly others. As far as I can tell, there were no objections to these short lists.

There is also a precedent for combined short lists. These generally group together colonies of other countries ex. Belgian Congo is combined with Democratic Republic of the Congo and Zaire.

I want the data on the page to remain in Wikipedia. I would therefore propose to combine Netherlands Indies and New Guinea into a single page with the appropriate #REDIRECT code in the other. They were both governed by the Netherlands. Both became part of Indonesia. As stated in the previous paragraph, this appears to be acceptable for many other related countries.

I apologize if I do not know the correct markup code to indicate my preference to have the page data stay available. Bill Blampied ( talk) 20:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply

No one disputes that the persons are notable, the problem is that the combined topic of people on NNG stamps isn't notable. And I'm sorry to say that many of the other similar lists aren't notable either (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) and should be deleted as well. I'll perhaps make some group nomination for all the problematic ones, like List of people on the postage stamps of Bushire. Fram ( talk) 07:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge This first page on this topic (List of people on postage stamps (LPPS)) was created in 2002, one year after the start of Wikipedia. I have to believe that the issue of notability of these types of articles has been discussed and resolved more than once in the past 20 years. I say this because the whole LPPS page tree is still part of Wikipedia and available for updates. With regard to the reference to Bushire above, a comparable list article would show 2 people being portrayed on their stamps. It has just happened that one editor created the link but no-one has created the article itself. Creation would re-raise this discussion. With regard to adding the data to the postal history page, those articles do not have lists but provide the history of the postal service in a country or territory. A few significant people are listed but not every person pictured on a stamp is listed. As I stated above, I feel that merging NNG with Netherlands Indies is an appropriate action. Bill Blampied ( talk) 11:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Correction: Bushire does have both a link from the main page and the short article with 2 items in its list. Note also that Bushire had the same discussion as NNG in 2009; the article remained. Bill Blampied ( talk) 14:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Information and navigational list. Completes a set. Category:Lists of people on postage stamps Can merge shorter list together perhaps, all small island nations. Dream Focus 10:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Except that it doesn't provide good information ("Note that many of these people have been featured on multiple stamps": many of these two people, that is?), nor navigation. It doesn't "complete" any set, it is part of a category with presumably some useful or acceptable articles, many very poor ones (unsourced or WP:OR, incomplete, ...), and many missing ones. Merging tragically bad information doesn't magically turn it into better information. Finally, you shouldn't have copy-pasted your keep argument from the similar Mauritius list AfD, it gives the impression that you haven't properly looked at the article. "small island nations", LOL. Mauritius is only 2000 km², Netherlands New Guinea is half an island and is about 400,000 km²: the complete island is the second largest island in the world after Greenland. Apart from that, very good arguments! Fram ( talk) 10:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply
      • I was thinking small nation as in population not physical size. If they had a larger population surely they'd have more stamps and more people on them. Dream Focus 10:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply
        • Not really, no. The subject of the list here was a relatively short-lived and poor country, which is the main reason for the lack of stamps (well, and the time: this was prior to the main boom of stamps-as-source-of-income for many small countries). Nothing to do with being a small island nation (no idea where the concept comes from to group these by "island" nations, what has being an island or not to do with the subject of the list? Nothing at all surely.) Fram ( talk) 10:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Lacks sources establishing that WP:NLIST is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. Some contents are a welcome addition to the short Postage stamps and postal history of Western New Guinea. As an ultra-brief and finite list, it should not exist as a standalone article. gidonb ( talk) 13:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –  Joe ( talk) 12:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Will and testament of clerics

Will and testament of clerics (  | 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 topic of the WP article is only mentioned at the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, therefore the topic is clearly not WP:NOTABLE enough to deserve a Wikipedia article. WP is not here to duplicate each entry of each encyclopedia ever produced.
I recommend deletion. Veverve ( talk) 12:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Veverve ( talk) 12:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve ( talk) 12:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nominator—only found Catholic Encyclopedia, nothing else on Google. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 15:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- This seems to be about what should happen to the property of Catholic clerics, some of whom will have taken a vow of poverty. It is unlikely to apply to denominations where the clergy marry and will be as free to bequeath their property as any one else. Essentially it is a non-subject. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:13, 12 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Could at best be a few lines in an article about clerics, but I don't see it as being useful. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Clearly, through the lens of only one branch of Christianity is not how Wikipedia views the world. Addressed as Wikipedia would, this would have to be very different. The subjects of last wills and testaments and the legal history of wills are very different without viewing through this restricted peephole. Uncle G ( talk) 20:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and expand An substantial article could be written. In England (& I would assume elsewhere) the argument about whether clerics could pass personal property onto their relatives was an active subject during the medieval period. That the CE does give any emphasis to this topic doesnt mean there is no material to be found.That nothing on this is to be found in Google , of all unlikely places, does not constitute a BEFORE search in this field. I was reading about it last week, but if I don't remember where, I will keep it in mind for when I encounter it again. DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Clearly a notable concept within Canon law (if this topic is only controversial in relation to Catholic clergy, rename accordingly, but don't delete). Without being in any way a canon law specialist, a quick search reveals secondary discussion in James A. Coriden, John P. Beal, Thomas J. Green (eds), New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law (2000). And there's a ton of articles from lay history about clergy wills as a topic of study. Added to this what DGG said. Atchom ( talk) 17:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per the secondary coverage in reliable sources identified above, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 16:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • (changed vote) Rename to Will and testament of Catholic clerics -- This is an issue of Catholic canon law. I do not think this applies to Anglicans or free churches. If it applies to Orthodox or other Protestant denominations, an alternative might be appropriate. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. The article (which is only three sentences long) claims that "The will and testament of clerics is a controversial issue for a number of Christian denominations. Many churches have rules on the way in which property that is owned by a cleric can be distributed on death ..." yet the only church for which anything is cited is the Catholic Church (and the cited source doesn't say that wills and testaments of clerics is a "controversial" issue in the Catholic Church). -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There's actually coverage of this in a number of sources that spans several Christian denominations. The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia is a reliable source for its application to Catholic denominations, while studies also exist on English reformation wills of clerics. In addition, the last wills and testaments of clerics have been studied as a concrete set of historical sources that are incredibly important in understanding the English reformation and how medieval Anglican clerics viewed the nature of their status and their relationship with their wives. While the article is currently poorly written, the topic certainly passes WP:GNG owing to multiple independent reliable sources describing it. The study of the last wills and testaments of clerics itself is quite significant, so I don't really see any merit to the arguments that this was only covered in a single encyclopedia that's now in the public domain. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 17:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 12:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This relisting is not intended to be an administrative decision, as I have already made my own recommendation in this AfD. It's just that this AfD has apparently been abandoned without being closed after four weeks since the last relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect to Harry Turtledove bibliography. ✗ plicit 11:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Election Day (short story)

Election Day (short story) (  | 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)

Couldn't find much evidence of critical review or analysis; sources in the article aren't much help, either. Not seeing a WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK pass. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/ they) 06:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect. As the user who created the article for Election Day, I do not want to see this article deleted. However, if no notable sources can be found, I think that the article should simply be redirected to the Harry Turtledove bibliography article and not deleted entirely. -- JCC the Alternate Historian ( talk) 22:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 20:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Amir Sam

Amir Sam (  | 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 article was created by user Ljvdp shortly before he was indefinitely blocked for harassment. There are no reliable sources to justify the subject's notability or the article's content, and it is riddled with spelling and grammatical errors. For these reasons, I believe that a WP:A7 speedy deletion is justified. Cpotisch ( talk) 20:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Medicine. Izno ( talk) 05:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    • This was an incomplete nomination. I have completed it and listed it at AFD since approximately 05:54, 2 May 2022. I have no opinion on the topic. -- Izno ( talk) 05:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete First off, well done to this chap for making it head of a top-5 med school in the world, at such a relatively young age. That being said, the sources cited don't meet GNG, and as for NACADEMIC notability, I don't think his ICSM headship is enough to satisfy #6, or the FRCP to satisfy #3, and I don't see anything else there. (Happy to be proven wrong on either count, of course.) As a side note, this still stinks of promo, and IMO those Amazon links should be removed (unless we're now earning affiliate royalties!), and I'm not happy about the likely COI/UPE either, but none of those are the reasons for my !vote. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 08:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Wow, I only just noticed that those were Amazon links, so I removed them. I truly think that that settles the fact that this is purely promotional. Is there anything we can do to expedite the deletion process? Cpotisch ( talk) 17:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Almost appears as a vanity post. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Iran and United Kingdom. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Would appear to satisfy WP:NACADEMIC #5. Imperial College School of Medicine is a highly notable institution. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Director of a medical school is not equivalent to a "named chair" or "distinguished professorship" (he is not even a professor), so no he does not meet #5. JoelleJay ( talk) 02:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Apologies. I meant #6. "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society." Which he indisputably has. Although it may appear to come under Imperial College, London medical schools have always operated as effectively independent academic institutions. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 09:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    In this case he'd be under the Dean of the Imperial College Faculty of Medicine, though. He's not the highest-level post. - MrOllie ( talk) 12:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    The president of Imperial College would be the highest administrative position, #6 doesn't apply to the directors of individual schools even if they operate largely independently. JoelleJay ( talk) 21:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC, nor are sources really there to meet WP:GNG. - MrOllie ( talk) 12:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG. FRCP rank does not qualify for #3 of WP:ACADEMIC, it's a relatively common rank held by many UK physicians. Head of the ICSM is not an academic but an administrative distinction, and as ICSM is not independent, he is under Imperial's Dean of Medicine. In short: does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. Ari T. Benchaim ( talk) 22:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Per above discussion. JoelleJay ( talk) 02:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 07:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Stibbe (disambiguation)

Stibbe (disambiguation) (  | 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 good disambiguation page per WP:TWODABS. Stibb is not spelled as "Stibbe". GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 05:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was withdrawn. ✗ plicit 07:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Norway women's national under-18 volleyball team

Norway women's national under-18 volleyball team (  | 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 article lists a team and has "No Volleyball Event", "Didn't qualify", and "No Appearances" in the infobox. If there is no activity by this team, then there cannot be notability for this team. Article fails notability for sports, WP:NSPORT. References go to lists and stats pages. Still fails WP:NSPORT. Whiteguru ( talk) 05:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sports, and Norway. Whiteguru ( talk) 05:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Hi, Whiteguru, A team without international appearances doesn't mean that team is not active, I 've added their activities if you can see in the page table below, since their only participate in European Qualifications Event. Thanks Elly mino ( talk) 10:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Withdraw nomination; the article has been improved enough to address the initial concerns -- Whiteguru ( talk) 20:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. S9m3 c9nfusion regarding the recent change in guidelines but nothing mentioned that indicates a level of coverage received that would potentially satisfy GNG. Will happily restore if some9ne feels they can show GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 22:07, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Keighley Central F.C.

Keighley Central F.C. (  | 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)

Non-notable club now that the rules are changing: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability. Their "league winning" does not seem to have translated into sources. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 03:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 03:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England. North America 1000 06:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'm not seeing, User:Walter Görlitz any mention in that RFC you referenced about changing "rules" for sports team (though that RFC is over 115,000 words long, so I surely missed something). The part of NSPORTS that deals with the notability of teams is WP:NTEAMS, and it has not changed at all, this decade. Can you clarify the rule change? Nfitz ( talk) 06:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Consensus was reached on Subproposal 3 (NSPORT): Remove all simple or mere "participation" criteria in NSPORT, outside of ones related to Olympics and equivalent events. This would eliminate several sections on specific sports where this is the only type of criteria give (such as for NGRIDIRON), while merit-based ones, like several in NTRACK, would be left. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 15:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • That's for athletes. the notability of teams were not addressed in the old NSPORTS or NFOOTBALL. Keighley is a team (named after a place), not a person. Nfitz ( talk) 21:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • It is my understanding that all sports notability should be revisited. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 21:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I don't think so - but the entire thing is an unmitigated crapshow. Either way, I'm not seeing that this article particularly meets any discussed standard - and is for the 3rd Division of the Yorkshire League - which seems far less notable than even the 2nd Division. Nfitz ( talk) 21:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    Yeah the only change was to athletes. Giant Snowman 19:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 07:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

James R. Kern III

AfDs for this article:
James R. Kern III (  | 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)

Non-notable local politician who fails WP:GNG. Any mentions of him are simply passing or are hyper-local in scope. Curbon7 ( talk) 04:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. Files are not eligible for deletion at AFD. ✗ plicit 07:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Forward (Hoobastank album)

Forward (Hoobastank album) (  | 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 first two self-produced albums by Hoobastank were never released and they did not chart. Very little has been written about them except in passing, noting that some of the songs were reworked for later albums. Both of these albums fail WP:NALBUM. Binksternet ( talk) 03:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

For the same reason I am also nominating for deletion the first unreleased Hoobastank album. Binksternet ( talk) 03:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

They Sure Don't Make Basketball Shorts Like They Used To (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am also nominating the albums The Greatest Hits: Don't Touch My Moustache and Is This the Day? for deletion as a non-notable compilation albums, along with redirects and images related to all of these articles. Binksternet ( talk) 15:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply

The Greatest Hits: Don't Touch My Moustache (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Greatest Hits Don't Touch My Moustache (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is This the Day? (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
File:They Sure Don't Make Basketball Shorts Like They Used To by Hoobastank.jpg ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:The Greatest Hits Don't Touch My Moustache.jpg ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Forward by Hoobastank.jpg ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Is This the Day.jpg ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –  Joe ( talk) 12:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Evan Owen Allen

Evan Owen Allen (  | 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 subject of this article is, for lack of a better expression, "just some guy". He was a journalist with nothing about him that fits Wikipedia's notability standards for a biography. -- NotCharizard 🗨 02:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, and Wales. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, while the Welsh wiki does have a little more information on him, it still does not seem to satisfy notability criteria, being mostly trivia related prose. It seems the "Allen" part may have not been part of his actual name, but searching "Evan Owen" is also too vague to easily get precise results. Neither article suggests this person gained sufficient notability and while I'd lean delete, I can't rule out some sources cropping up to refute that. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 09:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep. He has an article in his country's national biographical dictionary, which meets WP:ANYBIO, so "nothing about him that fits Wikipedia's notability standards for a biography" is not quite exact, to say the least. Atchom ( talk) 00:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:ANYBIO. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Sources from this time period are harder to come by, but his inclusion in the book Eminent Welshmen and the Dictionary of Welsh Biography is sufficient evidence of notability.-- Mojo Hand ( talk) 23:23, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –  Joe ( talk) 12:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Cadwgan Ffol

Cadwgan Ffol (  | 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)

Effectively all this article (and any sources I can find online) say about this person is that they existed. Ergo, they do not meet the general notability guideline or the biographical notability guideline. -- NotCharizard 🗨 02:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, United Kingdom, and Wales. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Actually, I'm not sure we can say he existed. According to the Welsh DNB entry, we have his name attached to one (non notable) poem in one manuscript - the two other surviving versions of this poem are attributed to 1) someone else and 2) no one. This appears to be one of those cases where having an entry in the relevant national biographical dictionary does not, in fact, indicate a WP:GNG pass. -- asilvering ( talk) 04:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This may or may not be the name of a person who wrote one poem that survives. He may have written more works, but we have no evidence of that, and even the one poem is not clear. I do not think this is enough to justify an article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep per WP:ANYBIO. Our guidelines say that anyone included in a dictionary of national biography is notable. Even though little is known of him, he's earned inclusion in three biographical dictionaries: the 1959 Dictionary of Welsh Biography, the 1852 Biographical Dictionary of Eminent Welshmen, and apparently another 1901 Dictionary of Welsh Biography. Weak, because there is so little to write of him, but the compilers of the dictionaries must have believed he was noteworthy. pburka ( talk) 18:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Pburka WP:ANYBIO says people are likely to be notable if they meet those standards, not that such a person should be included in the encyclopedia every time in all cases if they do. This is all the information we are likely to ever have on this person, now or in the future. Those earlier projects were written with a degree of optimism: they were hoping, like we do, that more sources will turn up. That was over 100 years ago, and they haven't. (It's worth noting we don't actually have any clear information that he existed at all; what we have is that one person wrote this name down next to a poem once - and two other people did not write that same name down next to that poem when they copied it.) I'm trying to clarify the context here, not to argue against your vote on this basis (he indisputably does meet WP:ANYBIO), since basically what we have is the philosophical question of: does Wikipedia contain articles about people who may never have existed, about whom all anyone is ever likely to know makes up less than a paragraph, if that person has been "noticed" by the editors of a DNB? -- asilvering ( talk) 19:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    I agree that we'll never have more to write of him, but I don't think that's really important. We know almost nothing of Aristodama, either, but we do know that she was greatly esteemed, and permastubs aren't harmful. The major difference between Aristodama and Cadwgan Ffol is that the former was recognized by her contemporaries, whereas Cadwgan was only recognized much later, by people who knew no more of him than do we (thus my weak conviction). However, for me, the guiding principal is that Wikipedia delegates notability decisions to independent experts (who publish in reliable sources or award major honors or prizes). If these experts have deemed the poet worthy of entries in three DNBs, I'm inclined to defer to them. pburka ( talk) 20:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    The problem with that argument is that people who may never have existed can still be notable, as User:Pburka put so well. Atchom ( talk) 00:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, per WP:ANYBIO or indeed WP:BASIC, and what the last voter said. We have tons of articles on ancient writers of dubious existence and other assorted (possibly) fictional personages. Whether they existed or not is not the question; the question is whether they are covered adequately by secondary literature. They are here, and so case closed. Atchom ( talk) 00:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    For examples, see Category:People whose existence is disputed. pburka ( talk) 19:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:ANYBIO. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 03:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Jacob Kohr

Jacob Kohr (  | 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)

non-notable actor who played a minor roll in Nashville, not even the character themselves, just a younger version of said character in a single episode and afaict, hasn't appeared in anything else. PRAXIDICAE💕 01:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete does not meet WP:NACTOR with only one minor role. Would probably qualify for A7 too. >>>  Ingenuity. talk(); 02:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 02:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Bhumika Sharma

Bhumika Sharma (  | 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 meeting WP:GNG policy. Only small mentions. Laptopinmyhands ( talk) 01:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete: Most of the refs are "name-only" mentions on blogs that someone wore one of her pieces of clothing. David notMD ( talk) 03:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete- could be a promotional attempt, as cursory search on Google doesn't bring anything which can point out that this fulfills WP:N and it doesn't meet WP:GNG. RS6784 ( talk) 07:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and India. Shellwood ( talk) 07:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - insufficient evidence to demonstrate this subject meets notability guidelines. Such-change47 ( talk) 00:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, page was hijacked at one point it appears. It used to be about an Indian body builder, but as this dif shows it was entirely changed by a now banned user. That user was banned for using multiple accounts, but that account only had edits on this page. Either way, I'd vote to delete both the old and newer version, just something I thought worth noting. Hey man im josh ( talk) 14:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ a b Langford, David (1997). "Elementals". In Grant, John; Clute, John (eds.). The Encyclopedia of Fantasy. London: Orbit/ Little, Brown and Company. pp. 313–314. ISBN  978-1-85723-368-1.
  2. ^ Williams, Skip; Tweet, Jonathan; Cook, Monte (2003). Monster Manual: Core Rulebook III v.3.5. Renton: Wizards of the Coast. pp. 218–219. ISBN  978-0-7869-2893-4. ( d20 open content)
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_May_2&oldid=1087358232"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 01 May 03 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Greenwell Matongo Community Library

Greenwell Matongo Community Library (  | 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. No significant coverage. Just a run of the mill local library. LibStar ( talk) 23:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Daniel Kehr

Daniel Kehr (  | 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, WP:SPORTCRIT #5, and violates the general criteria of WP:NOTDATABASE. BilledMammal ( talk) 00:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom, redirect not needed. Not notable. LizardJr8 ( talk) 06:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. In addition to the beforementioned lack of sources, I did a newspapers.com search and found no WP:SIGCOV. Jacona ( talk) 13:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Samuel Roche

Samuel Roche (  | 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, WP:SPORTCRIT #5, and violates the general criteria of WP:NOTDATABASE. All we know about him is his name, his nationality, and that he competed in the 1900 Olympics. BilledMammal ( talk) 23:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom, redirect not needed. Not notable. LizardJr8 ( talk) 06:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I couldn't find anything worthwhile, including a newspapers.com search Jacona ( talk) 13:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 04:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC) reply

BerriBlue

AfDs for this article:
BerriBlue (  | 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 article was deleted three months ago and recreated by the same COI editor (see the first AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BerriBlue). While I fully support notable women artists for inclusion in the encyclopedia, it is still WP:TOOSOON for this artist, as there has not been significant improvement to the article, or to her career accomplishments since it was deleted. She does not meet WP:NARTIST and I'm still not convinced that the sourcing meets our general notability criteria. She has had a few shows but that's what artists do WP:MILL, however none have been at notable venues, there are no museum collections, no significant exhibitions, etc.). In good faith, I'm bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone ( talk) 23:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - I'll try to address this to Netherzone's comments above as well as some of the previous reasons for deletion in the first version (though this version is significantly different). I am kind of annoyed to be back here because after the last deletion, I was very careful and took my time to redo the article before submitting.
If there are any suggested changes to make, I'm happy to make further edits.
Extended commentary
Deleted and then recreated by COI author
  • The original COI was due to it being my only article (I only had another draft), and then because my name is similar to the subject's husband's name, and tbh I didn't want to get into all that. I will say that Will is a very common name. Go figure.
  • In the course of trying to find better sources during the last deletion discussion, I directly contacted the artist by email. I was informed that this was a COI in itself. Annoying, but fair enough so I declared it clearly in the talk page, as recommended.
  • When re-writing the article, I tried to be extremely careful with he impartiality of the article's tone, to counter the potential for COI.
  • I removed all references relating to the subject's fashion design as that could be considered promotion of an existing small business and so would be spam / promotional.
  • Most importantly, I've been advised that it's not deletable just to have a COI, that's why we have the protocol for declaring it.


WP:Artist
This article is about a street artist, not a gallery artist.
  • The criteria of having work in museums and international exhibitions etc etc don't really apply to a street artist. Their work tends to be temporary, unofficial, illegal, and does not often end up in museums.
  • Moreover, street artists have a particular local cultural significance. Their work is part of the public-domain culture of a city and can't be measured simply by commercial success.
  • This touches on WP:MILL also, since yes - having a few exhibitions is run of the mill, but a street artist working in azulejos and very large murals in the city centres of major cities (In this case Lisbon and Porto) has an impact that goes beyond a mid level gallery artist.
  • This also pertains to the issue of significant awards - street artists don't tend to get these.


Citations
There are plenty of references, but I tried to go for quality over quantity.
  • The most important references to look at, I think, are the inclusion in a book on Irish street artists, and the mention in an academic book on the Irish abortion rights campaign.
  • The reason I point to that reference in particular is that it is notable to an academic work which is not about art or street art, implying cultural significance.
  • Among the other references, there are national newspapers - Jornal de Noticias & Publico - and a feature on a very large regional TV station - Porto Canal.


Notability
Again, I tried to go with good, reputable sources. It was a bit of a struggle to express the significance over here locally.
  • In Porto, Portugal's second city, this artist's work is a very common familiar sight and part of the cultural fabric of the city. for example, she was an answer on Who Wants to be a Millionaire a while back (I'll try to dig that up)
  • I included the exhibition in DESA as one of the main sources - for those not in the know, DESA is not a small auction house. It's the biggest and most prestigious Polish auction house. Being included in the street art exhibition and auction I would consider fairly notable.
  • For some nice examples of some absurd obscure things that are considered fine, I recommend checking Depths of Wikipedia.


Why do I care?
I thought I'd address this since I've added a novel here, and it came up during the last discussion. Some people seemed to think that my getting annoyed or putting up a defence of the article constituted proof of treachery and deep COI, etc etc.
  • In actual fact I'm really annoyed because I spent a lot of time carefully rewriting this article in as impartial a manner as possible, with the best citations I could find.
  • It was then accepted, with the caveat that it's borderline, but would be suited to growth and incubation in the main space.
  • I'm also really annoyed over the whole idea of street artists being held to standards that simply don't apply. I'm really interested in street art, and I'd like to write more articles about similar artists.


Finishing off my massive rant
  • @ Netherzone: I'll try not to take it personally. I get that you have a different point of view. I would suggest that recommendations for improvement are a more suitable action than another deletion nomination.
  • I'd like to ask some of the other editors, who were quite supportive before, to weigh in if they have the time? I'd really appreciate it. Wil57 ( talk) 19:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the heads up. Going to decline to participate for the reasons above, mainly a lack of time/interest in the subject to research an informed !vote. Happy with wherever the community lands on this Star Mississippi 01:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment to Wil57 - you forgot to ping other members of the community who contributed to the first AfD: @ Vexations:, @ JakubDeWisniewski:, @ WomenArtistUpdates:, @ Scopecreep:, @ Onel5969:, @ Spleodrach: - important otherwise it might be perceived as not neutral as only the K**p !voters were pinged see WP:CANVAS. Please understand nothing here is personal, including AfDs; we go by guidelines that were created through community consensus. I totally get it that it can be frustrating when "our" work is deleted or changed, we have all experienced that in some way, shape or form. I'm very sorry for your frustration. Netherzone ( talk) 20:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Netherzone:, Fair enough - I did only ping those who agreed with me. Just read the deletion guidelines and it is very clear so sorry about that.
    Since we're getting the old gang back together, there are a couple of things I'd like to mention:
    • I'm not getting into a debate on my identity - I found that really aggravating to put it mildly. I've disclosed COI (because of being in contact through email, which gave me one new citation) so let's leave it at that please.
    • I think the argument about this belonging on the Polish or Portuguese wiki, not the EN one is really moot and quite offensive. I live in Portugal but I'm British; the subject of the article is Polish/Irish/living in Portugal for a long time. Let's be cosmopolitan about this.
    • I have a full time job, so won't have time to respond extensively like this every time, so please don't make any snap decisions. I think there's a conversation worth having here, and the last discussion ended fairly suddenly, without giving me time to respond to some fairly outright accusations. Wil57 ( talk) 21:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Wil57 thank you for clarification, of course you do not have to identify yourself. As to the COI how about we put that to rest? AfD is a process in which the community weighs in on notability in relation to the established wikipedia guidelines and policies. I did not say anything about other Wikipedias such as Poland or Portugal, that was another editor in the first AfD. Just so you know where I'm coming from, I too have a full time job as do most of us volunteers; I work on a lot of articles here on women artists. AfDs generally last 7 days, and are closed by an uninvolved administrator who evaluates the !votes (not a vote) based on policy. It is not my decision to make whether or not the article is kept, it's the community's decision. BTW, Street artists do have museum shows, projects, and get collected/commissioned by museums, and WP has many articles on them. But in this case I do think it is still TOOSOON. The community of editors here may or may not agree with that - that's how consensus works here. The process unfolds naturally on its own. There are some links at the top of this page that will give you more info on how AfD works. My suggestion is to read those, continue to try to improve the article if more verifiable secondary sources can be found (tho I do understand from your note that you are busy.) Netherzone ( talk) 23:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and SALT this time, no notability at all. Spleodrach ( talk) 00:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    How is there no notability?
    Again, work appearing in books, mentioned in academic texts, multiple articles in national newspapers, participation in exhibitions & auction internationally Wil57 ( talk) 09:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I have nothing to add other than my original comments as of the AfC acceptance, which is that I saw 3-4 sources in the citations which were primarily about her. I generally do not !vote in discussion to do with my AfC reviews, since I consider myself to have said my piece, but Wil57, I'm sorry you're being jerked back and forth like this. Rusalkii ( talk) 00:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I've gone digging and added a couple more citations - articles in national newspaper and magazine - plus fixed one broken link in an earlier citaiton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wil57 ( talk • contribs) 10:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    regardless of your hesitation to disclose COI, you noted on the Talk that you would not edit it directly. Please use edit requests as you are connected per your own note above. If you don't, you risk being blocked from the article Star Mississippi 13:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete BerriBlue's bio after 3 months comes back again..Did any ground breaking changes occured to her career in this short period? NO. There is no point improving the article, when the subject is not notable. As I said before, Desa Auction is nothing prestigious, an event without curatorial overview. After three months the bio is still TOO SOON, and we cannot make an expection for her lack of signigicant exhibition history /scholarly articles /collections/ awards. They do exist in the realm of street art, and she has not received such an honors so far. Please come back again, if/ when it happens.-- JakubDeWisniewski ( talk) 12:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I've received the ping, but I have an aversion to the subject's work that prevents me from rendering an objective assessment of the quality of the sourcing and the notability of the subject. 14:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment@ JakubDeWisniewski:The changes were made to the article, rather than the subject. The first article was poorly referenced, the images weren't uploaded correctly (no permissions).
The changes over the past 3 months were me starting again and trying to create a much more impartial, better cited article, which I cautiously submitted, asking for plenty of advice along the way. It was then accepted, and a couple of weeks later I have the same arguments coming back again. If it was accepted after all the changes I made, it should stay.
@ Star Mississippi: You're right about the edit requests - apologies. I hope you guys can understand my adding a couple more citations since that's one of the things people are mentioning is missing (again) and I'm really frustrated about all this (again)
Basically, if this one still can't be accepted then my other article ( Hazul and ones I hoped to write (about street artists I'm interested in from my city and beyond) are all unacceptable, and I may as well just quit. The first deletion process was obviously frustrating, but also informative and I thought it helped me to be a better contributor. This one just feels personal.
Again - many mentions and dedicated articles in national news sources & magazines, working in an unusual medium, appearances on TV, work widely recognised in Lisboa and Porto, included in anthology off main Irish street artists, cultural impact of work mentioned in academic text.
Do what you want, I'm out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wil57 ( talk • contribs) 17:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
I understand you're frustrated, but you have some basic misconceptions about how Wikipedia works including If it was accepted after all the changes I made, it should stay. One editor's opinion does not negate/overrule others, which is why @ Netherzone brought it here for discussion. This is also a challenge when you're connected to the subject. You have a more vested interest than I do in say Bonnie Milligan, taking my most recent article. If someone feels she isn't notable, I would disagree and might vote as such depending on the nom, but it's not "frustrating" because it's not personal. Star Mississippi 17:53, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment No, Will57. It was not "accepted" in this sense. Most of the editors agreed that your subject is failing notability.(per first AFD) then you made cosmetic changes, promptly resubmitted, but her notability is still lackimg. Yes, someone accepted your AFC submission, but this doesn't represent consesus of the wikipedians. What we have is a COI editor trying to convince us (again) that his subject is "notable" in his opinion..yet there is no evidence whowing significant exhibitions, collections, residencies, awards to show::*@ Netherzone: JakubDeWisniewski ( talk) 18:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:NARTIST. Reiterating my vote from February. The subject has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 18:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The author has declared their COI, yet continues to edit this one article. No attempt has been made by the author to understand the guidelines of Wikipedia. The photo of the subject is nominated for deletion and the other photos of artwork has the author of the article claiming the work as their own, which would mean the author is the painter and the photographer. The editor on one hand is passionate about keeping this particular article, yet maintains they don't have time to become part of the Wikipedia community. One article about one dead Portuguese artist would show some good faith that they are doing more than promoting one living artist's work. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 18:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Not a vote, since I'm not familiar with how WP:NARTIST gets applied in practice, but from just looking around at similar pages and topics, I'd rather see an article on Street art in Porto, Portugal (similar to Street art in Ponce, Puerto Rico or Street art in Sarajevo) than this article on an artist who seems to have, at best, arguable notability. The author says things in the discussion like "well, in Porto..." and wrote another page on a different street artist in Porto, Hazul, and so seems knowlegable about street art in Porto. I'd love to see that article, which would be informative, more than this one, that seems like it's trying create notability a little more than demonstrate it. Then there could be a discussion of Hazul and BerriBlu, along with relevant history and context of the area. The writer is frustrated that they spent a lot of time on this, but I would offer my encouragement that it doesn't have to be that hard. Try creating stubs of obviously notable people, that other people will then join in and edit with you. Wikipedia at its best, in my experience, is collaborative, not a place for me to show off my knowledge or research. And I've had pages deleted and edits undone, and it's not the end of the world. Just my two cents. Engelhardt ( talk) 16:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Excellent suggestions! Netherzone ( talk) 21:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Rare Americans

Rare Americans (  | 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 about a band, not reliably sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The only real notability claim being attempted here is of the "got X views on YouTube" variety, which is not part of our inclusion criteria for musical artists at all, and the article otherwise amounts to "they exist" -- but when it comes to the sourcing, two of the five footnotes are the band's own self-published marketing materials from their record label and their public relations agent (which are not support for notability), one is a user-generated platform (which is not support for notability), and two are purely local media coverage in their own hometown media market in purely local-interest contexts (the robbery of the bandleader's home studio and a piece of "local band releases song"), with no strong evidence of wider nationalizing coverage. And even on a Google search for other sources, I'm not finding anything particularly strong: just blogs, Q&A interviews in which the band members are talking about themselves in the first person, and glancing namechecks of their existence in coverage of other things or people, with nothing solid enough to turn the tide.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when they actually accomplish something that passes NMUSIC and garner the reliable source coverage to match, but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to be referenced better than this.
(Also worth noting that it was first created by an editor who's been cross-wiki blocked for sockpuppeteering and persistently violating copyright by copy-pasting content directly from primary sources, thus implying a strong possibility of paid WP:COI editing.) Bearcat ( talk) 21:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

International reactions to the 2020 United States presidential election

International reactions to the 2020 United States presidential election (  | 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 is a flagrant violation of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The vast majority (read: I tried to fix it by removing them, but that would essentially have left not much of the article, so here we are) of the "reactions" listed are nothing but trivial and insignificant, nigh-generic expressions of congratulations, which got mentioned in some newspaper or the other (or often didn't even go that far: far too much of this is based solely on tweets). I'm not sure whether this was originally split-out from the main election article (maybe in a hope to avoid the flagcruft listing this has devolved into), but the few mentions which are significantly out-of-the-ordinary or otherwise noteworthy should probably be covered there, in a proper prose section, instead of attempting to fix the indiscriminate-trivial-stuff problem by not fixing it but moving it to another page.

In short, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which is supposed to be a summary of the most important information about a topic, not a trivial collection of factoids like this. The page should probably be redirected, with maybe a very selective merge (this is not actually covered on the main article, although this is a very poor place to start from, so starting a short section there WP:TNT-style would be more appropriate) RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 19:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted to consider an appropriate redirect or merge target as suggested by the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete A concise prose summary of types of reactions may be appropariate, but there is no need to catalogue the routine tweets and announcements every country makes about every other countries' elections, even a major US one. Reywas92 Talk 02:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 ( talk) 17:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Christopher Burnham

AfDs for this article:
Christopher Burnham (  | 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 article contains no third-party sources and, as noted on the Talk page has already been flagged as an autobiography. Does this meet WP:notability? Does it belong in an encyclopedia? Volcom95 ( talk) 22:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and New York. Shellwood ( talk) 23:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. He was a state legislator which meets WP:POLITICIAN, and various other quite senior things. The concerns raised by OP have to do with content, not notability. Atchom ( talk) 00:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    There are only two third-party sources in this article -- Washington Post and Hartford Courant -- that indicate that the subject was a politician. Neither source provides any of the detail included in the infobox. The rest is pulled from the website of his investment firm. There is not enough Wikipedia:Reliable sources to support this article remaining on WP. Volcom95 ( talk) 01:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Why not improve the article instead? Details of US state legislators aren't that hard to find. Atchom ( talk) 02:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    You would think so, but without using material drawn from his investment firm's website, details are few and far between. Seems like it will be something of a tear-down to improve. Volcom95 ( talk) 14:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Atchom and WP:ARTN. Article content does not determine notability. In addition to his elected service in Connecticut, he has served at a high and presumably verifiable level at major national and international agencies. Sandy267 ( talk) 02:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep was a member of the Connecticut House of Representatives and the elected State Treasurer. Easy WP:NPOL pass. -- Enos733 ( talk) 04:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It passes WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. JoyStick101 ( talk) 06:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Angie Greenup

Angie Greenup (  | 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 notable. Only hosted one show and then disappeared. No sourcing found Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 18:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Riyanka Chanda

Riyanka Chanda (  | 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)

Though the subject has played many roles, but these roles are minor and aren't significant enough to pass WP:NBIO and fails WP:GNG too. ManaliJain ( talk) 16:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Pulp Secret

Pulp Secret (  | 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 about a video blog, not reliably sourced as passing our inclusion criteria for web content. The notability claim here is that it exists, which is not automatically enough in and of itself, and it is single-sourced to just one footnote from a not-ideal source (Tubefilter), which isn't enough coverage to singlehandedly get a topic over WP:GNG all by itself. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this from having to have a lot more than just one hit of coverage. Bearcat ( talk) 16:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete fails WEBCRIT, little to no third party coverage.- KH-1 ( talk) 06:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above and nomination. - eco talk to me 19:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 20:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Plantagenet Alliance

Plantagenet Alliance (  | 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 very small organization, the entire covereage for which was in sources dealing with the Exhumation and reburial of Richard III of England, to which they launched an unsuccessful court case to divert. They have no coverage, or as far as we know from the article, existence, separate from this historical episode and the group disappears from public view entirely after losing their court case over the burial. When a group is so inextricably linked to WP:ONEEVENT, and is adequately described there - we don't need a separate article reporting the individual genealogies of specific members, or that one of them is a night club owner, one a gardener and one runs a farm. This should be minimally merged to Exhumation and reburial of Richard III of England. Agricolae ( talk) 14:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Extensive and substantial coverage at the time - per sources included in the article. Don’t see the relevance that “the group disappears from public view” per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. WP:ONEEVENT doesn’t apply - which event? They ran a campaign in 2013 and 2014 that involved various activities including the court case Plantagenet Alliance v Secretary of state. Exhumation and reburial of Richard III of England has 2 paragraphs on the court case but nothing on the Alliance itself or the rest of its campaign, which would be WP:UNDUE for that article. There’s also more detail on the court case in this article which would be UNDUE in the Richard II article, which has general significance outside of the exhumation (eg the protective costs order, defining “legitimate expectations” etc As far as “the individual genealogies of specific members” is concerned - that’s an odd criticism. The whole point of the Alliance was that their claimed descent from the Plantagenets gave them a legal and moral rights. Btw, this was at DYK and no one raised the nominator’s points. DeCausa ( talk) 15:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
And that would be adequately described in the collective, as is also done in the article, without stating precisely how each member named fulfills this - we don't do this for other lineage societies, describe the individual pedigrees of the members. We just provide the qualifying criteria in general. Agricolae ( talk) 22:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge; although I take DeCausa's point that the story was big and well covered, there's no point in trying to tell the story in two places. Everything this group did was a result of Exhumation and reburial of Richard III of England, and a contemporary part of that story. That story is incomplete without this group, this group is utterly meaningless without that event; and anyone wishing to understand either, must read about both. So let's put both in one place. The only reason for spinning them out into a second article would be if they became too bulky a part of the main article, but I don't believe that needs to be the case. Elemimele ( talk) 16:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • At most merge -- This is a campaign group that sought to have Richard III's remains buried in Yorkshire (where he had at one stage lived) rather than in Leicester, where he had originally been buried. The group attempted but failed in its objective. That topic is covered in two paragraphs of Exhumation and reburial of Richard III of England. Leave was granted for a Judicial Review (a preliminary step, indicating that there was an arguable case), but the the Alliance lost its case and presumably became defunct. It is thus NN. I might have voted to delete, but would not oppose a merger that would slightly expand the two paragraphs. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Just a point of fact: it wasn’t just leave for judicial review that was heard, the judicial review itself took place. They did lose the case but the decision in Plantagenet Alliance v Secretary of State is authority for the parameters for the “duty to consult” in administrative law generally - nothing to do with the exhumation, with multiple citations in subsequent Public Law and Administrative Law texts. Unusually, and controversially, they were also granted a protective costs order ensuring that if they lost they would not pay the winner’s costs (the normal English law principle). That’s only granted if a point of law of “public interest” is at stake. (Here it was about the parameters of the duty to consult, not the exhumation that was of public interest). DeCausa ( talk) 19:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply
I stand corrected, but maintain my view that we do not need a separate article on a group whose existence was quite brief. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Except most of that detail that would bloat the main article is completely gratuitous. We don't carve off separate pages for every plaintiff and defendent in a noteworthy case just because detail on them has been given as part of the coverage of the case, let alone do so when the individual case is itself not independently notable and is only deemed to merit a short section in the story about the actual notable topic. Coverage of a court case may give a good bit of information about the judge, the plaintiffs, the jurors, the geographical context, but that is all just adding colour to the real story, and is not an indication of notability independent of that WP:ONEEVENT. Agricolae ( talk) 22:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC) reply
It’s gratuitous if the topic is the Exhumation. It’s not gratuitous if the topic is the Plantagenet Alliance. And given that the substantial coverage of who they are, their views etc is concerned, that topic passes GNG. Essentially you are attacking the principle of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. As already mentioned (a) there’s the PA activity outside of the court case and (b) the court case itself has (legal) significance outside of the exhumation and the PA’s campaign (This isn’t just the point of law on the duty to consult mentioned above, cited in multiple law books, but the the political criticism of the “misuse” of the Human Rights Act, which fits into a broader political criticism by the government). Both (a) and (b) are far more than “colour” to the so-called “real story”. DeCausa ( talk) 23:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Actually, there is a good bit that is gratuitous either way, like that a spokesman happens to be a Kansas City night club owner. And no, it is not "essentially attacking . . . WP:SUMMARYSTYLE" to argue that we shouldn't blow up a WP:MINORASPECT of a subject into a separate article bloated with excessively detail and trivia and then argue that has to have a separate article because it would bloat the main article, when appropraitely proportionate coverage would not. As to the rest of your argument, a) all of the PA activity relates to the Exhumation, which is the proposed target, so the fact that all of their exhumation-related activities do not relate to the case isn't relevant, and b) you personally considering the court case important because of how it represents broader aspects of British politics does not make the it notable by Wikipedia standards, which requires reliable sources making that observation, but even if it did, it wouldn't make the court case's plaintiff notable. Agricolae ( talk) 00:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The only (arguably) frivolous detail is in 2 or 3 sentences in the "Name and composition" section. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 04:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
It’s not me “personally” saying it’s legally notable. The case and the point of law it’s authority for is cited in multiple standard Public/Admin Law books (e.g search google books for "Plantagenet Alliance v Secretary of State”) two of which are also cited in the article. This is one example. The legal issue at stake, and the precedent set out by the High Court, is the parameters of the duty to consult, which is a broader issue than the exhumation. As far as the wider political significance of the case is concerned it was the Secretary of State for Justice, as reported in the media, that made the comment, not me. DeCausa ( talk) 09:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Again the latter would make the case notable, not the plaintiff. Agricolae ( talk) 17:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

The case is within scope of the article - you can’t distinguish notability in that way. (And don’t forget there was extensive coverage on the PA as an organisation/grouping separate from the case). We don’t have an article on the case to merge it into it. The only place to “merge” it into is the Exhumation article, which would be out of scope for that point. This is the nub of the issue. It isn’t just about that specific legal issue. If there were Plantagenet Alliance v Secretary of State then I wouldn’t object to merging it into that and the Exhumation article. As it is, there’s too much that would be either WP:UNDUE or out of scope for the Exhumation article and that’s not trivia (as you would like to portray it) that would be lost without this article. (You effectively recognize that when you say you want to merge it mnimimally) DeCausa ( talk) 18:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC) reply
For the sake of finding middle ground, would you be open to retasking the article - switching its primary focus and moving it to a namespace about the case? Agricolae ( talk) 22:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • keep Per DeCausa and Ficaia. Notability seems satisfied, but they do not seem to warrant coverage in depth on the main article on the topic. Boynamedsue ( talk) 08:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Stevie and Zoya

Stevie and Zoya (  | 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 series of shorts that aired very early in the history of MTV. Found only passing mentions; WP:NOTINHERITED in full force. Deprodded without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 20:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion, declined PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ( talk • contribs) 22:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete fails WP:GNG. Nothing in gnews, no significant coverage. LibStar ( talk) 23:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I did a newspaper archive search and came up with nothing, which is unusual for anything TV related; usually that brings up tons of garbage hits. This didn't even get those. Jacona ( talk) 13:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Zero GNews hits is always a very bad sign, especially for media topics. This article also included a major copyright violation that went unnoticed since shortly before the article's creation in 2007, until after the PROD went up. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 07:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Tom Brier

AfDs for this article:
Tom Brier (  | 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)

Third time nominated, still no evidence of notabillity. WP:BEFORE search only brought up questionable sources. I would also recomend salting. NW1223< Howl at me• My hunts> 21:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NW1223< Howl at me• My hunts> 21:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Shellwood ( talk) 22:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • DELETE and Salt Yet again. No new content, sources or reason for notability for inclusion. Why does this article keep being approved for main space? Enough already. Maineartists ( talk) 23:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and Salt - I wonder if the same person keeps re-creating the article. Mr. Brier seems to have gained some fans but he has no reliable and significant media notice. The description of his tragic accident almost looks like a dishonest attempt to add a little more material to his thin biography. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 13:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Tom Brier is a notable name in both the ragtime community and he is a highly respected composer. He is no doubt niche, hence the absence of his presence from media. He is comparable to James Scott or Joseph Lamb. The context of his tragedy is absolutely not an dishonest attempt to add material to his "thin" biography as has been suggested by DoomsDayer520— it is added because he is a composer who, by having his legs shattered in a tragic car accident, cannot compose. The extraordinary effort to remove him from Wikipedia is as intertwined with petty technical pedantics as it is with an ignorance of Brier's ragtime scholarship. GuardianH ( talk) 03:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The reason we are ignorant about Brier's ragtime scholarship is because none of us can find any independent sources in which it was discussed and analyzed for informed readers. If such sources exist, you are welcome to list them here. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 13:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and SALT Per Doomsdayer520's sentiments in the reply above. Not having the coverage by independent, reliable sources to establish that a subject passes notability guidelines is not really "pedantics". Best, GPL93 ( talk) 21:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Antigone (journal)

Antigone (journal) (  | 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)

At first sight, this is a well-sourced article on a new journal. However, it's unusual that a new journal would receive so much attention that it meets WP:GNG basically from before it even has published a first issue (several articles have been published now), so I had a closer look at the sources. This was revealing. A number of references are clearly not independent (journal's own website, press releases). The other sources are, at best, in-passing mentions, some do not even mention the journal (current reference #6 to The Times Diary). In sum, this does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NJournals and at best is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Hence: delete. Randykitty ( talk) 21:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

This online-only website runs articles (3 a week) rather than publishes issues, and may be better described as a magazine or educational website than an "(academic) journal". Perhaps it needs recategorizing?
Could you expand on what you mean by "before it even has published a first issue" and "several articles have been published now"? Won't there have been 100+ articles published before this Wiki page was created?
The article from the Times mentions the journal as follows: "The writer [Stephen Fry] twangs the cithara on behalf of antiquity in Antigone, a new online magazine that aims to dust down the Greeks and Romans and make them fresh."
A Google search gives other mentions than those on the page, such as
https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/wrong-but-romantic-blog-post-mary-beard/
https://www.thedailybeast.com/ukraine-island-is-where-achilles-supposedly-went-mad-and-wiped-out-the-amazons
https://www.dotyk.cz/magazin/poppaea-sabina-30000210.html
https://thewire.in/history/awakening-indo-european-philology-to-bring-us-words-from-the-ghosts
https://www.trinity.ox.ac.uk/news/imaginative-platonic-dialogue-partygate-wins-classics-writing-prize
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eMVcEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA61
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8B1YEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA172 Kuyaviana ( talk) 21:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There's a consensus on the notability of the subject. The article was meanwhile improved, new references added. Less Unless ( talk) 15:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Haji Naim Brahim

Haji Naim Brahim (  | 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 Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 18:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Brunei. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 18:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It does not fail WP:GNG, the person is twice an Asian Champion, twice South east Asian Games champion, which is pretty significant bearing in mind that he is a champion of an entire continent within his sport. He also competed in SIX Commonwealth Games and the THREE World Championships. (Furthermore it is a stub). The sources include the Commonwealth Games Federation profile and the Brunei Darussalam National Olympic Council. I cannot understand why the article has been proposed for deletion. Pipesmoking Legend ( talk) 11:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Pipesmoking Legend Of the three sources in the article, the first one is a database listing, the second one is a brief mention and the third one is both a brief mention and a primary source. None of these sources count as significant coverage which is the reason why the article is being proposed for deletion. Unless multiple significant sources can be found, the article should be deleted. Alvaldi ( talk) 15:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ( talk • contribs) 21:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

@ DownTownRich With all due respect, their reasoning for GNG, does not prove the article in fact does meet GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 19:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Sportsfan 1234 I will have to agree with you and @ Alvaldi on this one after looking at the sources and more research on the subject WP:GNG does not apply but rather WP:ATHLETE. The subject has participated in Asian Lawn Bowls Championship ( World Bowls) and Southeast Asian Games from 2007. I would suggest adding tags for article improvement instead of deleting the article and notifying WikiProject Brunei and WikiProject Southeast Asia contributors - DownTownRich ( talk) 19:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Pipesmoking Legend I would recommend adding more reliable sources to the subject article and not just leave it as stub, I noticed you did the same thing with your other subjects (ie Katie Nixon). - DownTownRich ( talk) 20:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 22:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Tuckerville

Tuckerville (  | 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)

Seems to fail WP:GNG. Passingly mentioned in a few articles on Tanya Tucker, but WP:NOTINHERITED is in play. Found several reprints of a less-than-paragraph long PR blurb that appeared in several newspapers and magazines. Country music focused sites like CMT, Country Standard Time, Roughstock, Country Universe give no mention of the show. I even dug out my old issues of Country Weekly and found nothing but ads and sidebars.

Deprodded because "hundreds of hits in Proquest", but deprodder has not proven this to those of us without Proquest accounts. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 21:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Television. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 21:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Everyone has access to Proquest through WP:The Wikipedia Library - which is why it's listed in WP:BEFORE. I've already told you this. Sure, if there's a single AFD, adding a source to the article, or at least listing it here is reasonable; but when someone is creating dozens of simultaneous AFDs (very few of which are looking like there's consensus for deletion), that's asking a bit much. I'm this close to making an ANI complaint about excessive prods and AFDs. There's barely any of the hundreds of articles you've talked that shouldn't, at a minimum, be redirects. Tuckerville, though, is easily one of the most notable shows you've tried to delete. Here's one. Nfitz ( talk) 21:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    I pointed out the extent of my WP:BEFORE, and considered it a red flag that not even publications explicitly about country music dedicated so much a single sentence to the work whatsoever. To me, that was as much of a red flag as no reputable sources even giving so much as a start or end date for Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields (one of the many AFDs I started where there does seem to be a consensus to either delete or redirect, by the way). You pointed out further content in a resource I didn't know I had access to. I'd still greatly prefer that the "keep, I found sources" crowd show the sources they find, but at the very least you've made me aware of the power of Proquest. Perhaps that's what @ Cunard: uses in their source-finding wizardry? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 21:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Even I remember hearing about this show at the time - and I don't particularly like the artist or the genre. I don't know how you checked these articles in country music magazine. Where's the archive - does it stretch back to 2006? Nfitz ( talk) 21:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    They're magazines within my personal collection. As far as I know they're not archived online. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 22:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to New Renaissance Pictures. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 00:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply

The Black Dawn

The Black Dawn (  | 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 about a web series, not properly sourced as passing our notability criteria for web content. The footnoting here is mainly to directly affiliated primary sources like YouTube and VisioWeb -- and the only third-party sourcing is TubeFilter, a non-ideal source that would be acceptable among a mix of more solid sourcing but isn't strong enough to singlehandedly vault this over WP:GNG all by itself if it's all this has. And this has been flagged for sourcing and tone problems since 2011 without ever seeing any significant improvement.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to be referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat ( talk) 20:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Poor Richard's Almanack (TV series)

Poor Richard's Almanack (TV series) (  | 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 about a dropped television pilot that never advanced to series, not demonstrating a strong case why it would pass the ten year test for enduring significance despite its failure to ever air. This series was dropped six full years ago, so there's no case to be made that it might still air in the future, and the sourcing is just standard casting and production announcements of the type that every pilot can always show whether it gets picked up to series or not. So this article just isn't demonstrating a reason why this failed pilot should be seen as a special case of greater notability than other failed pilots, which is the bar that it would have to clear to keep an article six years after its failure. Bearcat ( talk) 19:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

I Do (Cardi B song)

I Do (Cardi B song) (  | 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:NSONGS says that charting might indicate notability, but charting alone does not suffice. This song has not received extensive coverage, independent of sources covering the album. Some of the information (if not all) is already included on the parent album page. What isn't covered can be easily added. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 19:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 19:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. List in EW plus this extensive Pitchfork article reviewing the track (not currently cited in article) demonstrate a bit of notability. With other content from articles about the album this can probably make for a reasonably detailed article. I think it's worth keeping, it just needs some expansion. Heartfox ( talk) 07:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This article has enough references and the sources are reliable, and it passes WP:NSINGLE, WP:NALBUM. JoyStick101 ( talk) 08:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • You are aware that coverage has to be independent of the parent album? It has to receive coverage as a song in its own right not just a track on an album. The album page is complete and this information could/should be added there. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 08:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - meets GNG, I'm seeing more than one source that is not an album review. Rlendog ( talk) 13:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Meets WP:NSONG per above arguments. SBKSPP ( talk) 01:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Invasion of Privacy (album) as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 23:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

She Bad

She Bad (  | 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:NSONGS says that charting might indicate notability, but charting alone does not suffice. This song has not received extensive coverage, independent of sources covering the album. Some of the information (if not all) is already included on the parent album page. What isn't covered can be easily added. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 19:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect to Invasion of Privacy (album) as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 23:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Best Life (song)

Best Life (song) (  | 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:NSONGS says that charting might indicate notability, but charting alone does not suffice. This song has not received extensive coverage, independent of sources covering the album. Some of the information (if not all) is already included on the parent album page. What isn't covered can be easily added. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 19:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect to Invasion of Privacy (album) as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 23:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Get Up 10

Get Up 10 (  | 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:NSONGS says that charting might indicate notability, but charting alone does not suffice. This song has not received extensive coverage, independent of sources covering the album. Some of the information (if not all) is already included on the parent album page. What isn't covered can be easily added. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 19:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect to Highline College. Any content worth saving can be merged there from the history. –  Joe ( talk) 00:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Highline College Library

Highline College Library (  | 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 community college library lacks any significant coverage. I don't see any claim to notability within the article. MarchOfTheGreyhounds ( talk) 19:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Edit: Change redirect target per below. I still think a redirect may be useful, but we shouldn't cause a circular redirect as explained below. FozzieHey ( talk) 13:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge A redirect to Highline College#Library makes no sense as in that section of the article, there is only a redirect pointing to the article that is being considered for deletion. There is no other content so merge the content of this article to the Highline College#Library section. No point in having a circular redirect. Liz Read! Talk! 00:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    The reason I didn't suggest merge is Highline Library has a collection of over 145,000 print, media, and electronic resources. may be the only thing worth merging, although it's unsourced. The entire article is copypasta of an old version of the library's website. There's nothing encyclopedic to merge. Star Mississippi 03:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply

The Bully Police Squad

The Bully Police Squad (  | 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)

Non-notable per WP:ORG. SL93 ( talk) 18:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Illinois. SL93 ( talk) 18:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Lacks substantial independent coverage. It received a couple mentions in local Chicago media back in 2012, but not really anything significant, and WP:AUD applies anyways. - Apocheir ( talk) 03:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was snow keep Cranloa12n / talk / contribs / 17:48, 8 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Year 2038 problem

Year 2038 problem (  | 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)

Highly speculative. It makes sense to think that this is fixed way before 2038. Nononsense101 ( talk) 17:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep. Firstly, there may be some legacy systems / software libraries in use where this will still be a problem in 2038. Secondly, this problem already manifests when 32-bit systems try to refer to times later than 2038 (see the 'early problems' section). Thirdly, even if this is widely fixed before 2038, the term 'Year 2038 problem' still refers to a problem with the 32-bit time system. It still exists even if it does not manifest. For example, imagine trying to explain why times are stored as 64-bit integers to a colleague: "You could use 32-bit, but then you can't cover a very wide range of times. Go and look up 'Year 2038 problem' for details." Harrybraviner ( talk) 12:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This article is more relevant and possibly even more potential to be destructive than even the Y2K problem. Urbanracer34 ( talk) 17:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Even though this is a speculative article about an event in 16 years, there has been significant coverage about the effects of the end of 32-bit UNIX time. While this issue will (hopefully) be resolved before it comes to pass, it is a significant possible future event. Balon Greyjoy ( talk) 17:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Struck; double-voting isn't allowed and was effectively given already by your nomination. Nate • ( chatter) 01:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: A quick google search found significant coverage 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Sourcing is not the greatest but the article from The Guardian and the sources I found should be enough to pass GNG. It's also worth noting that WP:Crystal states that "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place, as even otherwise-notable events can be cancelled or postponed at the last minute by a major incident. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." Since this is technically an event and has been well documented, WP:CRYSTAL does not apply. ColinBear ( talk - contributions) 21:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Even if every system is fixed by 1/19/38, the work to do so is just as notable, and will affect multiple computer operating systems. Nate • ( chatter) 01:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strongly keep: it might be seen as too far in the future, except it isn't. Y2K38 bugs have struck important systems such as AOLserver (which was a popular server) in 2006 ( https://www.mail-archive.com/aolserver@listserv.aol.com/msg09820.html), and there are documented systems (like actuarial programs used by insurance companies) where dates beyond 2038 are actually being calculated now. Additionally, this discusses why it happens in 2038/01/19 and not another date (like how the truncation of centuries and millennia in dates due to necessary space-saving in 1960s lead to Year 2000 problem). - 2001:4453:581:9400:E82C:91AA:B31B:7FD ( talk) 09:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • keep I work in IT as a programmer - this is something that I am already encountering and coding for. Although the dating system is outdated, it is still used. As has been suggested, lots of people are working on fixes and they will be implemented by 2038, however, which systems will be missed? There can be tiny but critical systems that nobody thought of. Vespasianvs ( talk) 09:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (and honestly this could at least be a WP:SNOWCLOSE). It is happening now so not speculative and even if it had been completely fixed yesterday, it still is a notable topic with more than sufficient coverage in WP:RSs. Skynxnex ( talk) 14:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep Echoing what others have said, basically. This isn't a WP:CRYSTAL situation any more than List of future astronomical events is. This is a set of problems that will, with mathematical certainty, occur unless a way is found to mitigate them - and even if such a mitigation is found, even the search for those solutions is already noteworthy enough for inclusion now, as it has been widely covered in reputable media sources. Sleddog116 ( talk) 15:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep Obviously notable topic. Cranloa12n / talk / contribs / 20:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep Obviously notable topic, see also Year 2000 problem. ~ Matthewrb Talk to me · Changes I've made 21:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep No reason to delete this, very notable and is verified to happen. See you in 16 years. Pyraminxsolver ( talk) 02:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I don't like it when knowledge is erased, period. This article contains interesting and meaningful, and at that pertinent, content, and like other people have said is worth keeping. Kiril kovachev ( talk) 22:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep Even if the problem were to be fixed before this date, it would still meet WP:N as there is currently significant coverage. Additionally, as per ColinBear, WP:CRYSTAL does not apply. GoodCrossing ( talk) 22:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep As many others have explained, not a WP:CRYSTAL situation; serious and notable subject in Unix circles. The fact whether these will, or will not, be fixed "in time" is of no concern to the decision to keep or delete; as long as it is a notable thing, it has its place on Wikipedia. Lionel Elie Mamane ( talk) 08:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep even if it is fixed before 2038, of course, it seems a reasonable topic that might be historically interesting for quite some time. W Nowicki ( talk) 20:24, 6 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Tomasz Pohl

Tomasz Pohl (  | 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)

Following a discussion on Polish Wikipedia, it was decided to remove the page Tomasz Pohl. He is an author and poet with no encyclopaedic standing, it was probably a self-promotion with niche and unrecognizable publications. It is certainly a noncyclopedic biography also on English Wikipedia. Zsuetam ( talk) 16:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Draftify.. Liz Read! Talk! 00:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Miles Fenton

Miles Fenton (  | 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)

No evidence of notability. No reliable, independent, indepth sources are available (the Burnley sources in the article are passing mentions only, and looking for better sources gave no results [1]). Something like this is the best I could find, but it is neither substantive nor independent. Fram ( talk) 16:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 21:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Mathias Callero

Mathias Callero (  | 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 about non-notable footballer who has played in 12 Uruguayan first division matches and a handful of Mexican second division matches, but which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. There is no significant coverage online in English- or Spanish-language sources - just routine/trivial database entries, match reports and transfer/injury announcements. Jogurney ( talk) 15:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5. ✗ plicit 11:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Jungo Plus

Jungo Plus (  | 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)

Most of the content is copied from Jungo TV. Refs are all routine launch announcements. All of them, including The Hindu article, share similar wording; carry extensive quotes of the same insider and do not appear independent. Can't find a single non-PR source after the March 2021 launch. Both my redirect to Jungo TV and PROD on the basis of not meeting WP:NWEB, were reverted by DMySon. Hemantha ( talk) 15:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment On a neutral side, i think the PROD was not correct for this page. Afd is the correct way to deal this. And i am in favor to redirect this page to Jungo TV. DMySon ( talk) 05:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: DMySon is a sock of GermanKitty and was blocked today, 3 May 2022. Article was reviewed on NPP by DMySon. See here -- Whiteguru ( talk) 22:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep but perhaps merge to Isshoni Training. That can be discussed further elsewhere. –  Joe ( talk) 00:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Hinako (anime character)

Hinako (anime character) (  | 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 character fails WP:Notability. The only sources listed in the article are either primary sources or promotional articles published in English. Furthermore, the series that Hinako appears in are also non-notable. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 15:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 15:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (Disclaimer: I am the creator of this article.) I disagree with the assessment that "the only sources listed in the article are either primary sources or promotional articles". I do not know if the citations for the home video releases count as primary, I guess they could count as such. Citation No. 5 is primary, I agree, as it is an interview, but citing an interview for information about the production of a work seems okay to me, even if it can't be used for establishing notability. Citation No. 23 could also count as primary, although I guess a non-primary source for that may exist? I do not see which of the other sources count as primary. WP:PRIMARY says "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved". I do not think any of the other cited sources were written by people associated with Primastea or Studio Hibari, the two production companies behind the three OVAs. So I think the sources can be used for establishing notability. Regarding the promotional part: I do not think the secondary sources are particularly promotional. Citation No. 7, for example, is rather critical of the work in question. Also, regarding " the series that Hinako appears in are also non-notable": this is a primary reason why I created an article about the main character of the OVAs, rather than individual articles for the three OVAs. I haven't checked if there are enough sources to establish the notability of the three OVAs individually. So in conclusion: I believe there are enough secondary sources to establish the notability of the character. Toshio Yamaguchi ( talk) 18:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No notability. Needs critical reception from notable reviewers to at least give it some semblance of notability. lullabying ( talk) 22:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I saw a review by Japanator [3] which is a WP:RS per WP:A&M/RS. This linked thesis [4] also would be useful to look into in regards on Hinako's effect on the viewer. In my opinion the article just needs a rewrite via cleanup and cleanup isn't deletion. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 06:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, but rewrite to series article & move to Isshoni Training Along with the Japantor review, here are some other reviews about the series:
  • "THEM Anime Reviews 4.0 - Sleeping with Hinako". www.themanime.org. Retrieved 2022-05-04.
  • "Critique du DVD Training with Hinako - Anime Dvd". manga-news.com (in French). Retrieved 2022-05-04.
  • Clements, Jonathan; McCarthy, Helen (2015-02-09). The Anime Encyclopedia, 3rd Revised Edition: A Century of Japanese Animation. Stone Bridge Press. ISBN  978-1-61172-909-2.
However, it is unusual to write an article on the main character, but not on the series. I think it would be better to rewrite this to a series article and move to Isshoni Training. Jumpytoo Talk 05:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I agree that if kept the article should be moved from the character to that of the series - I doubt Hinako has received coverage independent of the series she's from. Perhaps Draftify for now. Satellizer el Bridget  (Talk) 05:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but convert to an overall series article. I agree with others that the character itself may not meet GNG, but the overall series certainly does. It even has an article in Japanese. Link20XX ( talk) 05:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I just created Isshoni Training with some information from the above sources and various ANN articles. Perhaps merging it to there would be a good course of action? Link20XX ( talk) 04:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. North America 1000 01:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply

List of photovoltaics companies

AfDs for this article:
List of photovoltaics companies (  | 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)

Impossible to keep up to date Chidgk1 ( talk) 14:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Weak Keep The article features a lot of random statistics and everything. The article would be easier to manage if it were a simple list. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 16:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
You think someone might change it to a simple list? Chidgk1 ( talk) 11:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Valid navigational and information list. Not being able to keep something up to date is not a valid reason to delete it. Dream Focus 21:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
It has a tag saying its factual accuracy is disputed so how do you know it is valid? Re being dated the deletion policy says that deletion "is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved". Chidgk1 ( talk) 11:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
It says "This article's factual accuracy is disputed. (June 2016)". So the tag is outdated. I see references throughout the article. The information is listed by year, so people know when it was last updated. Dream Focus 11:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep it, but it would be nice if it was updated. 2603:7081:7C03:21AA:D860:4F31:C37E:1B4B ( talk) 10:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC) reply
You think someone might update it? Chidgk1 ( talk) 10:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC) reply
But the deletion policy says that deletion "is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved". I suppose in theory given enormous editor effort it could be improved - but I contend that in practice it is obvious that it will not be kept up to date. Chidgk1 ( talk) 14:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 00:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Brad Wolf

Brad Wolf (  | 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 created this many years ago, but it turns out there's just nothing to say about the guy. He charted for one week and completely disappeared. I found one singular sentence about "Strictly Business" being used in an ad, but that's it. Nothing in back issues of Billboard or Country Weekly, nothing on CMT.com (the current CMT link is dead), nothing on Newspapers.com. I think per the precedent of such AFDs as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waycross (band) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Born (rapper), the utter lack of sourcing outweighs the fact that he charted. Given the article's age I decided against a G7, and NemesisAT ( talk · contribs) thought I shouldn't be prodding something I made myself. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 14:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 14:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I think he lives in upstate NY now, one story in the Adirondck Daily Enterprise paper [5]. Seems to pass the notability bar. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    That source isn't even about Brad Wolf though. It's about Patrick Darrah, and says that Brad Wolf wrote some of the songs. For all we know, that might not even be the same Brad Wolf. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    The Joel Whitburn book lists Brad Wolf as a co-writer of "Strictly Business", and this is corroborated by Broadcast Music Incorporated which lists several songs (although most under his real name of "Bradford Dee Carson"). None of the titles in the Adirondack source you cited come up on BMI at all, credited to Brad Wolf, Bradford Carson, or otherwise, so I'm inclined to think the guy in your source is someone else.Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Delete IMO, the listed sources are not enough to meet GNG and one of them is a dead link.
NW1223< Howl at me• My hunts> 17:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment: Hat tip to Nfitz ( talk · contribs) for pointing out the existence of Proquest. They, too, yielded no results on "Brad Wolf" "Strictly Business". Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 22:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment So wiki formatting isn't my thing and I can't find how to strike-out my vote above. As it's not the same guy or only marginally mentions him in the Adirondack paper, I'm not seeing notability, leaning delete. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Just use HTML tags: <s> and </s> at the beginning and end of what you want to strike out. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 20:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep a charting single meets WP:MUSIC. We also have other sources to fill out biographical information, which is nice, though not necessary for retention of the article. Chubbles ( talk) 04:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    "We also have other sources". Where are they? Prove it. Saying sources exist doesn't make them magically appear. And you mean to tell me that an article can be left unsourced forever? Funny, I didn't know WP:V was optional now. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Susantha Sisilchandra

AfDs for this article:
Susantha Sisilchandra (  | 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 per the previous AfD discussion. There has been no substantial change since this article was previously deleted. It fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT - the Stevie Awards are non-notable minor regional awards (pay to enter and multiple winners), also simply being an consul for a country does not confer automatic notability. Dan arndt ( talk) 12:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC) reply

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

List of mayors of Margate

List of mayors of Margate (  | 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)

List of non-notable local ceremonial mayors. Note the local government authority was abolished in 1974, the role of "mayor" is appointed by Margate Charter Trustees. Fails WP:NLIST, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. AusLondonder ( talk) 13:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect to University of Sussex#Campus media. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 14:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

University Radio Falmer

AfDs for this article:
University Radio Falmer (  | 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)

Consensus for the last AFD was to redirect, but that was five years ago. Since then, not a lot has happened to improve its notability: they had a content-sharing agreement with Australian university station SURG; they started a column in the student newspaper; they shut down for two years during the COVID pandemic. Likewise, there's no greater depth of coverage since 2017 in reliable secondary sources: the redirect target of University of Sussex#Campus media pretty much covers it. Storchy ( talk) 14:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 15:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Edward Dutton (author)

Edward Dutton (author) (  | 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 fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG. To the untrained eye the article looks very well sourced however when you actually look at the sources most of them are promotional, self-published, hardly mention Dutton or are off-topic. If you actually remove all the primary or unreliable sources hardly any of the article would be left and the man is not notable. He is not a notable academic or a professor. His books are published by Washington Summit Publishers a white nationalist publisher not taken seriously in academia. The only detailed source that seems to mention Dutton's views is a piece written by Aiden Bridgeman [6], a student newspaper from the University of Aberdeen but this source has often been debated on the talk-page.

Sources 12-18 do not mention Dutton, they merely mention that the Mankind Quarterly is a racist journal. References 8, 24 (YouTube), 28, 29, 32, 35, 42 are all published by Dutton and are clearly primary sources added to "pad" out the article. In regard to reference 1 published by Zúquete, J. P. (2020) apparently this is a failed citation and was not properly published, there has been a conversation about that on the talk-page.

Likewise the Mankind Quarterly is also cited twice on the article, as is the white nationalist website Red Ice (references 37 and 38), Richard Spencer's Radix Journal (reference 22). These are all primary sources.

References 42, 43 and 44 are just books which Dutton contributed to. There is no reason they should be references. There are many other unreliable references on the article for example [7] a review of Dutton's book on race in "prescottenews" written by white supremacist Jared Taylor (reference 23). There is also a reference by "Egyptology student Julien Delhez" (reference 31) published in a peer-reviewed journal, looks good right? The truth is Julien Delhez is actually a close friend of Edward Dutton and writes for the Mankind Quarterly which Dutton edits [8]. This is not a neutral review. Some of the other sources are newspapers but they only mention Dutton in brief.

The Hope Not Hate profile pieces on Dutton are only a few lines, they are not complete biographies. The Edward Dutton article has repeatedly been edited by anonymous IPs and accounts associated with Dutton to remove criticisms. If you weigh up the fact that most of the sourcing on this article is promotion and unreliable and the fact that Dutton wants his Wikipedia article for Google traffic I believe the article should be deleted. The same thing happened with Dutton's colleague Michael Woodley [9]. These articles are being written fraudulently from a promotional POV by fans of Dutton to get him Google hits when in reality the man is not notable outside of his alt-right racist community. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 14:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Not a lot else we can do with muck like this for sourcing. XOR'easter ( talk) 14:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete For the carefully explained reasons of Psychologist Guy, especially Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Woodley (2nd nomination) — two peas in a pod. Mathsci ( talk) 14:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and United Kingdom. Shellwood ( talk) 14:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete ID be lying if i claimed to have looked at all the references in this article, but Psychologist Guy's take is what i noticed as well, a lot of citations, but not many, if any good ones. If anyone is interested in trying to save this article, i would like to see a lot of the garbage refs culled, at a minimum. Bonewah ( talk) 15:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Subject definitely fails WP:PROF. Has popped up in news coverage of varying quality from time to time, but none appears to constitute significant coverage of him –– other than the student newspaper article which has been described above, and it is not at all clear that this source is reliable enough for BLP purposes. As with other WP:FRINGEBLPs, the struggle with the current article is in threading the needle between BLP violation and using Wikipedia as a platform for laundering the public image of a charlatan. And as with previous cases like this (the recent Woodley AfD mentioned above and also this one from 2020) the best solution to the problem appears to be deletion. Generalrelative ( talk) 16:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The Edward Dutton article has repeatedly been edited by anonymous IPs and accounts associated with Dutton to remove criticisms. Is this true, or are we just assuming that they're associated with him? Those are two different things and I think it's important to be clear. Pyrrho the Skipper ( talk) 16:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    I cannot answer for Psychologist Guy, but for context Dutton has encouraged meatpuppets to edit his BLP on Twitter: Computer types: My wikipedia page seems to be under assault from leftists determined to write in POV and use Marxist sources. They've even deleted the 'History' to cover-up their changes and who has made them. [10]. Generalrelative ( talk) 16:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Pyrrho the Skipper I have seen some off-site evidence that one account heavily editing this article is associated with Dutton. I cannot publicly link to that but if you go through the history of the article from January 2021, there has been non-stop edit-warring and vandalism, I have not seen any other biography quite as bad as this that is why it was locked. Single purpose accounts and new IPs kept showing up to remove criticisms. Dutton has often complained about his Wikipedia article on his podcasts and his supporters clearly have edited it so yes my statement that accounts/IPS associated with Dutton I believe to be true. As for the meat-puppetry, yes this has happened. Lute Currie who has written for Mankind Quarterly has edited Dutton's article. After he left Wikipedia on his main account he used many IPS. This user has publicly admitted to having autism and an obsession with "race realism". It might explain his obsessive edits on many IPS. There are many others Saxon Celt (banned). HiramWikiMan looks like an account who personally knows Dutton, Wikiwall32 is clearly another close supporter and probably a sock. All these accounts make some edits then never edit again. I suspect that two of the IPs editing heavily are associated with Mankind Quarterly. Yes this is my own research as admins do not link IPs to accounts so an SPI would be pointless but I have filed many successful SPIs in the past and I have been in private communication with people about certain accounts on the article and they agree with me. There was also a long-term vandal editing the article [11] full list of their IPs collected by Beyond My Ken [12]. In conclusion, the editing history of the article is a mess. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 19:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Wow, I see what you mean. Thanks for providing that. Pyrrho the Skipper ( talk) 19:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. If someone can pull a really convincing WP:HEY on it, maybe it would be worth revisiting (I think there's a decent chance someone could argue for WP:NAUTHOR), but threading the needle between BLP violation and using Wikipedia as a platform for laundering the public image of a charlatan is right. Thanks to Psychologist Guy for showing your work so clearly for the rest of us. -- asilvering ( talk) 20:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: a plausible alternative to deletion could be a redirect to Meeting Jesus at University, in which case biographic information, if any, should probably be limited only to background information relevant to the book itself, lest it become a coatrack or shadow biography dominated by content unrelated to the book. --Animalparty! ( talk) 21:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - As is so often the case with this group of fringe academics, a biography of Dutton without the necessary context would be a bad parody of a resume. Without that context, he fails notability guidelines, but the sources are just too thin. So we can either rely on extremely weak sources or we can delete the article. Grayfell ( talk) 21:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, sometimes when an author is up for deletion i look to WorldCat to see whether their books have been noticed by librarians (the higher the number, the more likely that there are reviews somewhere), trawling thru Dutton's tomes Meeting Jesus is held by around 130 libraries, most of the others are in a miniscule no. of libraries ie. low 1 or 2 digits, a couple of exceptions though are The genius famine ( held by around 500 libraries), and Culture shock and multiculturalism ( in over 700 libraries), surprising that there arent reviews available for those books. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Interesting. Culture Shock and Multiculturalism is from Cambridge Scholars Publishing, which has a checkered reputation. I don't know how that might translate into wider holdings (deals with libraries to take a whole shelf at a bulk rate?), but it could have something to do with an apparent gap between holdings and interest. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    One wonders if they're gifts...? Academic libraries tend to buy off of press lists rather than review lists (by the time an academic review comes out, you probably already want the book in your library), so the gap between holdings and reviews isn't as weird as it might look. But if you can move 700 copies of your book to a bunch of academic libraries basically by flooding them, you think you'd also be able to get some press attention by the same means. -- asilvering ( talk) 20:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Good question. Worldcat lists Culture shock as a physical book, but its genre is 'Electronic books' and (as far as I can see) every single library is an academic library. This seems like it might be some sort of bulk e-book deal for academic libraries. When limiting to physical editions, there are only about 50 physical copies in Wordlcat's libraries. Grayfell ( talk) 01:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Oh that's very interesting! I had no idea that worldcat stats tracked library holdings when it came to e-books and didn't think to check the metadata. That's almost certainly what's going on, then. -- asilvering ( talk) 04:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Good catch! XOR'easter ( talk) 14:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Moot. Article is back in draft where it can incubate until it's release has happened. Keeps were contingent on a release, which didn't happen on schedule. If someone feels strongly that I shouldn't have closed, feel free to revert me Star Mississippi 13:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Ayngaran (film)

AfDs for this article:
Ayngaran (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)

Sufficiently different (actually worse) than the version deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayngaran (film), but still no indication this film is notable. Star Mississippi 14:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was merge to Washington County Technical High School. which the lone delete seems to also be OK with. Star Mississippi 02:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Evening High School (Maryland)

Evening High School (Maryland) (  | 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 particular "high school" doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG, and is technically now called "Antietam Academy," which is part of Washington County Technical High School. it feels like this article should either be deleted, or merged to the Technical High School article, since that's what it's a part of. SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 13:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Merge - This page should be merged with Washington County Technical High School and then deleted as it is not notable as a standalone article. Meatsgains( talk) 16:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Washington County Technical High School. Whatever the official organizational version of things, we can cover in one article all the things that go on in the same space. Sort of like how Harper Woods High School in Meto Detroit housed an outreach center for Wayne State University. We could mention that in the article on Harper Woods High School, even though they are not institutionaly the same. We don't, and I am not sure if I could even find a reliable source that supports that, I know it because when I was a student at Wayne State I knew people who took classes at the Harper Woods High School location, and I also was later on a few occasions a sub at Harper Woods High School and saw the office for Wayne State there. I will say that our current sourcing on Harper Woods High School is not enough to justify an article, but I have not tried doing a deep dive for sources, so they may exist. Articles can be diverse enough to cover adult programs in general high school space, no matter how they are technically organized. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - this should have been a PROD, or a bold redirect to the host school. There is no sourced content to merge, and a redirect would be more confusing than helpful 174.212.227.174 ( talk) 20:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Garrison, North Dakota. Star Mississippi 02:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Garrison Municipal Airport

Garrison Municipal Airport (  | 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)

Airport in small town of 1,500 people without scheduled services which fails WP:NAIRPORT as lacking "Significant, independent and reliable sources specifically about the airport". AusLondonder ( talk) 13:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was merge to University of York or a subsection, as deemed appropriate when a line is added. Viable AtD that solves to the nom and the delete concerns Star Mississippi 02:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC) reply

University of York Music Press

University of York Music Press (  | 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)

Has been tagged for notability since 2013. PROD tag placed by Spaully removed by Espresso Addict. Zero sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Search results show up Wikipedia mirrors. AusLondonder ( talk) 08:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and United Kingdom. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Per my PROD: No reliable sources for notability, all found links are from their own webpage or very brief and do not establish notability. Improvement tags in place since 2013 without improvement. |→  Spaully  ~talk~  20:53, 18 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I declined the prod on purely technical grounds, but as far as I understand it, a music press like this would meet inclusion criteria if supported by (reliable independent) reviews of the music it publishes, rather than the press as a company. These would need searching for specifically. The fact that they aren't currently present does not mean they don't exist, and the fact that there's a long list of blue-linked composers tends to suggest they do exist. Espresso Addict ( talk) 01:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Just one example is the founder David Blake, who has published much of his music with the press since 1994, as reviewed in depth in Tempo: [13]. Espresso Addict ( talk) 01:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC) Got to go offline now, but also the same treatment for Anthony Gilbert [14]. Espresso Addict ( talk) 02:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete A press needs to pass our criteria for organizations. Reviews of works mention and cover the creator, not the press that publishes them, and cannot be used to show the press doing the publishing is notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
That is certainly not my reading of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). There's an entire section on product reviews which says "Product, event, and restaurant reviews (i.e. where author describes personal opinions and experiences) must be handled with great care and diligence. Some types of reviews have a longer history and established traditions (e.g. restaurants, wine, books, movies), while other (e.g. new tech gadgets, travel blogs) are newer and more prone to manipulation by marketing and public relations personnel. Like any other source, reviews must meet the primary criteria to be counted towards the notability requirement..."
My reading is that this states that book reviews (which I'd think print music falls under) are reliable and can count towards notability. If John Pack Lambert's reading were generally followed, one would have to delete almost all our content on small presses. Espresso Addict ( talk) 14:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment It's generally a good idea to have something about publishers, since we cite sources that they publish, and we can help our readers by providing information about where those sources came from. Specialist publishers and presses can be devilishly hard to document, however. UYMP is affiliated with York's Department of Music, so we could reasonably redirect to University of York and add a sentence in some appropriate spot there. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
I don't think this is ideal as there's no material about the (possibly notable, from my searches) music department. Espresso Addict ( talk) 01:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge In this case, there's an obvious merge.I don't think this is adequately covered by the present guidelines, so there's no point in trying to decide by them It would basicaly be an exception to NOT DIRECTORY, and I can see good reaason to make that exception. The question fo whether we should in general have content of this sort from small or specialist publishers would need further discussion., leading ultimately to an AfC. DGG ( talk ) 08:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge I agree with DGG above, there's an obvious Merge target as per WP:ATD. On its own the company fails NCORP criteria. HighKing ++ 19:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to FIR (2022 film). Liz Read! Talk! 03:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Manu Anand

Manu Anand (  | 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)

Film director is not meeting WP:FILMMAKER and WP:GNG. Jeni Wolf ( talk) 10:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to FIR (2022 film) - There are no articles that connect the director to any other project. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 02:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Also, nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. (non-admin closure) HighKing ++ 19:14, 8 May 2022 (UTC) reply

All India Progressive Women's Association

All India Progressive Women's Association (  | 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 non-notable organization fails WP:NORG. Lack of significant coverage from reliable resources which are independent of the subject. Previously deleted under A7 and G11. DMySon ( talk) 08:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Srivastava, Sumit S. (2007). "Violence and Dalit Women's Resistance in Rural Bihar". Indian Anthropologist. 37 (2): 31–44. ISSN  0970-0927.
  2. ^ Wilson, Kalpana (January 1999). "Patterns of accumulation and struggles of rural labour: Some aspects of Agrarian change in Central Bihar". Journal of Peasant Studies. 26 (2–3): 316–354. doi: 10.1080/03066159908438710.
  3. ^ Misra, Amaresh (1995). "Fresh Life for Uttarakhand Movement". Economic and Political Weekly. 30 (2): 82–83. ISSN  0012-9976.
Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 02:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral at this time having not reviewed the sources. The article as written does not establish organizational notability, and an article should speak for itself without requiring the reader to read the sources, which is not why readers use Wikipedia. So if the article is kept, it should be expanded. User:Soman has provided only a URL dump, which is useless, because even if the sources listed as reliable, they may or may not be significant coverage. Providing only a URL dump, rather than adding the references to the article, can even be seen as insulting to the reviewers, but I assume that they simply were in too much of a hurry. I either will or will not review the footnoted sources, and will not review the dump. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • keep - AIPWA is an notable and second biggest organised womens association in India. So It's need to add on WIKIPEDIA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudip Karmakar23 ( talk • contribs) 04:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have a list of URLs and citations, but there are no arguments as to how these sources provide the required substantial coverage of the organization.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Notability is established:
  1. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41920038 (several pages of coverage, using their acronym, 23 mentions)
  2. I wasn't able to access it, but seems like a whole article about them in Times of India: Women exploitation focus at All India Progressive Women’s Association meet. The Times of India, [s. l.], 10 maio. 2012. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsbig&AN=edsbig.A289127995&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 2 maio. 2022.
  3. Likewise here: All India progressive women’s association protests lifeterm to Rupam Pathak. The Times of India, [s. l.], 15 abr. 2012. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsbig&AN=edsbig.A286394719&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 2 maio. 2022.
While it does seem weird to argue based on the headline without being able to see the text, it's difficult to imagine circumstances where the articles did not cover them. CT55555 ( talk) 12:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Withdrawing nomination per GDuwen's improvements and consensus from other editors that said improvements are enough. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 22:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Live at Billy Bob's Texas (Willie Nelson album)

Live at Billy Bob's Texas (Willie Nelson album) (  | 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)

Non-notable album. Didn't chart, no sourcing found. Deprodded because "notability is just your opinion, try citing policy". I thought WP:GNG was a policy? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 00:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 00:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment your PROD didn't mention WP:GNG, it just said, "Non-notable album", which sounds like an opinion which is not a reasonable reason for deletion. I suggest mentioning WP:GNG, or another policy when PRODing an article. And my actual reason for removing the PROD (which I put in the summary) was ""non notable" sounds like a personal opinion. Cite a Wikipedia guideline in your reasoning". DonaldD23 talk to me 02:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    Well then I apologize for being flippant in my AFD. I had thought that "not notable" would read to most viewers as "seems to fail WP:GNG" but I can see how that was vague. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 18:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    Semantics aside, I can't find any significant coverage beyond this Allmusic review. If that's all there is then I can't rationalize a "keep" stance... Sergecross73 msg me 20:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Delete per Sergecross73. See this. -- interstatefive  ( talk) - just another roadgeek 22:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Delete - could not find enough sourcing to meet the WP:GNG, nor would I expect to, as live/compilation albums like this often don't garner much in the way of attention from sources. Sergecross73 msg me 01:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I stand corrected, sources I didn't expect to exist, were found, and it charted. Sergecross73 msg me 14:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I would say that the article can be further improved with the use of templates for the tracks, and the inclusion of some basic information about the concert and such. (I found a bit of it on Newspapers.com).

Granted, there is not much more to be written here, but the Live at Billy Bob's Texas label has enough releases with articles of their own (I see nine different titles after writing it on the search bar), and upon further inspection most of them did not chart either and the information included is rather basic and unsourced.

Yet, I don't see why are we going to start punching holes in the discographies of artists, nor labels (even though Live at Billy Bob's doesn't have an article of its own, though it should! [15]). I don't think that redlinking articles randomly is too useful either. I would get to work on this one, but I've been sick for the last few days and I just don't have the energy at the time.-- GDuwen Holler! 19:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC) Adding to my comment, besides of that Allmusic review, we have two more ( 1, 2). I would say with three reviews that can be added to the body of the article, there is more reason to keep the article and expand it (I gladly would, but I need at least a few days to get down to it. I pretty much forgot the existence of this entry!).-- GDuwen Holler! 19:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Most live albums don't get attention. The Mavericks have a live album that went gold in Canada, but I couldn't find any real info on it beyond that. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 21:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC) reply
You may have accidentally made a good point - perhaps there's potential for a "Live at Billy Bobs" article to merge these non-notable albums to - beyond the WP:DAB article that currently exists. Sergecross73 msg me 01:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC) reply
There'd be no point in merging if no individual one is notable on their own. They wouldn't be notable in a list, either, given that they were not on a major label nor from a major venue. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 01:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC) reply
It's just a thought if we need a compromise or something. Sergecross73 msg me 01:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC) reply
We already located three different reviews for this release. Those are reliable sources. If two newspapers and one music website wrote reviews, does that not make it notable?-- GDuwen Holler! 10:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Sometimes, when we only have a couple sources, an extremely short article, and "not much more to be written" as you say, content is still merged. Kinda surprised neither one if you are following me here. This shouldn't be a foreign concept at AFD. Sergecross73 msg me 11:02, 28 April 2022 (UTC) reply
And merging all of those articles may indeed be the right solution at the end of the day. But for the time being, I've added the information I've discussed to the body of the article.-- GDuwen Holler! 11:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC) reply
It turns out it did appear in three different charts. All visible on the now cited Billboard issue of May 22, 2004.-- GDuwen Holler! 18:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Wow, good catch. Billboard's website is such a clusterfuck what with the rampant paywalling of charts and sometimes not archiving them at all. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 18:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Meets WP:NALBUM with sources added to the article by GDuwen. They're in-depth and reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP ( talk) 01:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    I initially vied for a redirect, but I'm convinced enough with GDuwen's improvements. SBKSPP ( talk) 01:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Ive revised my stance to keep. The sourcing and charts are enough to pass GNG/NALBUMS. Sergecross73 msg me 14:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Justin Jaschke

Justin Jaschke (  | 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 don't see any evidence of notability. Although some sources are provided, they are interviews, mostly focusing on Verio, rather than Jaschke himself. I'm not seeing anything to support a stand alone biographical article on this person. MarchOfTheGreyhounds ( talk) 11:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Business. MarchOfTheGreyhounds ( talk) 11:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as it has no significant coverage. -- Vaco98 ( talk) 11:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - There is some slight coverage in software magazines, however that is it and such coverage is not significant. Hence article subject does not meet notability guidelines and warrants deletion. Such-change47 ( talk) 11:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, Businesswire and a few trivial comments do not a notability establish. Ari T. Benchaim ( talk) 22:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 11:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

S. D. S. Yadava

S. D. S. Yadava (  | 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 am not convinced that this article meets WP:GNG, there are so many retired major general in Indian Army. The personality isn't well known. There are WP:QS references in the article as well, one reference is a book written by him to glorify his community ( suprisingly he isn't historian at all). I think this is bit promotional stuff and fit case for removal. RS6784 ( talk) 10:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 02:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Christoph Steidl Porenta

Christoph Steidl Porenta (  | 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)

Lacks notability Doesn't meet criteria for notability ( WP:BIO). It is of a living person and apparently is an autobiography; see discussion at Help_desk. -- R. S. Shaw ( talk) 20:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC) reply

@ R. S. Shaw You need to fix the template somehow, I recommend WP:TWINKLE for starting afd:s, it is so much simpler. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 20:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC) reply
And you did. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 20:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC) reply
I tried Twinkle but could find no way to do it; the documentation only mentioned speedy delete, not AfD. -- R. S. Shaw ( talk) 20:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC) reply
If I'm on an article, I get a "XFD" in my twinkle dropdown, but maybe that is a personal setting somewhere. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 20:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, I am the creator of this article. It is not a WP:AUTO, I have no WP:COI and IMO the subject meets WP:GNG per the sources in the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 20:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Adding to the argument for WP:GNG, check uploader "zlatoruno" Youtube videos. I won't link because reason. Several of these are tv-clips, one, length 4:51, from 2009 is even in English. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 22:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete better than the version I speedied, but still blatant self-promotion with gushing cherry-picked quotes Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    Well, it's not self promoting, I added the quote, and the "gushing" stuff is reliably sourced and attributed. You are welcome to balance it with reliably published opposite/other opinions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 08:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. Subject has been profiled in Mladina, in Dnevnik (Slovenia), and by the Slovenian Press Agency (STA). All three are respectable mainsteam Slovenian news organizations. In addition, he's been profiled in the Delo in Dom supplement to Delo (newspaper) [16] -- Delo is probably the closest thing that Slovenia has to a newspaper of record. "Weak" only because the small size of the Slovenian news market makes the coverage fairly local. Between the multiple sources and time over which he's been profiled, however, I think this is a pass of WP:BASIC. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 13:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 10:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 11:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 11:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - This article has been improved since nom. I cannot see evidence that the reasons for nom are currently accurate. There is independent media coverage, and from the one or two I google translated, may well be significant depending on how known those outlets are in the relevant country. There is no grounds to substantiate a cause for deletion in my view after looking at the article against its nom criteria - Such-change47 ( talk) 11:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - per GNG, knight of the Sovereign Order of Malta. Mary Mark Ockerbloom ( talk) 23:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - meets GNG; claims in nomination that this is an autobiography clearly false. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Comment The claim in the nomination that the article Christoph Steidl Porenta "apparently is an autobiography" was based on the initial post by user:Christoph Steidl Porenta, which said:

    Hello, I would like to post my biography, but I always get rejected. So, who can post my biography? Best regards, Christoph Steidl Porenta

    -- R. S. Shaw ( talk) 21:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    So: no evidence that it is or was an autobiography, whatsoever. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:29, 8 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Nope, that's not evidence it's an autobiography, just evidence supporting the claim in the nomination that there's an appearance that it might be an autobiography. -- R. S. Shaw ( talk) 21:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There is no consensus to delete the article, and sourcing put forth during the discussion counters much of the nom. If folks feel strongly for a redirect, that process can continue editorially. Star Mississippi 14:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC) reply

The Andy Dick Show

The Andy Dick Show (  | 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)

Zero reputable sourcing found. Just found a couple TV encyclopedias that list it in passing, as well as tangential name-drops in articles about Andy Dick himself. "Andy Dick Show" + "MTV" returned only passing name-drops, TV directories, and other unusable content Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 23:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Adams, Jason (2001-04-12). "The Andy Dick Show: Beyond "Jackass" and "The Tom Green Show": MTV reinvents the Dick joke". Rolling Stone. ProQuest  2549079171.

      The article notes: "One would think that a Hollywood fixture wrapping a car around a utility pole in an alcohol-and-drag haze would be the result of discovering his life was a huge joke -- not an impetus for making it one. But composed of off-color comedic sketches, vignettes, short films and music videos, The Andy Dick Show starring and directed by the actor and comedian of the same name - assumes nothing is sacred, especially Dick's own troubled life.  To wit: An E! True Hollywood Story spoof titled "The Little Angel Clown Who ... That Cries" pokes fun at many of Dick's peccadilloes, from the real-life car crash to his purported love of hate crimes ("No, I said I hate crime," he lamely protests), and offers eulogies for the mistakenly thought-to-be-dead actor and praise from Hollywood friends and co-stars ("He's like a beautiful eagle: majestic, endangered, likes fish," gushes NewsRadio co-star Dave Foley). Also fair game is the MTV stable itself:"

    2. Sheffield, Rob (2001-05-10). "Andy Dick's true Hollywood stories". Rolling Stone. No. 868. p. 29. EBSCOhost  220165108.

      The article notes: "... his MTV sketch-comedy series The Andy Dick Show is the funniest thing on the tube right now, even more outrageous than Tom Green or Jackass. Andy is basically Charles Nelson Reilly in hell, twitching and writhing through his own basic-cable torture chamber, getting naked, falling down, and playing a wide range of disturbing characters, all thinly veiled caricatures of Andy himself, who writes and directs every episode. For all the bleeped obscenities and digitalized flesh, the show's one joke is fame: the disgusting lengths people will go to get it, and the disgusting tricks it plays on its minions.  I was hooked from the first minute of the debut episode, which kicks off with the garish spectacle of Andy presenting his own E!-style True Hollywood Story, proclaiming himself "The Little Angel Clown Who ... That ... Cries." It's six minutes of sheer genius, making fun of Dick's real-life screw-ups while adding plenty of fake ones, such as his gay-porn film The Bend Over Stiller Show. "

    3. Ross, Dalton; Snierson, Dan (2002-04-05). "The Andy Dick Show (TV Program)". Entertainment Weekly. No. 647. p. 108. EBSCOhost  6433920.

      The article notes: "He's already wrangled dwarfs, battled gingivitis, and cavorted with a farting sock puppet named Anus. So what's a Dick to do in season 3 of his wack-a-doodle sketch circus? Try more of the insane. He'll swap identities with Tom Green in an extreme version of Flipped and pitch a tent in his living room with a reluctant Master P."

    4. Kit, Zorianna (2001-01-17). "'Andy Dick' gets MTV green light". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 366, no. 28. p. 83. ProQuest  2467918802.

      The article notes: "MTV has given the new half-hour comedy series "The Andy Dick Show" a six-episode commitment and scheduled the show to air Tuesday nights at 10:30 p.m. beginning Feb. 27. Andy Dick, who co-wrote the show with a team of writers, stars in, directs and produces the show, which is executive produced by Jim Biederman. It features a series of three-minute comedy shorts shot on film. Guest stars include Ben Stiller, singer Mandy Moore and actress-model Tyra Banks. The pilot got the greenlit during the summer (HR 8/10)."

    5. Hedegaard, Eric (2001-08-16). "Andy Dick just wants a little love, but he'll settle for a lot of sex". Rolling Stone. No. 875. p. 51. EBSCOhost  4992585.

      The article notes: "Out in Hollywood,  what Andy Dick could really use is some relief from the ladies. He should have on his mind his weekly MTV program, The Andy Dick Show, which features short, lunatic films, mostly starring humorous Andy-played characters such as Daphne Aguilera (Christina's extrahairy sister) and Zitty McGee (eaten up by acne, he wants to be a model). About to enter its second season, the program has become an MTV top-five hit, with 7 million viewers tuning in for each episode's antics."

    6. Feiwell, J. (2001-07-20). "MTV adding 'Dick' segs". Daily Variety. Vol. 272, no. 34. p. 30. EBSCOhost  4885291.

      The article notes: "MTV has given "The Andy Dick Show" a second leg, picking up the sketch show for another seven episodes. Dick's sophomore season, preeming Aug. 5, will feature his sketches, vignettes, short films and musicvid parodies, as well as the introduction of some new characters. Episodes will also include guest appearances from musician Dave Navaro, thesp-musician Tyrese, Johnny Knoxville, Carmen Electra, Jason Biggs and Ashton Kutcher. "

    7. Morrow, Terry (2001-03-16). "'Andy Dick Show' reflects edge of its star". The Journal Gazette. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.

      The article notes: "Promoting "The Andy Dick Show" (10:30 p.m. EST Tuesdays, MTV) has left him worn out. ... With that, "The Andy Dick Show" skewers everything from E! Entertainment Television to Dick's own drug problems. He is not sure how audiences will react to the latter."

    8. Peterson, Jennifer (2001-07-23). "'Andy Dick Show' gets a second season on MTV". Dayton Daily News. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.

      The article notes: "MTV has picked up seven more episodes of The Andy Dick Show, Brian Graden, the cable network's president of programming, announced. The talk show's second season will premiere on Aug. 5 at 9 p.m. Upcoming episodes of the series will feature Dick in comedic sketches, vignettes, short films and music video parodies. New characters include Zitty McGee, an aspiring model/actor with awful acne, and Bee Bop the Clown, a morgue employee who lightens the emotional burden of death."

    9. Levitan, Corey (2002-04-17). "Surreality TV - MTV's twisted comedy show is ad-DICK-tive". Daily Breeze. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.

      The article notes: "They're all characters played by Andy Dick on an MTV sketch comedy series that's already become a classic after a year on the air. "The Andy Dick Show" features material that grates, disgusts and provokes some of the heartiest laughs you'll ever feel guilty enjoying. ... Like all daring comedy, "The Andy Dick Show" is a like-it-or-hate-it proposition. Previous episodes have featured an antichrist nanny named Marilyn Poppins and "Anus and Andy," a talk show co-hosted by Dick and a sphincter puppet that passes wind on their guests."

    10. Eicher, Diane (2001-03-06). "'Not dead' Andy Dick gets new life on MTV". The Denver Post. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.

      The article notes: "The show on MTV - with an initial six-episode run that he is "90 percent sure" will continue with a pickup of more shows - is his most high-profile foray back into entertainment since the arrest. He calls it a "variety" show with "very nice short films.""

    11. Colbourne, Scott (2002-07-06). "Digital Highlights". The Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.

      The article notes: "MTV Canada, 10:30 p.m. MTV Canada is airing our national embarassment, Tom Green, in his creatively titled The Tom Green Show (10 p.m.), back-to-back with the man who dragged down the otherwise laudable NewsRadio, Andy Dick, in his creatively titled The Andy Dick Show. Dick played nerd-boy Matthew on NewsRadio, and he was annoying and manic. On his parody of a talk show, like Green on his parody of a talk show, he is annoying and manic. It's summer and it's a new thing, so do enjoy if these guys are your cup of flat pop, but I'm so sick of Green and Dick I wouldn't cross the street to kick them in their..."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Andy Dick Show to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 22:06, 30 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus. It has been a month, and I don't see a consensus. Before re-nomination in the future, I would suggest whether editorial suggestions including a rename and/or merger might be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 02:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC) reply

2020–2022 Pakistani political crises

2020–2022 Pakistani political crises (  | 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:NOR. This article cites no sources that describe how these various topics or crises are connected to one another, and the article does not make that clear either. It is also internally inconsistent: The lead has the crises start in 2022, whereas the title has them start in 2020. Sandstein 14:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon ( talk) 06:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment – Other incidents were also included, as the country is still going through a political crisis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ainty Painty ( talk • contribs) 19 April 2022 07:05 (UTC)
  • Delete Those !voting keep have not demonstrated that the content of the article is anything other than a series of events over a certain time period. There's not a single source which *both* groups these events (a) together and (b) all as crises; reliable sources doing that is what is required to demonstrate notability. The implicit definition here renders the word crisis meaningless. The article is WP:SYNTH. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 07:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    Agree. Several of these “crises” are just votes of no confidence which are normal enough events in a parliamentary democracy. The first of the two “oath crises” doesn’t appear to be a crisis at all. Any significant crisis in this list already has its own page, and there is little connection between them except a coincidence of timing. Nwhyte ( talk) 04:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Political history of Pakistan. "Crisis" is editorializing. And there is no need for a stand-alone article. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to 2022 Pakistani constitutional crisis per @ Fontaine347 casualdejekyll 16:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to either 2022 Pakistani constitutional crisis or Political history of Pakistan per above Merge !votes. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 ( 💬) 10:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 2601:647:5800:1A1F:C54D:43E:AA67:CA78 ( talk) 20:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Material inadequately sourced is not dumped elsewhere but deleted. Still, the subject is trivially notable and some material is properly sourced, but, quoting from WP:OVERLAP, there are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap and might be redundant. Therefore, a Merge in a distributional manner across the articles 2022 Pakistani constitutional crisis and Political history of Pakistan is suggested of the material that can be salvaged in terms of sourcing. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept. - The Gnome ( talk) 07:55, 1 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural, as last relist doesn't appear to have been performed correctly.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 09:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete  – Not a single source cites anything like "2020-22 political crises". If political events happening in 2020-22 are somehow related, then so is whole political history of Pakistan related. And if we rename it to "2022 Pakistani political crisis" what value it'll bring to this platform, other than being duplicate of 2022 Pakistani constitutional crisis (which was once called "2022 Pakistani political crisis" before this move)? Radioactive ( talk) 14:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Man vs. Machine (video game). czar 09:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC) reply

MuchDifferent

MuchDifferent (  | 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)

Does not meet WP:NCORP - only possible claim of notability is for creating Man vs. Machine (video game), company is not covered in any significant capacity elsewhere - Liance talk/ contribs 05:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 05:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect as this is really just extended coverage of the game. Company has no notability of their own. Shooterwalker ( talk) 14:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is sourcing isn't sufficient Star Mississippi 02:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Underwood Ammo

Underwood Ammo (  | 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 was moved from a draft by the author of the article, despite the fact that it was declined as not sufficiently notable per the AFC reviewers. The sources do not appear to be reliable. There is no indication that this company meets WP:GNG. Bbb23 ( talk) 22:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Most of the nomination statement is irrelevant. Editors with ~30,000 edits are not required to use AFC in the first place, there is no rule against them moving drafts to the mainspace, and there is no compelling reason to assume that an AFC reviewer who has barely made 2,000 edits is always going to be correct when they decline an article. Also, while I know nothing about this subject area, even I recognize Field & Stream as a reliable source for information about hunting.
    Did you do a WP:BEFORE search yourself? I don't know what the go-to sources are for this area, but I put "Underwood Ammo" in Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library and got 13 hits, plus a couple more under "Underwood Ammunition". I didn't notice any overlapping with the eight sources that are already cited in the article. I imagine that this one – Beckstrand, Tom (September 2016), "A bigger hammer: the .458 SOCOM puts maximum wallop in any AR-pattern rifle", Guns & Ammo, vol. 60, no. 9, InterMedia Outdoors, Inc. – would be one of the more useful. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment All refs 2 & 3 do is confirm Underwood makes two caliber of ammo. Refs 4-7 are not about Underwood. David notMD ( talk) 07:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    Some of the refs are indeed about the industry within which Underwood is involved, and some of the claims regarding the content of the article. Thank you. ♥ Th78blue ( talk)♥ 14:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    I would kindly ask that we leave as is, but remove any refs that other editors may feel are inappropriate or inadequate. I request that this nomination for deletion be ended in favor of keeping. Thank you. ♥ Th78blue ( talk)♥ 17:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 09:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

How long do we wait for this? I'd like for the article to stay, and would be willing to make changes if someone has specific pieces they want to cut or add. Thank you. ♥ Th78blue ( talk)♥ 19:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and I can't find any, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing ++ 21:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. There's essentially nothing to say about this company and their run-of-the-mill ammo. Couldn't find things for WP:NCORP. FalconK ( talk) 05:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    How many other companies are making solid-copper-monolithic-fluted projectile rounds with lead free components that you know of to make that "run-of-the-mill" statement? Thank you. ♥ Th78blue ( talk)♥ 12:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Most of the refs in the article are product reviews (not about the company). Four of the refs don't even mention Underwood. I could not find significant coverage of the company to support WP:NCORP notability. Schazjmd  (talk) 22:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    That is unfortunate, I just spent some time digging further and added several more. I'd ask you to reconsider. In fact, this article is more deeply cited than many others in the same industry at this point. ♥ Th78blue ( talk)♥ 00:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Th78blue, I posted my opinion above after reviewing the sources that you added to the article. The problem is that none of those sources provide significant coverage of the company. Schazjmd  (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗ plicit 11:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Blowin' Up

Blowin' Up (  | 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)

Zero sourcing found. Deprodded because "notability is just your opinion". Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 00:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Berkovitz, Jamie (2006-06-30). "Kennedy's No Rapper, but Funny All the Same". Sun-Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.

      The article notes: "Kennedy ... teams with his buddy StoneStone in Jamie Kennedy's Blowin' Up to try to land a hip-hop record deal (in case you aren't familiar, both are two white kids from Malibu -- not exactly "rapper material.") With barely any support from friends and relatives, the two make it their mission to fulfill their dreams of becoming rappers, all in the presence of conveniently located cameras that create the scripted reality show. ... The show also pokes fun at the entertainment industry and is an obvious display of the outrageous things that celebrities do for publicity. ... In between the hilarious one-liners and beat-boxing about ridiculous things from bologna to the far more explicit, Kennedy and Stone manage to do what every rising rapper seems to be doing -- they get grillz (yes, the ones Nelly sings about)."

    2. Thompson, Ethan (Fall 2007). "Comedy verite? The observational documentary meets the televisual sitcom". The Velvet Light Trap. University of Texas Press. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30 – via Gale.

      The article notes: "Blowin' Up (2006) follows the exploits of comic actor Jamie Kennedy and his friend Stu Stone as they labor to achieve their childhood dreams of becoming rap stars. Most episodes consist of loosely scripted scenes of the duo driving around Los Angeles and meeting up with celebrities in order to seek advice about what they need to do in order to make it big. These scenes are fit into the A/B plot structure typical of a sitcom. Though structured like an ordinary sitcom, the program is taped with digital cameras, is shot on-location, and looks like a reality program (that, or the type of documentary that might exist if a legion of D.A. Pennebakers were unleashed to capture the early years of bands whose later exploits would be documented in the expositional style, a la Behind the Music). In the fourth episode of Blowin' Up, Kennedy decides ..."

    3. Wallenstein, Andrew (2005-11-04). "Kennedy to do reality/written series for MTV". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 391, no. 35. pp. 4, 60. ProQuest  2470988954.

      The article notes: "MTV has greenlighted a hybrid scripted/reality series starring Jamie Kennedy. "Jamie Kennedy's Blowin' Up" is something like a combination of the actor's two best-known works, the Warner Bros. theatrical film, "Malibu's Most Wanted," in which he played a wannabe rapper, and WB Network series "JKX: The Jamie Kennedy Experiment," in which he played pranks. ... In "Blowin' Up," Kennedy and his best friend, Stu Stone, try to become legitimate hip-hop stars by crashing meetings with music moguls and artists in hopes of landing a record deal. The duo will original music to back the effort."

    4. Wiener, Rebecca (Fall 2006). "Seriously Folks: Jamie Kennedy and Stu Stone are Blowin' Up". Heeb. No. 11. p. 31. ISSN  1535-0134. EBSCOhost  IJP0000384174.

      This is a citation-only reference.

    5. McDaniel, Mike (2005-05-05). "Inventor, Jamie can stay, but some shows have to go". Houston Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.

      The article notes: "The Jamie Kennedy experiment is not done. Coming May 16 to MTV, he has a comedy series called Blowin' Up in which he tries to become a hip-hop star. Look for him and his sidekick, Stu Stone, to encounter the likes of Three 6 Mafia, Jason Biggs, Russell Simmons, Mena Suvari, George Lucas and Ice-T."

    6. Morrow, Terry (2006-05-16). "'Scream' star feels 'Up' for MTV comedy". The Journal Gazette. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.

      The article notes: "His quest to be a rapper is documented in the eight-episode comedy series "Blowin' Up" (10:30 p.m. Fort Wayne time today on MTV, Comcast Channel 50). The series follows Kennedy and best friend Stu Smith as they try to convince Hollywood that they can rap. The doors don't exactly swing open wide. In the series, Kennedy's real-life parents tell him to not pursue it. His agent and managers walk out of the meeting. No one on "Blowin' Up" thinks it's a good idea for a 36-year-old white man to try to break into the world of rap."

    7. Core, Sarah (2005-06-05). "TV Review: Jamie Kennedy's new gig is so awful it's funny". UWIRE. Archived from the original on 2022-04-30. Retrieved 2022-04-30.

      The article notes: ""Blowin' Up," the new reality show on MTV about Kennedy's humorous ascent to stardom as a rapper, should really be called "Suckin' Up." After all, that's what he and his buddy Stu Stone spend their time doing -- in between driving around in Kennedy's Hummer, rapping and waving to everyone else in California. Apparently, you have to do a lot of sucking up in showbiz, but hitting on Ice-T's woman is not the way to go about doing that. ... And like anything Kennedy does, it's hard to know what to expect when watching "Blowin' Up." Though critics have been calling the show a tongue-in-cheek look at two guys trying to be rappers, MTV's plays it straight, and viewers end up believing Kennedy's pathetic attempts. It's only after being immersed in a couple of episodes do the sly, humorous moments begin to reveal themselves."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Blowin' Up to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 22:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. ✗ plicit 11:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

King Hippo

King Hippo (  | 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)

Character notability highly dubious with the reception made up of trivial mentions from articles unrelated to him, as well as unreliable sources. Does not seem notable enough for a standalone article, fails WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 06:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 06:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Unlike Super Macho Man, I can see enough discussion on King Hippo to keep his article. Looking at the sources that are already in the article, IGN names him as the 64th top villain in all of video games, and actually discusses the character, which has to count for something, when you consider just how many video games there are. And Kotaku has two articles that discusses him. Beyond that, he seems to be a well-known figure in gaming for his obesity. MoonJet ( talk) 02:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    64th best villain does not indicate importance, but even if it did, that mention contains almost no independent commentary, besides calling him "disturbing". It still indicates a lack of SIGCOV, with the sources being cobbled together from slight mentions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 07:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. Looks like a borderline case to me. Overall sourcing isn't that great, but there is some discussion which is not trivial. Unreliable sources can simply be removed from prose. More substantial sources, like character analysis from a page in this book, could be considered. I spotted recurring mentions of the character in multiple published books through a Google Book search, but YMMW. Another article which should not have been considered for deletion, when a merge action that is unilateral or negotiated is a viable WP:ATD. Haleth ( talk) 04:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    Out of curiosity, do you have any access to this book? No previews are showing up on Google. MoonJet ( talk) 05:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    No, I don’t. But it came up when I did a quick Google Books search and I could see the contents of the relevant page at the time. Haleth ( talk) 05:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    Well, with no way to actually check whether that's WP:SIGCOV, it is not really an argument. Still, I did take a browse through Google Books and only found trivial mentions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 07:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. The long reception is quite puffed up from many passing mentions. SIGCOV is an issue, but I just don't have the time&will to review this right now. IMHO there's a ton of articles with zero or next to zero reception that we could prune before we tackle this kind of stuff... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    Arguably, articles with inflated sources are more pernicious because it gives people a false sense of what is considered notable by Wikipedia and what isn't. At least when you have articles with no reception/sources it's quite obvious that it falls short and you shouldn't emulate its example. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 16:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Zxcvbnm Errr, obvious? Looks at the ongoing Megatron discussion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 09:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep per Haleth. I see this as a borderline case, and there is some amount of padding from non-significant coverage here. But I think there are enough quality sources to get this over the hurdle for notability. There is some ambiguity about the misuse of trivial mentions and questionable sources in these types of articles, and it may warrant a wider discussion to get some clarity. But until then, significant coverage in independent reliable sources is supposed to be enough to write an article, even if I'd like to see the meandering padding cleaned up. Shooterwalker ( talk) 18:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Cultural depictions of salamanders. Opinion is split between delete and merge to what is now called Cultural depictions of salamanders. My practice is to close AfDs split between merge and delete as redirect: this allows the editorial process to figure out what if anything sholud be merged from the history. Sandstein 10:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Legendary salamander in popular culture

Legendary salamander in popular culture (  | 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)

Considering we already have a decent article on Salamanders in folklore, why do we need this two-footnote, policy salad-failing ( WP:IPC, WP:GNG, WP:NLIST, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR, WP:V, plus the just created WP:NOTTVTROPES) listicle? At best, I think we can redirect it to the aforementioned 'in folklore' article (which arguably could be renamed to have a bit bigger scope and expanded a bit with something. For the record, I checked and salamander's have no topic entry in The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters , but they are mentioned in passing 12 times in the book and in index, Salamander entry redirects to more general 'Elementals'). PS. Recording for posterity, the candidate for the most trivial passing mention of the topic I have seen so far in the 'popular culture' trivisticles: "In Harry Turtledove's novel The Case of the Toxic Spell Dump, the main character mentions in passing that his apartment building uses a salamander as a water heater." PPS. And I'll mercifuly ignore the usage of the adjective 'legendary' in the title, which is pretty much unused in the article body... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Popular culture. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect to a renamed version of Salamanders in folklore. Did not have time to check notability myself. "in folklore" is not the same as in "popular culture". At least the Encyclopedia of Fantasy-referenced part should be preserved, which attests that secondary sources talk about the concept in fantasy. Again, which is not covered in the current "in folklore" article. The current version of our list here would thus be preserved in the history and could help to write and expanded a section, properly enhanced with secondary sources, if someone was so inclined. If someone were to find more secondary sources after all, please let me know. Daranios ( talk) 11:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Changing my !vote to redirect. Based on Rorshacma's description of the source, the way the introductory sentence is phrased might not be the best one. Still, the topic appears in fantasy as is attested in secondary sources, and a corresponding section in the target article should be created. Some of the examples we have here appear in secondary sources, too, and might be useful there. So I stand by my opinion that the current version should be preserved in the history for potential future use. Daranios ( talk) 20:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Salamanders in folklore and add that single source in the lead of this article to the lead of that article. That is the only thing that should actually be preserved, as the remainder of this list is unsourced trivia that in the vast bulk of the cases are extremely non-notable examples. Rorshacma ( talk) 15:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Delete - So, I took a closer look at the "Encyclopedia of Fantasy" source I initially proposed moving over to the main article, and it turns out that its literally less than a single full sentence of information on the topic. That said, it is completely useless as a source to move over to the main article, so there is nothing that actually should be preserved here at all. Rorshacma ( talk) 06:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
      • I used Special:BookSources/978-1-85723-368-1 from the ref and found a Google Books preview for the 1999 revised edition. There are three search results for salamander: the four (two on the same page) brief mentions are insufficient. A nearby mention of Fictitious Beasts: A Bibliography is a possible lead. Flatscan ( talk) 04:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
        • @ Flatscan and Rorshacma: I don't know how you get access to that source, would it be possible to provide a link? Otherwise, as it seems to be short, could you quote what's there? Or at least say exactly which part of the sentence where the reference is used it actually supports? Thanks! Daranios ( talk) 10:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
        • @ Daranios: - Here you go. The article currently specifically cites the mention in the "elemental" entry of the book. It is mentioned on two other pages, but none of them amount to anything but a few words each, and there is no dedicated entry for the Salamander specifically. Rorshacma ( talk) 15:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
          • @ Rorshacma: Thanks, but unfortunately there is no preview available for me at that link. Probably due to different copyrights in different countries. If the salamander would have a dedicated entry would be important if there should be a stand-alone article or not. I am just arguing that the referenced sentence should be kept if it is supported by the source. If this legendary creature from folklore has found entry into the fantasy genre or not, and in what form, is my view relevant and not "completely useless". It is also affirmed by the Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters. We have a great number of primary sources here, while the lack of secondary sources has been considered a problem. So I don't think that throwing out the one secondary source is the wrong way to go. Daranios ( talk) 17:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
            • Oh, sorry! The text in question on the "Elementals" entry is "Robert S. Heinlein's Magic Inc. (1940) has a simple ball of flame as its fire elemental (or salamander)..." with the remainder of the sentence dedicated to other creatures featured in the book. There is another entry in the book that, during a long listing of many other creatures, states "...the Salamander (a lizard-like creature able to live in fire)...". There is a third page in the book that also shows up when searching for Salamander, but that one simply uses the word without any further text describing it. Rorshacma ( talk) 18:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
              • By the way, The Encyclopedia of Fantasy is available online. The "Elementals" entry can be found here. TompaDompa ( talk) 19:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
                • @ TompaDompa and Rorshacma: Thanks. So the source does attest the use of the legendary creature in fantasy, but I guess I would not have phrased it like it is now. I have adapted my !vote. Daranios ( talk) 20:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
                • I realized that the "Operation Salamander" item was copied from this source, so I removed it. It was present in the original version, but I think it doesn't qualify the whole article for WP:CSD G12 or WP:RD1 on its own. Rewriting it based on "Operation Salamander" directly would be ideal. Flatscan ( talk) 04:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC) reply
                  • @ Flatscan: I have rephrased that passage, do you think it is ok like that? As it was a very short quotation, I think putting quotation marks around it would also have been a solution, so I also don't think this is a problem for the whole article. And again, it shows that our unreferenced list here contains instances which do appear in secondary source, hence my !vote of preserving it for future improvement at least in the form of history. Daranios ( talk) 11:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply
                    • @ Daranios: A quotation is a good idea to avoid the copying concerns, with the small downside that it may appear to be quoted from "Operation Salamander" on first glance. I am not a WP:Copyright problems regular, but your diff seems to be WP:Close paraphrasing. Compare to WP:Close paraphrasing#Example in particular. I disagree that the list items will be useful for research: a source like The Encyclopedia of Fantasy can be found by searching for salamander, not for Glottalphibs ( The New Rebellion). Flatscan ( talk) 04:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply
                      • @ Flatscan: Allright, as the part talking about "Operation Salamander" is quite short, I'd assume it falls within "Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason" and "when there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing" without changing the meaning within that essay. I have added a secondary source for D&D just as a small example, which I don't think would be easy to find by searching for "salamander" alone. Daranios ( talk) 10:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, no redirect: there is no usable content to merge, and popular culture content does not fit in this thinly-sourced popular culture content should not be added to (clarified/retracted Flatscan ( talk) 04:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)) Salamander (legendary creature) or Salamanders in folklore. reply
  • Delete Per nom. Most likely a plausible topic for an article, but WP:TNT applies, as the article is largely unsourced. Any new popcultural information can definitely fit in Salamanders in folklore, which should be moved back to Salamander (legendary creature) as a general article, where it was before it was moved without discussion, consensus, or any commonsense. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 09:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, as this fails WP:OR for not having any basis in reliable independent sources. As such, it also fails WP:V, WP:GNG, and so on. Shooterwalker ( talk) 18:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or merge with Salamanders in folklore or move back to Salamander (legendary creature) as suggested by @ Zxcvbnm:. If it is the former, the mythical salamander information should be in it's own section there. -- Rtkat3 ( talk) 03:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Following the suggestion of Rtkat3, Keep or merge with Salamanders in folklore or move to the previous name of Salamander (legendary creature) as Zxcvbm suggested. Historyday01 ( talk) 01:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - Rtkat3 offered no justification nor addressed the concerns that there is no valid sourcing in the article, so I am not sure what a "Keep" suggestion is being based on here. Keep in mind that AFD is not a vote, so there needs to be more than a simple vote to "Keep" to address the issues brought up in the nomination. Rorshacma ( talk) 04:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    • @ Rtkat3 and Historyday01:
      1. What specific content should be merged? There are only two sources. We discussed The Encyclopedia of Fantasy above, finding little relevant content, and the Monster Manual covers salamanders in the Dungeons & Dragons game system.
      2. Salamanders in folklore was already moved to Cultural depictions of salamanders on 5 May 2022. The name discussion was started above and continues at Talk:Cultural depictions of salamanders#Name. This article has only been moved from Salamander (legendary creature) in popular culture to Legendary salamander in popular culture, back on 6 December 2008.
    • Flatscan ( talk) 04:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply
      Good question and thanks for the background of the page naming. I think any of the sourced content should be moved to Salamanders in folklore, specifically that legendary salamanders are a true fire elemental [1], that in Poul Anderson's short story "Operation Salamander" (1956), there are fire elementals which have lizard-like shape, obscured by flame [1] that in Dungeons & Dragons, salamanders are serpentine beings who dwell in metal cities in the Elemental Plane of Fire, with the Flamewalkers of the Warcraft series are based on these. [2] Those are the only three parts of the page which should be merged / moved to the Salamanders in folklore page. As such, I support Daranios's suggestion that the "Legendary salamander in popular culture" page be a redirect to a Salamanders in folklore, so that the current version of the list can be "preserved in the history and could help to write and expanded a section, properly enhanced with secondary sources, if someone was so inclined" and for any future use. Historyday01 ( talk) 13:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply
      @ Historyday01: As I mentioned in my original comment, the The Encyclopedia of Fantasy ref was present in the source article. If one reviews this diff I provided above, the Monster Manual ref was also available. They can be restored from its history without merging. The other issue is that these sources fail WP:Manual of Style/Trivia sections#"In popular culture" and "Cultural references" material (guideline, shortcut MOS:POPCULT): all such references should be discussed in at least one reliable secondary or tertiary source which specifically links the cultural item to the subject of the article. This source should cover the subject of the article in some depth; it should not be a source that merely mentions the subject's appearance in a movie, song, television show, or other cultural item.
      As a side note, please be mindful of WP:Copying within Wikipedia, as you copied from the article without attribution. Please consider removing the text and referring to them by source. I bear some responsibility because I asked for specifics. Flatscan ( talk) 04:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply
      Ok. I continue to support a redirect as someone could come across one day and add sources, so I wouldn't consider that outside the realm of possibility. As for copying from the page, I am fully aware of that, and thought about removing the text, but it is such a small part of the page, I would say it falls within existing rules, especially since WP:NOATT will apply in the event that the page is deleted, helping anyone who is implementing the results of this AfD. Additionally, my addition of that text was implied to be about Legendary salamander in popular culture page, which is why I didn't directly mention it. Historyday01 ( talk) 12:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply
      Sourcing individual items won't address the lack of sources that tie the topic together. If the article is deleted, the attribution for your comment cannot be repaired, per WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material (shortcut WP:RUD). Flatscan ( talk) 04:29, 11 May 2022 (UTC) reply
      I can agree that there is a lack of sources for the article, hence my vote for a merger, but I also see a value in keeping my comment the way it is for the time being. Historyday01 ( talk) 13:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC) reply
      • I am agreeing with the information that was just mentioned by @ Historyday01:. As I had mentioned, the merge from Salamander (legendary creature) was done without consensus. Plus, we have to list the mythical salamander somewhere in a way it is different from the actual salamanders. -- Rtkat3 ( talk) 17:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply
        Right, exactly. That's why I continue to support a redirect. In fact, if I had more time myself, I would be the type of person who would bring back the page and add sources. I'd venture that there are other users like myself that would do the same thing, granted that they have enough time on their hands. Historyday01 ( talk) 12:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    I have to agree with Historyday01 and believe that the Legendary salamander in popular culture page should be merged with the Salamanders in folklore page. 173.64.72.34 ( talk) 14:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

List of Women Vice Chancellors of Karnataka State Universities

List of Women Vice Chancellors of Karnataka State Universities (  | 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:LISTCRUFT, original research, and only sourced to online academic profiles and resumes. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ ( talk) 08:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was merge to Postage stamps and postal history of Western New Guinea. Sandstein 10:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC) reply

List of people on the postage stamps of Netherlands New Guinea

List of people on the postage stamps of Netherlands New Guinea (  | 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 small, finite list (country as such no longer exists) with no sources showing that this is a topic of direct interest (information extracted from a general stamp catalogue), and with little interest for the biographies of the persons involved (royalty shown on stamps of country they rule, yawn). Fram ( talk) 07:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

I collect stamps of South and Central America and some European countries (including the Netherlands). I use general and specialized catalogues as my sources for this hobby. These are paper editions which are sometimes hard to use to organize a collection (small print, missing pictures, minor errors, etc.). I found the Wikipedia “Lists of people on postage stamps” to be very useful. It provided both reference data and education about people honored on stamps.

I found that many of the lists were either missing or incomplete. I decided to try to update those in my areas of interest. I looked at the format of each page using the overall guidance used in the top level page: Intro, table of contents, list of names, and sources. I did a first round of updates to the Latin American countries in 2013 and a second round this winter. I tried to update the notability aspect of each person listed show why they were portrayed on a stamp. I particularly wanted to ensure that the sources were fully listed. I also chose to update the entries for some of the European countries. When I came to the stamps of the Netherlands and associated entities, I saw that there no pages provided for Netherlands Antillies, Netherlands Indies nor Netherlands New Guinea. The link colour was red. I wanted to provide completeness in the main list so, using the standard model, I created the pages for the 3 entities and published them.

User Fram noted in a post on 12 April 2022 that the list for Netherlands New Guinea is only 2 items long and only lists the king and queen of the Netherlands. I responded that I agreed that the list was short. However stamps were only issued for this entity from 1950 to 1962 with only those 2 people featured (see Talk page for details). Each entry in the list points to a detailed bio of the person and there is a source listing. Netherlands New Guinea became part of Indonesia in 1962. The page was marked for deletion and I manually removed the markup text and stated why on the talk page.

I do not know if there is a prescribed Wikipedia definition for the length of a list to make it valid for inclusion. To me, a list is as long as it needs to be!!

There is precedent for short lists. See Abkazia (3 entries), Central Lithuania (5 entries), French Congo (0 entries), Portugese Africa (0 entries) and possibly others. As far as I can tell, there were no objections to these short lists.

There is also a precedent for combined short lists. These generally group together colonies of other countries ex. Belgian Congo is combined with Democratic Republic of the Congo and Zaire.

I want the data on the page to remain in Wikipedia. I would therefore propose to combine Netherlands Indies and New Guinea into a single page with the appropriate #REDIRECT code in the other. They were both governed by the Netherlands. Both became part of Indonesia. As stated in the previous paragraph, this appears to be acceptable for many other related countries.

I apologize if I do not know the correct markup code to indicate my preference to have the page data stay available. Bill Blampied ( talk) 20:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply

No one disputes that the persons are notable, the problem is that the combined topic of people on NNG stamps isn't notable. And I'm sorry to say that many of the other similar lists aren't notable either (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) and should be deleted as well. I'll perhaps make some group nomination for all the problematic ones, like List of people on the postage stamps of Bushire. Fram ( talk) 07:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge This first page on this topic (List of people on postage stamps (LPPS)) was created in 2002, one year after the start of Wikipedia. I have to believe that the issue of notability of these types of articles has been discussed and resolved more than once in the past 20 years. I say this because the whole LPPS page tree is still part of Wikipedia and available for updates. With regard to the reference to Bushire above, a comparable list article would show 2 people being portrayed on their stamps. It has just happened that one editor created the link but no-one has created the article itself. Creation would re-raise this discussion. With regard to adding the data to the postal history page, those articles do not have lists but provide the history of the postal service in a country or territory. A few significant people are listed but not every person pictured on a stamp is listed. As I stated above, I feel that merging NNG with Netherlands Indies is an appropriate action. Bill Blampied ( talk) 11:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Correction: Bushire does have both a link from the main page and the short article with 2 items in its list. Note also that Bushire had the same discussion as NNG in 2009; the article remained. Bill Blampied ( talk) 14:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Information and navigational list. Completes a set. Category:Lists of people on postage stamps Can merge shorter list together perhaps, all small island nations. Dream Focus 10:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Except that it doesn't provide good information ("Note that many of these people have been featured on multiple stamps": many of these two people, that is?), nor navigation. It doesn't "complete" any set, it is part of a category with presumably some useful or acceptable articles, many very poor ones (unsourced or WP:OR, incomplete, ...), and many missing ones. Merging tragically bad information doesn't magically turn it into better information. Finally, you shouldn't have copy-pasted your keep argument from the similar Mauritius list AfD, it gives the impression that you haven't properly looked at the article. "small island nations", LOL. Mauritius is only 2000 km², Netherlands New Guinea is half an island and is about 400,000 km²: the complete island is the second largest island in the world after Greenland. Apart from that, very good arguments! Fram ( talk) 10:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply
      • I was thinking small nation as in population not physical size. If they had a larger population surely they'd have more stamps and more people on them. Dream Focus 10:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply
        • Not really, no. The subject of the list here was a relatively short-lived and poor country, which is the main reason for the lack of stamps (well, and the time: this was prior to the main boom of stamps-as-source-of-income for many small countries). Nothing to do with being a small island nation (no idea where the concept comes from to group these by "island" nations, what has being an island or not to do with the subject of the list? Nothing at all surely.) Fram ( talk) 10:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Lacks sources establishing that WP:NLIST is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. Some contents are a welcome addition to the short Postage stamps and postal history of Western New Guinea. As an ultra-brief and finite list, it should not exist as a standalone article. gidonb ( talk) 13:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –  Joe ( talk) 12:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Will and testament of clerics

Will and testament of clerics (  | 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 topic of the WP article is only mentioned at the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, therefore the topic is clearly not WP:NOTABLE enough to deserve a Wikipedia article. WP is not here to duplicate each entry of each encyclopedia ever produced.
I recommend deletion. Veverve ( talk) 12:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Veverve ( talk) 12:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve ( talk) 12:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nominator—only found Catholic Encyclopedia, nothing else on Google. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 15:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- This seems to be about what should happen to the property of Catholic clerics, some of whom will have taken a vow of poverty. It is unlikely to apply to denominations where the clergy marry and will be as free to bequeath their property as any one else. Essentially it is a non-subject. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:13, 12 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Could at best be a few lines in an article about clerics, but I don't see it as being useful. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Clearly, through the lens of only one branch of Christianity is not how Wikipedia views the world. Addressed as Wikipedia would, this would have to be very different. The subjects of last wills and testaments and the legal history of wills are very different without viewing through this restricted peephole. Uncle G ( talk) 20:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and expand An substantial article could be written. In England (& I would assume elsewhere) the argument about whether clerics could pass personal property onto their relatives was an active subject during the medieval period. That the CE does give any emphasis to this topic doesnt mean there is no material to be found.That nothing on this is to be found in Google , of all unlikely places, does not constitute a BEFORE search in this field. I was reading about it last week, but if I don't remember where, I will keep it in mind for when I encounter it again. DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Clearly a notable concept within Canon law (if this topic is only controversial in relation to Catholic clergy, rename accordingly, but don't delete). Without being in any way a canon law specialist, a quick search reveals secondary discussion in James A. Coriden, John P. Beal, Thomas J. Green (eds), New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law (2000). And there's a ton of articles from lay history about clergy wills as a topic of study. Added to this what DGG said. Atchom ( talk) 17:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per the secondary coverage in reliable sources identified above, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 16:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • (changed vote) Rename to Will and testament of Catholic clerics -- This is an issue of Catholic canon law. I do not think this applies to Anglicans or free churches. If it applies to Orthodox or other Protestant denominations, an alternative might be appropriate. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. The article (which is only three sentences long) claims that "The will and testament of clerics is a controversial issue for a number of Christian denominations. Many churches have rules on the way in which property that is owned by a cleric can be distributed on death ..." yet the only church for which anything is cited is the Catholic Church (and the cited source doesn't say that wills and testaments of clerics is a "controversial" issue in the Catholic Church). -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There's actually coverage of this in a number of sources that spans several Christian denominations. The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia is a reliable source for its application to Catholic denominations, while studies also exist on English reformation wills of clerics. In addition, the last wills and testaments of clerics have been studied as a concrete set of historical sources that are incredibly important in understanding the English reformation and how medieval Anglican clerics viewed the nature of their status and their relationship with their wives. While the article is currently poorly written, the topic certainly passes WP:GNG owing to multiple independent reliable sources describing it. The study of the last wills and testaments of clerics itself is quite significant, so I don't really see any merit to the arguments that this was only covered in a single encyclopedia that's now in the public domain. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 17:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 12:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This relisting is not intended to be an administrative decision, as I have already made my own recommendation in this AfD. It's just that this AfD has apparently been abandoned without being closed after four weeks since the last relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect to Harry Turtledove bibliography. ✗ plicit 11:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Election Day (short story)

Election Day (short story) (  | 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)

Couldn't find much evidence of critical review or analysis; sources in the article aren't much help, either. Not seeing a WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK pass. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/ they) 06:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect. As the user who created the article for Election Day, I do not want to see this article deleted. However, if no notable sources can be found, I think that the article should simply be redirected to the Harry Turtledove bibliography article and not deleted entirely. -- JCC the Alternate Historian ( talk) 22:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 20:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Amir Sam

Amir Sam (  | 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 article was created by user Ljvdp shortly before he was indefinitely blocked for harassment. There are no reliable sources to justify the subject's notability or the article's content, and it is riddled with spelling and grammatical errors. For these reasons, I believe that a WP:A7 speedy deletion is justified. Cpotisch ( talk) 20:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Medicine. Izno ( talk) 05:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    • This was an incomplete nomination. I have completed it and listed it at AFD since approximately 05:54, 2 May 2022. I have no opinion on the topic. -- Izno ( talk) 05:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete First off, well done to this chap for making it head of a top-5 med school in the world, at such a relatively young age. That being said, the sources cited don't meet GNG, and as for NACADEMIC notability, I don't think his ICSM headship is enough to satisfy #6, or the FRCP to satisfy #3, and I don't see anything else there. (Happy to be proven wrong on either count, of course.) As a side note, this still stinks of promo, and IMO those Amazon links should be removed (unless we're now earning affiliate royalties!), and I'm not happy about the likely COI/UPE either, but none of those are the reasons for my !vote. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 08:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Wow, I only just noticed that those were Amazon links, so I removed them. I truly think that that settles the fact that this is purely promotional. Is there anything we can do to expedite the deletion process? Cpotisch ( talk) 17:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Almost appears as a vanity post. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Iran and United Kingdom. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Would appear to satisfy WP:NACADEMIC #5. Imperial College School of Medicine is a highly notable institution. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Director of a medical school is not equivalent to a "named chair" or "distinguished professorship" (he is not even a professor), so no he does not meet #5. JoelleJay ( talk) 02:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Apologies. I meant #6. "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society." Which he indisputably has. Although it may appear to come under Imperial College, London medical schools have always operated as effectively independent academic institutions. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 09:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    In this case he'd be under the Dean of the Imperial College Faculty of Medicine, though. He's not the highest-level post. - MrOllie ( talk) 12:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    The president of Imperial College would be the highest administrative position, #6 doesn't apply to the directors of individual schools even if they operate largely independently. JoelleJay ( talk) 21:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC, nor are sources really there to meet WP:GNG. - MrOllie ( talk) 12:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG. FRCP rank does not qualify for #3 of WP:ACADEMIC, it's a relatively common rank held by many UK physicians. Head of the ICSM is not an academic but an administrative distinction, and as ICSM is not independent, he is under Imperial's Dean of Medicine. In short: does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. Ari T. Benchaim ( talk) 22:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Per above discussion. JoelleJay ( talk) 02:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 07:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Stibbe (disambiguation)

Stibbe (disambiguation) (  | 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 good disambiguation page per WP:TWODABS. Stibb is not spelled as "Stibbe". GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 05:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was withdrawn. ✗ plicit 07:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Norway women's national under-18 volleyball team

Norway women's national under-18 volleyball team (  | 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 article lists a team and has "No Volleyball Event", "Didn't qualify", and "No Appearances" in the infobox. If there is no activity by this team, then there cannot be notability for this team. Article fails notability for sports, WP:NSPORT. References go to lists and stats pages. Still fails WP:NSPORT. Whiteguru ( talk) 05:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sports, and Norway. Whiteguru ( talk) 05:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Hi, Whiteguru, A team without international appearances doesn't mean that team is not active, I 've added their activities if you can see in the page table below, since their only participate in European Qualifications Event. Thanks Elly mino ( talk) 10:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Withdraw nomination; the article has been improved enough to address the initial concerns -- Whiteguru ( talk) 20:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. S9m3 c9nfusion regarding the recent change in guidelines but nothing mentioned that indicates a level of coverage received that would potentially satisfy GNG. Will happily restore if some9ne feels they can show GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 22:07, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Keighley Central F.C.

Keighley Central F.C. (  | 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)

Non-notable club now that the rules are changing: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability. Their "league winning" does not seem to have translated into sources. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 03:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 03:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England. North America 1000 06:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'm not seeing, User:Walter Görlitz any mention in that RFC you referenced about changing "rules" for sports team (though that RFC is over 115,000 words long, so I surely missed something). The part of NSPORTS that deals with the notability of teams is WP:NTEAMS, and it has not changed at all, this decade. Can you clarify the rule change? Nfitz ( talk) 06:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Consensus was reached on Subproposal 3 (NSPORT): Remove all simple or mere "participation" criteria in NSPORT, outside of ones related to Olympics and equivalent events. This would eliminate several sections on specific sports where this is the only type of criteria give (such as for NGRIDIRON), while merit-based ones, like several in NTRACK, would be left. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 15:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • That's for athletes. the notability of teams were not addressed in the old NSPORTS or NFOOTBALL. Keighley is a team (named after a place), not a person. Nfitz ( talk) 21:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • It is my understanding that all sports notability should be revisited. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 21:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I don't think so - but the entire thing is an unmitigated crapshow. Either way, I'm not seeing that this article particularly meets any discussed standard - and is for the 3rd Division of the Yorkshire League - which seems far less notable than even the 2nd Division. Nfitz ( talk) 21:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
    Yeah the only change was to athletes. Giant Snowman 19:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 07:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

James R. Kern III

AfDs for this article:
James R. Kern III (  | 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)

Non-notable local politician who fails WP:GNG. Any mentions of him are simply passing or are hyper-local in scope. Curbon7 ( talk) 04:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. Files are not eligible for deletion at AFD. ✗ plicit 07:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Forward (Hoobastank album)

Forward (Hoobastank album) (  | 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 first two self-produced albums by Hoobastank were never released and they did not chart. Very little has been written about them except in passing, noting that some of the songs were reworked for later albums. Both of these albums fail WP:NALBUM. Binksternet ( talk) 03:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

For the same reason I am also nominating for deletion the first unreleased Hoobastank album. Binksternet ( talk) 03:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

They Sure Don't Make Basketball Shorts Like They Used To (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am also nominating the albums The Greatest Hits: Don't Touch My Moustache and Is This the Day? for deletion as a non-notable compilation albums, along with redirects and images related to all of these articles. Binksternet ( talk) 15:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply

The Greatest Hits: Don't Touch My Moustache (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Greatest Hits Don't Touch My Moustache (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is This the Day? (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
File:They Sure Don't Make Basketball Shorts Like They Used To by Hoobastank.jpg ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:The Greatest Hits Don't Touch My Moustache.jpg ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Forward by Hoobastank.jpg ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Is This the Day.jpg ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –  Joe ( talk) 12:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Evan Owen Allen

Evan Owen Allen (  | 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 subject of this article is, for lack of a better expression, "just some guy". He was a journalist with nothing about him that fits Wikipedia's notability standards for a biography. -- NotCharizard 🗨 02:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, and Wales. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, while the Welsh wiki does have a little more information on him, it still does not seem to satisfy notability criteria, being mostly trivia related prose. It seems the "Allen" part may have not been part of his actual name, but searching "Evan Owen" is also too vague to easily get precise results. Neither article suggests this person gained sufficient notability and while I'd lean delete, I can't rule out some sources cropping up to refute that. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 09:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep. He has an article in his country's national biographical dictionary, which meets WP:ANYBIO, so "nothing about him that fits Wikipedia's notability standards for a biography" is not quite exact, to say the least. Atchom ( talk) 00:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:ANYBIO. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Sources from this time period are harder to come by, but his inclusion in the book Eminent Welshmen and the Dictionary of Welsh Biography is sufficient evidence of notability.-- Mojo Hand ( talk) 23:23, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –  Joe ( talk) 12:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Cadwgan Ffol

Cadwgan Ffol (  | 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)

Effectively all this article (and any sources I can find online) say about this person is that they existed. Ergo, they do not meet the general notability guideline or the biographical notability guideline. -- NotCharizard 🗨 02:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, United Kingdom, and Wales. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Actually, I'm not sure we can say he existed. According to the Welsh DNB entry, we have his name attached to one (non notable) poem in one manuscript - the two other surviving versions of this poem are attributed to 1) someone else and 2) no one. This appears to be one of those cases where having an entry in the relevant national biographical dictionary does not, in fact, indicate a WP:GNG pass. -- asilvering ( talk) 04:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This may or may not be the name of a person who wrote one poem that survives. He may have written more works, but we have no evidence of that, and even the one poem is not clear. I do not think this is enough to justify an article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep per WP:ANYBIO. Our guidelines say that anyone included in a dictionary of national biography is notable. Even though little is known of him, he's earned inclusion in three biographical dictionaries: the 1959 Dictionary of Welsh Biography, the 1852 Biographical Dictionary of Eminent Welshmen, and apparently another 1901 Dictionary of Welsh Biography. Weak, because there is so little to write of him, but the compilers of the dictionaries must have believed he was noteworthy. pburka ( talk) 18:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Pburka WP:ANYBIO says people are likely to be notable if they meet those standards, not that such a person should be included in the encyclopedia every time in all cases if they do. This is all the information we are likely to ever have on this person, now or in the future. Those earlier projects were written with a degree of optimism: they were hoping, like we do, that more sources will turn up. That was over 100 years ago, and they haven't. (It's worth noting we don't actually have any clear information that he existed at all; what we have is that one person wrote this name down next to a poem once - and two other people did not write that same name down next to that poem when they copied it.) I'm trying to clarify the context here, not to argue against your vote on this basis (he indisputably does meet WP:ANYBIO), since basically what we have is the philosophical question of: does Wikipedia contain articles about people who may never have existed, about whom all anyone is ever likely to know makes up less than a paragraph, if that person has been "noticed" by the editors of a DNB? -- asilvering ( talk) 19:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    I agree that we'll never have more to write of him, but I don't think that's really important. We know almost nothing of Aristodama, either, but we do know that she was greatly esteemed, and permastubs aren't harmful. The major difference between Aristodama and Cadwgan Ffol is that the former was recognized by her contemporaries, whereas Cadwgan was only recognized much later, by people who knew no more of him than do we (thus my weak conviction). However, for me, the guiding principal is that Wikipedia delegates notability decisions to independent experts (who publish in reliable sources or award major honors or prizes). If these experts have deemed the poet worthy of entries in three DNBs, I'm inclined to defer to them. pburka ( talk) 20:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    The problem with that argument is that people who may never have existed can still be notable, as User:Pburka put so well. Atchom ( talk) 00:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, per WP:ANYBIO or indeed WP:BASIC, and what the last voter said. We have tons of articles on ancient writers of dubious existence and other assorted (possibly) fictional personages. Whether they existed or not is not the question; the question is whether they are covered adequately by secondary literature. They are here, and so case closed. Atchom ( talk) 00:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    For examples, see Category:People whose existence is disputed. pburka ( talk) 19:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:ANYBIO. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 03:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Jacob Kohr

Jacob Kohr (  | 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)

non-notable actor who played a minor roll in Nashville, not even the character themselves, just a younger version of said character in a single episode and afaict, hasn't appeared in anything else. PRAXIDICAE💕 01:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete does not meet WP:NACTOR with only one minor role. Would probably qualify for A7 too. >>>  Ingenuity. talk(); 02:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 02:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Bhumika Sharma

Bhumika Sharma (  | 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 meeting WP:GNG policy. Only small mentions. Laptopinmyhands ( talk) 01:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete: Most of the refs are "name-only" mentions on blogs that someone wore one of her pieces of clothing. David notMD ( talk) 03:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete- could be a promotional attempt, as cursory search on Google doesn't bring anything which can point out that this fulfills WP:N and it doesn't meet WP:GNG. RS6784 ( talk) 07:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and India. Shellwood ( talk) 07:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - insufficient evidence to demonstrate this subject meets notability guidelines. Such-change47 ( talk) 00:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, page was hijacked at one point it appears. It used to be about an Indian body builder, but as this dif shows it was entirely changed by a now banned user. That user was banned for using multiple accounts, but that account only had edits on this page. Either way, I'd vote to delete both the old and newer version, just something I thought worth noting. Hey man im josh ( talk) 14:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ a b Langford, David (1997). "Elementals". In Grant, John; Clute, John (eds.). The Encyclopedia of Fantasy. London: Orbit/ Little, Brown and Company. pp. 313–314. ISBN  978-1-85723-368-1.
  2. ^ Williams, Skip; Tweet, Jonathan; Cook, Monte (2003). Monster Manual: Core Rulebook III v.3.5. Renton: Wizards of the Coast. pp. 218–219. ISBN  978-0-7869-2893-4. ( d20 open content)
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_May_2&oldid=1087358232"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE