Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 23 May 25 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. ( non-admin closure) MaxnaCarter ( talk) 02:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply


Derick Hall

Derick Hall (  | 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:NCOLLATH and no significant secondary source coverage. —  rsjaffe  🗣️ 23:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Redirect To Auburn Tigers Emery Cool21 ( talk) 12:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Emery Cool21: Why? BeanieFan11 ( talk) 14:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Not Notable Football Player, So It Should Redirect To Auburn Tigers Because The Wikipedia Notability Rules Emery Cool21 ( talk) 13:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Did you even look at my "keep" rationale? Because right there that's eight pieces of significant coverage, easily passing the general notability guideline ("The Wikipedia Notability Rules"), which states A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I see no way this does not pass. And a redirect does not make sense to me, as that wouldn't really help the reader at all. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 14:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fabric discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 09:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply

FabricLive.85

FabricLive.85 (  | 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:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Found not a single source about the album. PK650 ( talk) 23:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. ( non-admin closure) MaxnaCarter ( talk) 03:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Bad Dog!

Bad Dog! (  | 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 show, minimal sourcing found. Deprodded with rationale of "notable show" but no proof of supposed notability Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 23:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Genzlinger, Neil (2011-09-10). "So, This Is Man's Best Friend?". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28.

      The review notes: "But in a new series, “Bad Dog!,” the folks at Animal Planet, no doubt after conducting extensive research and war-game simulations, seem to have concluded that the battle against growling, biting, territory marking, furniture ripping and garden-bed digging is unwinnable. The show presents assorted dogs that are expanding the boundaries of bad canine behavior, then does nothing to correct the beasts. Instead, it seems to revel in their wickedness. ... As revealing as the show is about the extent of the dogs-gone-wrong epidemic, it also tells us something about the people who own these animals. In several instances the doggie depravity is captured on video because the owners have set up surveillance cameras."

    2. Tatko-Peterson, Ann (2011-09-19). "TV Time: 'Bad Dog!' season finale". Mercury News. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28.

      The review provides 114 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "Where most shows starring misbehaving pets strive to reform them, “Bad Dogs” is all about reveling in their mischief. There’s no Dog Whisperer in sight. As guilty pleasures go, this one is a winner."

    3. Houston, Melinda (2013-05-19). "Critic's choice". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28.

      The review provides 97 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "Well, I can't say I approve of cats being included in a bad dog marathon (or ferrets, or hedgehogs for that matter - although I forgive the goats because they're so adorable). Elsewhere though, this is a fun, silly compilation of dogs behaving badly, rather in the style of Funniest Home Videos, only with hounds instead of toddlers, and complete with arch narration and kooky sound effects. To anyone who owns a dog, much of the behaviour here will seem unremarkable, but there are some wonderful moments. I liked the commando border collie, and the amazing peeing Pomeranian."

    4. Less significant coverage:
      1. Cain, Brooke (2014-07-12). "What to Watch on Saturday: Lifetime teen 'Presumed Dead in Paradise'". The News & Observer. Archived from the original on 2018-07-02. Retrieved 2022-05-28.

        The article notes: "Bad Dog! (8pm, Animal Planet) - The new season of “Bad Dog!” begins with a dog that keeps escaping from a backyard and another who drops to the ground during walks. Yet another dog is obsessed with his owners’ toaster oven."

      2. Cuthbertson, Ian (2013-05-18). "Pay Television Quick Bites". The Weekend Australian. p. 29. ProQuest  1352750120.

        The article provides 78 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "You'd have to be quite the dog lover to take much satisfaction from this marathon (has 60 minutes ever seemed so long?) of cutie-pie hounds stuffing up. Bad Dog Marathon is a bit like Funniest Home Videos stuck in the groove of the misbehaving pet. "How could you stay mad at that face for very long?" squeaks the high-pitched male narrator as some mutt tries hard to maintain the hang-dog expression it obviously has been trained to wear."

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

    Cunard ( talk) 09:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per Cunard's rationale as above. ☆★ Mamushir ( ✉✉) 10:24, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Cunard's come through again. The sources, especially #1 above, show WP:SIGCOV in independent rs, passes WP:GNG. Jacona ( talk) 12:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the citations listed by Cunard. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Per Cunard above. Carrite ( talk) 21:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the article is referenced now. It is in better shape than when it was nominated. Bruxton ( talk) 03:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Hornet (Company)

Hornet (Company) (  | 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 appear to meet WP:NCORP. I could find a few minor news articles but nothing in-depth that shows significant coverage. >>>  Ingenuity. talk(); 23:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi >>> Ingenuity. talk(); I saw that you nominated my article for deletion. I'm new to Wikipedia and maybe I made some mistakes. I'm trying to expand the WikiProject Animation . So maybe you can let me know what things should I include to validate this article. Thanks! Esteban Kimura ( talk) 23:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Hey @ Esteban Kimura -- if you can provide some good sources that meet WP:42 either here or in the article, it may be kept. Also keep in mind the notability guideline for companies, which is more strict than the general notability guideline. >>>  Ingenuity. talk(); 23:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Thanks! I added a link to https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/3916972Z:US. Bloomberg News is listed on wikipedia.
I can also add links to the latest result from The One Club : https://www.oneclub.org/adcawards/showcase/101st/-item/42851
I intended to add this later on a section called accolades. Esteban Kimura ( talk) 23:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Cannot find reliable sources with significant coverage. -- Mike  🗩 15:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Hi @ Darth Mike! I'm a bit confused. Maybe you can help me. I took the main information from what's available on the company's website. And then I cited -in the article- a few notes from independent and valid sources that confirm the existence of Hornet and what I mention. Maybe there is another way to describe this company summary? I'm trying to work on extending the Animation Stub from wikipedia and I think I will have this same issue once I start creating profiles from renowned director and animators, as it would be difficult to find a centralized profile. Therefore my effort to bring visibility to this folks on wikipedia by quoting several sources. Thanks! Esteban Kimura ( talk) 19:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Esteban Kimura: the main problem here is the lack of significant coverage. Of the two articles you mentioned above, the first is just a company profile (remember, even though the source is reliable, it must also show significant coverage), and the second has only one word about the company. >>>  Ingenuity. talk(); 22:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply


  • Delete Doesn’t realise WP:NCORP policy. So funny cuz first I thought it was Hornet (app) which is a popular app for gay and bi men. And I was like wow, why is that being deleted. But this is something else only. Laptopinmyhands ( talk) 00:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, I'm not seeing enough to satisfy NCORP nor GNG. Jacona ( talk) 13:01, 29 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 22:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Ariel Stoltz

Ariel Stoltz (  | 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 to meet notability for sportspeople. No significant secondary coverage WP:SPORTBASIC. —  rsjaffe  🗣️ 23:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete I agree with the nom. No citation of notability PaulPachad ( talk) 02:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Danielle Wiley

Danielle Wiley (  | 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 individual. Article relies on non-independent sources, minor list-like coverage, very trivial mentions or otherwise stuff she's written herself. Could not find quality sourcing that would support any notability claim elsewhere. PK650 ( talk) 23:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PK650 ( talk) 23:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I don't think influencer marketing has made it to the big time yet, she's mostly tooting her own horn in the sources given. Leaning delete. Oaktree b ( talk) 02:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete an article too heavily built on interviews, the subjects own words, and PR releases. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Delete As per nom this fails WP:GNG. Writer claims to be a writer for forbes but there are no forbes references. She is a member of Forbes Councils, which is a pay to play program, not run by Forbes but by an outside group called Community Co. This is an example of WP:AMAA PaulPachad ( talk) 23:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close. Moved to Draft:Jason Moore (writer) as a recreation of an article which was moved to Draft:Jason Moore per WP:DRAFTIFY. – wbm1058 ( talk) 18:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Jason Moore (writer)

Jason Moore (writer) (  | 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)

Wikipedians don't automatically become notable. He is mentioned quite collaterally, mainly for his large number of edits. Very little, if any, of it is WP:DEPTH. Ari T. Benchaim ( talk) 23:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

*keep Wikipedia is a rules based encyclopedia, just like a rules based country. A non-rules based country is like North Korea and Russia. Even if you don't like it being an article, it meets the Wikipedia rules of having reliable sources. The CNN article, in particular, is really about Moore, not Wikipedia in general. (Therefore, I disagree with Ari T. Benchaim, who claims that Moore mentioned "quite collaterally" when, in fact, Moore is the main subject of the CNN article). Charliestalnaker ( talk) 07:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Note this user (the article's creator) has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Hut 8.5 17:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I'm not really sure what to say or do here, but I'm the subject of this entry. Recently a subpar stub about me was created, then moved into draft space after being nominated for speedy deletion: Draft:Jason Moore. Given my conflict of interest, I shared a more complete and sourced draft on the talk page ( Draft talk:Jason Moore) for editors to review and implement appropriately. Now this second page has been created and nominated for deletion. I guess I'll just step away from this for a while and revisit once the dust has settled. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 13:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
I wouldn't pay it too much mind. Have faith in the process and let others decide if they are willing to AGF or not. DN ( talk) 16:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I do think the subject is notable, but this current article stub clearly doesn't make the case for that. I'm confused why it was recreated when it was moved to draft space just yesterday and editors are working on creating a much more comprehensive article here). Obviously if editors are looking at that version, it would be a completely different discussion than the live stub. I see a couple courses of action: 1. Moving over the draft talk page version (which is much more comprehensive) to the live page; 2. !Voting on this article in this current form; 3. Deleting this article and recreating with the draft talk version at a later time. I'd prefer option 1, as the subject meets notability criteria. I'm sure other editors can come up with other options, and I'm happy to hear those as well. For what it's worth, I'll be !voting 'keep' if this discussion continues in anticipation of the sourcing and content from the draft talk page version being incorporated. -- Kbabej ( talk) 15:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The drafted one is a mess. While this does seem like a low-importance article, nothing here seems contentious or poorly sourced. Kire1975 ( talk) 16:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the subject of the article has requested deletion. The deletion policy says Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is "no clear consensus to keep" may be closed as delete. While Moore has been the subject of a few news articles, he is an unknown person and definitely not a public figure, and I think we should grant the request. In any case most of the sources which have been put forward are about the 2020 Capitol insurrection, suggesting he falls under WP:BLP1E as being a person known only for a very minor role in a single event. The only source provided which isn't about that event and gives him significant coverage is [1]. Hut 8.5 16:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Hello @ Hut 8.5. Can you point to where the subject is requesting deletion? I actually see the subject asking for the draft on the draft talk page to be considered. -- Kbabej ( talk) 17:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
*::Retort What an insult, calling Moore "non-public". He obviously cooperated with the news articles over nearly 10 years and gave interviews. He is a public person. That rule cited does not apply. In addition, Kbabej is correct. Moore cooperated with the WP article. He should not be allowed to game the system and not want it if he doesn't like a later version. That would be the subject person manipulating Wikipedia (which Moore hasn't done yet). Charliestalnaker ( talk) 17:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • How am I gaming the system? All I've done is provided a more complete and better sourced draft for editors to consider, if there's going to be an entry about me. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    [2] sounds like a deletion request to me. "Public figure" does not mean "gave an interview to a news article". Wiktionary defines it as "A famous person whose life is the subject of public interest". Our article defines it as "a person, such as a politician, celebrity, social media personality, or business leader, who has a certain social position within a certain scope and a significant influence and so is often widely of concern to the public, can benefit enormously from society, and is closely related to public interests in society". Moore is not famous, there is no public interest in his life, and he his not remotely influential in society. He's an ordinary guy who was covered in a few news articles about Wikipedia. "Non-public figure" is not an insult, the vast majority of people are not public figures, including me. Hut 8.5 17:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Thank for the reply. As I noted on the admin noticeboard, Moore doesn't request deletion. In a reply on the noticeboard, I wrote, "In reviewing what they wrote, I don't see them asking for a deletion. Instead, on their initial post here, they ask for updates to the page with the sourced draft talk page twice: 1. "I disclosed my conflict of interest and shared a complete and sourced draft on the talk page for editors to review and implement appropriately."; 2. "Would someone be interested in helping to update the live article based on my draft?". I'm confused where editors are coming up with a deletion request when that doesn't appear anywhere. -- Kbabej ( talk) 17:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    The comment mentions removing the mainspace version, which is this article. I read that as a deletion request. I'm sure that Another Believer can speak for himself if that wasn't his intention. In any case even without the request I don't think the sources given are enough to justify an article because they almost entirely cover him in the context of the Capitol insurrection. Hut 8.5 17:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Are you looking at the sourcing on the current AfD'd live version (5 sources), the draft version (2 sources) , or the draft talk page version (33 sources)? Obviously I'm aware the number of sources isn't indicative of notability, and that's not my point. My point is I don't see the editor asking for deletion (and yes, they may need to weigh in, if that's the perception), and also that there are three versions to assess here. -- Kbabej ( talk) 17:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    I'm a bit overwhelmed by all of this but I'll try to clarify. I don't feel like I should have any say in whether or not I'm "notable" by Wikipedia's standards. That's for other editors to decide. However, I've provided a COI draft in an attempt to correct inaccurate and unsourced information about me, which was added to the project by two now-blocked editors. One bad entry was created, then flagged for speedy deletion and moved into main space for improvement. Then, a sockpuppet created a second bad entry, which was flagged for deletion. Between the draft, the live page, the sockpuppet investigation, the admin noticeboard, and this ongoing deletion discussion, I don't really know what the next steps should be. I just want there to be an accurate entry about me, if there's going to be one. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Well it certainly sounds like you don't want this version to exist in mainspace, and I think we should honour that request. I hadn't seen the version on the draft talk page but I don't think it's much of an improvement in terms of demonstrating notability, while it has lots of citations they turn out to be to trivial mentions, news articles which don't mention the subject of the article or only do so in passing, blog posts and the Wikipedia Signpost. Hut 8.5 18:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Correct, I do not want this current version in the main space, but I'm not saying I'd never want there to be a Wikipedia entry about me if editors think I meet the site's notability criteria. I'm very torn here -- I never thought I'd "earn" a Wikipedia entry and I'm completely flattered to have one, especially at a project I care about tremendously and for which I've dedicated so much time and energy over the years. However, you better believe that if editors put up incorrect information about me then I am going to submit COI requests to address those issues, which is what I've done and what I'll continue to do if the article is kept. Right now I don't even know if I'm supposed to be submitting requests to Talk:Jason Moore (writer) or Draft talk:Jason Moore. Is there even a reason to submit COI edit requests in the draft space? I assume a history merge is not applicable, but ideally we'd all be working off a single page here. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 18:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comments. First of all, this AfD is off to a very poor start. The tone of several of the comments made so far is shockingly bad. Claiming that the article-subject "almost seems like he's using the tragedy for his own ends" is blatantly offensive, as is analogizing the deletion nomination to "North Korea and Russia", and as are references to the subject's "gaming the system", even if accompanied by a backhanded acknowledgement that he has in no way done that "yet". These kinds of comments would be BLP violations if made against anyone, and the fact that in this case we are discussing an article on one of our editing colleagues in no way excuses them. On the notability issue, the only claim of notability seems to concern the subject's Wikipedia editing. There are only a handful of people with mainspace articles based primarily or exclusively on their editing here, and it's not clear how common that should be. If the subject is requesting deletion, this is a dubious enough case of notability that his preference should be decisive. (Clearly notable subjects do not get to decide whether they have articles, but borderline-at-best ones should.) Ironically, if the subject were pushing us to keep the article, he'd be accused of improper self-promotion. It's also possible that he's refraining from requesting deletion, or conversely from requesting that an improved article be kept, out of concerns about being accused of COI. If so, I sympathize, because I've been there as a BLP subject myself, discouraged by policy from making even non-controversial factual updates in my own article. It's not an easy place to be—but as our critics point out, having an unwanted or an inaccurate Wikipedia article is just as problematic for our borderline-notable BLP subjects who do not have their own voices here as well as those of us who do. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Well stated, @ Newyorkbrad. I'm just thinking out loud here, but as the article was created by a sockpuppet after just being moved to draftspace yesterday, is there a way to wash this AfD? Not sure if that's even a possibility. I think there's a lot of confusion with three versions of the article (the live version, the draft version, and the draft talk page version), all of which are very different. I agree that the subject is in an unenviable position. -- Kbabej ( talk) 18:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    You're right, Newyorkbrad. I'm offended by more or less being called an ambulance chaser because I sometimes work on Wikipedia entries about disasters. Sometimes I speak to journalists when they have questions about my work and how Wikipedia operates in general, but I'm not sure how that gets warped into me using tragedy for personal benefit. And you're right, I'm quite frustrated by having to defend myself across multiple pages because of actions by now-blocked editor(s). I understand healthy COI skepticism, but getting fellow editors to review BLP issues should not be so difficult. Like I said above, I don't really know the best next steps so I think I'll let the dust settle. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 18:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Kbabej ( talk) 18:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 ( talk) 00:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Leah Parry

Leah Parry (  | 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:NOLY, and doesn't have significant secondary source coverage WP:SPORTBASIC. —  rsjaffe  🗣️ 23:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep seems to be plenty of coverage to pass WP:GNG, such as [3], [4], [5], [6], etc. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete local human insterest stories about local people used to put a local spin on an international spors competition are not the type of coverage from which we can justify having an encyclopedia article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Genuine question: have you ever voted keep on any AfD ever? Because it seems your sole purpose on Wikipedia is to mass delete every single contentious article on here. Even with the sources provided by Lugnuts above, demonstrating that Parry meets GNG, you still vote delete. Davidlofgren1996 ( talk) 04:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    I think you'll find one or two keeps from the last 400 AfDs! No idea why Lambert would insist on deletion in this case, with the sources provided. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Johnpacklambert:, you were asked a question here and invited to change your !vote as it is not supported by the sources that have been shown. It would be great if you could at least do Davidlofgren1996 the courtesy of replying. Deus et lex ( talk) 10:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Passes GNG per Lugnuts - there is nothing that says local coverage does not satisfy GNG, as long as the paper is reliable I don't see why it wouldn't. In any case, these are major regional and national papers, not some small-town local paper with nothing better to report on. Smartyllama ( talk) 13:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per Lugnuts. Davidlofgren1996 ( talk) 04:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete or draftify As the entry stands now, there is no significant independent source covering her. Lugnuts has shown that there are many more sources that can be added to the source section. If the writer improves the article and adds the sources then I would move to keep PaulPachad ( talk) 18:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
There are no requirements to add the sources, and lack of improvement of an article (even at AfD) is NOT a reason for deletion. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
For future reference, it's covered at WP:CONRED - "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination." Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Leah Parry is an Australian Olympian. The sources provided are from reputable national publications. WAAPHC ( talk) 06:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment/question. 140 games for the Australia national team seems significant, but I don't have a good way of searching Australian sources. I'm not voting for now, but I'm pretty sure that a player with a similar resume for Team USA would be an easy shoo-in with tons of sources. Has anyone done an Australian newspaper search? Jacona ( talk) 13:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Lugnuts - meets notability criteria. Deus et lex ( talk) 10:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The sources above are very in-depth SIGCOV, providing significant coverage of Parry, and not just her Olympic appearances. Easily meets GNG. No 1E concerns. Jacona ( talk) 11:02, 31 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 22:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Heights of vice presidents of the United States

Heights of vice presidents of the United States (  | 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 does not meet notability guidelines: see WP:NLIST. Needs to have reliable significant sources that cover the topic "Heights of vice presidents of the United States", rather than just coverage of individual's heights. —  rsjaffe  🗣️ 23:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and United States of America. —  rsjaffe  🗣️ 23:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Pure trivia. No encyclopedic merit. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 23:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Needless trivia. Ajf773 ( talk) 23:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Needless trivia and the fact that 18 of them is not known does not help to keep this list. -- Bduke ( talk) 06:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Trivia. In addition, I was surprised at the comment from the nominator: "Needs to have reliable significant sources...". All the reliable sources in the world wouldn't save this from being trivial. Athel cb ( talk) 07:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I can't imagine why we need stamd-alone TRIVIA articles about each physical attribute of each VP. Next it will be thumb length. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate repository of meaningless information. Jacona ( talk) 14:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not every list that has gotten some mention from someone trying to fill a news quota deserves an encyclopedia entry. Half the sources here are establishing specific heights, and only one of those is for someone who was not a US president. This is a very definition of a trivial list. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Unnecessary, very trivial. Also surprised that there are so many entries were the height is unknown. That is also a red flag, the inability to complete a list does not speak well for its ability to be worth keeping. Royal Autumn Crest ( talk) 00:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete So random! Why do we need this? Laptopinmyhands ( talk) 00:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The WP:SNOW party has won this election in a landslide. Heights of presidential candidates have been shown to affect voters, but not those of their running mates. Clarityfiend ( talk) 23:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per snow and trivia. Bearian ( talk) 20:17, 31 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 23:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Heights of European monarchs

Heights of European monarchs (  | 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 does not meet notability guidelines: see WP:NLIST. Needs to have reliable significant coverage of the topic "Heights of European Monarchs", rather than just coverage of individual's heights. —  rsjaffe  🗣️ 23:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - Academic attention has been given to the topic, as height has been commonly perceived as an influence in securing positions of leadership. Most notably, TALL KINGS: The Height of Medieval English Kings by Josiah C Russell. [1] This is touched upon heavily in the article on the heights of U.S. presidents. User:Ageofultron 23:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
You should have made it clear that as creator of the article and major editor of it you have a vested interest in keeping it. Athel cb ( talk) 07:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Apologies, I forgot to disclose. I have also added more information to the article in question. User:Ageofultron 05:32, 26 May 2022
  • Delete. As it stands the article doesn't make any serious case for notability, as there is no discussion of the relationship between height and power. The opening words, "European monarchs have varied greatly in height," set the stage for the triviality that follows. Athel cb ( talk) 07:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This article inherently violates what Wikipedia is not. A book on the heights of English monarchs in the medieval period is not the basis of discussion heights of all European monarchs. There is no good reason to chose this scope, as opposed to height of all heads of state, or even of all monarchs worldwide. The very existence of this article reinforces the overcoverage of Europe and European descneded people in Wikipedia. Not everything that someone somewhere has published an article on lends itself to be covered in an encyclopedia article, and this clearly does not lend itself to such coverage. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the sources already in the article, particularly TALL KINGS: The Height of Medieval English Kings. Height is commonly brought up in royal biographies, and it's often used as a point of comparison: e.g. Napoleon. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 16:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 19:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Random listicles aren't going to do the job. There is the article about English kings only, one source listing the heights of about a half a dozen contemporary female royals and one from Ranker for British kings, none of which encompasses anywhere near the scope of this list. All the other "references" are for the heights of individuals only. Clarityfiend ( talk) 23:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ RUSSELL, JOSIAH C. (1957). "TALL KINGS: The Height of Medieval English Kings". The Mississippi Quarterly. 10 (1): 29–41 – via JSTOR.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As noted in the discussion, fails WP:PROF. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Rahul Sharma (professor)

Rahul Sharma (professor) (  | 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:NPROF. This is mostly a resumé-like article with no independent coverage. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 22:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 22:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom. Ari T. Benchaim ( talk) 23:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Google Scholar profile is here [7], and shows no sign of WP:NPROF C1. Head of academic operations does not appear to be the top administrative post at Lovely PU. No other sign of notability. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 06:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Clear failure of WP:PROF on academic impact (highest-cited papers 32,13,1,1,0), no evidence of books that might contribute to WP:AUTHOR. Lovely Professional University does not appear to be a highly prestigious university where even a lower-level administrative post might generate reliable coverage. Espresso Addict ( talk) 08:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep This profile is proper article as per the Wikipedia guidelines; and few similar profiles are also present on Wikipedia. Head of Academic Operations is one of the top-level administrative post in the one of the India's prestigious educational institute Lovely Professional University. Ajitkumarpanicker ( talk). 06:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. A look at LPU site doesn't show anything notable for him. Somehow the title of the "Head of Academic Operations" is not shown on the organization chart. Perhaps it is organization service? But either way, it is not a named chair appointment as outlined in point 5 in WP:NACADEMIC. As the position is clearly not the highest, he also failed to satisfy point 6 in WP:NACADEMIC. Thank you.
  • Delete Maybe an important personality but not a notable personality. Anything related to LPU is fishy honestly. Laptopinmyhands ( talk) 00:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep People who have voted Delete here say that he doesn't have enough citations on Google Scholar, but that is completely against the philosophy of notability evaluation. Someone could have 0 citations on Google Scholar and still pass the notability criteria for an academic. Just because they don't pass C1 doesn't meant hey don't pass C6. Getting back to the original deletion nom, it says it's a "resume-style article with no independent coverage" but that is not correct. Look at the reference list and you'll see multiple independent sources of coverage. Dr. Universe ( talk) 18:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Does not meet WP:NPROF, as it lacks the sources which are not just reliable but also significant and indepedent with coverage on the person itself. -- Choose🎵 ( talk) 06:07, 30 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 23:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Rządowe

Rządowe (  | 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 Polish adjective is not a valid dab page. All of these are partial title matches. ( t · c) buidhe 22:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Rządowy

Rządowy (  | 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 Polish adjective is not a valid dab page. All of these are partial title matches. ( t · c) buidhe 22:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Rank One

Rank One (  | 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 subject fails WP:NCORP. Sources currently in the article are, in order:

  1. A press release;
  2. Non-independent coverage on a chamber of commerce's website;
  3. A second press release;
  4. A third press release
  5. A fourth press release.

An online search for additional coverage did not return WP:ORGIND-compliant reliable sources that covered the subject substantially. As the article subject fails to meet WP:NCORP, the article should be deleted. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 22:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

2016 AFC Futsal Club Championship Finals

2016 AFC Futsal Club Championship Finals (  | 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)

All the content mentioned on this page is already available on the main page 2016 AFC Futsal Club Championship. The page thus does not detail any other detail which is not already available on the main page. The only reason why this article has probably been created is because there have been similar pages created for "major tournaments". Anbans 585 ( talk) 21:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Setting aside sockpuppet accounts, the consensus is for deletion. RL0919 ( talk) 23:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Tara Clark

Tara Clark (  | 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 struggling to see how Clark passes WP:BIO. I cannot see a pass of WP:FILMMAKER nor of WP:NACTOR. I am surprised at the quantity of WP:CITEKILL. I do see that this was a draft accepted at AFC, and that the CITEKILL has happened since then, but I think the acceptance was the wrong side of the border. 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Australia. 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment as AfC reviewer but not approver. I had some questions about her notability when I found this in the queue. I don't quite think she reaches creative notability, which is the relevant guideline for her work. I didn't disagree with the approval, but I initiated a discussion on the Talk ( Talk:Tara_Clark#Notability about the creator's insistence on removing the notability tag and edit warring to include a blog source. I haven't further researched her but will try to and come back to !vote during this AfD. Star Mississippi 19:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    update to merge with Festival Fatale. (Full disclosure, I just created that). There's a chance Clark could make Creative notability on her work, but I am not finding sourcing to indicate that. However as @ Pburka noted below, the festival is notable. Believe Clark can be covered within the topic. Star Mississippi 03:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • ::Hi, this should help to confirm creative notability https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/7132251 Biggreeneyes ( talk) 10:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. No opinion on Clark's notability at this time, but the Festival Fatale she produced is certainly notable and in need of a page: Sydney Morning Herald, Broadway World, Daily Review, Huffington Post, ABC Radio, The Guardian. pburka ( talk) 20:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    If she isn't sufficiently notable for her own article, a merger could make sense for her role as she also is active in the Festival's parent organization. Star Mississippi 20:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Red link is now blue. It needs some love, but I think it will survive in mainspace. Star Mississippi 00:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I perused the citations in the article (agree about CITEKILL), and several of them are simple name-checks, blogs, and PR. I added a couple maintenance tags on two of the blogs which probably should be removed (along with the name-checks). Question for the article creator, Biggreeneyes, what do you feel are the three strongest citations currently in the article? Netherzone ( talk) 23:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

*:The Brag Media (publishers of Rolling Stone Australia)

  • https://thebrag.com/bold-raw-new-play-drift-unveiled-july/
    The Daily Telegraph (1.2 million readership)
    https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/city-east/australian-theatre-for-young-people-explores-road-to-young-adulthood-in-two-peas-production-drift/news-story/8de46396b646cc7c8166af092d5e68cf
    And the third one, which I never added would be The National Library of Australia, this should help to confirm creative nobility https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/7132251
    Perhaps you can show me how to add that final one? That would be really appreciated. Biggreeneyes ( talk) 10:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Biggreeneyes The three items you have chosen here are not references for Clark. The first two are about a play or plays. Even though they are written by her, she is not the focus of the pieces. The third, the catalogue entry, is just that, a catalogue entry. It verifies that the things exists, is about the thing, does not verify even the thing's notability, and has no bearing upon Clark's. 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    What do you think are the three strongest? Biggreeneyes ( talk) 10:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Biggreeneyes It is incumbent upon you as the creating editor (or editor suggesting the article be kept) to prove notability. I do not see Clark to be notable (nor shown to be notable), certainly at present, which is why I have made the nomination for deletion 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Understood. There are 18 citations on the article which cover her stated disciplines and extend international coverage, so I think that makes her notable, however... Biggreeneyes ( talk) 11:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Biggreeneyes Please never mistake quantity for quality. A reference analysis shows passing mentions, and one that even fails to mention Clark, And that is just in the first nine. I have left advice on your talk page for improving the article. 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    I noticed you started the Tide Mills, East Sussex page, my grandparents lived right near there. Amazing place. Good page.
    Anyway, back on topic, thanks for the notes. Biggreeneyes ( talk) 12:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Biggreeneyes Thank you for listing what you feel are the three strongest sources. I'm sorry to say that the sources are weak. The Brag seems to be a blog that accepts user-submitted content, basically a press release-like entry that may be native advertising. It's about the play Drift, not her. The Daily Telegraph piece also seems like a modified press release, there is no byline, and it seems like native advertising with a link to ticket sales. The National library citation does not contribute to notability, it simply is a catalog listing that a book or script of Clark's is in the library. Netherzone ( talk) 22:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The substance I can find is that Playlab in Brisbane published the script to Jennifer Forever after a fringe production in Sydney, and she was involved (self-appointed?) in Sydney's notable-at-the-time but short-lived Women in Theatre and Screen initiative. The rest is all in independent/fringe theatre in Sydney and the UK. I don't think that adds up to enough for notability. Boneymau ( talk) 04:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Hello! Jennifer Forever is included in at the National Library of Australia; this should help to confirm creative notability https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/7132251 Biggreeneyes ( talk) 10:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Biggreeneyes: A script recorded at a National Library is insufficient for notability. However, WP:CREATIVE#3 says that someone is notable if "the person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)." If you can show that several of her works "have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", then you'll have a strong argument for CREATIVE#3. pburka ( talk) 13:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello, sorry I am new to this so apologies for WP:CITEKILL Biggreeneyes ( talk) 10:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Biggreeneyes, do you have any WP:COI to declare? In photos of Clark online, the verdant colour of her eyes appear prominent which seems a co-incidence. Boneymau ( talk)
  • Keep Starred in the Australian premier and critically acclaimed Jerusalem by Jez Butterworth. I wanted to see this while I was in Oz, it did cause a bit of fuss from memory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilbrahamMan ( talk • contribs) 13:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC) — WilbranhamMan ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
    • Starred is a stretch, wasn't she just one person in a large cast and not in a leading role? And the New Theatre is not a fully professional theatre, so it is stretching it again to say it is a notable production. Boneymau ( talk) 00:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Wrote and directed Drift which appeared at ATYP. Clark is very much the focus of the article along with the play, which also adds to her creative notability; she has created subject matter that has been picked up by the Daily Telegraph, which is some extensive coverage. Notable in my opinion. Perhaps Two Peas and Oleg Pupovac need pages although a separate discussion Tvman2020 ( talk) 16:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)— Tvman2020 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
    • As far as I can tell, Drift was an independent/fringe production at the ATYP space, not actually produced by ATYP which would lend it more notability. And the Daily Telegraph article seems to be some sort of City East local section (just on the website?), not actually the main Daily Telegraph newspaper. Boneymau ( talk) 00:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - The subject of this article is in the beginning stages of her career, it is WP:TOOSOON. The article sourcing is weak, consisting of sources that are simple name-checks, or seem to be native advertising/PR-placement/press releases, or blog-like entries. Perhaps in a couple of years she will have received the in-depth significant coverage in independent reliable sources needed to meet WP:GNG and/or WP:CREATIVE. Note to closing administrator: the two K**p !votes above seem a bit dodgy; one is a brand new Single Purpose Account and this is their only edit. The other SPA made 4 total edits since it was created: two in 2018, and two to this AfD. I am curious how they happened to find this particular AfD. Netherzone ( talk) 22:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WilbrahamMan will hopefully shed some light on that, although I'm unclear if this is SOCK/MEAT at the moment. Star Mississippi 00:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Stiking socks I can't get the sock strike template right, so I've just struck the comments of those confirmed here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WilbrahamMan. For the closing admin, it's WilbrahamMan, Tvman2020 and Biggreeneyes and others who haven't chimed in here. Star Mississippi 13:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I agree with Netherzone that the sourcing is inadequate. I think the theater company Two Peas has slightly better sourcing, but also not enough. Insufficient profiles of her in independent third party sources. Fails WP:GNG. And it's likely WP:TOOSOON TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Many of the sources seem to be local or not about the subject bop34 • talk • contribs 12:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 18:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Angela Ammons

Angela Ammons (  | 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 she meets WP:NMUSIC despite once appearing on a movie soundtrack, the song never charted and tehre's no coverage to find of her. PRAXIDICAE💕 18:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - Best I found Billboard Jun 2, 2001 single review/preview of "Big Girl". Jun 30, 2001 Small profile mentioning charting #33 on Adult Top 40. Called Adult Pop Airplay via billboard.com. Mentioning single in soundtrack August 4, 2001. Other minor profiles in Billboard Oct 20, 2001 relating to promoting her album. All Billboard storys were pretty short, longer profiles from R&R (magazine): p.40 & Gavin Report p.23. I'm not sure how routine it is for new artist, but signed to Universal, I guess few months of coverage might be common. Someone more familiar with music industry can chime in. Either way at least some sourcing available if article survives. WikiVirus C (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete I agree with the nom. There is no citation of independent credible sources fails WP:GNG PaulPachad ( talk) 02:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I see no singles that charted and can't find sources, but she's been out of the industry for a while now, so this isn't unexpected. Oaktree b ( talk) 02:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I can't find anything to demonstrate she passes a relevant SNG or GNG. Jacona ( talk) 13:15, 29 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. RL0919 ( talk) 19:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Wolfsmouth Players Company

Wolfsmouth Players Company (  | 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)

promotional article about a non notable theater group - aside from a brief mention on broadway world (turns out it doesn't mention the group at all) and casting notices, i can find nothing to indicate the group itself is notable and no meaningful coverage. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:48, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Companies, and New York. Shellwood ( talk) 17:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The refs for this recently formed off-off-Broadway company are self-written. You don't become a notable theatre company by establishing a website. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 22:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 18:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Gridiron Glory

Gridiron Glory (  | 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)

Notable only on local level. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 17:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Gundu English Secondary School

Gundu English Secondary School (  | 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. The Banner  talk 17:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 ( talk) 19:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Cenla Idol

Cenla Idol (  | 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 sources; notable only on local level; more like a promotional article Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 17:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 16:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Chris King (sportscaster)

Chris King (sportscaster) (  | 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 minor league sports announcer. Hirolovesswords ( talk) 16:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Sports, Baseball, and Washington. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails GNG. Amazing it managed to go unnoticed for 14 years. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 17:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    And to be clear, it appears that the Chris King who calls games for the New York Islanders is a different person. That Chris King might be notable. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 17:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Noting that in 2017, an editor claiming to be Mr. King prod'd the article with the reasoning: I'm the subject of this page. It contains old information and honestly I'm not notable enough to have a wikipedia page. Other people who are minor league baseball and college basketball radio broadcasters do not have Wikipedia pages. My friend created this page while we were both in college as a joke, which has now run its course. I love Wikipedia as a great information tool, just don't feel like this dated information about me is worthy to be included with it. Thank you. Chris King Seems reasonable to delete the article based on notability concerns plus the possible subject also requesting deletion. Rgrds. -- Bison X ( talk) 20:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete doesn't pass GNG, subject requested. Suprised the previous prod got denied. WikiVirus C (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This article seems to have been created when the subject was about 20. There are no signs of notability. We really need to clean out some of these old articles on clearly non-notable people and also need to figure out ways to make it harder for people to "create articles as a joke." John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, BisonX, and John Pack Lambert. Cbl62 ( talk) 06:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 19:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 16:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply

St Wystan's School

St Wystan's School (  | 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 redirected this to Repton School, but was reverted. It is a non-notable primary school which is part of the Repton School group. Fram ( talk) 16:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

This is not part of Repton school and simply benefits from being partnered with it. Other primary schools have a wikipedia page so why shouldn't this one? CharlieEdits ( talk) 13:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
It could be redirected to Repton instead? Crouch, Swale ( talk) 17:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
I don't see why it should be redirected to Repton instead. It is its own school that simply benefits from Repton as part of a trust. CharlieEdits ( talk) 14:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 16:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Mati Fusi

Mati Fusi (  | 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) 15:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

No it doesn't. With all due respect, I don't think you understand what WP:GNG is. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 00:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 16:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

ThunderCore

ThunderCore (  | 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 crypto spam, sourced only to medium and unreliable crypto blogs PRAXIDICAE💕 15:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Purely promotional. Trying to sell a product using Wikipedia. Nothing here resembling GNG. A reasonable search finds nothing useful. BusterD ( talk) 17:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No evidence that this passes WP:GNG. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 06:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete More crypto cruft on here. Nothing notable. Oaktree b ( talk) 02:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • When I searched newspapers.com, gsearch, and gnews, most of what I came up with was a heavy-metal band and a line of fishing lures. What I didn't find was any SIGCOV of the crypto this article is about. Please Delete. Jacona ( talk) 13:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The promotional crypto-cruft is getting out of hand here - peddle your made-up money somewhere other than Wikipedia. Sleddog116 ( talk) 14:09, 31 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. Nomination was not a valid deletion reason, and sources have been proven to exist Star Mississippi 17:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Weekends with Maury and Connie

Weekends with Maury and Connie (  | 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 short-lived show on a network nobody watches. Deprodded without comment Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Smith, Austin (2006-01-09). "Too Early for Perfect Couple". New York Post. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28.

      The review gives the show two-and-a-half stars. The review notes: "It’s the weekend, and mellow Maury is taking a break from the three-ring circus he directs on weekday afternoons to chill out at home, where he enjoys sitting around with wife Connie Chung, dishing about the big stories from the week that just ended. ... From its opening conversation to its final segment, in which Maury and Connie took turns commenting on stories in the manner of “Weekend Update,” their show quickly established itself as the newest item in the display window of TV’s ever-expanding curiosity shop. ... What I’d like to see is a little more truth and a little less artifice. In other words, I’d like to see Maury and Connie come on this show half-awake in their bathrobes, minus the makeup and hung over from the night before – you know, like the rest of us."

    2. Steinberg, Jacques (2005-11-07). "Bringing a Couple's Dinner-Table Repartee to MSNBC". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28.

      The article notes: "The as-yet-untitled, half-hour program -- a review of the week's news that will fuse elements of "Meet the Press," the defunct "Crossfire" and "The Daily Show" -- will appear on Saturday mornings and be rerun on Sundays. ... The impetus for the show came primarily from Mr. Povich, 66, who recently signed a multiyear contract with NBC Universal to continue as host of his syndicated talk show, which began in 1991. As part of the deal, Mr. Povich said he suggested a provision that would allow him and Ms. Chung, 59, to develop a program for MSNBC. ... The program will feature clips not just from television news broadcasts but also from print and the Internet."

    3. Shister, Gail (2005-11-08). "Povich and Chung, Mr. and Mrs., will team for MSNBC". The Philadelphia Inquirer. EBSCOhost  2W63623479337.

      The article note: " Syndicated talker Maury Povich and his wife, CNN exile Connie Chung, will cohost a new weekend news show to be produced by a creator of Comedy Central's Daily Show.  The 30-minute program, set for 10 a.m. Saturdays, launches Jan. 7. Lizz Winstead is executive producer. No title yet, but MSNBC boss Rick Kaplan says he's pushing for Connie and Mr. Chung. (He's kidding. We like it.) ... The new show - a lighthearted review of the previous week's headlines - is the result of Kaplan's many dinners at the couple's home. ...  The trio had been discussing a show for several years. A project with DreamWorks fell through due to "wrong timing," in Kaplan's words."

    4. Coyle, Jake (2006-06-24). "Chung's farewell a hit on the Web". Albuquerque Journal. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "On last Saturday's finale of MSNBC's "Weekends with Maury & Connie," Chung sang a version of Bob Hope's old theme song "Thanks for the Memory" to her husband and co-host, Maury Povich. A clip of the performance — complete with mood-setting candles and an accompanying grand piano — is the most popular clip of the week on the video Web site YouTube. Three days after the show, more than 413,000 people had viewed the video of Chung — a rating that might have saved "Weekends with Maury & Connie," from being canceled. The half-hour talk show, which featured the two discussing news events, averaged about 232,000 viewers since debuting Jan. 7."

    5. Greppi, Michele (2006). "Chung, Povich on the Lighter Side". TelevisionWeek. Vol. 25, no. 1. ISSN  1544-0516. EBSCOhost  edsbig.A140596546.

      The article notes: ""Weekends With Maury & Connie," which debuts at 10 a.m. Saturday, will be executive produced by Lizz Winstead, co-creator of Comedy Central's fake newscast "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart." Her job now is to coax Ms. Chung and Mr. Povich, who have been married since 1984, into playing against public type and having fun with real news and interviews. ... Ms. Chung and Mr. Povich poke fun at themselves and their careers--including dashed dreams of a syndicated news show in 1996--and each other in his-and-hers campaign-style promos that have been running on MSNBC."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Weekends With Maury & Connie to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 08:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment. The nomination rationale states that this is on a "network nobody watches". I don't watch it myself, but I wondered about this statement, so I did a search and found [8] that people do watch it, as a matter of fact, a lot of people watch it. So what is the purpose of throwing shade on the network? It is an absolute misstatement of fact. Perhaps the nom doesn't like it? That's not a rationale for deletion. Jacona ( talk) 13:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the citations listed by Cunard. Also, what kind of rationale is "network nobody watches"? If no one watches, how do they stay in business? Is this a Yogism like "No one goes there anymore...its too crowded"? DonaldD23 talk to me 18:01, 29 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 - discussion is now at least seven days old. While there are only two votes, given the strength of argument made by one contributor and the finding of valid sources, there is consensus to keep given two contributors voted this way and no-one voted delete. There seems no benefit in relisting, which may have been appropriate had an editor put forward a strong case for deletion, which did not occur. ( non-admin closure) MaxnaCarter ( talk) 01:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Monkey-ed Movies

Monkey-ed Movies (  | 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)

Current sources do not discuss the topic, and nothing better was found. As a programming block it's unlikely to have much in the way of sources Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Longino, Bob (1998-03-18). "TBS apes Oscar in simian sendups". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29.

      The article notes: "It's all part of a weird half-hour special TBS is calling "Dinner & a Monkey," combining Turner's cynical film show "Dinner & a Movie" with the network's wacky, new "Monkey-ed Movies," in which simian Laurence Oliviers and Meryl Streeps take on roles in all of this year's big Academy Award flicks from "As Good as It Gets" to "Good Will Hunting." There's Winslet's monkey stand-in for young Rose, in full Victorian regalia and stringy red fright wig, clinging to the soon-to-be-doomed ship's railing, distraught and preparing to end it all. ... The jokes are sometimes crude, the humor often slapstick. Suffice it to say the spoof of "L.A. Confidential" ends in a Stoogefest as a trio of chimp thespians evolve into Larry, Moe and Curly Joe. ... Witness Jack Nicholson's simian side delivering the deadpan punch line in the "As Good as It Gets" takeoff."

    2. Haynes, Karima A. (1998-03-17). "Top Bananas". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29.

      The article notes: "Welcome to the world of “Monkey-ed Movies,” a collection of 48 short films featuring costumed primates spoofing scenes from some of Hollywood’s most popular motion pictures. The “Titanic” send-up is among eight parodies showcasing scenes from the five films nominated for best-picture Oscars and three more films up for awards in other categories. ... TBS Superstation executives launched “Monkey-ed Movies” in February as filler programming during its “Dinner & A Movie,” a Friday night show that combines cooking segments featuring recipes based on the evening movie."

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

    Cunard ( talk) 00:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. ( non-admin closure) MaxnaCarter ( talk) 03:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Ready... Set... Cook!

Ready... Set... Cook! (  | 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)

Deprodded with one source added, but I struggled to find more Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- As noted in the PROD removal text but not conveyed here, in addition to the book source which I added, there is a Chicago Tribune article that doesn't have online access, which I can see from the brief google preview snippet is a review of the series. "LIGHTS! CAMERA! ACTION! (AND SOME COOKING TOO)" Chicago Tribune, October 14, 1997." This is a second RS, meeting the GNG. matt91486 ( talk) 15:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • @ Matt91486: The Tribune article consists of one-paragraph previews of 20 different cooking shows on TV at the time. Sammi Brie (she/her •  t • c) 17:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete mention in a review of 20 upcoming cooking shows is not enough to show notability, and the other source is not enough to pass GNG on its own. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep after more sources found by Cunard. WikiVirus C (talk) 13:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC) Comment - A redirect with slight merge like summary to Ready Steady Cook can be alternative. Show was on for 6 years someone might search for it. reply
I'm still looking for other sources, preferably not behind paywall. I am leaning keep right now if not merge. WikiVirus C (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Robichaux, Mark (1996-06-07). "Chefs Duel to Rustle Up Meals In Minutes on TV Game Show". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28.

      The article notes: "It's a new game show on cable's TV Food Network called "Ready, Set, Cook!" The half-hour, twice-daily show has turned a common culinary conundrum -- what to cook when the refrigerator is bare -- into a bona fide hit for the upstart network.  In each episode, two contestants from the studio audience are given $10 each to buy an assortment of groceries, no matter how eclectic. Then two chefs -- usually prominent professionals from well-known kitchens -- go whisk to whisk to create a meal from the groceries. Mr. Lomonaco's Velveeta, for example, wound up in Warm Veal Sage Salad with Eggplant Casserole.  In twin kitchens, contestants begin by dumping their sack of groceries onto the counter. Chefs don aprons and a 20-minute clock starts ticking. Each dish is judged by the audience, which votes with placards bearing either a green pepper or a tomato. (Presentation is all; there isn't time for tastings.) ...  The TV Food Network will replace a key ingredient in the U.S. show when it begins taping next season's shows in July. Sissy Biggers, host of a talk show on the Lifetime channel, will relieve the chatty Robin Young."

    2. Salkin, Allen (2013). From Scratch: The Uncensored History of the Food Network. New York: Berkley Books. pp. 153–154. ISBN  978-0-425-27286-2. Retrieved 2022-05-28 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "Next, in what was a key addition to the broadcast schedule, Jeff approved the network's purchase of the rights to the British show Ready, Steady, Cook. Two chefs were paired with two amateurs, supplied with a grocery bag of food, and given twenty minutes to cook something. ... Food Network Americanized the name to Ready ... Set ... Cook! and rented a studio large enough for an audience. Rounding up the crowd was not easy. Popular shows that taped in New York, such as The Ricki Lake Show and Late Night with David Letterman, had no trouble, but getting bodies in seats for a game show on a network few people watched was a challenge. Even after hiring audience-wrangling companies, they regularly came up short. One Food Network staffer often had to hit the sidewalks around the studio rounding up homeless people by promising them they could eat the food when shooting was done. Robin Young hosted Ready ... Set ... Cook! during the first season. She would stand hip to hip with the competitors and engage them in banter while they tried to cook ... The show's success marked a cultural breakthrough. On the 1996 Thanksgiving episode of Friends, then the top-rated NBC comedy, Chandler, who was ... They'd been noticed by Hollywood!—even if their show was being used as a symbol of a pathetic life."

    3. Okamoto, David (1995-10-11). "New show turns cooking into fun and games". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28.

      The article notes: "The TV Food Network's Ready . . . Set . . . Cook! - which debuted last week and airs every night at 7 and 11 p.m. and Saturdays and Sundays at 9 a.m. and 2 p.m. - is an American variation on a wildly successful British series called Ready Steady Cook. Hosted by Robin Young, the half-hour program pits two chefs against each other to see who can throw together the most inventive and edible dishes from a well-stocked cupboard of staples and a $10 bag of groceries purchased by a randomly chosen audience member. The shopper gets to double as a sous chef. ... On any night, the show succeeds or fails on the chemistry between the chefs and the shoppers."

    4. Heller, Ann (2001-04-04). "Springfield's Gibson Whips Up a Win on Food Network – Cincinnati-Based Chef Appears on 'Ready . . . Set . . . Cook!'". Dayton Daily News. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28.

      The article notes: "... the Food Network's Ready . . . Set . . . Cook! game show tonight. The revamped series, which premiered this week, pits Gibson in matches with chef Shirley Fong Torres of San Francisco. He won three of the four events, claiming the "Golden Toque" - but says he can't remember what he cooked. ... For each show the two chefs are given a tray of ingredients and given 18 minutes to make as many finished dishes as possible - while the host constantly interrupts them with questions."

    5. Ervolino, Bill (1997-06-08). "Ready, Sweat…Cook!". The Record. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28.

      The article notes: "The good news: Unlike "Wheel," in which I had to undergo three rigorous hours of written and oral tests, competing against 170 other hopefuls, all "Ready, Set, Cook!" required was that I fill out a short questionnaire and explain why I wanted to be on the show. ... For the uninitiated, this game show, based on the BBC series, "Ready, Steady, Cook!," pits two accomplished chefs against each other in a 20-minute cooking competition. The goal: to make an entire meal out of the $10 or less in groceries chosen by the two contestants."

    6. Fuller, Janet Rausa (2001-05-02). "Ainsley is 'Ready'". Chicago Sun-Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28.

      The article notes: "Ainsley Harriott, Biggers' successor as host of the recently re-vamped Food Network series, Ready. . . Set . . . Cook!, is perky like Scotch bonnets are hot. The saucy, 6-feet-something Harriott flirts with the show's female contestants (and even some of the men), sings as shamelessly as a Broadway-bound starlet and every so often_when shaking a hot pan of beet greens, say_thrusts his hips to the beat. He's the host with the most, and then some. ... In reviving Ready . . . Set . . . Cook! with the enthusiastic Brit at the helm, producers have nipped and tucked accordingly, punching up the set with color and adding Pop Cuizine, a trivia bit directed at the dueling chef contestants. ... The show's premise is the same: ..."

    7. Less significant coverage:
      1. Klasne, Catherine (1997-08-28). "Ready, Set, Go on the Road – Cooking Game Show Host Follows 2 Lifetime Interests". The Daytona Beach News-Journal. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28.

        The article notes: "Sissy Biggers, host of the TV Food Network's Ready, Set, Cook! follows a recipe for success that combines elements of her lifelong interest in cooking and a career as a television professional.She isn't the first host of the unique cooking game show, but, after a one-year stint, Biggers' perky personality and appearance have become indelibly associated with Ready, Set, Cook!"

      2. Smoron, Paige; Cruze, Tom (1998-09-09). "'Ready... Set... Cook!' - Chicago chefs face off in popular game show". Chicago Sun-Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28.

        The article notes: "They were there to see their favorite game show from the Food Network, which has a cult following among gourmet groupies: "Ready . . . Set . . . Cook!" Host Sissy Biggers was bringing a live version of the show to Chicago for the first time_not for broadcast, but for the fans."

      3. Scourtes, Mary D. (2000-09-28). "Players defend cooking prowess". The Tampa Tribune. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28.

        The article notes: "John Lynch of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers is a big basher on the football field, but he's almost bashful in the kitchen. "I can't cook, but I like to grill," he said before joining Marty Blitz, chef-owner of Mise en Place, onstage for a Tampa version of the Food Network's "Ready ... Set ... Cook!""

      4. "Celebrity chef Ainsley Harriott serves up fresh eco-cooking ideas". Al Bawaba. 2008-12-10. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28.

        The article notes: "This in turn led to Ready Steady Cook and his TV career took off. Ready Steady Cook started airing in 1994.  Sixteen series and well over a thousand episodes later, it celebrated twelve happy years in 2006. When he became series host in 2000, the show gained a new lease of life and extra viewers. During 2009, the show will approach two thousand episodes."

      5. Silva, Jill Wendholt (2001-08-09). "TV Waistland". Miami Herald. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28.

        The article notes: "Based on a BBC series, Ready, Set, Cook is pure entertainment. British host Ainsley Harriott introduces two chefs: Ludovic, a French chef with a great attitude who hails from Los Angeles, and Paula, who drawls all the way from Savannah."

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

    Cunard ( talk) 08:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Sajjad Rahbar

Sajjad Rahbar (  | 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)

Procedural nomination stemming from an inappropriate draftification (article is far to old to have been draftified). However, the draftifier appears to have had a point. This does not appear to be a notable footballer. A search in Farsi revealed no WP:SIGCOV of the player himself; fails WP:GNG. Curbon7 ( talk) 01:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:48, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - Article fails WP:GNG based on online search of English- and Farsi-language sources (I can only find injury reports, squad lists, match reports, and statistical database entries). Jogurney ( talk) 17:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep as withdrawn, it meets WP:GEOLAND anyway. ( non-admin closure) Crouch, Swale ( talk) 17:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Bermani Ilir

Bermani Ilir (  | 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 declined the speedy delete because it wasn't clear. However, I do believe deletion is in order. This article about a place is unsourced and unconfirmed, and I can find no online sources to support it. Therefore, I believe it fails WP:GNG. If sources were found, I'll happily withdrawal the nomination--but it needs a few editors to review and discuss. Paul McDonald ( talk) 13:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Also nominating the following related articles for the same premise.

Also nominating the following related articles for the same premise.

These articles are similar and should be discussed together.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 13:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 01:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep but cleanup. Sufficient sourcing has been identified Star Mississippi 02:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Rickdependence Spray

Rickdependence Spray (  | 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 seem to be a notable episode of the series that would allow it to meet GNG. Unsourced, no real-world information and only consists of plot info. – DarkGlow • 17:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 06:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment draftify seems like an acceptable thing to do also. Oaktree b ( talk) 02:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Sources shared by RunningTiger123 show that the episode meets WP:GNG. Cleanup is necessary, but that doesn't mean the subject isn't notable. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 15:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Prakash Angdembe

AfDs for this article:
Prakash Angdembe (  | 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 found no significant coverage. The first AfD was closed due to the nominator being a sockpuppet. SL93 ( talk) 06:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus. insufficient debate has taken place over the last three weeks to establish a consensus. No solid grounds for a relist per WP:RELIST (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarter ( talk) 02:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Anti-Brazilian sentiment

Anti-Brazilian sentiment (  | 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)

Reviewed as a part of New Page Patrol. Not a distinct topic and not wp:notable because not covered in sources as such. By it's own description, this is just a by-editor collection of anything anti Brazilian exhibited by anybody. North8000 ( talk) 12:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Torresan, Angela. "Postcolonial social drama: The case of Brazilian dentists in Portugal". Critique of Anthropology. 41 (2): 165–186. doi: 10.1177/0308275X211004713.
  2. ^ Rosenbaum, H. Jon. (1973). "Argentine-Brazilian Relations: A Critical Juncture". The World Today. 29 (12): 537–42.
  3. ^ Andrés Gaudín (2010). "Paraguay: Anti-Brazilian Sentiment on Bilateral Agenda". NotiSur. Latin America Digital Beat.

SailingInABathTub ( talk) 23:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Those are instances of such sentiment, which does not address the reason for the AFD. North8000 ( talk) 16:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The nomination states that the article is not notable because it is "not covered in sources as such". All three sources explicitly discuss anti-brazilian sentiment. Additionally the first portuguese source in this article discusses antibrasileirismo or 'anti-brazilianism'. SailingInABathTub ( talk) 21:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Modussiccandi ( talk) 19:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Ninh Hòa station

Ninh Hòa station (  | 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 railway station - fails notability as given in WP:STATION Whiteguru ( talk) 06:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Vietnam. Whiteguru ( talk) 06:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:RAILOUTCOMES. I think it is best for Wikipedia's readers to keep all station articles, as this is a consistent approach allowing readers to make the most use of succession templates, categories, and coordinates (including the "nearby" feature). Arguing about the notability of the thousands of station articles currently on Wikipedia would be a waste of editor time. NemesisAT ( talk) 09:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails notability guidelines. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 11:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Was built during the French colonial period, so I'm trying to find sources from then... Vietnam is still communist, so you won't find much in the press that isn't state-controlled. I can find a few funding annoucements, [10], at least discussing the station. Searching for "Ga Ninh Hòa" brings up many hits, some travel resources. [11] more of a propaganda piece, some information about the station. Again it's all govt-controlled media. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Good work. There certainly is no need for independent sources for railway station articles, otherwise we'd have to delete most Chinese station articles. NemesisAT ( talk) 15:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom - skeptical if the sources provided at the time of writing are independent of the subject. XtraJovial ( talk) 22:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    You won't find any, the gov't of Vietnam controls the press and owns the railway/station. Silly communism. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to North–South railway (Vietnam)#Stations as WP:ATD, with no prejudice to restoring when more citable information is found to make a Start-quality article. Jumpytoo Talk 19:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 14:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  1. The first step is to assess notability. I do think this guideline has been met, albeit weakly. We need to use some common sense here - the article is brand new, and it is about a train station in Vietnam, with their lower freedom of press there will be fewer sources. The few there do demonstrate the subject has been covered by different sources, and I find them reliable as the coverage is objective and appears grounded in fact.
  2. We then need to turn to WP:RAILOUTCOMES, noting that this is an essay and not a guideline. However I am persuaded by the statement about sufficient attributable information needing to exist for a comprehensive article. During the time this article has been nominated, it has not been expanded further, but it is also quite new. The station is on a metro railway line and I do not think the article is comprehensive. As redirects are cheap, and the article does in my view meet WP:VERIFY, redirect it to an appropriate train line or if that line does not exist then keep. Basic train stations in other countries, such as Australia, often will get more coverage than those in countries with a more free and active press, particularly from small local newspapers. Virtually every single train station in Melbourne and Sydney has its own article, and we risk only including articles from western countries with lots of press if we delete articles like this one, where due to limits on press, there may not be opportunity for additional coverage, so common sense says it should stay.

Overall, keeping (in this form or one of the others suggested) this article improves Wikipedia in my opinion. MaxnaCarter ( talk) 00:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Participants were unable to agree on whether the subject meets a relevant notability standard, and to some extent even on what the relevant standard is. RL0919 ( talk) 23:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Alexander Bagrationi (chess)

Alexander Bagrationi (chess) (  | 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 found that he is notable, nothing beyond routine coverage found. Fram ( talk) 08:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Israel, and Ukraine. Fram ( talk) 08:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The subject has not received substantial coverage in indepdent reliable sources. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep He has an entry in Berdichevsky's Jewish Chess Encyclopedia; that and the ChessOK bio which is also cited in the article constitute significant coverage. Chess grandmasters can typically be presumed notable per WP:NCHESS. Somebody with access to Ukrainian, Russian, and Hebrew print media (chess websites in these languages tend not to have long half-lives) would likely be able to find more. Cobblet ( talk) 23:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:NCHESS and coverage in the form of game analysis [12]. EternalNomad ( talk) 05:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. NCHESS is not a guideline and has zero standing in deletion discussions. Having an entry in an encyclopedic dictionary devoted to a subset of a subset of people is not by itself indicative of notability absent someone showing coverage therein is actually significant. The ChessOK article has no byline, so there is no way to tell if it is reliable and independent. And the idea that written game analysis (in what seems to be a blog-like post by a pseudonymous chess.com member, not a staff writer) consisting of "The Alexander Bagrationi (2485) vs. Dmitry Skorchenko (2487) game is another example of no queen but rampaging minor pieces" constitutes anything other than a trivial mention is absurd. Can someone find a source that demonstrably meets all the requirements of GNG? JoelleJay ( talk) 01:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep A GM is a top professional in chess, and there are only <2000 of them in the world. We have articles on not only every current and former MP but also every member of any state legislature in any country in the world, so I see no reason not to keep an article on one of the 2000 top chess players in the world. 172.58.110.253 ( talk) 06:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    The only parameter that matters here is whether he meets GNG. It's irrelevant how many GMs there are or which other professions have WP representation (WP:OTHERSTUFF) since neither of those is a notability criterion. I don't know where or in what languages @ Fram looked for sources, but if a standard BEFORE didn't turn anything up then there is reason to assume he has not received the requisite coverage for GNG. JoelleJay ( talk) 02:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Comment This may be true but it is not relevant. What is relevant is that it receives the standard of notability of WP:GNG PaulPachad ( talk) 20:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to prompt policy based consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 14:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep As WP:NSPORT is silent on chess, as WP:NCHESS uses similar logic to other sports and games, WP:NCHESS seems like a very reasonable benchmark to compare the article against. WP:NSPORT FAQ Q4 guides us towards being more flexible when it will take time to establish notability due to language issues. I think the editors using WP:NCHESS to help inform decisions are being logical and also following guidelines very similar to WP:NSPORT] and so I agree with them. CT55555 ( talk) 20:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    NCHESS is not an acceptable benchmark as it has not been vetted by the wider community for its accuracy in predicting GNG. For it to be added to NSPORT, and therefore be usable in deletion discussions, it would need to demonstrated that 95%+ of all subjects meeting its criteria also meet GNG. JoelleJay ( talk) 02:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Are you quoting 95% from a guideline? CT55555 ( talk) 04:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    95% is the standard used when developing sport-specific subguidelines. However all NSPORT subjects must ultimately individually meet the GNG so in this situation it doesn't matter whether he meets NCHESS or NSPORT, the requirement is still SIGCOV in multiple reliable, secondary, independent sources. JoelleJay ( talk) 16:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    I don't think anyone could disagree with you there...I just think that NSPORT directs us to:
    1. consider that people of a certain calibre are likely notable
    2. give time to allow notability to be established, to be generous with that time, and to be more generous when non-English sources are the norm
    That's what I'm arguing for. I think that is clear. I think the less clear bit is if NCHESS is as dependable as NSPORT. i.e. is NCHESS' "Grandmaster" rule comparable with the 95% norm. I think it is. CT55555 ( talk) 17:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    I'm not aware of an article on a GM ever being deleted; significant coverage is nearly always found when a player reaches that level. Pawnkingthree ( talk) 18:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Sure, NCHESS or at least the GM criterion may very well be an excellent predictor of coverage. But since it's not at SNG-level yet, and since NSPORT does not apply to non-athletes, the notability standard for Bagrationi is GNG (or ANYBIO). So it's still necessary for GNG sourcing to be produced just as it would be for any other BLP. JoelleJay ( talk) 20:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    And FWIW, I've searched "Александр", "Александра", "Аарона", and "Аарон" "Багратиони" + "гроссмейстера" and "шахматного" and found nothing beyond passing mentions (like here, here, and here, here, and here). JoelleJay ( talk) 22:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. WP:NCHESS is the best we've got to go on here, and he is a Grandmaster, giving the presumption of meeting WP:GNG. Jacona ( talk) 21:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    There is no policy- or guideline-based reason to presume GNG is met through becoming a GM. We have no evidence that this is the case (or that it isn't), so the metric we have to use is whether he currently meets GNG. The sources in the article are iffy, reliability-wise, which is why I haven't !voted yet, and why it's necessary we discuss the only applicable P&G (GNG) rather than asserting notability is inherently met. JoelleJay ( talk) 02:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Comment I agree with this comment of JoelleJay PaulPachad ( talk) 20:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:ANYBIO#1. WP:NBASIC is not the only reason that one might presume notability for a person; WP:BIO explicitly assumes the notability of a person who has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. The title of Grandmaster in Chess, as the IP alluded to on May 24, is one such a well-known and significant honor. There are lots of people who point towards WP:NCHESS here and, while it's a project-level consensus, I think the argument from ANYBIO is stronger. The arguments for delete are generally something along the line of "fails GNG", which is moot if the individual passes WP:ANYBIO as WP:N explicitly considers article subjects who meet either the general notability guideline (GNG)... or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline as being notable provided that the article does not violate WP:NOT. As such, the article subject is notable and the article should be kept. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 19:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Does that still apply to a title that is (now) automatically conferred based on achievement, rather than awarded through subjective assessment by other people (e.g. the way an IEEE fellowship or Fields medal is)? I thought the point of using the received language, rather than the less restrictive "achieved", was to ensure a recipient's merits were actually specifically discussed by a secondary body and determined to be worthy. JoelleJay ( talk) 02:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    The first iteration of the relevant part of WP:ANYBIO appears to have its origin in this edit, which didn't really have a lot of concurrent discussion (it was a generalization of something originally applied to creative professionals). But I don't think that there has been an understanding that awards have to be purely subjective things that some group gives out. On a separate note, there's relatively little discussion on Chess Grandmasters as a particular case, but the brief discussion that happened was based on the premise that no one would argue that an article about a chess grandmaster is not suitable for inclusion. Times change, but it does appear that the WP:NCHESS claim that chess grandmasters are notable has pretty deep roots in Wikipedia's framing of notability for significant honor/award. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 04:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    It is worth noting that WP:ANYBIO does not just render GNG "moot." ANYBIO says "meeting [these criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included." I haven't formed a strong opinion on whether to keep or delete, but saying that anybio makes gng "moot" feels like a bit of a stretch. Sleddog116 ( talk) 14:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    It's not a stretch at all. WP:N is clear that a topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either GNG or an SNG, and is not excluded by WP:NOT. The warning that WP:ANYBIO does not guarantee inclusion is there to reflect the WP:NOT exception. Cobblet ( talk) 20:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above. Do rename to Alexander Bagrationi (chess player)! gidonb ( talk) 01:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep because he is a grandmaster on the international level. חוקרת (Researcher) ( talk) 07:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Comment: That does not show notability as far as wikipedia is concerned PaulPachad ( talk) 20:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The article does not quote any secondary reliable sources. Also a google news search only brings up two results and they do not discuss the subject directly or at length. He might be superb at chess but as far as the media is concerned he does not appear to be notable. There is no reason to hold him to a different standard than everyone else here who gets their articles deleted if they don't show reliable secondary sources. In my opinion fails WP:GNG PaulPachad ( talk) 20:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    This isn't true. The cited Jewish Chess Encyclopedia entry is four sentences long and is clearly more than a trivial mention of Bagrationi. So is the ChessOK bio, and lacking a byline does not mean the article is unreliable any more than articles in the The Economist that lack a byline are unreliable. Many of the details given in the ChessOK bio can be corroborated in other sources, including the two facts for which the bio is cited in the Wikipedia article (his FIDE profile confirms he became an IM in 2009), which suggests that the article has been properly researched. The cited SV Unna site also clearly demonstrates that chess players in general find a grandmaster like Bagrationi worthy of notice. Cobblet ( talk) 02:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Four sentences of basic biographical details is not SIGCOV, and there is a profound difference between an article run in The Economist and one in what appears to be a community posting platform by someone who isn't even listed among the dozens of "authors" on the site. Many of the details given in the ChessOK bio can be corroborated in other sources, including the two facts for which the bio is cited in the Wikipedia article (his FIDE profile confirms he became an IM in 2009), which suggests that the article has been properly researched. This is completely irrelevant, as that line of reasoning would permit use of any SPS that happened to contain a single verifiable fact. The cited SV Unna site also clearly demonstrates that chess players in general find someone of Bagrationi's stature worthy of note. This is also irrelevant, as it is actual in-depth commentary on the subject that is required for GNG, not vague assurances of notability based on editors' individual inferences. The ANYBIO argument is stronger, but like Sleddog16 said, if the only thing we can say about him is that he is a GM, then there is no reason to have a standalone article. JoelleJay ( talk) 23:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    I count around ten things we say about Bagrationi other than him being a GM. That is a reason for having a standalone article. No policy-based reason has been given for removing this content from Wikipedia when WP:ANYBIO has been satisfied. Cobblet ( talk) 02:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply
    We could collect 10 things to say about anyone from RS, probably even from independent RS. The reason we have a notability guideline that requires SIGCOV is to ensure there is sufficient sustained interest in a subject in the form of actual commentary on it, by unaffiliated people, with enough depth to develop a comprehensive article. The only things we can say about Bagrationi that come from independent RS -- and therefore could contribute to notability -- are what is in the JCE. We regularly delete sportspeople who have even more info from such stats database-type sourcing based on it being considered trivial, so such details are not considered significant enough for establishing notability. JoelleJay ( talk) 16:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep He is the grandmaster and as per wp:chess he is notable. No other links are required. [13] Jimandjam ( talk) 05:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    NCHESS is a project-level essay, not a notability guideline, and the instruction in the relisting above is pretty clearly directing participants to make arguments based on our policies and guidelines. JoelleJay ( talk) 05:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    As explained above by Mhawk10, NCHESS essentially expresses Wikiproject Chess's position on what players it considers as having satisfied the requirements of criterion 1 of WP:ANYBIO. And what multiple participants who are not part of that Wikiproject are basically saying here is that they agree that grandmasters are "worthy of notice", which is what WP:N is fundamentally about. By the way, norm-based grandmaster title applications (the way most players, like Bagrationi, achieve the title) are not awarded "automatically", but are reviewed and approved by FIDE's Qualification Commission. While the regulations for approving titles have been substantially clarified in recent years, reducing the degree of subjectivity in the process, the Commission still gets the final say on whether those regulations have been satisfied. Cobblet ( talk) 11:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    The main thing is, you are clearly neglecting the guideline NCHESS, and believing that all the guidelines are waste and we should only follow WP:GNG, even though specific guideline is given for chess player. I don't know where it is written that WP:GNG is everything and everything else is waste. If that is the case, why are we even have other guidelines. Jimandjam ( talk) 03:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Jimandjam, NCHESS is not a guideline. It is a project-level essay. The only notability guidelines we can use are those listed at WP:N. JoelleJay ( talk) 16:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ JoelleJay WP:NCHESS heading itself is "notability of chess player" Jimandjam ( talk) 05:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Jimandjam A wikiproject can say whatever it wants about itself, but it doesn't mean anything unless it has achieved consensus in the wider community. NCHESS would have to be listed among the SNGs on WP:N or as a subcriterion within an SNG for it to have guideline status. JoelleJay ( talk) 06:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The fact that he is a grandmaster on the international level is noteworthy in and of itself by virtue of WP:ANYBIO point #1. The title of grandmaster isn't an automatic thing; one has to meet qualifications for it, and it has to be approved by FIDE. People keep pointing to WP:NCHESS, but that's honestly secondary here; the fact of the matter is that FIDE (which I think most would agree is a foremost authority on the game) has conferred "a well-known and significant ... honor" on Bagrationi, and given that fact, this article passes ANYBIO. That said, if his only notability is his title, his name is already included under List of chess grandmasters. Is there a good reason for him to have his own separate article, given that his only point of notability is already included elsewhere? This feels like it might be a case of WP:TOOSOON; it's possible he will achieve notability as a grandmaster, but so far, that hasn't really been definitively established. I'm not putting in a !vote either way or trying to make a case for or against deletion - just putting this out there because there's a lot of "keep" comments echoing basically the same thing without considering that we have other articles on the topic of chess grandmasters that might be more suitable for this content than it having its own standalone page. Just food for thought. Sleddog116 ( talk) 14:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete and possibly redirect to List of chess grandmasters. I've done a bit of digging since my comment above and have formed more of an opinion, though admittedly not a strong one. There is simply a dearth of information about this player, and per my comment above, it just feels like WP:TOOSOON here. The fact that he is a grandmaster is noteworthy by virtue of the title, but that really just doesn't feel like a strong enough rationale for him to have his own article. I looked at some of the stub articles we have (at the risk of sounding WP:OTHERSTUFF-y) on other chess GMs (particularly Hristos Banikas) with the idea of possibly improving this article to make this discussion moot, but frankly, I couldn't find anything about him other than "he is a grandmaster." I can't find anything about his career (other than one Israeli source which is, essentially, just a list of his games) or his playing style or anything that could fill out this article a bit, and to my way of thinking (NCHESS and ANYBIO notwithstanding), that's just not enough to merit him having his own article since his only claim to notability is already covered elsewhere on WP. (EDIT: Based on subsequent discussion, I'm striking my delete in favor of a redirect; I honestly think that's the right course of action.) Sleddog116 ( talk) 15:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Since you're quoting WP:TOOSOON, I remind you that it says specifically of WP:ANYBIO that it "allows editors to accept a presumption in good faith that other sources are likely to exist without also demanding that these "other sources" be immediately found and offered." If grandmasters are inherently noteworthy, as most contributors to the present discussion agree, then the basic WP:BIO standard of "worthy of notice" is already met. Furthermore, the current article meets both WP:ANYBIO and WP:BASIC, particularly when we take into account the latter's point that "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." You are not suggesting that the content of the current article is problematic, just that you wish we had more. But what we have now is already significantly more than what could be kept if we were to redirect this article as you suggested. So how would redirecting the article and losing that information we currently have improve Wikipedia? Cobblet ( talk) 20:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    BASIC still requires non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. That means only the material from the JCE can contribute to BASIC, and since it contains even less info than the average football player database entry ("Bagrationi Alexander (b. 07/13/1990, Ternopil), international grandmaster (2014). Since 2011 lives in Israel.
    Graduated from Ternopil National Economic University. The first coach is Anatoly Bagrationi (father). Tournament winner: Anapa (2008), Vitino (Crimea) and Brno (2009), Valuyskoye (2010). Champion of Jerusalem (2018).") there's no chance it provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article. There is zero evidence that the ChessOk article is reliable -- I can't even find an "About Us" section on the website -- and the ref should actually be removed per BLP. JoelleJay ( talk) 23:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    I think you might have misunderstood my rationale. The title of Grandmaster is noteworthy, but that doesn't mean everyone who achieves that title is noteworthy enough for their own article just by virtue of having that title; that's the whole reason we already have a List of chess grandmasters. The reason I'm saying Too Soon is because as of yet, there simply isn't sufficient coverage to justify him having his own article, particularly given User:JoelleJay's point about the reliability of the existing sources. I did just check his profile on FIDE's official site and can confirm that he is indeed a grandmaster, so I don't think there is any dispute over that single fact; I'm just saying that fact alone isn't sufficient to justify him having his own article. ANYBIO doesn't override BASIC. In all honesty though, I don't have a strong opinion for deletion; I'd be just as happy to see someone rescue this article, and it's not like there's a deadline. Sleddog116 ( talk) 01:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There is already enough cited information in the article that won't be found on list of chess grandmasters to !vote keep. Quale ( talk) 05:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I've struck my previous keep vote. After reviewing the discussion above, I think I over-relied on NCHESS and there just aren't any decent RS. Jacona ( talk) 14:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep In addition to what others have pointed out, I am impressed by the coverage in the ChessOK and Sparkassen sources. Biographies, mentions of tournaments he has won, good photographs. And the Unna source gives you an idea of the regard in which he is held. Bruce leverett ( talk) 19:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There is no consensus around NCHESS. Its is not policy and basing decisions on it when there is no comparative work done in the same manner as other community consensus based notability policies is wrong. Trying to foist it on the community at large, by this particular subgroup on the rest without community wide consensus is wrong as well. Basing decisions on it, when its not been accepted by the wider community is wrong as well and breaks Wikipedia 5 pillars. There is no conensus that grandmasters are automatically notable either. The references currently fail WP:GNG. There is no significant coverage to support an article. scope_creep Talk 19:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The WP:GNG is the only notability requirement that actually matters in the end, except for a very few noted exceptions (such as academics, as coverage is on their research and not them and so the coverage of their research needs to meet GNG for them). In this case, the significant coverage from secondary sources does not appear to exist. The sources being presented here and in the article are primary sources, except for the one very short encyclopedia entry. Which is not enough for proper significant coverage to meet GNG, not with just that one source at least. Unless more sources of secondary significant coverage from reliable sources can be presented, then this article fails notability requirements. Silver seren C 19:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. EDIT: or Redirect. I just realized I never actually !voted. To address some keeps: Quale, verifiable information existing is not a reason to have a standalone page if that information is not from reliable secondary independent sources and does not provide comprehensive coverage of the subject. Bruce leverett, the ChessOk article has no indication of reliability: not only is there no author listed, the site doesn't even have an About Us section that could demonstrate it is anything beyond a social platform; and the Sparkassen and Unna sources are not independent -- they are announcements about competitions reported by the competitions themselves -- and thus cannot be considered for notability purposes. JoelleJay ( talk) 20:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of chess grandmasters per WP:ATD, as there is a suitable redirect target. Although he is a GM, there doesn't seem to be enough significant coverage to meet the requirements for a standalone article. The ChessOK source mentions that his Elo rating is not high enough to get invitations to major tournaments, which may be a possible reason for this. Pawnkingthree ( talk) 22:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect I think. Considering how few GMs there are though, an article for each if sources permit doesn't sound crazy to me from an overview. Arkon ( talk) 03:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ITV Tyne Tees. Randykitty ( talk) 10:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Rachel Sweeney

Rachel Sweeney (  | 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 indication of long-standing independent notability, seems to be mostly a case of WP:BLP1E. QueenofBithynia ( talk) 19:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and United Kingdom. Shellwood ( talk) 19:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. No opinion on notability but a television presenter who appeared in three separate shows over a period of nearly 15 years is in no way a case of one event. Espresso Addict ( talk) 02:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I agree, the nomination is not supported by the article. Suggest it could be withdrawn. Victuallers ( talk) 07:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I do not think we have enough sources here that are both reliable and indepdent to pass GNG. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 14:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus. There's clearly not a consensus to delete, but the rationales for keeping also don't explain why sourcing is sufficient to merit an independent article under our guidelines. I would encourage interested editors to think about whether this topic may be better covered as a list or a disambiguation. Such a discussion falls outside of the scope of AfD and can happen instead on the article's talk page if editors are interested. Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Continuing church

Continuing church (  | 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 have found nothing on the alleged topic of this WP article, apart from passing uses which seem to rather refer to the Continuing Anglican movement than the alleged general phenomenon the WP article discusses. [1] [2] [3] Already back in 2007, someone asked for sources on this term at the article talk page; none was given since then.
I have also checked the only reference given in the article: it is about the Continuing Anglican movement and not a general phenomenon.
A discussion at the WProject Christianity has concluded that this expression does not exist or was only a synonym of the Continuing Anglican movement.
It seems to be there has been a quiproquo, in that the creator likely either a) thought "continuing church" was a common and universal name, or b) was not aware the page Continuing Anglican movement already existed.
Therefore, I propose this article be deleted, or turned into a redirect (no merge) to Continuing Anglican movement. Veverve ( talk) 13:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Winter, R. Milton (2000). "Division & Reunion in the Presbyterian Church, U.S.: A Mississippi Retrospective". The Journal of Presbyterian History (1997-). 78 (1): 67–86. ISSN  1521-9216. In 1944, reunion opponents, rallied by the Southern Presbyterian Journal, called those agreeing with its aims to do everything possible to organize a 'continuing church' if and when the 'inevitable' union with the PCUSA should occur. By 1949 a Continuing Church Committee was raising funds. [..] All the while, predictions continued that whenever union of Southern Presbyterians with their sister Assembly came about, a 'continuing' Southern Church would result. [...] 'Continuing' assemblies of Presbyterians opposed to unions voted by their denominations are well known having been formed in Scotland, Canada, and Australia, and by Cumberland Presbyterians in the U.S. after the majority of their churches were received by the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A. in 1906.
  2. ^ Burt, C. David (2011-01-01). "Chapter 4: An Anglican Uniate Rite?". In Cavanaugh, Stephen E. (ed.). Anglicans and the Roman Catholic Church: Reflections on Recent Developments. Ignatius Press. ISBN  978-1-68149-039-7. Basically, they [Forward in Faith] have their feet in both 'official' Anglican Communion and in the 'continuing' church.
  3. ^ Watts, Michael (1993). Through a Glass Darkly: A Crisis Considered. Gracewing Publishing. p. 44. ISBN  978-0-85244-240-1. 'In September 1990, at around the time the first women priest were ordained, a group of lay members of the Church of Ireland formed a «continuing Church»; the Church of Ireland (Traditional Rite). [...]'
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve ( talk) 13:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Once again, a lack of references is not a reason for deletion. This is a notable topic, and is not restricted to Anglican churches. I have restored the article, which had large slabs of content removed for no reason. St Anselm ( talk) 14:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ StAnselm: please provide a source for your claim. As you can see, I have done my own research before starting this AfD and found nothing. And I had removed WP:OR from the article (also, WP:V), which you added back possibly trying to WP:OVERCOME. Veverve ( talk) 14:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Well, the first reference you provide does not refer to Anglican churches, does it? Interestingly, I am the editor you referred to, who asked for sources in 2007. But that's not a reason for deletion. Anyway, perhaps the word is used more often in Presbyterian contexts: e.g. For a Continuing Church: The Roots of the Presbyterian Church in America and The History of the Presbyterian Church in America : The Continuing Church Movement. St Anselm ( talk) 14:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The first source I gave is only about Presbytarianism, and so do the two you provided. The History of the Presbyterian Church in America does not contain the subtitle you added from what I see. In both source you provided, the expression is too vague anyway to know if they are designating a continuous church (an institution that continues to exist, or a tent organisation) or a continuing church (the topic of the WP article). An FCC review ( part 1, part 2) does not seem to indicate that "continuing church" in this case has the meaning the WP article gives it. Thus, your sources do not prove the notability of the topic.
In any case, you are asking for a complete change of topic, from an alleged general phenomenon to a purely Presbyterian phenomenon. Veverve ( talk) 14:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The subtitle is in the Worldcat entry. St Anselm ( talk) 16:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Well, to be sure, that is covered in Church of England (Continuing). This article is about a wider phenomenon. St Anselm ( talk) 14:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Jclemens: I have mentioned that in my rationale ( Continuing Anglican movement) twice (check the "§ Other Anglican churches" section). You are confusing topics. Veverve ( talk) 14:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as 1st choice, or redirect per nom. A normal English phrase which may turn up discussing many historical splits. Not a special term deserving an article, still less the article here. Heaps of dubious OR in the "restored" version. Johnbod ( talk) 15:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete In several discussions with people in person and online, the phrase "Continuing" has been applied to denominations such as the newly-founded Global Methodist Church. However, there is extremely minimal sourcing from RSs that suggests the terminology merits an article on Wikipedia. If anything, any sources that do come along should be first used in a section of Continuing Anglican movement. If there comes a time when there are more sources discussing a farther-reaching practice, we can make an article. I see some books in the pipeline, again discussing Methodism, that may someday qualify this as a separate article. Until then, the phenomenon is only notable in its relation to Anglicanism or practice by Anglicans. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 15:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Wanted to add that I have read the Presbyterian sources. The '86 one addressing Canadian Presbyterianism is compelling, but it does not properly define "continuing" so much as it applies the term. The 2015 book is cited, but only just the title. If a quote from that book were to be sourced, I would support a merge rather than a delete sans merge. The Book of Church Order is less than overwhelming, though, and for a denomination with at last count 12 congregations we might be pushing into self-publishing territory with that as a source. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 16:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
I have been busy adding sources to the article. Note that the term is enshrined in legislation in the Presbyterian Church of Australia Act 1971. St Anselm ( talk) 16:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Exactly, as a normal English term, not capitalized & which needs defining in Cl. 18b. This does not help your case at all. Similar wording occurs all the time in corporate etc contexts. See this google search on "continuing partnership". Johnbod ( talk) 16:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
If this expression really existed the way you described it, you would have no problem finding it defined this way in some dictionaries and encyclopedias of Christianity (there are dozens of them). Instead, you have mostly added your interpretation of primary sources in the article in an effort to WP:OVERCOME. Veverve ( talk) 17:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I have added a lot, mainly in the area of Presbyterianism, where continuing churches are a significant phenomenon, in at least four different countries. (This is partly because I'm Presbyterian myself, so this is what I'm interested in.) I would be OK with this article being refocused and moved to Continuing Presbyterianism if people don't like the Anglican and Presbyterians being lumped together. Editors would do well to search for "continuing presbyterian" in their Google searches too. St Anselm ( talk) 19:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Disambiguate: Why are we talking about deleting this outright when there are already several "continuing church"-related articles on Wikipedia? Convert it to a disambiguation page that links to Continuing Anglican movement, Church of England (Continuing), Free Church of Scotland (Continuing), etc. Any truly useful content that can't be merged into an existing article should be moved to a new page for the group/denomination in question (as StAnselm suggests in the previous comment) and then added to the disambiguation list. Jdcompguy ( talk) 18:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Yes, and both the Presbyterian Church in Canada and the Presbyterian Church of Australia were for a while called the "Continuing Presbyterian Church" in secondary sources. St Anselm ( talk) 19:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Again StAnselm, you have no secondary RS defining the concept of "continuing church" the way you did, you are making a SYNTH and drawing your own conclusions. Veverve ( talk) 20:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Yes, I do. Have you read all the new references I added to the article? St Anselm ( talk) 21:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Yes, I saw them. Veverve ( talk) 21:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as evidence has been given of Presbyterian as well as Anglican continuing churches, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 17:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Atlantic306: the question is not whether or not some denominations use the expression "continuing". The question is whether or not the alleged concept that would encompasse the whole Christendom of "continuing church" notably exists and is defined as such in the summary of that article. So far, no secondary RS defining "continuing church" this way has been provided to prove this existence and notability. Veverve ( talk) 18:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- This is about a real phenomenon, where certain congregations stand aside from denominational mergers. A case of which I know, not mentioned in the article is congregational churches in England, which declined to join United Reformed Church. In contrast "continuing Anglicans" are liable to be churches that opted out of the main episcopal/Anglican church, regarding it as not keeping its original doctrines. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
I went ahead and added the Congregational Federation. St Anselm ( talk) 02:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Appropriately referenced, topic is notable. Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 18:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment More than a couple editors have voted keep on the principle that this phenomenon is notable, but it does not appear notable under this terminology. If there is a keep, we need to find a term that is relevant specifically to non-Anglican denominations, rather than SYNTHing the term from Anglicanism onto Presbyterianism (which seems to be the direction this article is taking). ~ Pbritti ( talk) 19:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Notable topic. Nuff said. - TheLionHasSeen ( talk) 22:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ TheLionHasSeen: An WP:ITSNOTABLE does not help. Veverve ( talk) 23:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

The Society of Mercy

The Society of Mercy (  | 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)

Clear lack of secondary WP:RS. All Google Books and Google Scholar hits are about older Christian groups which shared a similar name. No secondary RS mentions this alleged Old Catholic group (and as a reminder, WP:SPSs cannot establish notability).
Therefore, per WP:GNG and WP:NCHURCH, this article should be deleted. Veverve ( talk) 13:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Probably delete -- The article seems to be a history of dissent and splits among Old Catholics, not about the priestly society of mercy. 50 congregations might make a small denomination (which should be kept), but with fragmentation, it is not clear that this is about a significant group. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:13, 29 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 per WP:SNOW. There was no further discussion in two weeks, during which further comments were not added. There was still some time left to add comments, however the outcome of this AFD has become almost certain to the point it is not going to change before the time closes and no need to prolong discussion further. Not relisted for a third time per WP:RELIST ( non-admin closure) MaxnaCarter ( talk) 05:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Tom Crosshill

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

Article is sourced almost entirely to his website. Can't find any sources with WP:SIGCOV. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 01:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Authors. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 01:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete no sources found. I wonder if he has 900 gold medals like the fellow above does? Oaktree b ( talk) 03:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep. Looks like the sole objections (limited sources/no sources found) have been addressed by User:MaryMO (AR), leaving, it appears to me, nothing to debate. BPK ( talk) 16:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ BPK2 I looked at the sources added. I don't see any of them that are independent, reliable and have significant coverage. I also don't see enough for WP:NAUTHOR (there's one review [14] I found of one of his novels but that's all I could find in terms of non-blog reviews). The sources in the article right now that are not by Tom Crosshill himself either verify that he was nominated or got an award for one of his stories, are interviewing him about some financial topic. There's one interview with him about himself but interviews are not really independent and one WP:INTERVIEW by itself is not enough for WP:NBIO. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 23:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 14:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

International Dialogue for Environmental Action

International Dialogue for Environmental Action (  | 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)

There is nothing to indicate that this is a notable subject. This article is just puffery for the daughter of Azerbaijan's authoritarian leader. Thenightaway ( talk) 13:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Power-up in standby

Power-up in standby (  | 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:DICDEF. Most content is WP:OR or about a Western Digital product, and all current sources are from Western Digital manuals. I'm not fully convinced that it either meets or fails WP:GNG; the closest I could find to an encyclopedic RS is [15], which is a dictionary entry.

MarcZ ( talk · contribs) suggested in June 2009 that this page be merged to Spin-up because there are few links and it is only a feature of spin-up, but that article is also nominated for deletion. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 08:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete3. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this is just a dictionary definition. Jacona ( talk) 13:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete some minor content might merit a brief mention in "Hard disk drive" but otherwise WP:DICDEF and inadequate sources sources for WP:GNG. -- mikeu talk 00:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There has been strong discussion but only two formal votes. Relisting did not produce clearer consensus, and there has been no further discussion over the last week making relisting a likely pointless exercise. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarter ( talk) 02:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Market Wrap

Market Wrap (  | 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)
Asia Market Wrap (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
European Closing Bell (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite the show's longevity, I could find no sources about the show. All hits on ProQuest were variants of "X to appear on Market Wrap", superficial name-drops in articles about the hosts, or reports on viewership numbers, none of which constitutes WP:SIGCOV. It also doesn't even have an IMDb page, which is very telling. This seems to be a case akin to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields where the nature of the show means it's unlikely to garner any media attention, regardless of how long it aired. Including the Asia and Europe spinoffs for similar reasons. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 03:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that a total of three articles are nominated for deletion herein.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. ~XyNq t c 13:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Two mentions of it being CNBCs most popular show.
  • Peter Truell. The New York Times. February 17, 1997. In regards to CNBC: The channel's most popular show, Market Wrap, which is on from 4 P.M. to 5 P.M. on weekdays, has about a quarter-million viewers at any one time.
  • RE:CNBC - Marc Gunther. Fortune Magazine May 24, 1999. Today a typical spot on Market Wrap, the network's top-rated show, sells for $4,000 to $5,000, and a handful of advertisers pay nearly twice that much. (The fact that ratings have doubled hasn't hurt.)
Found other passing mentions or small coverage, but more searching is needed. I do think the Asia/Europe versions should be merged into the main Market Wrap, since they both were originally based on it. A topic to discuss if we do end up keeping this. Deleting this seems unnecessary as Closing Bell seems to be a natural successor for a merge as they kept Mathisen and Bartiromo as the host and brought Griffeth back in later. WikiVirus C (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
If there's so little to say about the show itself other than "it's popular", then maybe it should be merged/redirected to CNBC. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Preferred merge target for me would be Closing Bell, for a redirect List of programs broadcast by CNBC. I don't feel the international versions have enough warrant to have entire content merged to Closing Bell, but if Market Wrap is kept, then it can take it. If all three are to go, then Market Wrap into Closing Bell. Excluding tables, the main article is pretty much a stub which can easily merge without being undue. International table could be put into short prose summary. A longer merge discussion would of been preferable but since we are in a deletion discussion, my vote will probably be Keep/Merge/Merge or Merge/Del/Del. WikiVirus C (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗ plicit 14:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Cecil E. Rhode

Cecil E. Rhode (  | 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)

Rhode was a journalist. I cannot find any substantial sources on him. The short geographical blurb is not enough. I found one mention of his name and nothing more in a long list of people who ran amateur radio stations, and I found mention of him in a hearing report from Congress, which is a primary document. As far as I can tell there are no indepdent secondary sources that give significant coverage. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment someone thought he was important enough to name a mountain after him ( Cecil Rhode Mountain). That alone does not make him notable. Nor does the 3500 results I found on Newspapers.com by sheer count make him notable. But it makes me very suspicious that he may turn out to be. Will follow up in the next day or two. Jacona ( talk) 01:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There are a great many sources on newspapers.com, a book Wild Shots which discusses him, and of course, a mountain named after him. I've added several of these to the article, there is certainly enough material to do a lot of expansion! Jacona ( talk) 12:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the excellent work done Jacona. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Lugnuts. Well-sourced article on notable photojournalist. DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 13:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The article could do with lots of improvement, but he's a fairly famous nature photographer/photojournalist. Ari T. Benchaim ( talk) 01:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Jacona above. Carrite ( talk) 21:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 14:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

The Untimely Gift

The Untimely Gift (  | 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)

despite being nominated for two awards, doesn't appear to be notable, never received critical coverage/reviews and doesn't appear otherwise to meet WP:NFILM PRAXIDICAE💕 14:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • This was somewhat difficulty to research because the ordinary nature of the search term brought up a lot of false positives. In the end, I couldn't find anything on newspapers.com, gSearch, GBooks, GNews, so Delete. Jacona ( talk) 13:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America 1000 14:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Duties of local government in the United Kingdom

Duties of local government in the United Kingdom (  | 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)

While a good idea for an article, Duties of local government in the United Kingdom currently has no references and one note. It is also extremely short and has had expansion tags on it since its creation in August 2019 (it also hasn't had any edits since then). The article Local government in England currently has more detail on the functions of various levels of local government in England, for instance. Therefore, I do believe it would be best if the article is deleted and any additional information on the duties of local government in the UK that any editor wishes to add in the future be added to the appropriate local government in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland article. FollowTheTortoise ( talk) 17:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. Shellwood ( talk) 17:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy merge/redirect Local government in England can cover this, without need for discussion about a largely empty page. Reywas92 Talk 17:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I don't think that it's best to have an article at the United Kingdom level about this, as the duties vary between the constituent countries of the UK, all but one of which have a devolved assembly/parliament and a functioning or non-functioning executive. Phil Bridger ( talk) 09:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 01:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect to Harry Turtledove bibliography. There is no consensus here that any book, or the series, has enough coverage to warrant an independent page. Instead there is consensus to redirect. Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Alternate Generals

Alternate Generals (  | 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 has two sources, both primary; searches on archive.org, newspapers.com, and google news turned up little, so I'm not seeing a WP:GNG pass. This could be redirected to Harry Turtledove bibliography, even though it's a collection? theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/ they) 20:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

I'm also nominating these two:

  • Redirect. If we can't find more sources for the three Alternate Generals books, we should redirect the three articles to the Harry Turtledove bibliography article as theleekycaudron said. While they might be story collections with most of the stories written by other authors, Harry Turtledove did edit and release them (though the first book was also edited by Roland J. Green and Martin H. Greenberg). I am a bit steamed about this, given I was the one who stopped the articles from being simply redirects in the first place a few years back and spent quite a bit of time fixing them up. JCC the Alternate Historian ( talk) 21:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep if they are combined? Redirect. I found the following coverage:
AG I: Review by Jackie Cassada, Library Journal, 1998-08-01, Vol.123 (13), p.140 (no online access)
AG II: Booklist Publishers Weekly PW passing mention Review by Sherry Hoy, Kliatt, Vol. 38, Issue 4, 2004, 161 wds (paywalled w/ no link)
AG III: Booklist Publishers Weekly
If we count PW as a source for NBOOK, that squeaks AG II and AG III over the line for WP:NBOOK. Because AG I is older, it seems likely that there is a second review for in print somewhere, probably in a specialist magazine. But the sourcing is pretty thin so I haven't entirely talked myself into a keep. I'd be more inclined to group them into one article. It would also be nice to check biographies of Turtledove and scholarship on the alternate history genre to see if those have more discussion of these collections. But there might not be much more to find. ~ L 🌸 ( talk)
@ LEvalyn: hmm, I'm not inclined to count the Publishers Weekly sources? Good finds, but I only see critical analysis/review to the extent that they come off just a smidge promotional. The Booklist coverage looks to be passing mentions. Even if Cassada's review is the stuff NBOOK reviews are made of, I'm not sure I see an NBOOK pass. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/ they) 18:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
theleekycauldron I think I agree though I'd quibble with how you're wording it. Neither PW nor Booklist are promotional sources to my eye, because they are always entirely independent reviews (not press releases). It doesn't make sense to call them passing mentions either since the books are the sole topic of the reviews. But I think you might be responding to the fact that these kinds of reviews are a bit WP:ROUTINE for books from reputable publishers, since almost every book gets some mention there, and I do agree that they are really marginal for NBOOK qualification. I prefer to only count starred reviews from Booklist/PW for NBOOK since those are the ones that express special notice being taken. I really wanted to talk myself into a keep here because the lists are well-done, but coming back to look at it again-- and with nobody turning anything up in eg biographies of Turtledove-- I think we only have two solid NBOOK reviews (Cassada and Hoy) for two different books, which is not enough for a keep. Changed my !vote above. ~ L 🌸 ( talk) 19:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 06:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Dangiuz

Dangiuz (  | 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)

He has done a lot of PR for himself, but no one can buy notability. No in-depth source to pass WP:GNG. Jsfodness ( talk) 03:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC) reply

As someone who tries to keep updated and create many criteria-meeting articles related to Digital Art/CryptoCurrency/NFTs, I'm quite surprised to see this one being nominated for AfD, as it's arguably one of the most notable digital artists and possibly the most famous Italian (digital) one. While I do realize the niche of the topic discussed, I'm gonna address the issues like the related article suggests. Some of the issues were already addressed and reviewed in past, in fact, there are many reliable sources in the article and a couple of new ones that still needs to be added. I'm gonna reference the missing ones below and I will be furthermore adding them to the article.
Vanity Fair [1]
GQ Italy [2]
GQ Japan [3]
WWD [4]
Fanpage.it [5]
Yahoo News [6]
  1. ^ "E adesso tutti a visitare MetaVanity". VanityFair.it (in Italian).
  2. ^ "Vanity Fair presenta MetaVanity, il primo museo nel Metaverso". gqitalia.it (in Italian).
  3. ^ "八村塁、バスケとファッションを語る──初プロデュースのアウター「ブラックサムライDC桜版kimono」は500枚限定！". gqjapan.jp (in Japanese).
  4. ^ "Vanity Fair Italy Presents New Metaverse Project". WWD.com.
  5. ^ "Piazza Gae Aulenti a Milano diventa una galleria d'arte digitale a cielo aperto". fanpage.it (in Italian).
  6. ^ "SuperRare is Coming to SoHo". news.yahoo.com.
___
My vote is KEEP. Always assume good faith, but some sources are 3 clicks away and really should be checked into before proposing an AfD. JohnnyCoal ( talk) 08:38, 8 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Every single of the english-speaking and italian sources you gave us does mention Dangiuz. As one of many. There is no WP:SIGCOV. Delete. Lurking shadow ( talk) 13:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC) reply
While this is partially true, this applies only to the six sources listed in the AfD discussion, and not to the other 35+ sources listed on the article itself. On top of that, even on the mentions, might be worth to mention that the main images in the given sources are in fact credited as Dangiuz's art works. Keep JohnnyCoal ( talk) 13:53, 8 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep The sources I see do grant WP:ARTIST notability. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 09:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

Keep WP:ARTIST notability is met exactly like in other related articles eg Sarah Zucker / XCOPY (artist) / Refik Anadol & more. Skyfullofstars96 ( talk) 09:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep per JohnnyCoal. Established artist. Multiple exhibitions, media coverage and commercial stats should be considered enough to pass WP:GNG. Alsl8920 ( talk) 22:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep how is this even an AfD? significant references and mentions and showcasing in museums. user ( User:Jsfodness) who proposed the AfD has been proposing about 100 AfD in one day and even got WP:ANI’d for doing so… probably vandalism. AlsPkY ( talk) 23:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America 1000 14:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Serious Tubes Networks

Serious Tubes Networks (  | 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)

Obscure stub AS whose entire basis for notability seems to be a peering error made by Global Crossing in 2011 that temporarily impacted one of their customers DefaultFree ( talk) 11:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC) reply

If it should be merged, then into the Pirate Party of Sweden, who owned the service. The Pirate Bay was just a site it hosted. // Julle ( talk) 20:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC) reply
I don't see how any substantial part of this would make sense in either of those articles. Both the Pirate Party of Sweden and the Pirate Bay are significant entities, and this is an ISP which has merely been a service provider to both of them. By merging it into those articles, we'd a) mark this content as more important is it currently is, putting it in front of more readers, who (as opposed to those who find the article now) hadn't asked to read about this ISP and b) add information which has a rather feeble connection to the topic of the article. I'd argue it would require more notability, not less, to be merged into e.g. The Pirate Bay. // Julle ( talk) 23:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply
If there's a nexus of ownership between Serious Tubes Networks and Pirate Party of Sweden, I think that would warrant at least a brief mention. But, otherwise, I agree. I'm having trouble finding a reliable source that would support the claim, and I don't have any relevant personal knowledge. DefaultFree ( talk) 06:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Absolutely, if ownership was part of the picture it could merit mentioning. But since the article doesn't suggest that it is ... That was just me misreading something, in my first comment. / Julle ( talk) 10:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that sourcing is not of sufficient quality Star Mississippi 02:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Zarakh Iliev

Zarakh Iliev (  | 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 hint of person's significance. Huge problems with WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Poor PR sources Bash7oven ( talk) 21:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Shellwood: please, research the link and sources more carefully. Basically non of the sources passes the criteria of independente reliable source with deep independent coverage of the subject - per WP:NRV. The Forbes link to profile is not RS as it is only a directory-type listing. Another Forbes link is forbidden in wikipedia (depreciated) as it is Forbes Contributor article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2014/01/25/stalins-bedtime-nightmare/#44565c1f54d3. Please read the rule here: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Forbes.
@ Edwardx: Yahoo News cannot be used at all as it is a press-release spam. Another link to Jpost doesn't meet Reliable source criteria, as it doesn't make any deep coverage, but only highlights some event and briefly mentions Zarakh. -- Bash7oven ( talk) 20:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment User Bash7oven seems to have nominated many articles on Russians purely out of spite. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment no meeting of WP:SIGCOV -- Bash7oven ( talk) 20:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep! You have nominated several articles by a statement for all the nominations! If you check out the article and the sources on Google, you will easily understand he is notable! —Natalie RicciNatalie 01:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I followed the Keep suggestions for some solid evidence and followed through with an additional search to verifiy what is being claimed, i.e. that our subject is "notable" or "clearly notable". And the verdict is in: Not by a long shot he is not!
What we have and can find: A couple of dead links such as this from "Richest Russian", a vanity website, or this; this "overview" of our subject's company Kievskaya Ploshchad in Bloomberg, but not about Iliev; we get a 2013 Moscow Times item about a Moscow shopping mall being sold to two buyers of whom our subject is one. Ah yes, the much invoked "Forbes profile"! It's actually nothing more than a laconic appearance in the Forbes list of 2022's billionaires, in which Iliev ranks #823. End of story. The whole contraption is an exercise in promotion, whether unwittingly or not. - The Gnome ( talk) 16:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, A check of the Russian Wikipedia page for this man shows that it is sourced entirely to vanity press, which needless to say is not a contributor to a GNG pass. I made a search in cyrillic, and I could only find what were obviously unreliable puff pieces. Maybe someone else could dig up something, but at the moment a GNG fail. The Gnome's source analysis above is persuasive on the sources cited by the 'Keep' arguments. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 23:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. clear consensus to keep and no active discussion occurring in the last three days. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarter ( talk) 02:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply

German trawler V 206 Otto Bröhan

German trawler V 206 Otto Bröhan (  | 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 any notability, just a name among many in some lists, and a standard entry in Lloyd's which doesn't indicate any notability. No actual reliable, indepth sources about this ship apparently. Perhaps there is a good redirect target? Fram ( talk) 12:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep First and foremost, all three sources meet WP:RS. Major warships of navies are generally well covered on Wikipedia. The auxiliary ships less so. This is one of a series of articles on WWII Vorpostenboote. There is enough material on most of them to create an article of at least start class. On the odd occasion where there isn't, then the ship doesn't get an article (see the enry for V 203 Heinrich Buermann). There may well be offline, or foreign language sources, with which to expand the article, as well as other online sources such as the Kriegsmarine war diaries which I recently added to WP:SHIPS/R#Kriegsmarine. Wikipedia is better for having the article than not having it. Mjroots ( talk) 12:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
      • Not saying "I told you so", but look how the article has been expanded. Mjroots ( talk) 10:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    • None of the three WP:RS are indepth though (which is required, I never argued that they weren't reliable), they are
      • [16] a two line entry in a ships database
      • [17] two very simple listings in a database
      • [18] an extremely passing mention
    • "One of a series of articles": yes, and most of the others seem to have the exact same sources with the exact same issues. Your hope that better sources exist is not sufficient to keep an article which currently clearly fails WP:N. Fram ( talk) 12:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
      • OK, Fram, we've both had our say. Shall we leave it to others to decide? Mjroots ( talk) 12:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
        • Well, you know the valid reasons to keep or delete (or redirect) an article, and instead you chose to start a strawman argument ("all three sources meet WP:RS", which wasn't disputed) and ignored the actual reason for deletion, that there aren't any reliable indepth sources. It's of course your right to stick to that position and not even try to show that this is a notable subject, but the closing admin is likely to simply ignore your "keep" then. Fram ( talk) 12:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
          • An you're the one that linked "No actual reliable, indepth sources about this ship apparently" to WP:RS and claimed that you never said the sources weren't reliable. I'm outta here. Mjroots ( talk) 12:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
            • That's why I said "reliable, indepth", not just "reliable". WP:GNG require significant coverage from reliable sources, but you have only provided trivial coverage from reliable sources. You know, the start of my deletion nomination, "No evidence of any notability"... Fram ( talk) 13:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist ( talk) 13:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Weak Keep change due to RS added by Nigel Ish and identified by Sturmvogel 66. Mztourist ( talk) 05:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I've found another source and expanded the article. Fram I invite you to withdraw this nomination. Mztourist, please look at the expanded article and consider whether or not you wish to change your !vote. Mjroots ( talk) 16:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    • I should withdraw this nom because you found some forum [19]? Oh, and some personal website [20]? Again, you need reliable, indepth sources, not on the one hand some reliable sources without significant coverage and on the ther hand a few more indepth sources which aren't reliable. Fram ( talk) 16:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
      • Just a comment in passing: the site is run by a Klaus Intemann, who doesn't appear to have published anything that would establish him as an expert in the field per WP:SPS (assuming this individual is the same Klaus Intemann appearing in Worldcat). As far as I can tell, it's just a hobbyist site. Parsecboy ( talk) 18:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
        • Mjroots not with the sources you have given, however the sources provided by Nigel Ish may tip my view. Mztourist ( talk) 06:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Lloyd's Register is quite a reliable source. The Banner  talk 16:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC) P.S.: Personal attacks and/or sour remarks do not make arguments stronger. Contrary... reply
    • Which isn't disputed. But how does that entry actually give any notability? It's just an entry in a register, some basic facts, not a n actual secondary source with indepth information about the ship. Lloyd's lists 1000s upon 1000s of ships in this shorthand manner. Fram ( talk) 17:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
      • Why do you try to shoot down one of the most essential, secondary, reliable sources? And to answer your snipe in the summary: yes. I checked in fact all the given sources. The Banner  talk 17:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
        • Because it is just a very short database entry amongst thousands of similar entries? It is a register of ships, for insurance purposes, of "all seagoing, self-propelled merchant ships of 100 gross tons or greater" (from our article). The current edition for all currently active ships runs to 5 big volumes. This is not a selective book, this is just a database. This doesn't mean it isn't reliable, but that it doesn't give any notability whatsoever to ships included in it. Simply existing is sufficient. Fram ( talk) 17:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
        • While I can't find the exact number of entries in Lloyds for the moment, the current merchant fleet alone, worldwide, is around 92,000 ships [21]. Fram ( talk) 17:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I've added a little more on her loss (in particular where she was scuttled) from a new RS and the date of her loss from Rohwer (also reliable). Paterson states that the ship is sometimes to have clashed with British paratroopers on D-Day but that this appears to be incorrect. I have also backed up some of the details for the ship in French Service from Jane's Fighting Ships. Nigel Ish ( talk) 18:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Long consensus has been to keep all commissioned military vessels. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 09:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Not this again... Consensus is that article subjects need to be notable, not that some groups have magical notability. A country nationalizing fishing ships and turning them into cannon fodder doesn't miraculously make that ship notable. Fram ( talk) 10:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep While the ship did have an uneventful wartime career, she is covered in some detail in Roche and Gröner, our two of our basic sources for French and German warships. But I'll let Mjroots add their info himself.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 03:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep I can't say that the nomination was wrong but discovery of new sources [22] would justify keeping the page. Georgethedragonslayer ( talk) 14:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It adds to our understanding of WWII, and more generally in how vessels move between roles, especially in the transition between war and peace, and gets away from a "Boy's Own" focus on the big vessels. Acad Ronin ( talk) 02:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep on the basis that it meets WP:GNG, not made up criteria like "all commissioned ships are notable" or "it adds to our understanding". - Indy beetle ( talk) 09:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply
And "Notability" is not a "Made-up criterion"? Acad Ronin ( talk) 11:56, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply
>Insert eye roll< Ok, replace "made up criteria" with "personal opinions lacking in wider consensus that account for much" - Indy beetle ( talk) 19:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 09:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

List of College Football on NBCSN commentators

List of College Football on NBCSN commentators (  | 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)

Remember late 2019 when a whole bunch of commentator pairing lists were given AFD's? Almost every commentator pairing list was brought up at some point. Some were kept, others were deleted, but this particular list was never mentioned once. Considering it stops about 4 years before the channel's closure, and the fact it has absolutely no sources whatsoever, I absolutely believe it should be deleted. 100.7.36.213 ( talk) 23:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus after two relists, and insufficient reason to relist for a third time per WP:RELIST. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarter ( talk) 02:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Martin Moloney

Martin Moloney (  | 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 appear to meet WP:GNG; in line with developing consensus at deletion discussions, meeting the sports-related notability guidelines is no longer sufficient in and of itself. Stifle ( talk) 08:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 11:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarter ( talk) 02:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Star Brand

Star Brand (  | 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 very subpar case of comic fancruft, pretty much all plot summary, even the publication history is mostly untouched and unreferenced. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. While I'd prefer a softdelete redirect over hard delete, I am not sure what would be a good target, given that this name refers to several objects within the Marvel Universe, connected to different comic book series. There also was a comic book series called Star Brand, but it doesn't appear to meet WP:NMEDIA. Lastly, lower case star brand is a term that, in academic literature, refers to top brands, and on the off chance this is kept, it needs to be renamed, as my BEFORE suggests the primary meaning of a star brand is related to management/economics, not pop culture. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Added some refs and removed the notability tag. A lot more refs still need to be added to bolster the various appearances and publication history but that does not seem like it would be too hard, there's a lot out there. Artw ( talk) 18:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC) reply
You are proving the existence of this entity, but not it's notability. Please let us know when you've written a reception section. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The existence of this entity is somthing you should already no from basic WP:BEFORE. Prior to the AfD the article already had significant material on the reception and publication history of the character/title, which you should know from reading the article. Consolidating some of that in a reception section may make that clearer but the article remains within WP:N regardless since significant coverage in reliable sources is present. Artw ( talk) 13:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Maybe we are looking at different articles. "Prior to the AfD the article already had significant material on the reception". Huh. Do quote that material. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Material related to the development, publication history and reception:
"The Star Brand was created by Marvel Comics editor-in-chief Jim Shooter to be the flagship series of the New Universe line. Mark Gruenwald's notes from the meeting in which the New Universe concept was fleshed out indicate that the original title was "Will Power", and that the name "Star Brand" was taken from an unused concept by Archie Goodwin."
"The series was originally written by Shooter. The New Universe had no budget with which to hire big-name talent, so it was to Shooter's surprise that John Romita, Jr. (a rising industry star) and Al Williamson (an esteemed comics veteran) volunteered to be the penciler and inker, respectively, of Star Brand. The stories followed protagonist Ken Connell in his struggle to use his near limitless power in the right way. Jim Shooter's run on Star Brand was unique in that, unlike nearly every other superhero comic up to that time, it was not told from omniscient point-of-view, and instead showed only Ken Connell's firsthand experiences. After issue #7, Shooter was fired from Marvel, and Romita and Williamson left the series. Star Brand was taken down to bi-monthly status, and consisted of fill-in issues for the next half year."
"John Byrne, at the prompting of New Universe editor Howard Mackie (a close friend of Byrne's), took over both the writing and breakdowns with issue #11. Shortly after, a meeting between Byrne, Mackie, and DP 7 writer Mark Gruenwald was held to come up with a plot device to raise interest in the New Universe. The idea of the Star Brand destroying Pittsburgh was devised at this meeting and implemented in The Star Brand #12. Following this issue, Ken Connell was reduced to a supporting character, and the series became a more generalized account of the effects of the Star Brand on humankind. The series was cancelled with issue #19."
"Following the dissolution of the New Universe imprint, Mark Gruenwald, the writer of the New Universe title DP7, used the Star Brand and other New Universe characters some years later in Quasar. He later used them in the Starblast limited series and crossover which ended when The Stranger used the Star Brand to move the Earth of the New Universe into orbit around his labworld."
"Writer Warren Ellis re-imagined the New Universe and has since named it newuniversal, portraying Kenneth Connell as the Star Brand, originally from Optima Down, Oklahoma. The origin of the Star Brand is central to the entire New Universe re-imagining. "
"Brand/New Universe creator Jim Shooter (Shooter had modeled many aspects of the Connell character on himself). Issued around the time of the downsizing of the New Universe line and Shooter's departure from Marvel, the scene in Legends depicts Sunspot/Connell/Shooter at one point exclaiming "I wield the ultimate power...the power to create a New Universe!", which was then followed by his accidentally shooting himself in the foot. This issue was written by John Byrne, who shortly thereafter returned to Marvel to take over the writing of the Star Brand comic itself."
"John Byrne, at the prompting of New Universe editor Howard Mackie (a close friend of Byrne's),[6][9] took over both the writing and breakdowns with issue #11. Shortly after, a meeting between Byrne, Mackie, and DP 7 writer Mark Gruenwald was held to come up with a plot device to raise interest in the New Universe. The idea of the Star Brand destroying Pittsburgh was devised at this meeting[9] and implemented in The Star Brand #12. Following this issue, Ken Connell was reduced to a supporting character, and the series became a more generalized account of the effects of the Star Brand on humankind. The series was cancelled with issue #19."
So it was pivotal to a new line of comics created by Jim Shooter, survived the firing of Shooter and that collapse of that line of comics to reappeared under multiple creative teams in multiple fictional universes, and was the lynchpin of the creative vision of at least one of them. It also had sufficient impact to be worth parodying. In addition and not quoted there's plenty of material on other appearances across multiple titles involving dozens of creators, muddled with a lot of in universe material but still significant. Absolutely seems a worthy basis of an article to me. Artw ( talk) 16:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Thanks. Now I think this can be rescued, but, sigh, work is needed. I think until the work is done, some sort of copyedit templates should remain in the article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Cut the condescension. You did not perform WP:BEFORE, to the extent that you did not even read the article. Please withdraw this AfD and any others that you have falsely claimed to have doen WP:BEFORE for. Artw ( talk) 12:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Totally unencyclopedic article (see WP:FANCRUFT). The argument that the piece requires to be renamed is also very sound (if this is kept, a request move procedure will be necessary). - GizzyCatBella 🍁 14:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC) reply
I'm not seeing it. 1) it's just two common words combined, that isn't particularly surprising 2) I can get three pages in to google results before seeing it used that way 3) If it was a thing how comes there's no article? Artw ( talk) 18:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Let this page stay. We have had different incarnations of Star Brand in Marvel Comics and it should be worth mentioning on this website somewhere. Plus, @ Artw: is right about his claims. -- Rtkat3 ( talk) 00:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 11:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

One other suggestion should the keeps fail would be redirecting the article to List of Marvel Comics characters: S. Right? -- Rtkat3 ( talk) 19:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Certainly. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:50, 28 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) MaxnaCarter ( talk) 02:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Gramogram

Gramogram (  | 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:DICDEF. Prod contested by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 20:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC) reply

*Delete. Agree with nominator. Not a dictionary. CT55555 ( talk) 21:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC) reply

I'm removing my delete due to the convincing argument of Lord Belbury CT55555 ( talk) 12:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Seems broader than a simple dictionary definition, given the half-sourced arts and culture section which the nominator deleted as trivia immediately before prodding the article last week. There's surely more to be said about their use in SMS language and possibly telegram style, also. -- Lord Belbury ( talk) 08:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Deletion based on nominator's gutting of it would set a dreadful precedent. Agree article could be improved, but deleting it on those grounds would also set an impossible precedent. -- Soundofmusicals ( talk) 03:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 11:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per above points, looks like it has enough content to be encyclopedic. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 20:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I knew that deletion of the IPC section was highly questionable, since it has secondary sources for some entries. However, the other content that is not in the current version was correctly deleted as OR. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 20:50, 31 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) MaxnaCarter ( talk) 02:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Serhiy Volynskyi

Serhiy Volynskyi (  | 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 coverage is quite collateral, not WP:SIGCOV. It is not uncommon for a commander to be named in the context of a military unit's actions, but that's not necessarily coverage of the individual. There is not much I could find that could be considered coverage of the individual per se. Ari T. Benchaim ( talk) 11:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect to 1881–82 FA Cup. History is under the redirect if sufficient sourcing is confirmed for this to be spun back out. At the moment, consensus is against that Star Mississippi 01:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Esher Leopold F.C.

Esher Leopold 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)

I redirected this to 1881–82 FA Cup, as all this club did was lose in a first round match in the FA Cup (playing the FA cup was no mark of distinction, all clubs could enter and many were supposed to play but never showed up anyway). No evidence that this is a notable organization, fails WP:NORG, only has routine coverage. Fram ( talk) 09:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep for the following reasons.

1. The criteria for notoriety in football are confusing. WP:FOOTYN seems to be the only attempt to create one and the club passes that as being a participant in a national - at the time, one of only three in the world - cup competition.

2. There needed to be some level of notoriety to participate in the Cup; a club needed to be a member of the FA and so needed to have the membership and the subs to do so. There were fewer entries to the Cup that year than there are current League clubs. I'm not drawing an exact one-to-one correspondence, but this was a club that had spun out of one that had won a tie the previous year, were unlucky enough to draw the holders in the first round, were not completely disgraced, and would at the very least have been the equivalent of a decent level non-league club today. There were dozens of clubs, currently in the League, who were around at the time and who did not enter the Cup.

3. That I have found nothing more about them does not mean that there is nothing more to find (I wonder if there was a name-change) but that would be better suited for someone closer geographically to check the sources, I cannot do so. One quick bout of research found that the club captain, Frederick Fricker, was still a teenager and became a professional photographer, there are surely more fruitful areas to get more details.

4. There are wikipedia articles on a number of clubs who played once in the first round of the FA Cup. They are all part of the gradual growth of the game and evidence of the quantum froth in the early part of the game as teams came in and out of existence, while club membership was a movable and non-exclusive feast.

5. The FA Cup match itself had full reports in at least four newspapers; the Field, the Referee, Athletic News, and (oddly) the Nottingham Evening Post. So it gained national (if specialist) coverage.

6. If there were a general catch-all page for FA Cup entrants in which the mayflies could be listed and described that would be perfect for this club, and many others; but that's obviously not wikipedia policy. So where else can an article about a short-lived, but briefly on the national stage, club go? There have been articles on clubs of a similar stature on wikipedia for years with nothing but the most basic details; I have fleshed some of them out, but nobody suggested deleting e.g. Saxons FC which for three years had a page looking like [ [23]]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by In Vitrio ( talk • contribs) 10:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

    • FOOTYN is not an accepted guideline; WP:NORG is. Not every subgroup of articles has their own dedicated notability guideline. As for the second point; FA cup was not only open to clubs in certain competitions or level of competitions, everyone who wanted could enter (e.g. here a brandnew club without any other standing: see also many other very minor clubs who participated in those first decades, or who folded before they could even play their schedule FA game). That many clubs didn't choose to enter is hardly an indication that those who did are more notable. You are basically claiming notability from a) an essay and b) through inheritance (FA cup is notable, so every team that competed is notable), which goes against WP:NOTINHERITED. That there are match reports for that one game is routine coverage, that their captain became a photographer is hardly a reason to believe this team to be notable. There is, until evidence of the opposite is shown, not a shred of evidence that this team has received indepth or sustained coverage, as required. Fram ( talk) 16:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
      But WP:NORG doesn't apply here - as it says in the first paragraph, "The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams." Emphases added. So we have to look elsewhere. And WP:FOOTYN seems as good a guideline as any.
      Or we look at the sports notability guideline does not have one for football, but does say "A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of significant coverage, that is, multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". So, this club had multiple published secondary sources, in national magazines and at least one regional newspaper which are not trivial, secondary, reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the club. There may have been others to which I have no access.
      However one puts it, this club participated in what was the number one tournament in the entire world. That is of itself notable. In Vitrio ( talk) 18:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
      If NORG doesn't apply, then we fall back on WP:GNG. Multiple articles about the same event (the one match in the FA cup), giving routine coverage of a match, are trivial though. And "the number one tournament in the entire world" is meaningless if the remainder of the world didn't care and the tournament was open to every English club which wanted to participate. If you compete in the Marathon of London, you don't become suddenly notable, even though that marathon is perhaps the most important of the yearly ones. Fram ( talk) 18:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
      Because the London Marathon has 20,000 participants, most of whom are not "competing" but taking part. This is different. Clubs did not come from nowhere, even poor hammered Farningham had matches before entering the FA Cup, and their captain learned the game at Charterhouse. There are pages on people who had one race in early NASCAR when it was a very bush league series; pages on clubs that have never made the first round of the FA Cup; pages on Canadian minor league baseball teams who had one season. This is a direct equivalent, if anything more prominent because so few clubs entered the FA Cup in those days. And someone out there may have more about them but won't know what or how it all comes together. In Vitrio ( talk) 18:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to 1881–82 FA Cup as sole claim to fame. Not independently notable. Giant Snowman 18:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    And that applies to lots of other teams - including a quarter-finalist. Does that mean all of those need to be deleted as well? And how helpful is it to take articles away? If you exclude teams that get further than the first round, isn't that basically putting it down to the luck of the draw? How about non-league teams that never made it this far? To pick a team at random, Eton Wick F.C. have an article; they were flagged in 2011 as "not notable as it has not been shown that this football team has competed in the FA Cup which is one of the criteria of Football team notability in England" but they are still there as having passed the threshold - despite being 12 promotions away from the League. You don't have to go far to find others of a similar low stature; Oakengates Athletic, Lambourn Sports, even the original Argonauts page was about a team which never existed (I added bits in about a separate club that did to avoid confusion).
    The easiest way for a consistent policy is to consider any team to have got so far as the 1st round of the FA Cup to be notable. Because they had enough about them to get into a national competition. And they were the subject of significant coverage (there was even at least one match preview in a national magazine), and played the Cup holders, which got them national attention. Given there were no leagues then, there is no other criterion by which to judge notoriety. In Vitrio ( talk) 08:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to 1881–82 FA Cup. They don't look to pass WP:GNG, but are a team mentioned in that article. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 07:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to 1881–82 FA Cup for now.

    But in general, I don't see why a general catch-all page for FA Cup entrants in which the mayflies could be listed and described as suggested by In Vitrio wouldn't work. List of FA Cup entrants/participants/whatever, with selection criteria of not already having a WP article of their own. I don't see any policy objection: WP:CSC bullet 2 says that Lists are commonly written to satisfy one of the following sets of criteria: ... Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles. A list isn't just a table of one-line entries: we are allowed descriptions of the items listed, see e.g. Grade II listed buildings in Brighton and Hove: M or the featured list that is List of places of worship in Brighton and Hove. cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 13:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep passes GNG.-- Ortizesp ( talk) 17:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarter ( talk) 02:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Idea (news agency)

Idea (news agency) (  | 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)

Single reference used which is (from my understanding) a list of publishers / publications in the area rather than something focussing specifically on the subject of the article. It may be that the references in the German version of the page can be used to expand the page and show notability. Gusfriend ( talk) 08:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 09:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

List of people on the postage stamps of Uruguay

List of people on the postage stamps of Uruguay (  | 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:LISTN. Largely abandoned, incorrect (e.g. the first stamp for Suarez is given as 1896, while it appeared in 1881), incomplete. Fram ( talk) 08:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Uruguay. Fram ( talk) 08:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as prodder. Same faults as all the other "lists of people on the postage stamps of X" list, as Fram elaborated on. No idea why this was deprodded. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The fact that we would have a list that states it is complete through 1960 is just plain insulting. If we are going to do something we should do it right. A list that is 62 years old is not doing things right. We do not have the multiple reliable sources that discuss this topic as a group to justify having this article. We are now down to only 120 of the 251 nations and territories of the world having such articles, and way too many (vritually all of them) are plagued by the same problems we see here. I am not convinced that anyone has ever convincingly argued why this is a notable topic and not List of animals on the postage stamps of Uruguay or List of buildings on the postage stamps of Uruguay. If people appearing on postage stamps of Uruguay has been discussed meaninfully in reliable sources we can say somethign about that in Postage stamps and postal history of Uruguay. I see no reason to have this article at all. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Even that article has now had a notice of giving undue weight to some topics for about 9 years. There is a lot of ultra niche coverage of philately in Wikipedia. Including way too many articles that say essentially "John Brown (1902-1994) was an American philatelist. He signed the role of distinguished philatelists in 1970 [1]" And that is the whole article, one sentence saying he was recognized by a group, sourced to the website of the group that gave the recognition. These are clearly not encyclopedic articles, especially in a general encyclopedia. These may in fact be notable philatelists, but we would need more sources showing broad coverage to demonstrate such. On the other hand, some of these people may in fact be notable for other things, but it is being entirely ignored. I have seen cases where an article on an Olympain neglected to mention they were in the national legislature of Tanzania, a country that currently has over 50 million people, to know that one problem with some stub biographies is that they focus too much on only one aspect of a person's life. Sports and politics are sometimes treated as the only thing that matters, even if a person was more notable for other endevors than their politcal contributions. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, all of these are unmaintained and unmaintainable, failing WP:LISTN. Jacona ( talk) 13:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. This is something for another kind of project, outside of Wikipedia. BD2412 T 21:48, 30 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! 05:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

List of people on the postage stamps of Bulgaria

List of people on the postage stamps of Bulgaria (  | 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:LISTN. Unsourced and abandoned since its creation in 2003, tagged as such since 2010. Apparently Bulgaria has not put any people on postage stamps since the 1930s, if one was to believe this article. Not of any use to readers, and luckily they don't care to read it either (25 pageviews in the last 90 days excluding one very anomalous spike). Fram ( talk) 08:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Bulgaria. Fram ( talk) 08:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is a relic of the wild-west style of Wikipedia that existed before about 2006 (although some allowances for too much article creation persisted. That we are still bringing articles created in 2003 that never had any substantial sources to discussion for deletion shows we have yet to overcome the poor decisions made during the early days of Wikipedia on how to include new articles.) John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Delete, same issues as all the other "lists of people on the postage stamps of X" articles. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 04:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete Fails WP:LISTN, and if the article has been abandoned since its creation all the way back in 2003, this is just dead wood that needs to be trimmed. TH1980 ( talk) 04:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, all of these are unmaintained and unmaintainable, failing WP:LISTN. Jacona ( talk) 13:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. This is something for another kind of project, outside of Wikipedia. BD2412 T 21:46, 30 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. Per relatively low participation here for all of these articles, closing with no prejudice against speedy renomination of each article as standalone discussions (having only one discussion for each separate article). North America 1000 13:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Davidkhanian Mansion

Davidkhanian Mansion (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
David Khan (diplomat) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alexander Khan Setkhanian (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Meguertitch Khan Davidkhanian (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Markar Khan Davidkhanian (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Eskandar Khan Davidkhanian (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Martiros Khan Davidkhanian (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tsatur Khan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Set Khan Astvatsatourian (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a series of articles about the Davidkhanian family created by now blocked editor TheEdgarBox ( talk + · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser). They are a mess. Most of the articles' text has little to do with the actual subject of the article itself. The images are all nominated for deletion because the tags were false.

The sourcing is highly questionable, at best. Nearly everything of substance in several of the articles appears to be derived from the Alice Navasargian book Immortals, which is self-published and not reliable. ( See page 9 for confirmation of self publishing).

If any of these subjects are notable, we would be best served by deleting these articles and starting over. agtx 18:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Iran. Shellwood ( talk) 19:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all There is not enough sourcing to justify any of these. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I just looked at one of the articles Alexander Khan Setkhanian, seems like it has adequate amount of sources to have its own article. ZaniGiovanni ( talk) 11:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ ZaniGiovanni: But did you look at the references? Nearly all of the supporting references for sentences about the subject of the article (as opposed to general propositions about history) are from the self published Navasargian book. The citations to the Zia-Ebrahimi piece are likewise forged. The article is a short book review that does not support any of the statements it's cited for. agtx 16:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

  • Keep Nominating all of these together was a mistake imo. Several of the subjects do appear to be notable, and the articles all contain multiple published sources besides the self-published book. The nominator has not made a convincing case that these other sources do not demonstrate notability in any of the articles. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 13:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Ficaia: Can you help me understand which sources you're looking that support notability? Not all of the sources are readily available, but there is a serious forgery problem here (see explanation of Zia-Ebrahimi piece above). If there are particular ones you find convincing, I will try to track them down. agtx 21:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    I think the issue is that the book by Zia Ebhrahimi contains much information about the family, while the article in the historical review about the book is a mis-citation meant to cite the book itself. The citation should be changed to the book. 169.232.70.99 ( talk) 02:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC) — 169.232.70.99 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

2021 White Plains mayoral election

2021 White Plains mayoral 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)

Fails WP:NEVENT. In particular, the event lacked significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group and the scope of sources that covered it were of limited geographic scope. There was relatively little coverage, which makes sense considering the election was wholly uncontested. Per WP:EVENTCRIT, the above indicates that the event is likely non-notable. Since this event fails to meet the relevant notability guideline, the article should be deleted along the lines of WP:DEL-REASON#8. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 05:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete Elections in U.S. suburbs with population under 100,000 tend not to be notable. If you think it is, you need to have more info and sources than just the results data. Reywas92 Talk 13:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. and Reywas92. Fails WP:NEVENT. Sal2100 ( talk) 20:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete city elections in a city that is a smaller city in an area dominated by a much larger city (New York City just to the south has over 10 times the population of White Plains, There are 3 cities in Westchester County that have more people than White Plains (Yonkers, New Rochelle and Mount Vernon) Yonkers is over 3 times the size of White Plains. Westchester County has over 1 million people, White Plains 59,000, so less than 10% of the county population lives in White Plains, as mentioned New York City which borders Westchester County on the south has over 8 million people. This is also one town in Westchester County that has 95,000 people. So there is nothing to suggest an election in White Plains will be of regional interest. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

2017 White Plains mayoral election

2017 White Plains mayoral 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)

Fails WP:NEVENT. In particular, the event lacked significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group and the scope of sources that covered it were of limited geographic scope that involved the routine local coverage of an election in a medium-sized municipality. Per WP:EVENTCRIT, this indicates that the event is likely non-notable. Since this event fails to meet the relevant notability guideline, the article should be deleted along the lines of WP:DEL-REASON#8. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 05:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and New York. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 05:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Elections in U.S. suburbs with population under 100,000 tend not to be notable. If you think it is, you need to have more info and sources than just the results data. Reywas92 Talk 13:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. and Reywas92. Fails WP:NEVENT. Sal2100 ( talk) 20:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete city elections in a city that is a smaller city in an area dominated by a much larger city (New York City just to the south has over 10 times the population of White Plains, There are 3 cities in Westchester County that have more people than White Plains (Yonkers, New Rochelle and Mount Vernon) Yonkers is over 3 times the size of White Plains. Westchester County has over 1 million people, White Plains 59,000, so less than 10% of the county population lives in White Plains, as mentioned New York City which borders Westchester County on the south has over 8 million people. This is also one town in Westchester County that has 95,000 people. So there is nothing to suggest an election in White Plains will be of regional interest. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

2013 White Plains mayoral election

2013 White Plains mayoral 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)

Fails WP:NEVENT. In particular, the event lacked significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group and the scope of sources that covered it were of limited geographic scope and involved the routine local coverage of an election in a medium-sized municipality. Per WP:EVENTCRIT, this indicates that the event is likely non-notable. The article should be deleted in line with WP:DEL-REASON#8, since this event fails to meet the relevant notability guideline. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 05:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and New York. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 05:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Elections in U.S. suburbs with population under 100,000 tend not to be notable. If you think it is, you need to have more info and sources than just the results data. Reywas92 Talk 13:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. and Reywas92. Fails WP:NEVENT. Sal2100 ( talk) 20:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete city elections in a city that is a smaller city in an area dominated by a much larger city (New York City just to the south has over 10 times the population of White Plains, There are 3 cities in Westchester County that have more people than White Plains (Yonkers, New Rochelle and Mount Vernon) Yonkers is over 3 times the size of White Plains. Westchester County has over 1 million people, White Plains 59,000, so less than 10% of the county population lives in White Plains, as mentioned New York City which borders Westchester County on the south has over 8 million people. This is also one town in Westchester County that has 95,000 people. So there is nothing to suggest an election in White Plains will be of regional interest. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Who cares. Why are you actively trying to prevent information from being collected, catalogued, and shared. I put in all this work making a really nice presentation of the data for all the White Plains Mayoral elections on record and you go ahead a delete it because you think its small and irrelevant. You people are losers and gatekeepers, simple as. Guy Hanes ( talk) 21:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC) reply
You are a loser. Guy Hanes ( talk) 21:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 05:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

List of people on the postage stamps of Burundi

List of people on the postage stamps of Burundi (  | 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)

Survived a prod in 2009 despite having only two people on it. In the eleven years since, the list hasn't changed one iota, just like all these other "list of people on the postage stamps of X" articles. This is almost speedy-worthy but it doesn't fit into any of the categories Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 04:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Boris Bondarev

Boris Bondarev (  | 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:BLP1E. Only time WP:RS mention him is for his resignation. Firestar464 ( talk) 04:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Weak Keep Could develop more medial receiption as a dambuster in russian retreats. Ｔｏｍ ( talk) 09:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

The proposal of ansh definitely makes sense. Agree. --united we are strong, says Landkraft 09:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep. This Russian career diplomat has been widely reported in the media around the free world and the Russian invasion of Ukraine will be always a main topic in world history and the history of Europe. NAIDEPIKIW NONA ( talk) 11:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

You might wanna have a read of BLP1E. Firestar464 ( talk) 01:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep. -way too fast to delete. It is true that -at the moment- WP:RS sources all over the world mention him only in the context of his resignation. WP:BLP1E states: We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:

  • If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
  • If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
  • If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented.

Bondarev is hardly a low-profile individual and this is no insignificant event. He can still be included on Protests against the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Politicians and government officials-- Wuerzele ( talk) 12:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • He was basically unmentioned in any sources before this event, and he's certainly not the only Russian official to resign. We wouldn't write an article Resignation of Boris Bondarev. ansh. 666 15:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep — to avoid, e.g., a situation, where information on him (his deeds) can be found only via Wikipedias in other languages... ☆☆☆—Pietadè Talk 13:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep. Definitely! Wikipedia shall provide important, useful, correct information to the people. It is very important that a senior member of the Russian diplomacy has acted as he has done. It is very useful to know that also among high level Russian civil servants there are mixed attitudes to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. He has made it to the front page of a huge number of newspapers. From a quick look at Google, it may seem that more than 100 000 web pages have mentioned Boris Bondarev. It would be very strange if Wikipedia should refuse to let people know who this person is.

The "Subjects notable for only one event" guideline is not absolute. Lee Harvey Oswald is known only for one event, and yet nobody would dream about removing his Pikipedia pages in more than 50 languages.

Wikipedia has set aside space for hundreds of curling players. It would be very strange to deny space for a person who contributes to changing world history.

The English-language Wikipedia article about Boris Bondarev has already been expanded and tweaked by several Wikipedia contributors. Obviously all these see the article as important enough for spending time on improving it.

Wikipedia articles about Boris Bondarev are now appearing in several other languages than English. Obviously there are lots of Wikipedia contributors who see Boris Bondarev as important enough for writing about him.

Joreberg ( talk) 13:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

WP:ATA (your arguments fall under many of these categories), plus sports players have their own notability criteria, and Boris isn't one. Firestar464 ( talk) 01:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep per Wuerzele.-- A09090091 ( talk) 19:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

I wouldn't object to what he's saying but this article should at the very least be merged with Protests against the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Firestar464 ( talk) 01:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep The subject has received notable coverage. ArsenalGhanaPartey ( talk) 02:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep Subject has received notable coverage. Autarch ( talk) 04:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply

For only one event (resigning). Firestar464 ( talk) 06:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep It's entirely possible, likely even, that his resignation will lead to other noteworthy events that will further justify this page's existence. Even if that wasnt the case, a diplomat to Geneva isn't a trivial role, and Wikipedia contains numerous pages of living persons who serve analogous roles. In fact, this Wikipedia has an article for nearly every American ambassador to Geneva and Switzerland from the last 100 years. Why wouldn't we have a page for a Russian diplomat serving the same role, who, in addition to serving this role, resigned in protest of the government's actions in a country where dissent is historically harshly punished? I see absolutely no reason to delete this article, even if nothing else were to come of this. DeVosMax [ contribs • talk • created media ] 10:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply

I agree with you. Help keep Boris safe Wikipedians. NAIDEPIKIW NONA ( talk) 10:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Dude, it's not about liking the page...I commend what the dude has done but it's not about how much you like him. Firestar464 ( talk) 02:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
WP:OSE. Just because one thing exists doesn't mean that the other should. Besides, I had a look at many of the articles in the list you provided, and many did more than "just resign." Firestar464 ( talk) 02:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep -Notwithstanding mentions of BLP1E- a major 1E with an immensely important context. BB far exceeds importance of many BLP0E articles out there (which do not necessarily need culling). Following on from User:DeVos Max, perhaps we need a list of Russian Ambassadors to Switzerland &c. Yadsalohcin ( talk) 14:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply

I do not see formal compliance with rules, but this is one of the cases when we can have an exception WP:5P5. Keep. Is my decision biased? Yes. Are most of the above as well? I think so. With regards, Oleg. Y. ( talk). 16:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi, could you please elaborate? Why is the exception useful? Firestar464 ( talk) 00:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Of course. Saying no to Putin nowadays the way he did may mean 15 years in jail. He was brave enough to do it. With regards, Oleg. Y. ( talk). 01:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply
So your argument is basically " I admire him." That does not indicate suitability for inclusion. Wikipedia is not a fan blog. Firestar464 ( talk) 03:12, 31 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) Atlantic306 ( talk) 20:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Maximum Drive

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

Very few hits on ProQuest. Prod contested on basis of LA Times article, which only passingly covers the show Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 03:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. "'Maximum' racers compete for gold cup during playoffs". The Olympian. 1994-11-03. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "In the final two weeks of competition, kids representing three of twelve remaining teams on the new Family Channel sports competition show "Maximum Drive," psyche themselves up to battle to the end during the Thanksgiving playoffs. Competing to separate the turkeys from the Wolves, Cobras, Bats and nine other wild animal teams, contestants age 10-14 rev their engines to discover which sports team has the ability to out-think, out-maneuver and out-pace their opponents for the coveted gold cup."

    2. "FAM's 'Maximum Drive' gets kids' feet wet for summer fun". The Olympian. 1995-05-15. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: ""Splish, splash!" this summer with sopping-wet adventures on The Family Channel's "Maximum Drive." When kids gear down for summer fun, "Maximum Drive" makes waves in a personal water craft competition, called the "Ball Drop" race. Also featuring competitions employing two- and four-wheeled motor vehicles, a six-wheeled amphibious motor vehicle and a hovercraft, "Maximum Drive" roars into action 5 p.m. Mondays through Fridays, 9:30 a.m. Saturdays and 10:30 a.m. Sundays on The Family Channel. The "Ball Drop" race, a hybrid sport engaging a personal water craft, ... The results are wild, considering 15 teams of contestants ages 10 to 14 years."

    3. "'Turkey Toons' features cartoons, kids' game shows". Oshkosh Northwestern. 1994-11-18. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Start your motors at 11 a.m. and 4 p.m. for "Maximum Drive," where kids compete on two- and four-wheeled motor vehicles, a six-whelled amphibious motor vehicle, a Hovercraft and a Jet Ski. In the new original 30-minute game show, host Joe Fowler ("Coach") and co-hosts Brian "The Verm" Vermiere and Mercedes Colon cheer for child contestants racing around the track, over the wall, through the mud hole, atop the lake and into the winner's circle for the coveted gold cup. "Maximum Drive" airs regularly at 4 p.m. weekdays, with encores at 8:30 a.m. Saturdays and 9:30 a.m. Sundays."

    4. Farren, Julie (1994-10-11). "Driving ambition. Ten-year-old dirt bike enthusiast from Devore puts his driving skills to the test on TV's 'Maximum Drive.'". The San Bernardino Sun. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "But the 10-year-old boy faced a bigger challenge this summer as a contestant on the Family Channel show, "Maximum Drive." As one of the 45 contestants on the program emphasizing safety and off-road vehicle racing, Jeff learned to steer a six-wheel war wagon called an Aro. ... Filming took place on one of the back lots at Universal Studios Hollywood. Jeff and his family commuted from his Devore home to Universal Studios five days a week for a little more than two weeks last August. ... Five half-hour shows were taped each day and Jeff was featured in one out of every five shows. Each show featured three teams of contestants ages 10 to 14. The three-member teams would compete in a variety of races featuring off-road vehicles. ... The Argo relay, which featured the six-wheel war wagon, also was a challenging and sometimes messy race for the kids."

    5. Less significant coverage:
      1. "Animated live-action shows both on the bill". The Indianapolis Star. 1994-09-04. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28 – via Newspapers.com.

        The article notes: "Maximum Drive: Weekdays, Saturdays, Sundays on Family Channel (premiered Aug. 29). Kids propel themselves through obstacles in 40 episodes with host Joe Fowler."

      2. Gill, Suzanne (1994-08-28). "Family Channel spins two new game shows". San Angelo Standard-Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28 – via Newspapers.com.

        The article notes: ""Maximum Drive" takes young competitors outdoors for tests of strength, endurance, skill and teamwork on an auto-themed race course. At the end of each half-hour, one contestant is declared the champion. The show is produced by Vin di Bona Productions, makers of "America's Funniest Home Videos.""

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

    Cunard ( talk) 05:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: Pinging Donaldd23 ( talk · contribs), who removed the proposed deletion. Cunard ( talk) 07:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the multiple sources identified by Cunard above. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - the sources identified by Cunard do the job. I found a couple of more but nothing better than those; in any case, they provide sufficient significant coverage in independent reliable sources to satisfy GNG. Jacona ( talk) 14:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Mayors of Bergenfield, New Jersey

Mayors of Bergenfield, New Jersey (  | 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 small-town mayors. Fails WP:NLIST Rusf10 ( talk) 01:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, and New Jersey. Rusf10 ( talk) 01:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I am not sure there is any place with under 30,000 people we need to have a list of mayors of. Clearly not in the case of a place this size in any country in the New York City metro region. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. and John Pack Lambert. Lacks significant coverage in reliable independent sources as a group, thus fails WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. Sal2100 ( talk) 22:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, these lists of mayors are routine, don't have significant independent coverage, are difficult to maintain, and aren't particularly useful. Jacona ( talk) 14:07, 29 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! 05:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Mayor of Verona, New Jersey

Mayor of Verona, New Jersey (  | 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 small-town mayors, not notable and clearly fails WP:NLIST Rusf10 ( talk) 01:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, and New Jersey. Rusf10 ( talk) 01:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is part of one of three odd almost walled gardens of overly detailed local coverage in Wikipedia. The New Jersey one has been pruned a little, but there is still too much. There is also the Lousiana one that I believe ended in the creator being blocked. Then there is Dedhamania, focused not on local coverage throughout a state, but leading to way too much coverage of Dedham, Massachusetts. Just look at how many articles we have on the history of that place. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The creator of this article was also banned.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 01:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. and John Pack Lambert. Fails WP:NLIST, and sources aren't enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Sal2100 ( talk) 22:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or Merge Patapsco913 ( talk) 03:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, these lists of mayors are routine, don't have significant independent coverage, are difficult to maintain, and aren't particularly useful. Jacona ( talk) 14:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There doesn't seem to be any agreement whether or not list articles such as these are suitable. An RfC might be suitable moving forward. Some of the arguments from both sides are somewhat weak and making it difficult to determine consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Mayors of Ramsey, New Jersey

Mayors of Ramsey, New Jersey (  | 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 small-town mayors. Not otherwise notable and poorly sourced. Fails WP:NLIST Rusf10 ( talk) 01:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep "Not otherwise notable" notable is subjective. Useful for people researching nation, state and town history as well as new references. "poorly sourced" History books and news articles reflect the basic facts of the start of end dates of their terms as well as names.

jjrj24 ( talk) 11:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be an indiscriminate collecton of all knowledge. A detailed listing of every mayor of a place with under 20,000 people within the New York City Metro Area is clearly a case of a detailed indiscrminate listing of everything. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
How could such a list be indiscriminate when its parameters are very clear and very specific? Djflem ( talk) 03:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. and John Pack Lambert. Fails WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. Sal2100 ( talk) 21:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per (bold mine) plus fact that city size is not a Wikipedia policy-based criteria and that Wikipedia lists do not require persons, places, things on lists to be individually notable. Per cited WP:NLIST, "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y")", such as this one which is well-organised.
    • Wikipedia:SALAT: This list fulfills objective as it is limited in size and topic and is not trivial and is encyclopedic and related to human knowledge
    • Wikipedia:LISTPURP #1: This list fulfills requirement because the list structured around a theme and is annotated.
    • Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA: This list fits this criteria because listed items fit its narrow scope and are topically relevant making it encyclopedic, comprehensive (and possibly) complete.
    • Wikipedia:NOTDIR#1: This list does not contravene this policy as it is not a loosely associated topic and its entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic.
    • Wikipedia:CSC: This list fulfills this criteria explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles. There is parent article in which it can be embedded for a merge, but would overwhelm that article. Djflem ( talk) 03:54, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Djflem Patapsco913 ( talk) 03:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I was about to relist the discussion, but felt it would be better to comment here. I think an RfC is in order because there is a wide variety of views about the notability of these lists. On one hand is the argument made by Djflem (above) suggesting that the topic does meet the criteria set up in WP:NLIST and there are other editors who believe that lists of mayors need to show "some evidence of reliable source coverage about the people, not just to content self-published by the place's own municipal council," and other editors point to the size of the municipality as justification to reject the list article. These are underlying policy questions that cannot be fully resolved in deletion discussions. -- Enos733 ( talk) 16:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nominator. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I totally agree that Wikipedia should not contain indiscriminate lists - and this list is decidedly not indiscriminate. Looking at the list criteria, all known mayors of not only a specific city, but part of that city, means this list is actually very selective. A list of every mayor in the U.S would be indiscriminate. There is no good reason why this list should be deleted. MaxnaCarter ( talk) 01:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Comment@ Such-change47:, @ Djflem:, @ Patapsco913: Here are one [24], two [25] AFDs, both closed just one month ago for List of Mayors from. None had one single notable person listed. Both ended in deletion. One of those towns was population 15 thousand something, the other 41 thousand something. What makes Ramsey New Jersey, population under 15,000, so special? ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC) reply
      Past AFD closures can be indicative, but they are not binding on future AFDs. MaxnaCarter ( talk) 00:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply
      Population/municipality size is not a policy-based criteria and is simply a Wikipedia:I just don't like it, which is Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Djflem ( talk) 03:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply
      • No, that's actually a valid point. The mayor of a large city can be presumed notable, the mayor of a little town cannot be, you're going to have to find a lot of sources to prove this is a list of notable people. WP:NLIST states the eithier the group as a whole or the individual people must be notable, I don't see either here.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 13:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Pointing to Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF as above is not a valid AfD argument. Djflem ( talk) 19:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:NOTPAPER. I'm pretty skeptical of Wikipedia editors doing original-research-by-synthesis with complicated list criteria, but a list of mayors is the kind of thing that's acceptable. Yes, it's a small town - so what? As long as valid sources exist, it's fine. SnowFire ( talk) 02:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - these type of lists, as long as they are sourced, form a valuable, if tiny, resource for researchers. Onel5969 TT me 12:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Not a policy-based reason, see WP:VALUABLE-- Rusf10 ( talk) 20:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply
See Wikipedia:LISTPURP: The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists Djflem ( talk) 05:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Similar to Enos733, I came here to close, but felt better to contribute. While often true across AfD more than we would like, I get the sense that particularly with this topic, depending on who turns up to these AfDs will determine the outcome. IMHO, Djflem's points are very persuasive on the basis of policy and I see nothing here that has successfully refuted that contribution, yet, I'm certainly aware that there are community tendencies that see these lists as not notable as WilliamJE's citing of other AfDs shows. I would support Enos733's call for a more general RFC. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 22:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Week keep Could possibly be merged into Ramsey,_New_Jersey#Local_government, but it also seems reasonable that WP:LISTPURP is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The idea that we would have lists - complete with WP:BLP implications - of mayors of towns of less than 15,000 people seems wildly out of line with our current practices and standards around lists or how we handle politicians. I would not be opposed to MrsSnoozy's suggestion of a merge, but this doesn't meet our current handling of this topic area as demonstrated by the AfDs noted above. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) MaxnaCarter ( talk) 02:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Dr. Henry's Emergency Lessons for People

Dr. Henry's Emergency Lessons for People (  | 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)

While the series won an Emmy, I was unable to find any reliable source coverage. All of the hits on ProQuest are just obituaries on either Henry J. Heimlich (who was apparently a consultant) or of one cartoonist who worked on the show. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 01:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Comics and animation. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 01:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment There's also a paywalled New York Times article about him, [26]. I assume it would add to notability for the individual, not sure about the TV show. Also a very brief mention in an animation book, confirming the Emmy win [27] Oaktree b ( talk) 01:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - per Emmy Award win (and Oaktree's sourced confirmation of it). matt91486 ( talk) 14:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Keyword "brief mention". Emmy wins aren't inherently notable if there's no other coverage on the show. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Winners of major awards generally confer notability. matt91486 ( talk) 15:48, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I've pulled up Henry Heimlich's obituaries from 2016, no mention of the TV show in the Lancet and the NY Times. It could be redirected to his article. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. "Series offers children first aid lessons". Kenosha News. 1980-01-05. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "The series, titled "H.E.L.P.!!" (Dr. Henry's Emergency Lessons for People), entertains and instructs young viewers on how to be knowledgeable "calm reactors" in situations requiring fast first-aid responses. The 60-second segments prepared in consultation with noted physician Dr. Henry Heimlich, will air twice each Saturday — between 8:30 and 9 a.m. during "The Plasticman Comedy/Adventure Show" and between 10 and 10:15 a.m. during the broadcast of "Scooby and Scrappy Doo." So far, four segments have been completed and have been appearing on an irregular basis since the fall of 1979. Others are being planned for the future. Illustrator Rowland Wilson has created characters who respond to emergency situations ranging from the treatment of drowning victims to remedies for cuts, burns and bumps. Each of the segments begins with the sound of an accident happening in an otherwise quiet, tree-lined community."

    2. Hoffman, Steve (1980-02-02). "'HELP' Speaks To The Young". The Cincinnati Enquirer. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Dr. Henry Heimlich was offered the chance to create the medically oriented but humorous "HELP" spots in ABC's Saturday morning children's programs. The offer came last spring while he was making a New York appearance on "Kids Are People, Too." Thus far, four spots have aired—ones dealing with burns, drowning, cuts and head injuries. Among 10 upcoming spots are ones about acute appendicitis, fractured limbs, allergies and skin conditions. ... He is involved in "HELP" through the entire production, from approving final storyboards all the way to the animation sketches."

    3. Less significant coverage:
      1. "Fall Kids' Lineup Scheduled by ABC". Asbury Park Press. 1979-07-08. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28 – via Newspapers.com.

        The article notes: "Additionally, Mr. Rushnell announced the production of a new series of health/emergency spots for children, titled "H.E.L.P.!!" Prepared in cooperation with Dr. Henry Heimlich, "H.E.L.P.!!" (Dr. Henry's Emergency Lessons for People) is a series of funny, clever and informative animated first-aid lessons."

      2. Fincher, Cheryl (1981-05-20). "Doctor makes saving lives fun". The Macon News. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28 – via Newspapers.com.

        The article notes: "Help! Someone needs Dr. Henry's emergency lessons for people!" On Saturday morning, between "Scooby Doo" and "Plastic Man" cartoons, you can hear this cry for help. For those more than 10 years old, Dr. Henry, of the Saturday morning animated information minute, is better known as Dr. Henry Heimlich, the originator of the Heimlich maneuver, a life-saving technique for choking victims. ... This led him to originate the one-minute animated cartoon to teach medicine to children called "H.E.L.P." (or Dr. Henry's Emergency Lessons for People). The popular series appears nationally on children's shows on the ABC-TV network. It received an Emmy for Best Children's Informational Program-Short Form for 1980."

      3. Perlmutter, David (2018). The Encyclopedia of American Animated Television Shows. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. p. 274. ISBN  978-1-5381-0374-6. Retrieved 2022-05-28 – via Google Books.

        The book notes that H.E.L.P.! aired from 1979 to 1980. It says the studios were 8 Films, Dahlia, and Phil Kimmelman, the distributor was ABC, the executive producers were Ken Greengrass and Phil Lawrence, and the producer was Lynn Ahrens. The book notes: "A series of educational vignettes similar to the same network's Schoolhouse Rock (q.v.). The title was an acronym for Dr. Henry's Emergency Lessons for People, as the focus of the vignettes was first aid and general safety. The series won an Emmy Award in 1980."

      4. Oliver, Myrna (2005-07-11). "Rowland B. Wilson, 74; Playboy Cartoonist, Disney Animator". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28.

        The article notes: "As an animator, Wilson won a daytime Emmy Award in 1980 for his work on ABC’s “HELP! Dr. Henry’s Emergency Lessons for People” and worked on educational animation, including the television series “Schoolhouse Rock.”"

      5. Chawkins, Steve (2016-12-16). "Henry Heimlich, doctor who invented lifesaving anti-choking procedure, dies at 96". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28.

        The article notes: "In 1980, his TV series for children, “H.E.L.P!: Dr. Henry’s Emergency Lessons for People,” won a daytime Emmy Award."

      6. McFadden, Robert D. (2016-12-17). "Dr. Henry J. Heimlich, Famous for Antichoking Technique, Dies at 96". The New York Times. Retrieved 2022-05-28.

        The article notes: "His animated series for children, “Dr. Henry’s Emergency Lessons for People,” won an Emmy in 1980."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Dr. Henry's Emergency Lessons for People to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 04:48, 28 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) MaxnaCarter ( talk) 02:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Second Honeymoon (TV series)

Second Honeymoon (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)

Prod contested with sources, but one of the two is just a local human-interest story about a contestant, and the second is a press release. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 01:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Gooch, Donna (1987-09-18). "Kids tattle on parents in new show". The Iola Register. Archived from the original on 2022-05-27. Retrieved 2022-05-27 – via Newspapers.com.

      The review notes: "Kids get to spill the beans on Mom and Dan in an unusual new game that gets the entire family involved. The tots tell true tales on their folks by answering questions about things such as what the parents are like at home, who pays the bills, who's the real boss, and how the money is spent. ... With children on board to tell all, it's a spontaneous show that can prove embarrassing, touching and very funny."

    2. "Game show gives away second honeymoons". The Danville News. 1987-10-23. Archived from the original on 2022-05-27. Retrieved 2022-05-27 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "There's nothing second hand about the prize given away on television's newest game show. "Second Honeymoon" offers just that — a dream escape to Rio or Rome, Venice or Venezuela — for the winning couple. "Second Honeymoon" airs exclusively on CBN Cable Network. ... Children and their parents are the contestants on "Second Honeymoon." In the only game show that includes children, family members show how well (or how little) they know each other."

    3. Rebalski, Nick (1987-08-13). "Our town's got fun families, say new game show producers". Vancouver Sun. Archived from the original on 2022-05-27. Retrieved 2022-05-27 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "It's called Second Honeymoon, the latest inspiration from veteran Los Angeles game show host Wink Martindale and his production partner Jerry Gilden. ... The new show is loosely based on the others, but now the whole family gets involved. Mom and Dad are kept out of earshot while their kids collaborate on the answers to a couple of questions about each parent; if the parents come up with identical answers, they earn points. The parents with the most points at the end of the show win a one-week "second honeymoon" to such romantic locales as Paris, Hong Kong, New Orleans and Disney World. The kids get a week of great house parties."

    4. Horwood, Holly (1987-06-29). "Just Not Too Game". The Province. Archived from the original on 2022-05-27. Retrieved 2022-05-27 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article note: "Producer Tony Blake said it's Seattle families who are jockeying for a spot on the daily game show called Second Honeymoon. ... Kids will be asked which actor they think their dad would pick to portray his life, and what they think their mum would do if she discovered someone damaging garments in a clothing store."

    5. Mallette, Michelle (1987-11-25). "Kids win a second honeymoon". Chilliwack Progress. Archived from the original on 2022-05-27. Retrieved 2022-05-27 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "A Chilliwack couple is taking a second honeymoon to Alaska, thanks to BCTV's newest game show. Donna and Don Kozak and their three daughters competed on the family game show, Second Honeymoon, on Nov. 7 in Vancouver. ... Taping of Second Honeymoon is done only once a week. On the day of the Kozaks' taping, four other shows were recorded. With three families per show, 15 families were needed for one day."

    6. Schreiner, John (1987-08-31). "Meta hopes Second Honeymoon secures future". National Post. Archived from the original on 2022-05-27. Retrieved 2022-05-27 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "About 1,100 shareholders, including Bank of Nova Scotia, are counting on a pleasant Second Honeymoon with Meta Communications Group Inc., Vancouver. Second Honeymoon is the name of a television game show that Meta's subsidiary, Northern Lights Media Corp., puts into production next week in Vancouver. The plans call for 65 episodes with a total budget of $1.8 million. The f irst 30 are contracted to be aired on CBN, an American cable network, and on BCTV in British Columbia. Both networks are backers of Seocnd Honeymoon, and both have options to show most of the other segments if the show clicks."

    7. Less significant coverage:
      1. Eaton, Patricia (1987-10-04). "Cut ... and Print". The Sunday News. Archived from the original on 2022-05-27. Retrieved 2022-05-27 – via Newspapers.com.

        The article notes: "Second Honeymoon, with Wayne Cox as host, is a show where kids of all ages spill the goods on their parents while trying to win them a second honeymoon. There must be two kids and they can be any age from 6 to 60. The parents are out of earshoot while the kids are being questioned then return to answer the same questions. If the answers are identical, they earn points. The family with the most points at the end of the game wins a romantic second honeymoon."

      2. Bentley, Rick. (1987-08-31). "In a 'Wink': Martindale riding wave" (pages 1, 2, and 3). The Town Talk. Archived from the original (pages 1, 2), and 3 on 2022-05-27. Retrieved 2022-05-27.

        The article notes: "Martindale ... has partnered with Jerry Gilden to form a production company responsible for "Second Honeymoon," the first-run game show on the Christian Broadcasting Network. ... Her idea was to have children win second honeymoons for their parents. They win the prize by answering questions based on information about their parents. The show is unique in that the contestants include all age groups."

      3. "Personal mention". Houston Chronicle. 1987-07-27. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28.

        The article notes: "The Christian Broadcast Network is all set to unveil its first game show, but it may need to work out a few wrinkles. "Second Honeymoon," hosted by veteran game-show emcee Wink Martindale, gives kids a chance to win a second honeymoon for their parents by coming up with the right answers about their family's lifestyle. The concept is modeled after the often-risque "Newlywed Game" but CBN officials insist that their show is good, clean family viewing with no double-entendre jokes. So let's hear one of the questions on the premiere show: "Kids, what would your dad do if he woke up one morning and discovered that he didn't have any clean underwear?" The multiple-choice answers include: He would put on a dirty pair; he wouldn't wear any underwear at all; or he would put on a pair of mom's underwear."

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

    Cunard ( talk) 00:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Show was on multiple major networks. Megainek ( talk) 23:21, 29 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 List of P. G. Wodehouse characters. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn ( talk) 22:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC) reply

List of minor Ukridge characters

List of minor Ukridge characters (  | 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)

None of these characters have significant coverage in reliable third party sources to meet the WP:GNG. Sources show passing mentions or less, with no meaningful coverage to reach notability. Tried to remove this content through the WP:PROD process but was reverted with no reason or effort to address the issue. Jontesta ( talk) 01:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect to Jabberwocky. ✗ plicit 11:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Vorpal sword

Vorpal sword (  | 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 object has no detailed coverage in reliable third party sources as required by the WP:GNG. There are only passing mentions which aren't enough for significant coverage and Notability. Tried to remove this content through the WP:PROD process but it was reverted with no effort to address the reason for deletion. Jontesta ( talk) 01:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

although as one of the great nonsense poems..... Coolabahapple ( talk) 16:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Jabberwocky, possibly with expansion (ie. including other occurences eg. D&D, alice video games - American McGee's Alice, Alice: Madness Returns), after all, it is a unique word that is now a well known part of the english language. Coolabahapple ( talk) 16:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Jabberwocky. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I can't find significant coverage of that phrase by multiple independent reliable sources, so it fails WP:GNG, but its use in the (in)famous poem about the Jabberwocky makes for a reasonable redirect to that page. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 20:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Jabberwocky. There is some mergeable content. I concur the current sourcing does not seem sufficient to keeping this as a stand-alone article. Note that the Russian and French wiki articles are longer, but it's just a WP:IPC-violating list of various media that mentions this. Italian is the best given the section it:Vorpal#Nella_cultura_di_massa but I don't think it's exstensive enough and refeenced enough to warrant keeping this (but if anyone wants to save this, it may be a starting point). Sadly, for now no WP:SIGCOV required to keep this as a separate article has been found. Ping me if this changes and I'll reconsider my vote.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect per above. For a glimpse into Wikipedia's past (and for ideas where else vorpal swords are mentioned), consider this massive version full of uncited pop culture references. — Kusma ( talk) 13:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Kusma This is still Wikipedia's present in hundreds of articles... we list them here occasionally, multitude still remain. When we are lucky, they end up properly rewritten. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Jabberwocky. Vorpal Swords in Dungeons and Dragons and related FRPG/Computer games [28] [29] might be worth a mention in the media section there but I am not seeing enough of that here to make it worthwhile merging over. I guess if sufficient sourcing were found on that specific aspect it could be the subject of a standalone artlce in this namespace? Artw ( talk) 15:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. Star Mississippi 02:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Toot Sweets

Toot Sweets (  | 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)

Element does not have significant coverage in reliable third party sources as mandated by the WP:GNG. A search shows primary sources and passing mentions, nothing to establish WP:Notability. The article is an indiscriminate collection of times this pun was used. Tried to remove this content using the WP:PROD process but was reverted without any effort to address these issues. Jontesta ( talk) 00:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete : citations are not legitimate thirrd-party sources. Volcom95 ( talk) 03:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ role of distinguished philatelists
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_May_24&oldid=1091079214"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 23 May 25 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. ( non-admin closure) MaxnaCarter ( talk) 02:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply


Derick Hall

Derick Hall (  | 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:NCOLLATH and no significant secondary source coverage. —  rsjaffe  🗣️ 23:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Redirect To Auburn Tigers Emery Cool21 ( talk) 12:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Emery Cool21: Why? BeanieFan11 ( talk) 14:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Not Notable Football Player, So It Should Redirect To Auburn Tigers Because The Wikipedia Notability Rules Emery Cool21 ( talk) 13:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Did you even look at my "keep" rationale? Because right there that's eight pieces of significant coverage, easily passing the general notability guideline ("The Wikipedia Notability Rules"), which states A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I see no way this does not pass. And a redirect does not make sense to me, as that wouldn't really help the reader at all. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 14:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fabric discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 09:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply

FabricLive.85

FabricLive.85 (  | 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:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Found not a single source about the album. PK650 ( talk) 23:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. ( non-admin closure) MaxnaCarter ( talk) 03:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Bad Dog!

Bad Dog! (  | 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 show, minimal sourcing found. Deprodded with rationale of "notable show" but no proof of supposed notability Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 23:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Genzlinger, Neil (2011-09-10). "So, This Is Man's Best Friend?". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28.

      The review notes: "But in a new series, “Bad Dog!,” the folks at Animal Planet, no doubt after conducting extensive research and war-game simulations, seem to have concluded that the battle against growling, biting, territory marking, furniture ripping and garden-bed digging is unwinnable. The show presents assorted dogs that are expanding the boundaries of bad canine behavior, then does nothing to correct the beasts. Instead, it seems to revel in their wickedness. ... As revealing as the show is about the extent of the dogs-gone-wrong epidemic, it also tells us something about the people who own these animals. In several instances the doggie depravity is captured on video because the owners have set up surveillance cameras."

    2. Tatko-Peterson, Ann (2011-09-19). "TV Time: 'Bad Dog!' season finale". Mercury News. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28.

      The review provides 114 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "Where most shows starring misbehaving pets strive to reform them, “Bad Dogs” is all about reveling in their mischief. There’s no Dog Whisperer in sight. As guilty pleasures go, this one is a winner."

    3. Houston, Melinda (2013-05-19). "Critic's choice". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28.

      The review provides 97 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "Well, I can't say I approve of cats being included in a bad dog marathon (or ferrets, or hedgehogs for that matter - although I forgive the goats because they're so adorable). Elsewhere though, this is a fun, silly compilation of dogs behaving badly, rather in the style of Funniest Home Videos, only with hounds instead of toddlers, and complete with arch narration and kooky sound effects. To anyone who owns a dog, much of the behaviour here will seem unremarkable, but there are some wonderful moments. I liked the commando border collie, and the amazing peeing Pomeranian."

    4. Less significant coverage:
      1. Cain, Brooke (2014-07-12). "What to Watch on Saturday: Lifetime teen 'Presumed Dead in Paradise'". The News & Observer. Archived from the original on 2018-07-02. Retrieved 2022-05-28.

        The article notes: "Bad Dog! (8pm, Animal Planet) - The new season of “Bad Dog!” begins with a dog that keeps escaping from a backyard and another who drops to the ground during walks. Yet another dog is obsessed with his owners’ toaster oven."

      2. Cuthbertson, Ian (2013-05-18). "Pay Television Quick Bites". The Weekend Australian. p. 29. ProQuest  1352750120.

        The article provides 78 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "You'd have to be quite the dog lover to take much satisfaction from this marathon (has 60 minutes ever seemed so long?) of cutie-pie hounds stuffing up. Bad Dog Marathon is a bit like Funniest Home Videos stuck in the groove of the misbehaving pet. "How could you stay mad at that face for very long?" squeaks the high-pitched male narrator as some mutt tries hard to maintain the hang-dog expression it obviously has been trained to wear."

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

    Cunard ( talk) 09:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per Cunard's rationale as above. ☆★ Mamushir ( ✉✉) 10:24, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Cunard's come through again. The sources, especially #1 above, show WP:SIGCOV in independent rs, passes WP:GNG. Jacona ( talk) 12:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the citations listed by Cunard. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Per Cunard above. Carrite ( talk) 21:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the article is referenced now. It is in better shape than when it was nominated. Bruxton ( talk) 03:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Hornet (Company)

Hornet (Company) (  | 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 appear to meet WP:NCORP. I could find a few minor news articles but nothing in-depth that shows significant coverage. >>>  Ingenuity. talk(); 23:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi >>> Ingenuity. talk(); I saw that you nominated my article for deletion. I'm new to Wikipedia and maybe I made some mistakes. I'm trying to expand the WikiProject Animation . So maybe you can let me know what things should I include to validate this article. Thanks! Esteban Kimura ( talk) 23:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Hey @ Esteban Kimura -- if you can provide some good sources that meet WP:42 either here or in the article, it may be kept. Also keep in mind the notability guideline for companies, which is more strict than the general notability guideline. >>>  Ingenuity. talk(); 23:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Thanks! I added a link to https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/3916972Z:US. Bloomberg News is listed on wikipedia.
I can also add links to the latest result from The One Club : https://www.oneclub.org/adcawards/showcase/101st/-item/42851
I intended to add this later on a section called accolades. Esteban Kimura ( talk) 23:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Cannot find reliable sources with significant coverage. -- Mike  🗩 15:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Hi @ Darth Mike! I'm a bit confused. Maybe you can help me. I took the main information from what's available on the company's website. And then I cited -in the article- a few notes from independent and valid sources that confirm the existence of Hornet and what I mention. Maybe there is another way to describe this company summary? I'm trying to work on extending the Animation Stub from wikipedia and I think I will have this same issue once I start creating profiles from renowned director and animators, as it would be difficult to find a centralized profile. Therefore my effort to bring visibility to this folks on wikipedia by quoting several sources. Thanks! Esteban Kimura ( talk) 19:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Esteban Kimura: the main problem here is the lack of significant coverage. Of the two articles you mentioned above, the first is just a company profile (remember, even though the source is reliable, it must also show significant coverage), and the second has only one word about the company. >>>  Ingenuity. talk(); 22:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply


  • Delete Doesn’t realise WP:NCORP policy. So funny cuz first I thought it was Hornet (app) which is a popular app for gay and bi men. And I was like wow, why is that being deleted. But this is something else only. Laptopinmyhands ( talk) 00:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, I'm not seeing enough to satisfy NCORP nor GNG. Jacona ( talk) 13:01, 29 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 22:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Ariel Stoltz

Ariel Stoltz (  | 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 to meet notability for sportspeople. No significant secondary coverage WP:SPORTBASIC. —  rsjaffe  🗣️ 23:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete I agree with the nom. No citation of notability PaulPachad ( talk) 02:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Danielle Wiley

Danielle Wiley (  | 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 individual. Article relies on non-independent sources, minor list-like coverage, very trivial mentions or otherwise stuff she's written herself. Could not find quality sourcing that would support any notability claim elsewhere. PK650 ( talk) 23:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PK650 ( talk) 23:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I don't think influencer marketing has made it to the big time yet, she's mostly tooting her own horn in the sources given. Leaning delete. Oaktree b ( talk) 02:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete an article too heavily built on interviews, the subjects own words, and PR releases. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Delete As per nom this fails WP:GNG. Writer claims to be a writer for forbes but there are no forbes references. She is a member of Forbes Councils, which is a pay to play program, not run by Forbes but by an outside group called Community Co. This is an example of WP:AMAA PaulPachad ( talk) 23:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close. Moved to Draft:Jason Moore (writer) as a recreation of an article which was moved to Draft:Jason Moore per WP:DRAFTIFY. – wbm1058 ( talk) 18:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Jason Moore (writer)

Jason Moore (writer) (  | 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)

Wikipedians don't automatically become notable. He is mentioned quite collaterally, mainly for his large number of edits. Very little, if any, of it is WP:DEPTH. Ari T. Benchaim ( talk) 23:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

*keep Wikipedia is a rules based encyclopedia, just like a rules based country. A non-rules based country is like North Korea and Russia. Even if you don't like it being an article, it meets the Wikipedia rules of having reliable sources. The CNN article, in particular, is really about Moore, not Wikipedia in general. (Therefore, I disagree with Ari T. Benchaim, who claims that Moore mentioned "quite collaterally" when, in fact, Moore is the main subject of the CNN article). Charliestalnaker ( talk) 07:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Note this user (the article's creator) has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Hut 8.5 17:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I'm not really sure what to say or do here, but I'm the subject of this entry. Recently a subpar stub about me was created, then moved into draft space after being nominated for speedy deletion: Draft:Jason Moore. Given my conflict of interest, I shared a more complete and sourced draft on the talk page ( Draft talk:Jason Moore) for editors to review and implement appropriately. Now this second page has been created and nominated for deletion. I guess I'll just step away from this for a while and revisit once the dust has settled. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 13:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
I wouldn't pay it too much mind. Have faith in the process and let others decide if they are willing to AGF or not. DN ( talk) 16:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I do think the subject is notable, but this current article stub clearly doesn't make the case for that. I'm confused why it was recreated when it was moved to draft space just yesterday and editors are working on creating a much more comprehensive article here). Obviously if editors are looking at that version, it would be a completely different discussion than the live stub. I see a couple courses of action: 1. Moving over the draft talk page version (which is much more comprehensive) to the live page; 2. !Voting on this article in this current form; 3. Deleting this article and recreating with the draft talk version at a later time. I'd prefer option 1, as the subject meets notability criteria. I'm sure other editors can come up with other options, and I'm happy to hear those as well. For what it's worth, I'll be !voting 'keep' if this discussion continues in anticipation of the sourcing and content from the draft talk page version being incorporated. -- Kbabej ( talk) 15:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The drafted one is a mess. While this does seem like a low-importance article, nothing here seems contentious or poorly sourced. Kire1975 ( talk) 16:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the subject of the article has requested deletion. The deletion policy says Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is "no clear consensus to keep" may be closed as delete. While Moore has been the subject of a few news articles, he is an unknown person and definitely not a public figure, and I think we should grant the request. In any case most of the sources which have been put forward are about the 2020 Capitol insurrection, suggesting he falls under WP:BLP1E as being a person known only for a very minor role in a single event. The only source provided which isn't about that event and gives him significant coverage is [1]. Hut 8.5 16:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Hello @ Hut 8.5. Can you point to where the subject is requesting deletion? I actually see the subject asking for the draft on the draft talk page to be considered. -- Kbabej ( talk) 17:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
*::Retort What an insult, calling Moore "non-public". He obviously cooperated with the news articles over nearly 10 years and gave interviews. He is a public person. That rule cited does not apply. In addition, Kbabej is correct. Moore cooperated with the WP article. He should not be allowed to game the system and not want it if he doesn't like a later version. That would be the subject person manipulating Wikipedia (which Moore hasn't done yet). Charliestalnaker ( talk) 17:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • How am I gaming the system? All I've done is provided a more complete and better sourced draft for editors to consider, if there's going to be an entry about me. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    [2] sounds like a deletion request to me. "Public figure" does not mean "gave an interview to a news article". Wiktionary defines it as "A famous person whose life is the subject of public interest". Our article defines it as "a person, such as a politician, celebrity, social media personality, or business leader, who has a certain social position within a certain scope and a significant influence and so is often widely of concern to the public, can benefit enormously from society, and is closely related to public interests in society". Moore is not famous, there is no public interest in his life, and he his not remotely influential in society. He's an ordinary guy who was covered in a few news articles about Wikipedia. "Non-public figure" is not an insult, the vast majority of people are not public figures, including me. Hut 8.5 17:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Thank for the reply. As I noted on the admin noticeboard, Moore doesn't request deletion. In a reply on the noticeboard, I wrote, "In reviewing what they wrote, I don't see them asking for a deletion. Instead, on their initial post here, they ask for updates to the page with the sourced draft talk page twice: 1. "I disclosed my conflict of interest and shared a complete and sourced draft on the talk page for editors to review and implement appropriately."; 2. "Would someone be interested in helping to update the live article based on my draft?". I'm confused where editors are coming up with a deletion request when that doesn't appear anywhere. -- Kbabej ( talk) 17:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    The comment mentions removing the mainspace version, which is this article. I read that as a deletion request. I'm sure that Another Believer can speak for himself if that wasn't his intention. In any case even without the request I don't think the sources given are enough to justify an article because they almost entirely cover him in the context of the Capitol insurrection. Hut 8.5 17:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Are you looking at the sourcing on the current AfD'd live version (5 sources), the draft version (2 sources) , or the draft talk page version (33 sources)? Obviously I'm aware the number of sources isn't indicative of notability, and that's not my point. My point is I don't see the editor asking for deletion (and yes, they may need to weigh in, if that's the perception), and also that there are three versions to assess here. -- Kbabej ( talk) 17:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    I'm a bit overwhelmed by all of this but I'll try to clarify. I don't feel like I should have any say in whether or not I'm "notable" by Wikipedia's standards. That's for other editors to decide. However, I've provided a COI draft in an attempt to correct inaccurate and unsourced information about me, which was added to the project by two now-blocked editors. One bad entry was created, then flagged for speedy deletion and moved into main space for improvement. Then, a sockpuppet created a second bad entry, which was flagged for deletion. Between the draft, the live page, the sockpuppet investigation, the admin noticeboard, and this ongoing deletion discussion, I don't really know what the next steps should be. I just want there to be an accurate entry about me, if there's going to be one. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Well it certainly sounds like you don't want this version to exist in mainspace, and I think we should honour that request. I hadn't seen the version on the draft talk page but I don't think it's much of an improvement in terms of demonstrating notability, while it has lots of citations they turn out to be to trivial mentions, news articles which don't mention the subject of the article or only do so in passing, blog posts and the Wikipedia Signpost. Hut 8.5 18:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Correct, I do not want this current version in the main space, but I'm not saying I'd never want there to be a Wikipedia entry about me if editors think I meet the site's notability criteria. I'm very torn here -- I never thought I'd "earn" a Wikipedia entry and I'm completely flattered to have one, especially at a project I care about tremendously and for which I've dedicated so much time and energy over the years. However, you better believe that if editors put up incorrect information about me then I am going to submit COI requests to address those issues, which is what I've done and what I'll continue to do if the article is kept. Right now I don't even know if I'm supposed to be submitting requests to Talk:Jason Moore (writer) or Draft talk:Jason Moore. Is there even a reason to submit COI edit requests in the draft space? I assume a history merge is not applicable, but ideally we'd all be working off a single page here. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 18:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comments. First of all, this AfD is off to a very poor start. The tone of several of the comments made so far is shockingly bad. Claiming that the article-subject "almost seems like he's using the tragedy for his own ends" is blatantly offensive, as is analogizing the deletion nomination to "North Korea and Russia", and as are references to the subject's "gaming the system", even if accompanied by a backhanded acknowledgement that he has in no way done that "yet". These kinds of comments would be BLP violations if made against anyone, and the fact that in this case we are discussing an article on one of our editing colleagues in no way excuses them. On the notability issue, the only claim of notability seems to concern the subject's Wikipedia editing. There are only a handful of people with mainspace articles based primarily or exclusively on their editing here, and it's not clear how common that should be. If the subject is requesting deletion, this is a dubious enough case of notability that his preference should be decisive. (Clearly notable subjects do not get to decide whether they have articles, but borderline-at-best ones should.) Ironically, if the subject were pushing us to keep the article, he'd be accused of improper self-promotion. It's also possible that he's refraining from requesting deletion, or conversely from requesting that an improved article be kept, out of concerns about being accused of COI. If so, I sympathize, because I've been there as a BLP subject myself, discouraged by policy from making even non-controversial factual updates in my own article. It's not an easy place to be—but as our critics point out, having an unwanted or an inaccurate Wikipedia article is just as problematic for our borderline-notable BLP subjects who do not have their own voices here as well as those of us who do. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Well stated, @ Newyorkbrad. I'm just thinking out loud here, but as the article was created by a sockpuppet after just being moved to draftspace yesterday, is there a way to wash this AfD? Not sure if that's even a possibility. I think there's a lot of confusion with three versions of the article (the live version, the draft version, and the draft talk page version), all of which are very different. I agree that the subject is in an unenviable position. -- Kbabej ( talk) 18:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    You're right, Newyorkbrad. I'm offended by more or less being called an ambulance chaser because I sometimes work on Wikipedia entries about disasters. Sometimes I speak to journalists when they have questions about my work and how Wikipedia operates in general, but I'm not sure how that gets warped into me using tragedy for personal benefit. And you're right, I'm quite frustrated by having to defend myself across multiple pages because of actions by now-blocked editor(s). I understand healthy COI skepticism, but getting fellow editors to review BLP issues should not be so difficult. Like I said above, I don't really know the best next steps so I think I'll let the dust settle. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 18:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Kbabej ( talk) 18:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 ( talk) 00:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Leah Parry

Leah Parry (  | 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:NOLY, and doesn't have significant secondary source coverage WP:SPORTBASIC. —  rsjaffe  🗣️ 23:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep seems to be plenty of coverage to pass WP:GNG, such as [3], [4], [5], [6], etc. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete local human insterest stories about local people used to put a local spin on an international spors competition are not the type of coverage from which we can justify having an encyclopedia article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Genuine question: have you ever voted keep on any AfD ever? Because it seems your sole purpose on Wikipedia is to mass delete every single contentious article on here. Even with the sources provided by Lugnuts above, demonstrating that Parry meets GNG, you still vote delete. Davidlofgren1996 ( talk) 04:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    I think you'll find one or two keeps from the last 400 AfDs! No idea why Lambert would insist on deletion in this case, with the sources provided. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Johnpacklambert:, you were asked a question here and invited to change your !vote as it is not supported by the sources that have been shown. It would be great if you could at least do Davidlofgren1996 the courtesy of replying. Deus et lex ( talk) 10:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Passes GNG per Lugnuts - there is nothing that says local coverage does not satisfy GNG, as long as the paper is reliable I don't see why it wouldn't. In any case, these are major regional and national papers, not some small-town local paper with nothing better to report on. Smartyllama ( talk) 13:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per Lugnuts. Davidlofgren1996 ( talk) 04:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete or draftify As the entry stands now, there is no significant independent source covering her. Lugnuts has shown that there are many more sources that can be added to the source section. If the writer improves the article and adds the sources then I would move to keep PaulPachad ( talk) 18:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
There are no requirements to add the sources, and lack of improvement of an article (even at AfD) is NOT a reason for deletion. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
For future reference, it's covered at WP:CONRED - "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination." Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Leah Parry is an Australian Olympian. The sources provided are from reputable national publications. WAAPHC ( talk) 06:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment/question. 140 games for the Australia national team seems significant, but I don't have a good way of searching Australian sources. I'm not voting for now, but I'm pretty sure that a player with a similar resume for Team USA would be an easy shoo-in with tons of sources. Has anyone done an Australian newspaper search? Jacona ( talk) 13:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Lugnuts - meets notability criteria. Deus et lex ( talk) 10:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The sources above are very in-depth SIGCOV, providing significant coverage of Parry, and not just her Olympic appearances. Easily meets GNG. No 1E concerns. Jacona ( talk) 11:02, 31 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 22:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Heights of vice presidents of the United States

Heights of vice presidents of the United States (  | 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 does not meet notability guidelines: see WP:NLIST. Needs to have reliable significant sources that cover the topic "Heights of vice presidents of the United States", rather than just coverage of individual's heights. —  rsjaffe  🗣️ 23:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and United States of America. —  rsjaffe  🗣️ 23:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Pure trivia. No encyclopedic merit. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 23:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Needless trivia. Ajf773 ( talk) 23:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Needless trivia and the fact that 18 of them is not known does not help to keep this list. -- Bduke ( talk) 06:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Trivia. In addition, I was surprised at the comment from the nominator: "Needs to have reliable significant sources...". All the reliable sources in the world wouldn't save this from being trivial. Athel cb ( talk) 07:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I can't imagine why we need stamd-alone TRIVIA articles about each physical attribute of each VP. Next it will be thumb length. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate repository of meaningless information. Jacona ( talk) 14:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not every list that has gotten some mention from someone trying to fill a news quota deserves an encyclopedia entry. Half the sources here are establishing specific heights, and only one of those is for someone who was not a US president. This is a very definition of a trivial list. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Unnecessary, very trivial. Also surprised that there are so many entries were the height is unknown. That is also a red flag, the inability to complete a list does not speak well for its ability to be worth keeping. Royal Autumn Crest ( talk) 00:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete So random! Why do we need this? Laptopinmyhands ( talk) 00:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The WP:SNOW party has won this election in a landslide. Heights of presidential candidates have been shown to affect voters, but not those of their running mates. Clarityfiend ( talk) 23:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per snow and trivia. Bearian ( talk) 20:17, 31 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 23:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Heights of European monarchs

Heights of European monarchs (  | 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 does not meet notability guidelines: see WP:NLIST. Needs to have reliable significant coverage of the topic "Heights of European Monarchs", rather than just coverage of individual's heights. —  rsjaffe  🗣️ 23:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - Academic attention has been given to the topic, as height has been commonly perceived as an influence in securing positions of leadership. Most notably, TALL KINGS: The Height of Medieval English Kings by Josiah C Russell. [1] This is touched upon heavily in the article on the heights of U.S. presidents. User:Ageofultron 23:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
You should have made it clear that as creator of the article and major editor of it you have a vested interest in keeping it. Athel cb ( talk) 07:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Apologies, I forgot to disclose. I have also added more information to the article in question. User:Ageofultron 05:32, 26 May 2022
  • Delete. As it stands the article doesn't make any serious case for notability, as there is no discussion of the relationship between height and power. The opening words, "European monarchs have varied greatly in height," set the stage for the triviality that follows. Athel cb ( talk) 07:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This article inherently violates what Wikipedia is not. A book on the heights of English monarchs in the medieval period is not the basis of discussion heights of all European monarchs. There is no good reason to chose this scope, as opposed to height of all heads of state, or even of all monarchs worldwide. The very existence of this article reinforces the overcoverage of Europe and European descneded people in Wikipedia. Not everything that someone somewhere has published an article on lends itself to be covered in an encyclopedia article, and this clearly does not lend itself to such coverage. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the sources already in the article, particularly TALL KINGS: The Height of Medieval English Kings. Height is commonly brought up in royal biographies, and it's often used as a point of comparison: e.g. Napoleon. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 16:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 19:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Random listicles aren't going to do the job. There is the article about English kings only, one source listing the heights of about a half a dozen contemporary female royals and one from Ranker for British kings, none of which encompasses anywhere near the scope of this list. All the other "references" are for the heights of individuals only. Clarityfiend ( talk) 23:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ RUSSELL, JOSIAH C. (1957). "TALL KINGS: The Height of Medieval English Kings". The Mississippi Quarterly. 10 (1): 29–41 – via JSTOR.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As noted in the discussion, fails WP:PROF. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Rahul Sharma (professor)

Rahul Sharma (professor) (  | 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:NPROF. This is mostly a resumé-like article with no independent coverage. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 22:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 22:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom. Ari T. Benchaim ( talk) 23:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Google Scholar profile is here [7], and shows no sign of WP:NPROF C1. Head of academic operations does not appear to be the top administrative post at Lovely PU. No other sign of notability. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 06:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Clear failure of WP:PROF on academic impact (highest-cited papers 32,13,1,1,0), no evidence of books that might contribute to WP:AUTHOR. Lovely Professional University does not appear to be a highly prestigious university where even a lower-level administrative post might generate reliable coverage. Espresso Addict ( talk) 08:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep This profile is proper article as per the Wikipedia guidelines; and few similar profiles are also present on Wikipedia. Head of Academic Operations is one of the top-level administrative post in the one of the India's prestigious educational institute Lovely Professional University. Ajitkumarpanicker ( talk). 06:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. A look at LPU site doesn't show anything notable for him. Somehow the title of the "Head of Academic Operations" is not shown on the organization chart. Perhaps it is organization service? But either way, it is not a named chair appointment as outlined in point 5 in WP:NACADEMIC. As the position is clearly not the highest, he also failed to satisfy point 6 in WP:NACADEMIC. Thank you.
  • Delete Maybe an important personality but not a notable personality. Anything related to LPU is fishy honestly. Laptopinmyhands ( talk) 00:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep People who have voted Delete here say that he doesn't have enough citations on Google Scholar, but that is completely against the philosophy of notability evaluation. Someone could have 0 citations on Google Scholar and still pass the notability criteria for an academic. Just because they don't pass C1 doesn't meant hey don't pass C6. Getting back to the original deletion nom, it says it's a "resume-style article with no independent coverage" but that is not correct. Look at the reference list and you'll see multiple independent sources of coverage. Dr. Universe ( talk) 18:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Does not meet WP:NPROF, as it lacks the sources which are not just reliable but also significant and indepedent with coverage on the person itself. -- Choose🎵 ( talk) 06:07, 30 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 23:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Rządowe

Rządowe (  | 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 Polish adjective is not a valid dab page. All of these are partial title matches. ( t · c) buidhe 22:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Rządowy

Rządowy (  | 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 Polish adjective is not a valid dab page. All of these are partial title matches. ( t · c) buidhe 22:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Rank One

Rank One (  | 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 subject fails WP:NCORP. Sources currently in the article are, in order:

  1. A press release;
  2. Non-independent coverage on a chamber of commerce's website;
  3. A second press release;
  4. A third press release
  5. A fourth press release.

An online search for additional coverage did not return WP:ORGIND-compliant reliable sources that covered the subject substantially. As the article subject fails to meet WP:NCORP, the article should be deleted. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 22:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

2016 AFC Futsal Club Championship Finals

2016 AFC Futsal Club Championship Finals (  | 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)

All the content mentioned on this page is already available on the main page 2016 AFC Futsal Club Championship. The page thus does not detail any other detail which is not already available on the main page. The only reason why this article has probably been created is because there have been similar pages created for "major tournaments". Anbans 585 ( talk) 21:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Setting aside sockpuppet accounts, the consensus is for deletion. RL0919 ( talk) 23:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Tara Clark

Tara Clark (  | 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 struggling to see how Clark passes WP:BIO. I cannot see a pass of WP:FILMMAKER nor of WP:NACTOR. I am surprised at the quantity of WP:CITEKILL. I do see that this was a draft accepted at AFC, and that the CITEKILL has happened since then, but I think the acceptance was the wrong side of the border. 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Australia. 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment as AfC reviewer but not approver. I had some questions about her notability when I found this in the queue. I don't quite think she reaches creative notability, which is the relevant guideline for her work. I didn't disagree with the approval, but I initiated a discussion on the Talk ( Talk:Tara_Clark#Notability about the creator's insistence on removing the notability tag and edit warring to include a blog source. I haven't further researched her but will try to and come back to !vote during this AfD. Star Mississippi 19:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    update to merge with Festival Fatale. (Full disclosure, I just created that). There's a chance Clark could make Creative notability on her work, but I am not finding sourcing to indicate that. However as @ Pburka noted below, the festival is notable. Believe Clark can be covered within the topic. Star Mississippi 03:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • ::Hi, this should help to confirm creative notability https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/7132251 Biggreeneyes ( talk) 10:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. No opinion on Clark's notability at this time, but the Festival Fatale she produced is certainly notable and in need of a page: Sydney Morning Herald, Broadway World, Daily Review, Huffington Post, ABC Radio, The Guardian. pburka ( talk) 20:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    If she isn't sufficiently notable for her own article, a merger could make sense for her role as she also is active in the Festival's parent organization. Star Mississippi 20:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Red link is now blue. It needs some love, but I think it will survive in mainspace. Star Mississippi 00:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I perused the citations in the article (agree about CITEKILL), and several of them are simple name-checks, blogs, and PR. I added a couple maintenance tags on two of the blogs which probably should be removed (along with the name-checks). Question for the article creator, Biggreeneyes, what do you feel are the three strongest citations currently in the article? Netherzone ( talk) 23:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

*:The Brag Media (publishers of Rolling Stone Australia)

  • https://thebrag.com/bold-raw-new-play-drift-unveiled-july/
    The Daily Telegraph (1.2 million readership)
    https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/city-east/australian-theatre-for-young-people-explores-road-to-young-adulthood-in-two-peas-production-drift/news-story/8de46396b646cc7c8166af092d5e68cf
    And the third one, which I never added would be The National Library of Australia, this should help to confirm creative nobility https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/7132251
    Perhaps you can show me how to add that final one? That would be really appreciated. Biggreeneyes ( talk) 10:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Biggreeneyes The three items you have chosen here are not references for Clark. The first two are about a play or plays. Even though they are written by her, she is not the focus of the pieces. The third, the catalogue entry, is just that, a catalogue entry. It verifies that the things exists, is about the thing, does not verify even the thing's notability, and has no bearing upon Clark's. 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    What do you think are the three strongest? Biggreeneyes ( talk) 10:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Biggreeneyes It is incumbent upon you as the creating editor (or editor suggesting the article be kept) to prove notability. I do not see Clark to be notable (nor shown to be notable), certainly at present, which is why I have made the nomination for deletion 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Understood. There are 18 citations on the article which cover her stated disciplines and extend international coverage, so I think that makes her notable, however... Biggreeneyes ( talk) 11:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Biggreeneyes Please never mistake quantity for quality. A reference analysis shows passing mentions, and one that even fails to mention Clark, And that is just in the first nine. I have left advice on your talk page for improving the article. 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    I noticed you started the Tide Mills, East Sussex page, my grandparents lived right near there. Amazing place. Good page.
    Anyway, back on topic, thanks for the notes. Biggreeneyes ( talk) 12:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Biggreeneyes Thank you for listing what you feel are the three strongest sources. I'm sorry to say that the sources are weak. The Brag seems to be a blog that accepts user-submitted content, basically a press release-like entry that may be native advertising. It's about the play Drift, not her. The Daily Telegraph piece also seems like a modified press release, there is no byline, and it seems like native advertising with a link to ticket sales. The National library citation does not contribute to notability, it simply is a catalog listing that a book or script of Clark's is in the library. Netherzone ( talk) 22:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The substance I can find is that Playlab in Brisbane published the script to Jennifer Forever after a fringe production in Sydney, and she was involved (self-appointed?) in Sydney's notable-at-the-time but short-lived Women in Theatre and Screen initiative. The rest is all in independent/fringe theatre in Sydney and the UK. I don't think that adds up to enough for notability. Boneymau ( talk) 04:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Hello! Jennifer Forever is included in at the National Library of Australia; this should help to confirm creative notability https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/7132251 Biggreeneyes ( talk) 10:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Biggreeneyes: A script recorded at a National Library is insufficient for notability. However, WP:CREATIVE#3 says that someone is notable if "the person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)." If you can show that several of her works "have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", then you'll have a strong argument for CREATIVE#3. pburka ( talk) 13:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello, sorry I am new to this so apologies for WP:CITEKILL Biggreeneyes ( talk) 10:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Biggreeneyes, do you have any WP:COI to declare? In photos of Clark online, the verdant colour of her eyes appear prominent which seems a co-incidence. Boneymau ( talk)
  • Keep Starred in the Australian premier and critically acclaimed Jerusalem by Jez Butterworth. I wanted to see this while I was in Oz, it did cause a bit of fuss from memory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilbrahamMan ( talk • contribs) 13:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC) — WilbranhamMan ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
    • Starred is a stretch, wasn't she just one person in a large cast and not in a leading role? And the New Theatre is not a fully professional theatre, so it is stretching it again to say it is a notable production. Boneymau ( talk) 00:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Wrote and directed Drift which appeared at ATYP. Clark is very much the focus of the article along with the play, which also adds to her creative notability; she has created subject matter that has been picked up by the Daily Telegraph, which is some extensive coverage. Notable in my opinion. Perhaps Two Peas and Oleg Pupovac need pages although a separate discussion Tvman2020 ( talk) 16:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)— Tvman2020 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
    • As far as I can tell, Drift was an independent/fringe production at the ATYP space, not actually produced by ATYP which would lend it more notability. And the Daily Telegraph article seems to be some sort of City East local section (just on the website?), not actually the main Daily Telegraph newspaper. Boneymau ( talk) 00:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - The subject of this article is in the beginning stages of her career, it is WP:TOOSOON. The article sourcing is weak, consisting of sources that are simple name-checks, or seem to be native advertising/PR-placement/press releases, or blog-like entries. Perhaps in a couple of years she will have received the in-depth significant coverage in independent reliable sources needed to meet WP:GNG and/or WP:CREATIVE. Note to closing administrator: the two K**p !votes above seem a bit dodgy; one is a brand new Single Purpose Account and this is their only edit. The other SPA made 4 total edits since it was created: two in 2018, and two to this AfD. I am curious how they happened to find this particular AfD. Netherzone ( talk) 22:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WilbrahamMan will hopefully shed some light on that, although I'm unclear if this is SOCK/MEAT at the moment. Star Mississippi 00:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Stiking socks I can't get the sock strike template right, so I've just struck the comments of those confirmed here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WilbrahamMan. For the closing admin, it's WilbrahamMan, Tvman2020 and Biggreeneyes and others who haven't chimed in here. Star Mississippi 13:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I agree with Netherzone that the sourcing is inadequate. I think the theater company Two Peas has slightly better sourcing, but also not enough. Insufficient profiles of her in independent third party sources. Fails WP:GNG. And it's likely WP:TOOSOON TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Many of the sources seem to be local or not about the subject bop34 • talk • contribs 12:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 18:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Angela Ammons

Angela Ammons (  | 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 she meets WP:NMUSIC despite once appearing on a movie soundtrack, the song never charted and tehre's no coverage to find of her. PRAXIDICAE💕 18:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - Best I found Billboard Jun 2, 2001 single review/preview of "Big Girl". Jun 30, 2001 Small profile mentioning charting #33 on Adult Top 40. Called Adult Pop Airplay via billboard.com. Mentioning single in soundtrack August 4, 2001. Other minor profiles in Billboard Oct 20, 2001 relating to promoting her album. All Billboard storys were pretty short, longer profiles from R&R (magazine): p.40 & Gavin Report p.23. I'm not sure how routine it is for new artist, but signed to Universal, I guess few months of coverage might be common. Someone more familiar with music industry can chime in. Either way at least some sourcing available if article survives. WikiVirus C (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete I agree with the nom. There is no citation of independent credible sources fails WP:GNG PaulPachad ( talk) 02:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I see no singles that charted and can't find sources, but she's been out of the industry for a while now, so this isn't unexpected. Oaktree b ( talk) 02:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I can't find anything to demonstrate she passes a relevant SNG or GNG. Jacona ( talk) 13:15, 29 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. RL0919 ( talk) 19:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Wolfsmouth Players Company

Wolfsmouth Players Company (  | 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)

promotional article about a non notable theater group - aside from a brief mention on broadway world (turns out it doesn't mention the group at all) and casting notices, i can find nothing to indicate the group itself is notable and no meaningful coverage. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:48, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Companies, and New York. Shellwood ( talk) 17:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The refs for this recently formed off-off-Broadway company are self-written. You don't become a notable theatre company by establishing a website. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 22:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 18:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Gridiron Glory

Gridiron Glory (  | 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)

Notable only on local level. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 17:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Gundu English Secondary School

Gundu English Secondary School (  | 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. The Banner  talk 17:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 ( talk) 19:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Cenla Idol

Cenla Idol (  | 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 sources; notable only on local level; more like a promotional article Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 17:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 16:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Chris King (sportscaster)

Chris King (sportscaster) (  | 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 minor league sports announcer. Hirolovesswords ( talk) 16:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Sports, Baseball, and Washington. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails GNG. Amazing it managed to go unnoticed for 14 years. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 17:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    And to be clear, it appears that the Chris King who calls games for the New York Islanders is a different person. That Chris King might be notable. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 17:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Noting that in 2017, an editor claiming to be Mr. King prod'd the article with the reasoning: I'm the subject of this page. It contains old information and honestly I'm not notable enough to have a wikipedia page. Other people who are minor league baseball and college basketball radio broadcasters do not have Wikipedia pages. My friend created this page while we were both in college as a joke, which has now run its course. I love Wikipedia as a great information tool, just don't feel like this dated information about me is worthy to be included with it. Thank you. Chris King Seems reasonable to delete the article based on notability concerns plus the possible subject also requesting deletion. Rgrds. -- Bison X ( talk) 20:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete doesn't pass GNG, subject requested. Suprised the previous prod got denied. WikiVirus C (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This article seems to have been created when the subject was about 20. There are no signs of notability. We really need to clean out some of these old articles on clearly non-notable people and also need to figure out ways to make it harder for people to "create articles as a joke." John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, BisonX, and John Pack Lambert. Cbl62 ( talk) 06:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 19:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 16:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply

St Wystan's School

St Wystan's School (  | 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 redirected this to Repton School, but was reverted. It is a non-notable primary school which is part of the Repton School group. Fram ( talk) 16:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

This is not part of Repton school and simply benefits from being partnered with it. Other primary schools have a wikipedia page so why shouldn't this one? CharlieEdits ( talk) 13:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
It could be redirected to Repton instead? Crouch, Swale ( talk) 17:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
I don't see why it should be redirected to Repton instead. It is its own school that simply benefits from Repton as part of a trust. CharlieEdits ( talk) 14:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 16:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Mati Fusi

Mati Fusi (  | 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) 15:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

No it doesn't. With all due respect, I don't think you understand what WP:GNG is. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 00:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 16:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

ThunderCore

ThunderCore (  | 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 crypto spam, sourced only to medium and unreliable crypto blogs PRAXIDICAE💕 15:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Purely promotional. Trying to sell a product using Wikipedia. Nothing here resembling GNG. A reasonable search finds nothing useful. BusterD ( talk) 17:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No evidence that this passes WP:GNG. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 06:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete More crypto cruft on here. Nothing notable. Oaktree b ( talk) 02:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • When I searched newspapers.com, gsearch, and gnews, most of what I came up with was a heavy-metal band and a line of fishing lures. What I didn't find was any SIGCOV of the crypto this article is about. Please Delete. Jacona ( talk) 13:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The promotional crypto-cruft is getting out of hand here - peddle your made-up money somewhere other than Wikipedia. Sleddog116 ( talk) 14:09, 31 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. Nomination was not a valid deletion reason, and sources have been proven to exist Star Mississippi 17:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Weekends with Maury and Connie

Weekends with Maury and Connie (  | 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 short-lived show on a network nobody watches. Deprodded without comment Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Smith, Austin (2006-01-09). "Too Early for Perfect Couple". New York Post. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28.

      The review gives the show two-and-a-half stars. The review notes: "It’s the weekend, and mellow Maury is taking a break from the three-ring circus he directs on weekday afternoons to chill out at home, where he enjoys sitting around with wife Connie Chung, dishing about the big stories from the week that just ended. ... From its opening conversation to its final segment, in which Maury and Connie took turns commenting on stories in the manner of “Weekend Update,” their show quickly established itself as the newest item in the display window of TV’s ever-expanding curiosity shop. ... What I’d like to see is a little more truth and a little less artifice. In other words, I’d like to see Maury and Connie come on this show half-awake in their bathrobes, minus the makeup and hung over from the night before – you know, like the rest of us."

    2. Steinberg, Jacques (2005-11-07). "Bringing a Couple's Dinner-Table Repartee to MSNBC". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28.

      The article notes: "The as-yet-untitled, half-hour program -- a review of the week's news that will fuse elements of "Meet the Press," the defunct "Crossfire" and "The Daily Show" -- will appear on Saturday mornings and be rerun on Sundays. ... The impetus for the show came primarily from Mr. Povich, 66, who recently signed a multiyear contract with NBC Universal to continue as host of his syndicated talk show, which began in 1991. As part of the deal, Mr. Povich said he suggested a provision that would allow him and Ms. Chung, 59, to develop a program for MSNBC. ... The program will feature clips not just from television news broadcasts but also from print and the Internet."

    3. Shister, Gail (2005-11-08). "Povich and Chung, Mr. and Mrs., will team for MSNBC". The Philadelphia Inquirer. EBSCOhost  2W63623479337.

      The article note: " Syndicated talker Maury Povich and his wife, CNN exile Connie Chung, will cohost a new weekend news show to be produced by a creator of Comedy Central's Daily Show.  The 30-minute program, set for 10 a.m. Saturdays, launches Jan. 7. Lizz Winstead is executive producer. No title yet, but MSNBC boss Rick Kaplan says he's pushing for Connie and Mr. Chung. (He's kidding. We like it.) ... The new show - a lighthearted review of the previous week's headlines - is the result of Kaplan's many dinners at the couple's home. ...  The trio had been discussing a show for several years. A project with DreamWorks fell through due to "wrong timing," in Kaplan's words."

    4. Coyle, Jake (2006-06-24). "Chung's farewell a hit on the Web". Albuquerque Journal. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "On last Saturday's finale of MSNBC's "Weekends with Maury & Connie," Chung sang a version of Bob Hope's old theme song "Thanks for the Memory" to her husband and co-host, Maury Povich. A clip of the performance — complete with mood-setting candles and an accompanying grand piano — is the most popular clip of the week on the video Web site YouTube. Three days after the show, more than 413,000 people had viewed the video of Chung — a rating that might have saved "Weekends with Maury & Connie," from being canceled. The half-hour talk show, which featured the two discussing news events, averaged about 232,000 viewers since debuting Jan. 7."

    5. Greppi, Michele (2006). "Chung, Povich on the Lighter Side". TelevisionWeek. Vol. 25, no. 1. ISSN  1544-0516. EBSCOhost  edsbig.A140596546.

      The article notes: ""Weekends With Maury & Connie," which debuts at 10 a.m. Saturday, will be executive produced by Lizz Winstead, co-creator of Comedy Central's fake newscast "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart." Her job now is to coax Ms. Chung and Mr. Povich, who have been married since 1984, into playing against public type and having fun with real news and interviews. ... Ms. Chung and Mr. Povich poke fun at themselves and their careers--including dashed dreams of a syndicated news show in 1996--and each other in his-and-hers campaign-style promos that have been running on MSNBC."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Weekends With Maury & Connie to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 08:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment. The nomination rationale states that this is on a "network nobody watches". I don't watch it myself, but I wondered about this statement, so I did a search and found [8] that people do watch it, as a matter of fact, a lot of people watch it. So what is the purpose of throwing shade on the network? It is an absolute misstatement of fact. Perhaps the nom doesn't like it? That's not a rationale for deletion. Jacona ( talk) 13:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the citations listed by Cunard. Also, what kind of rationale is "network nobody watches"? If no one watches, how do they stay in business? Is this a Yogism like "No one goes there anymore...its too crowded"? DonaldD23 talk to me 18:01, 29 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 - discussion is now at least seven days old. While there are only two votes, given the strength of argument made by one contributor and the finding of valid sources, there is consensus to keep given two contributors voted this way and no-one voted delete. There seems no benefit in relisting, which may have been appropriate had an editor put forward a strong case for deletion, which did not occur. ( non-admin closure) MaxnaCarter ( talk) 01:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Monkey-ed Movies

Monkey-ed Movies (  | 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)

Current sources do not discuss the topic, and nothing better was found. As a programming block it's unlikely to have much in the way of sources Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Longino, Bob (1998-03-18). "TBS apes Oscar in simian sendups". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29.

      The article notes: "It's all part of a weird half-hour special TBS is calling "Dinner & a Monkey," combining Turner's cynical film show "Dinner & a Movie" with the network's wacky, new "Monkey-ed Movies," in which simian Laurence Oliviers and Meryl Streeps take on roles in all of this year's big Academy Award flicks from "As Good as It Gets" to "Good Will Hunting." There's Winslet's monkey stand-in for young Rose, in full Victorian regalia and stringy red fright wig, clinging to the soon-to-be-doomed ship's railing, distraught and preparing to end it all. ... The jokes are sometimes crude, the humor often slapstick. Suffice it to say the spoof of "L.A. Confidential" ends in a Stoogefest as a trio of chimp thespians evolve into Larry, Moe and Curly Joe. ... Witness Jack Nicholson's simian side delivering the deadpan punch line in the "As Good as It Gets" takeoff."

    2. Haynes, Karima A. (1998-03-17). "Top Bananas". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-29. Retrieved 2022-05-29.

      The article notes: "Welcome to the world of “Monkey-ed Movies,” a collection of 48 short films featuring costumed primates spoofing scenes from some of Hollywood’s most popular motion pictures. The “Titanic” send-up is among eight parodies showcasing scenes from the five films nominated for best-picture Oscars and three more films up for awards in other categories. ... TBS Superstation executives launched “Monkey-ed Movies” in February as filler programming during its “Dinner & A Movie,” a Friday night show that combines cooking segments featuring recipes based on the evening movie."

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

    Cunard ( talk) 00:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. ( non-admin closure) MaxnaCarter ( talk) 03:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Ready... Set... Cook!

Ready... Set... Cook! (  | 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)

Deprodded with one source added, but I struggled to find more Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- As noted in the PROD removal text but not conveyed here, in addition to the book source which I added, there is a Chicago Tribune article that doesn't have online access, which I can see from the brief google preview snippet is a review of the series. "LIGHTS! CAMERA! ACTION! (AND SOME COOKING TOO)" Chicago Tribune, October 14, 1997." This is a second RS, meeting the GNG. matt91486 ( talk) 15:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • @ Matt91486: The Tribune article consists of one-paragraph previews of 20 different cooking shows on TV at the time. Sammi Brie (she/her •  t • c) 17:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete mention in a review of 20 upcoming cooking shows is not enough to show notability, and the other source is not enough to pass GNG on its own. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep after more sources found by Cunard. WikiVirus C (talk) 13:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC) Comment - A redirect with slight merge like summary to Ready Steady Cook can be alternative. Show was on for 6 years someone might search for it. reply
I'm still looking for other sources, preferably not behind paywall. I am leaning keep right now if not merge. WikiVirus C (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Robichaux, Mark (1996-06-07). "Chefs Duel to Rustle Up Meals In Minutes on TV Game Show". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28.

      The article notes: "It's a new game show on cable's TV Food Network called "Ready, Set, Cook!" The half-hour, twice-daily show has turned a common culinary conundrum -- what to cook when the refrigerator is bare -- into a bona fide hit for the upstart network.  In each episode, two contestants from the studio audience are given $10 each to buy an assortment of groceries, no matter how eclectic. Then two chefs -- usually prominent professionals from well-known kitchens -- go whisk to whisk to create a meal from the groceries. Mr. Lomonaco's Velveeta, for example, wound up in Warm Veal Sage Salad with Eggplant Casserole.  In twin kitchens, contestants begin by dumping their sack of groceries onto the counter. Chefs don aprons and a 20-minute clock starts ticking. Each dish is judged by the audience, which votes with placards bearing either a green pepper or a tomato. (Presentation is all; there isn't time for tastings.) ...  The TV Food Network will replace a key ingredient in the U.S. show when it begins taping next season's shows in July. Sissy Biggers, host of a talk show on the Lifetime channel, will relieve the chatty Robin Young."

    2. Salkin, Allen (2013). From Scratch: The Uncensored History of the Food Network. New York: Berkley Books. pp. 153–154. ISBN  978-0-425-27286-2. Retrieved 2022-05-28 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "Next, in what was a key addition to the broadcast schedule, Jeff approved the network's purchase of the rights to the British show Ready, Steady, Cook. Two chefs were paired with two amateurs, supplied with a grocery bag of food, and given twenty minutes to cook something. ... Food Network Americanized the name to Ready ... Set ... Cook! and rented a studio large enough for an audience. Rounding up the crowd was not easy. Popular shows that taped in New York, such as The Ricki Lake Show and Late Night with David Letterman, had no trouble, but getting bodies in seats for a game show on a network few people watched was a challenge. Even after hiring audience-wrangling companies, they regularly came up short. One Food Network staffer often had to hit the sidewalks around the studio rounding up homeless people by promising them they could eat the food when shooting was done. Robin Young hosted Ready ... Set ... Cook! during the first season. She would stand hip to hip with the competitors and engage them in banter while they tried to cook ... The show's success marked a cultural breakthrough. On the 1996 Thanksgiving episode of Friends, then the top-rated NBC comedy, Chandler, who was ... They'd been noticed by Hollywood!—even if their show was being used as a symbol of a pathetic life."

    3. Okamoto, David (1995-10-11). "New show turns cooking into fun and games". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28.

      The article notes: "The TV Food Network's Ready . . . Set . . . Cook! - which debuted last week and airs every night at 7 and 11 p.m. and Saturdays and Sundays at 9 a.m. and 2 p.m. - is an American variation on a wildly successful British series called Ready Steady Cook. Hosted by Robin Young, the half-hour program pits two chefs against each other to see who can throw together the most inventive and edible dishes from a well-stocked cupboard of staples and a $10 bag of groceries purchased by a randomly chosen audience member. The shopper gets to double as a sous chef. ... On any night, the show succeeds or fails on the chemistry between the chefs and the shoppers."

    4. Heller, Ann (2001-04-04). "Springfield's Gibson Whips Up a Win on Food Network – Cincinnati-Based Chef Appears on 'Ready . . . Set . . . Cook!'". Dayton Daily News. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28.

      The article notes: "... the Food Network's Ready . . . Set . . . Cook! game show tonight. The revamped series, which premiered this week, pits Gibson in matches with chef Shirley Fong Torres of San Francisco. He won three of the four events, claiming the "Golden Toque" - but says he can't remember what he cooked. ... For each show the two chefs are given a tray of ingredients and given 18 minutes to make as many finished dishes as possible - while the host constantly interrupts them with questions."

    5. Ervolino, Bill (1997-06-08). "Ready, Sweat…Cook!". The Record. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28.

      The article notes: "The good news: Unlike "Wheel," in which I had to undergo three rigorous hours of written and oral tests, competing against 170 other hopefuls, all "Ready, Set, Cook!" required was that I fill out a short questionnaire and explain why I wanted to be on the show. ... For the uninitiated, this game show, based on the BBC series, "Ready, Steady, Cook!," pits two accomplished chefs against each other in a 20-minute cooking competition. The goal: to make an entire meal out of the $10 or less in groceries chosen by the two contestants."

    6. Fuller, Janet Rausa (2001-05-02). "Ainsley is 'Ready'". Chicago Sun-Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28.

      The article notes: "Ainsley Harriott, Biggers' successor as host of the recently re-vamped Food Network series, Ready. . . Set . . . Cook!, is perky like Scotch bonnets are hot. The saucy, 6-feet-something Harriott flirts with the show's female contestants (and even some of the men), sings as shamelessly as a Broadway-bound starlet and every so often_when shaking a hot pan of beet greens, say_thrusts his hips to the beat. He's the host with the most, and then some. ... In reviving Ready . . . Set . . . Cook! with the enthusiastic Brit at the helm, producers have nipped and tucked accordingly, punching up the set with color and adding Pop Cuizine, a trivia bit directed at the dueling chef contestants. ... The show's premise is the same: ..."

    7. Less significant coverage:
      1. Klasne, Catherine (1997-08-28). "Ready, Set, Go on the Road – Cooking Game Show Host Follows 2 Lifetime Interests". The Daytona Beach News-Journal. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28.

        The article notes: "Sissy Biggers, host of the TV Food Network's Ready, Set, Cook! follows a recipe for success that combines elements of her lifelong interest in cooking and a career as a television professional.She isn't the first host of the unique cooking game show, but, after a one-year stint, Biggers' perky personality and appearance have become indelibly associated with Ready, Set, Cook!"

      2. Smoron, Paige; Cruze, Tom (1998-09-09). "'Ready... Set... Cook!' - Chicago chefs face off in popular game show". Chicago Sun-Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28.

        The article notes: "They were there to see their favorite game show from the Food Network, which has a cult following among gourmet groupies: "Ready . . . Set . . . Cook!" Host Sissy Biggers was bringing a live version of the show to Chicago for the first time_not for broadcast, but for the fans."

      3. Scourtes, Mary D. (2000-09-28). "Players defend cooking prowess". The Tampa Tribune. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28.

        The article notes: "John Lynch of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers is a big basher on the football field, but he's almost bashful in the kitchen. "I can't cook, but I like to grill," he said before joining Marty Blitz, chef-owner of Mise en Place, onstage for a Tampa version of the Food Network's "Ready ... Set ... Cook!""

      4. "Celebrity chef Ainsley Harriott serves up fresh eco-cooking ideas". Al Bawaba. 2008-12-10. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28.

        The article notes: "This in turn led to Ready Steady Cook and his TV career took off. Ready Steady Cook started airing in 1994.  Sixteen series and well over a thousand episodes later, it celebrated twelve happy years in 2006. When he became series host in 2000, the show gained a new lease of life and extra viewers. During 2009, the show will approach two thousand episodes."

      5. Silva, Jill Wendholt (2001-08-09). "TV Waistland". Miami Herald. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28.

        The article notes: "Based on a BBC series, Ready, Set, Cook is pure entertainment. British host Ainsley Harriott introduces two chefs: Ludovic, a French chef with a great attitude who hails from Los Angeles, and Paula, who drawls all the way from Savannah."

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

    Cunard ( talk) 08:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Sajjad Rahbar

Sajjad Rahbar (  | 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)

Procedural nomination stemming from an inappropriate draftification (article is far to old to have been draftified). However, the draftifier appears to have had a point. This does not appear to be a notable footballer. A search in Farsi revealed no WP:SIGCOV of the player himself; fails WP:GNG. Curbon7 ( talk) 01:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:48, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - Article fails WP:GNG based on online search of English- and Farsi-language sources (I can only find injury reports, squad lists, match reports, and statistical database entries). Jogurney ( talk) 17:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep as withdrawn, it meets WP:GEOLAND anyway. ( non-admin closure) Crouch, Swale ( talk) 17:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Bermani Ilir

Bermani Ilir (  | 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 declined the speedy delete because it wasn't clear. However, I do believe deletion is in order. This article about a place is unsourced and unconfirmed, and I can find no online sources to support it. Therefore, I believe it fails WP:GNG. If sources were found, I'll happily withdrawal the nomination--but it needs a few editors to review and discuss. Paul McDonald ( talk) 13:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Also nominating the following related articles for the same premise.

Also nominating the following related articles for the same premise.

These articles are similar and should be discussed together.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 13:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 01:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep but cleanup. Sufficient sourcing has been identified Star Mississippi 02:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Rickdependence Spray

Rickdependence Spray (  | 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 seem to be a notable episode of the series that would allow it to meet GNG. Unsourced, no real-world information and only consists of plot info. – DarkGlow • 17:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 06:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment draftify seems like an acceptable thing to do also. Oaktree b ( talk) 02:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Sources shared by RunningTiger123 show that the episode meets WP:GNG. Cleanup is necessary, but that doesn't mean the subject isn't notable. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 15:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Prakash Angdembe

AfDs for this article:
Prakash Angdembe (  | 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 found no significant coverage. The first AfD was closed due to the nominator being a sockpuppet. SL93 ( talk) 06:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus. insufficient debate has taken place over the last three weeks to establish a consensus. No solid grounds for a relist per WP:RELIST (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarter ( talk) 02:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Anti-Brazilian sentiment

Anti-Brazilian sentiment (  | 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)

Reviewed as a part of New Page Patrol. Not a distinct topic and not wp:notable because not covered in sources as such. By it's own description, this is just a by-editor collection of anything anti Brazilian exhibited by anybody. North8000 ( talk) 12:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Torresan, Angela. "Postcolonial social drama: The case of Brazilian dentists in Portugal". Critique of Anthropology. 41 (2): 165–186. doi: 10.1177/0308275X211004713.
  2. ^ Rosenbaum, H. Jon. (1973). "Argentine-Brazilian Relations: A Critical Juncture". The World Today. 29 (12): 537–42.
  3. ^ Andrés Gaudín (2010). "Paraguay: Anti-Brazilian Sentiment on Bilateral Agenda". NotiSur. Latin America Digital Beat.

SailingInABathTub ( talk) 23:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Those are instances of such sentiment, which does not address the reason for the AFD. North8000 ( talk) 16:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The nomination states that the article is not notable because it is "not covered in sources as such". All three sources explicitly discuss anti-brazilian sentiment. Additionally the first portuguese source in this article discusses antibrasileirismo or 'anti-brazilianism'. SailingInABathTub ( talk) 21:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Modussiccandi ( talk) 19:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Ninh Hòa station

Ninh Hòa station (  | 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 railway station - fails notability as given in WP:STATION Whiteguru ( talk) 06:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Vietnam. Whiteguru ( talk) 06:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:RAILOUTCOMES. I think it is best for Wikipedia's readers to keep all station articles, as this is a consistent approach allowing readers to make the most use of succession templates, categories, and coordinates (including the "nearby" feature). Arguing about the notability of the thousands of station articles currently on Wikipedia would be a waste of editor time. NemesisAT ( talk) 09:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails notability guidelines. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 11:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Was built during the French colonial period, so I'm trying to find sources from then... Vietnam is still communist, so you won't find much in the press that isn't state-controlled. I can find a few funding annoucements, [10], at least discussing the station. Searching for "Ga Ninh Hòa" brings up many hits, some travel resources. [11] more of a propaganda piece, some information about the station. Again it's all govt-controlled media. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Good work. There certainly is no need for independent sources for railway station articles, otherwise we'd have to delete most Chinese station articles. NemesisAT ( talk) 15:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom - skeptical if the sources provided at the time of writing are independent of the subject. XtraJovial ( talk) 22:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    You won't find any, the gov't of Vietnam controls the press and owns the railway/station. Silly communism. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to North–South railway (Vietnam)#Stations as WP:ATD, with no prejudice to restoring when more citable information is found to make a Start-quality article. Jumpytoo Talk 19:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 14:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  1. The first step is to assess notability. I do think this guideline has been met, albeit weakly. We need to use some common sense here - the article is brand new, and it is about a train station in Vietnam, with their lower freedom of press there will be fewer sources. The few there do demonstrate the subject has been covered by different sources, and I find them reliable as the coverage is objective and appears grounded in fact.
  2. We then need to turn to WP:RAILOUTCOMES, noting that this is an essay and not a guideline. However I am persuaded by the statement about sufficient attributable information needing to exist for a comprehensive article. During the time this article has been nominated, it has not been expanded further, but it is also quite new. The station is on a metro railway line and I do not think the article is comprehensive. As redirects are cheap, and the article does in my view meet WP:VERIFY, redirect it to an appropriate train line or if that line does not exist then keep. Basic train stations in other countries, such as Australia, often will get more coverage than those in countries with a more free and active press, particularly from small local newspapers. Virtually every single train station in Melbourne and Sydney has its own article, and we risk only including articles from western countries with lots of press if we delete articles like this one, where due to limits on press, there may not be opportunity for additional coverage, so common sense says it should stay.

Overall, keeping (in this form or one of the others suggested) this article improves Wikipedia in my opinion. MaxnaCarter ( talk) 00:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Participants were unable to agree on whether the subject meets a relevant notability standard, and to some extent even on what the relevant standard is. RL0919 ( talk) 23:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Alexander Bagrationi (chess)

Alexander Bagrationi (chess) (  | 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 found that he is notable, nothing beyond routine coverage found. Fram ( talk) 08:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Israel, and Ukraine. Fram ( talk) 08:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The subject has not received substantial coverage in indepdent reliable sources. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep He has an entry in Berdichevsky's Jewish Chess Encyclopedia; that and the ChessOK bio which is also cited in the article constitute significant coverage. Chess grandmasters can typically be presumed notable per WP:NCHESS. Somebody with access to Ukrainian, Russian, and Hebrew print media (chess websites in these languages tend not to have long half-lives) would likely be able to find more. Cobblet ( talk) 23:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:NCHESS and coverage in the form of game analysis [12]. EternalNomad ( talk) 05:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. NCHESS is not a guideline and has zero standing in deletion discussions. Having an entry in an encyclopedic dictionary devoted to a subset of a subset of people is not by itself indicative of notability absent someone showing coverage therein is actually significant. The ChessOK article has no byline, so there is no way to tell if it is reliable and independent. And the idea that written game analysis (in what seems to be a blog-like post by a pseudonymous chess.com member, not a staff writer) consisting of "The Alexander Bagrationi (2485) vs. Dmitry Skorchenko (2487) game is another example of no queen but rampaging minor pieces" constitutes anything other than a trivial mention is absurd. Can someone find a source that demonstrably meets all the requirements of GNG? JoelleJay ( talk) 01:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep A GM is a top professional in chess, and there are only <2000 of them in the world. We have articles on not only every current and former MP but also every member of any state legislature in any country in the world, so I see no reason not to keep an article on one of the 2000 top chess players in the world. 172.58.110.253 ( talk) 06:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    The only parameter that matters here is whether he meets GNG. It's irrelevant how many GMs there are or which other professions have WP representation (WP:OTHERSTUFF) since neither of those is a notability criterion. I don't know where or in what languages @ Fram looked for sources, but if a standard BEFORE didn't turn anything up then there is reason to assume he has not received the requisite coverage for GNG. JoelleJay ( talk) 02:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Comment This may be true but it is not relevant. What is relevant is that it receives the standard of notability of WP:GNG PaulPachad ( talk) 20:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to prompt policy based consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 14:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep As WP:NSPORT is silent on chess, as WP:NCHESS uses similar logic to other sports and games, WP:NCHESS seems like a very reasonable benchmark to compare the article against. WP:NSPORT FAQ Q4 guides us towards being more flexible when it will take time to establish notability due to language issues. I think the editors using WP:NCHESS to help inform decisions are being logical and also following guidelines very similar to WP:NSPORT] and so I agree with them. CT55555 ( talk) 20:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    NCHESS is not an acceptable benchmark as it has not been vetted by the wider community for its accuracy in predicting GNG. For it to be added to NSPORT, and therefore be usable in deletion discussions, it would need to demonstrated that 95%+ of all subjects meeting its criteria also meet GNG. JoelleJay ( talk) 02:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Are you quoting 95% from a guideline? CT55555 ( talk) 04:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    95% is the standard used when developing sport-specific subguidelines. However all NSPORT subjects must ultimately individually meet the GNG so in this situation it doesn't matter whether he meets NCHESS or NSPORT, the requirement is still SIGCOV in multiple reliable, secondary, independent sources. JoelleJay ( talk) 16:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    I don't think anyone could disagree with you there...I just think that NSPORT directs us to:
    1. consider that people of a certain calibre are likely notable
    2. give time to allow notability to be established, to be generous with that time, and to be more generous when non-English sources are the norm
    That's what I'm arguing for. I think that is clear. I think the less clear bit is if NCHESS is as dependable as NSPORT. i.e. is NCHESS' "Grandmaster" rule comparable with the 95% norm. I think it is. CT55555 ( talk) 17:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    I'm not aware of an article on a GM ever being deleted; significant coverage is nearly always found when a player reaches that level. Pawnkingthree ( talk) 18:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Sure, NCHESS or at least the GM criterion may very well be an excellent predictor of coverage. But since it's not at SNG-level yet, and since NSPORT does not apply to non-athletes, the notability standard for Bagrationi is GNG (or ANYBIO). So it's still necessary for GNG sourcing to be produced just as it would be for any other BLP. JoelleJay ( talk) 20:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    And FWIW, I've searched "Александр", "Александра", "Аарона", and "Аарон" "Багратиони" + "гроссмейстера" and "шахматного" and found nothing beyond passing mentions (like here, here, and here, here, and here). JoelleJay ( talk) 22:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. WP:NCHESS is the best we've got to go on here, and he is a Grandmaster, giving the presumption of meeting WP:GNG. Jacona ( talk) 21:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    There is no policy- or guideline-based reason to presume GNG is met through becoming a GM. We have no evidence that this is the case (or that it isn't), so the metric we have to use is whether he currently meets GNG. The sources in the article are iffy, reliability-wise, which is why I haven't !voted yet, and why it's necessary we discuss the only applicable P&G (GNG) rather than asserting notability is inherently met. JoelleJay ( talk) 02:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Comment I agree with this comment of JoelleJay PaulPachad ( talk) 20:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:ANYBIO#1. WP:NBASIC is not the only reason that one might presume notability for a person; WP:BIO explicitly assumes the notability of a person who has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. The title of Grandmaster in Chess, as the IP alluded to on May 24, is one such a well-known and significant honor. There are lots of people who point towards WP:NCHESS here and, while it's a project-level consensus, I think the argument from ANYBIO is stronger. The arguments for delete are generally something along the line of "fails GNG", which is moot if the individual passes WP:ANYBIO as WP:N explicitly considers article subjects who meet either the general notability guideline (GNG)... or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline as being notable provided that the article does not violate WP:NOT. As such, the article subject is notable and the article should be kept. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 19:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Does that still apply to a title that is (now) automatically conferred based on achievement, rather than awarded through subjective assessment by other people (e.g. the way an IEEE fellowship or Fields medal is)? I thought the point of using the received language, rather than the less restrictive "achieved", was to ensure a recipient's merits were actually specifically discussed by a secondary body and determined to be worthy. JoelleJay ( talk) 02:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    The first iteration of the relevant part of WP:ANYBIO appears to have its origin in this edit, which didn't really have a lot of concurrent discussion (it was a generalization of something originally applied to creative professionals). But I don't think that there has been an understanding that awards have to be purely subjective things that some group gives out. On a separate note, there's relatively little discussion on Chess Grandmasters as a particular case, but the brief discussion that happened was based on the premise that no one would argue that an article about a chess grandmaster is not suitable for inclusion. Times change, but it does appear that the WP:NCHESS claim that chess grandmasters are notable has pretty deep roots in Wikipedia's framing of notability for significant honor/award. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 04:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    It is worth noting that WP:ANYBIO does not just render GNG "moot." ANYBIO says "meeting [these criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included." I haven't formed a strong opinion on whether to keep or delete, but saying that anybio makes gng "moot" feels like a bit of a stretch. Sleddog116 ( talk) 14:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    It's not a stretch at all. WP:N is clear that a topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either GNG or an SNG, and is not excluded by WP:NOT. The warning that WP:ANYBIO does not guarantee inclusion is there to reflect the WP:NOT exception. Cobblet ( talk) 20:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above. Do rename to Alexander Bagrationi (chess player)! gidonb ( talk) 01:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep because he is a grandmaster on the international level. חוקרת (Researcher) ( talk) 07:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Comment: That does not show notability as far as wikipedia is concerned PaulPachad ( talk) 20:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The article does not quote any secondary reliable sources. Also a google news search only brings up two results and they do not discuss the subject directly or at length. He might be superb at chess but as far as the media is concerned he does not appear to be notable. There is no reason to hold him to a different standard than everyone else here who gets their articles deleted if they don't show reliable secondary sources. In my opinion fails WP:GNG PaulPachad ( talk) 20:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    This isn't true. The cited Jewish Chess Encyclopedia entry is four sentences long and is clearly more than a trivial mention of Bagrationi. So is the ChessOK bio, and lacking a byline does not mean the article is unreliable any more than articles in the The Economist that lack a byline are unreliable. Many of the details given in the ChessOK bio can be corroborated in other sources, including the two facts for which the bio is cited in the Wikipedia article (his FIDE profile confirms he became an IM in 2009), which suggests that the article has been properly researched. The cited SV Unna site also clearly demonstrates that chess players in general find a grandmaster like Bagrationi worthy of notice. Cobblet ( talk) 02:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Four sentences of basic biographical details is not SIGCOV, and there is a profound difference between an article run in The Economist and one in what appears to be a community posting platform by someone who isn't even listed among the dozens of "authors" on the site. Many of the details given in the ChessOK bio can be corroborated in other sources, including the two facts for which the bio is cited in the Wikipedia article (his FIDE profile confirms he became an IM in 2009), which suggests that the article has been properly researched. This is completely irrelevant, as that line of reasoning would permit use of any SPS that happened to contain a single verifiable fact. The cited SV Unna site also clearly demonstrates that chess players in general find someone of Bagrationi's stature worthy of note. This is also irrelevant, as it is actual in-depth commentary on the subject that is required for GNG, not vague assurances of notability based on editors' individual inferences. The ANYBIO argument is stronger, but like Sleddog16 said, if the only thing we can say about him is that he is a GM, then there is no reason to have a standalone article. JoelleJay ( talk) 23:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    I count around ten things we say about Bagrationi other than him being a GM. That is a reason for having a standalone article. No policy-based reason has been given for removing this content from Wikipedia when WP:ANYBIO has been satisfied. Cobblet ( talk) 02:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply
    We could collect 10 things to say about anyone from RS, probably even from independent RS. The reason we have a notability guideline that requires SIGCOV is to ensure there is sufficient sustained interest in a subject in the form of actual commentary on it, by unaffiliated people, with enough depth to develop a comprehensive article. The only things we can say about Bagrationi that come from independent RS -- and therefore could contribute to notability -- are what is in the JCE. We regularly delete sportspeople who have even more info from such stats database-type sourcing based on it being considered trivial, so such details are not considered significant enough for establishing notability. JoelleJay ( talk) 16:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep He is the grandmaster and as per wp:chess he is notable. No other links are required. [13] Jimandjam ( talk) 05:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    NCHESS is a project-level essay, not a notability guideline, and the instruction in the relisting above is pretty clearly directing participants to make arguments based on our policies and guidelines. JoelleJay ( talk) 05:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    As explained above by Mhawk10, NCHESS essentially expresses Wikiproject Chess's position on what players it considers as having satisfied the requirements of criterion 1 of WP:ANYBIO. And what multiple participants who are not part of that Wikiproject are basically saying here is that they agree that grandmasters are "worthy of notice", which is what WP:N is fundamentally about. By the way, norm-based grandmaster title applications (the way most players, like Bagrationi, achieve the title) are not awarded "automatically", but are reviewed and approved by FIDE's Qualification Commission. While the regulations for approving titles have been substantially clarified in recent years, reducing the degree of subjectivity in the process, the Commission still gets the final say on whether those regulations have been satisfied. Cobblet ( talk) 11:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    The main thing is, you are clearly neglecting the guideline NCHESS, and believing that all the guidelines are waste and we should only follow WP:GNG, even though specific guideline is given for chess player. I don't know where it is written that WP:GNG is everything and everything else is waste. If that is the case, why are we even have other guidelines. Jimandjam ( talk) 03:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Jimandjam, NCHESS is not a guideline. It is a project-level essay. The only notability guidelines we can use are those listed at WP:N. JoelleJay ( talk) 16:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ JoelleJay WP:NCHESS heading itself is "notability of chess player" Jimandjam ( talk) 05:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Jimandjam A wikiproject can say whatever it wants about itself, but it doesn't mean anything unless it has achieved consensus in the wider community. NCHESS would have to be listed among the SNGs on WP:N or as a subcriterion within an SNG for it to have guideline status. JoelleJay ( talk) 06:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The fact that he is a grandmaster on the international level is noteworthy in and of itself by virtue of WP:ANYBIO point #1. The title of grandmaster isn't an automatic thing; one has to meet qualifications for it, and it has to be approved by FIDE. People keep pointing to WP:NCHESS, but that's honestly secondary here; the fact of the matter is that FIDE (which I think most would agree is a foremost authority on the game) has conferred "a well-known and significant ... honor" on Bagrationi, and given that fact, this article passes ANYBIO. That said, if his only notability is his title, his name is already included under List of chess grandmasters. Is there a good reason for him to have his own separate article, given that his only point of notability is already included elsewhere? This feels like it might be a case of WP:TOOSOON; it's possible he will achieve notability as a grandmaster, but so far, that hasn't really been definitively established. I'm not putting in a !vote either way or trying to make a case for or against deletion - just putting this out there because there's a lot of "keep" comments echoing basically the same thing without considering that we have other articles on the topic of chess grandmasters that might be more suitable for this content than it having its own standalone page. Just food for thought. Sleddog116 ( talk) 14:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete and possibly redirect to List of chess grandmasters. I've done a bit of digging since my comment above and have formed more of an opinion, though admittedly not a strong one. There is simply a dearth of information about this player, and per my comment above, it just feels like WP:TOOSOON here. The fact that he is a grandmaster is noteworthy by virtue of the title, but that really just doesn't feel like a strong enough rationale for him to have his own article. I looked at some of the stub articles we have (at the risk of sounding WP:OTHERSTUFF-y) on other chess GMs (particularly Hristos Banikas) with the idea of possibly improving this article to make this discussion moot, but frankly, I couldn't find anything about him other than "he is a grandmaster." I can't find anything about his career (other than one Israeli source which is, essentially, just a list of his games) or his playing style or anything that could fill out this article a bit, and to my way of thinking (NCHESS and ANYBIO notwithstanding), that's just not enough to merit him having his own article since his only claim to notability is already covered elsewhere on WP. (EDIT: Based on subsequent discussion, I'm striking my delete in favor of a redirect; I honestly think that's the right course of action.) Sleddog116 ( talk) 15:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Since you're quoting WP:TOOSOON, I remind you that it says specifically of WP:ANYBIO that it "allows editors to accept a presumption in good faith that other sources are likely to exist without also demanding that these "other sources" be immediately found and offered." If grandmasters are inherently noteworthy, as most contributors to the present discussion agree, then the basic WP:BIO standard of "worthy of notice" is already met. Furthermore, the current article meets both WP:ANYBIO and WP:BASIC, particularly when we take into account the latter's point that "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." You are not suggesting that the content of the current article is problematic, just that you wish we had more. But what we have now is already significantly more than what could be kept if we were to redirect this article as you suggested. So how would redirecting the article and losing that information we currently have improve Wikipedia? Cobblet ( talk) 20:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    BASIC still requires non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. That means only the material from the JCE can contribute to BASIC, and since it contains even less info than the average football player database entry ("Bagrationi Alexander (b. 07/13/1990, Ternopil), international grandmaster (2014). Since 2011 lives in Israel.
    Graduated from Ternopil National Economic University. The first coach is Anatoly Bagrationi (father). Tournament winner: Anapa (2008), Vitino (Crimea) and Brno (2009), Valuyskoye (2010). Champion of Jerusalem (2018).") there's no chance it provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article. There is zero evidence that the ChessOk article is reliable -- I can't even find an "About Us" section on the website -- and the ref should actually be removed per BLP. JoelleJay ( talk) 23:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    I think you might have misunderstood my rationale. The title of Grandmaster is noteworthy, but that doesn't mean everyone who achieves that title is noteworthy enough for their own article just by virtue of having that title; that's the whole reason we already have a List of chess grandmasters. The reason I'm saying Too Soon is because as of yet, there simply isn't sufficient coverage to justify him having his own article, particularly given User:JoelleJay's point about the reliability of the existing sources. I did just check his profile on FIDE's official site and can confirm that he is indeed a grandmaster, so I don't think there is any dispute over that single fact; I'm just saying that fact alone isn't sufficient to justify him having his own article. ANYBIO doesn't override BASIC. In all honesty though, I don't have a strong opinion for deletion; I'd be just as happy to see someone rescue this article, and it's not like there's a deadline. Sleddog116 ( talk) 01:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There is already enough cited information in the article that won't be found on list of chess grandmasters to !vote keep. Quale ( talk) 05:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I've struck my previous keep vote. After reviewing the discussion above, I think I over-relied on NCHESS and there just aren't any decent RS. Jacona ( talk) 14:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep In addition to what others have pointed out, I am impressed by the coverage in the ChessOK and Sparkassen sources. Biographies, mentions of tournaments he has won, good photographs. And the Unna source gives you an idea of the regard in which he is held. Bruce leverett ( talk) 19:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There is no consensus around NCHESS. Its is not policy and basing decisions on it when there is no comparative work done in the same manner as other community consensus based notability policies is wrong. Trying to foist it on the community at large, by this particular subgroup on the rest without community wide consensus is wrong as well. Basing decisions on it, when its not been accepted by the wider community is wrong as well and breaks Wikipedia 5 pillars. There is no conensus that grandmasters are automatically notable either. The references currently fail WP:GNG. There is no significant coverage to support an article. scope_creep Talk 19:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The WP:GNG is the only notability requirement that actually matters in the end, except for a very few noted exceptions (such as academics, as coverage is on their research and not them and so the coverage of their research needs to meet GNG for them). In this case, the significant coverage from secondary sources does not appear to exist. The sources being presented here and in the article are primary sources, except for the one very short encyclopedia entry. Which is not enough for proper significant coverage to meet GNG, not with just that one source at least. Unless more sources of secondary significant coverage from reliable sources can be presented, then this article fails notability requirements. Silver seren C 19:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. EDIT: or Redirect. I just realized I never actually !voted. To address some keeps: Quale, verifiable information existing is not a reason to have a standalone page if that information is not from reliable secondary independent sources and does not provide comprehensive coverage of the subject. Bruce leverett, the ChessOk article has no indication of reliability: not only is there no author listed, the site doesn't even have an About Us section that could demonstrate it is anything beyond a social platform; and the Sparkassen and Unna sources are not independent -- they are announcements about competitions reported by the competitions themselves -- and thus cannot be considered for notability purposes. JoelleJay ( talk) 20:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of chess grandmasters per WP:ATD, as there is a suitable redirect target. Although he is a GM, there doesn't seem to be enough significant coverage to meet the requirements for a standalone article. The ChessOK source mentions that his Elo rating is not high enough to get invitations to major tournaments, which may be a possible reason for this. Pawnkingthree ( talk) 22:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect I think. Considering how few GMs there are though, an article for each if sources permit doesn't sound crazy to me from an overview. Arkon ( talk) 03:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ITV Tyne Tees. Randykitty ( talk) 10:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Rachel Sweeney

Rachel Sweeney (  | 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 indication of long-standing independent notability, seems to be mostly a case of WP:BLP1E. QueenofBithynia ( talk) 19:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and United Kingdom. Shellwood ( talk) 19:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. No opinion on notability but a television presenter who appeared in three separate shows over a period of nearly 15 years is in no way a case of one event. Espresso Addict ( talk) 02:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I agree, the nomination is not supported by the article. Suggest it could be withdrawn. Victuallers ( talk) 07:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I do not think we have enough sources here that are both reliable and indepdent to pass GNG. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 14:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus. There's clearly not a consensus to delete, but the rationales for keeping also don't explain why sourcing is sufficient to merit an independent article under our guidelines. I would encourage interested editors to think about whether this topic may be better covered as a list or a disambiguation. Such a discussion falls outside of the scope of AfD and can happen instead on the article's talk page if editors are interested. Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Continuing church

Continuing church (  | 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 have found nothing on the alleged topic of this WP article, apart from passing uses which seem to rather refer to the Continuing Anglican movement than the alleged general phenomenon the WP article discusses. [1] [2] [3] Already back in 2007, someone asked for sources on this term at the article talk page; none was given since then.
I have also checked the only reference given in the article: it is about the Continuing Anglican movement and not a general phenomenon.
A discussion at the WProject Christianity has concluded that this expression does not exist or was only a synonym of the Continuing Anglican movement.
It seems to be there has been a quiproquo, in that the creator likely either a) thought "continuing church" was a common and universal name, or b) was not aware the page Continuing Anglican movement already existed.
Therefore, I propose this article be deleted, or turned into a redirect (no merge) to Continuing Anglican movement. Veverve ( talk) 13:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Winter, R. Milton (2000). "Division & Reunion in the Presbyterian Church, U.S.: A Mississippi Retrospective". The Journal of Presbyterian History (1997-). 78 (1): 67–86. ISSN  1521-9216. In 1944, reunion opponents, rallied by the Southern Presbyterian Journal, called those agreeing with its aims to do everything possible to organize a 'continuing church' if and when the 'inevitable' union with the PCUSA should occur. By 1949 a Continuing Church Committee was raising funds. [..] All the while, predictions continued that whenever union of Southern Presbyterians with their sister Assembly came about, a 'continuing' Southern Church would result. [...] 'Continuing' assemblies of Presbyterians opposed to unions voted by their denominations are well known having been formed in Scotland, Canada, and Australia, and by Cumberland Presbyterians in the U.S. after the majority of their churches were received by the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A. in 1906.
  2. ^ Burt, C. David (2011-01-01). "Chapter 4: An Anglican Uniate Rite?". In Cavanaugh, Stephen E. (ed.). Anglicans and the Roman Catholic Church: Reflections on Recent Developments. Ignatius Press. ISBN  978-1-68149-039-7. Basically, they [Forward in Faith] have their feet in both 'official' Anglican Communion and in the 'continuing' church.
  3. ^ Watts, Michael (1993). Through a Glass Darkly: A Crisis Considered. Gracewing Publishing. p. 44. ISBN  978-0-85244-240-1. 'In September 1990, at around the time the first women priest were ordained, a group of lay members of the Church of Ireland formed a «continuing Church»; the Church of Ireland (Traditional Rite). [...]'
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve ( talk) 13:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Once again, a lack of references is not a reason for deletion. This is a notable topic, and is not restricted to Anglican churches. I have restored the article, which had large slabs of content removed for no reason. St Anselm ( talk) 14:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ StAnselm: please provide a source for your claim. As you can see, I have done my own research before starting this AfD and found nothing. And I had removed WP:OR from the article (also, WP:V), which you added back possibly trying to WP:OVERCOME. Veverve ( talk) 14:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Well, the first reference you provide does not refer to Anglican churches, does it? Interestingly, I am the editor you referred to, who asked for sources in 2007. But that's not a reason for deletion. Anyway, perhaps the word is used more often in Presbyterian contexts: e.g. For a Continuing Church: The Roots of the Presbyterian Church in America and The History of the Presbyterian Church in America : The Continuing Church Movement. St Anselm ( talk) 14:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The first source I gave is only about Presbytarianism, and so do the two you provided. The History of the Presbyterian Church in America does not contain the subtitle you added from what I see. In both source you provided, the expression is too vague anyway to know if they are designating a continuous church (an institution that continues to exist, or a tent organisation) or a continuing church (the topic of the WP article). An FCC review ( part 1, part 2) does not seem to indicate that "continuing church" in this case has the meaning the WP article gives it. Thus, your sources do not prove the notability of the topic.
In any case, you are asking for a complete change of topic, from an alleged general phenomenon to a purely Presbyterian phenomenon. Veverve ( talk) 14:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The subtitle is in the Worldcat entry. St Anselm ( talk) 16:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Well, to be sure, that is covered in Church of England (Continuing). This article is about a wider phenomenon. St Anselm ( talk) 14:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Jclemens: I have mentioned that in my rationale ( Continuing Anglican movement) twice (check the "§ Other Anglican churches" section). You are confusing topics. Veverve ( talk) 14:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as 1st choice, or redirect per nom. A normal English phrase which may turn up discussing many historical splits. Not a special term deserving an article, still less the article here. Heaps of dubious OR in the "restored" version. Johnbod ( talk) 15:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete In several discussions with people in person and online, the phrase "Continuing" has been applied to denominations such as the newly-founded Global Methodist Church. However, there is extremely minimal sourcing from RSs that suggests the terminology merits an article on Wikipedia. If anything, any sources that do come along should be first used in a section of Continuing Anglican movement. If there comes a time when there are more sources discussing a farther-reaching practice, we can make an article. I see some books in the pipeline, again discussing Methodism, that may someday qualify this as a separate article. Until then, the phenomenon is only notable in its relation to Anglicanism or practice by Anglicans. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 15:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Wanted to add that I have read the Presbyterian sources. The '86 one addressing Canadian Presbyterianism is compelling, but it does not properly define "continuing" so much as it applies the term. The 2015 book is cited, but only just the title. If a quote from that book were to be sourced, I would support a merge rather than a delete sans merge. The Book of Church Order is less than overwhelming, though, and for a denomination with at last count 12 congregations we might be pushing into self-publishing territory with that as a source. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 16:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
I have been busy adding sources to the article. Note that the term is enshrined in legislation in the Presbyterian Church of Australia Act 1971. St Anselm ( talk) 16:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Exactly, as a normal English term, not capitalized & which needs defining in Cl. 18b. This does not help your case at all. Similar wording occurs all the time in corporate etc contexts. See this google search on "continuing partnership". Johnbod ( talk) 16:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
If this expression really existed the way you described it, you would have no problem finding it defined this way in some dictionaries and encyclopedias of Christianity (there are dozens of them). Instead, you have mostly added your interpretation of primary sources in the article in an effort to WP:OVERCOME. Veverve ( talk) 17:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I have added a lot, mainly in the area of Presbyterianism, where continuing churches are a significant phenomenon, in at least four different countries. (This is partly because I'm Presbyterian myself, so this is what I'm interested in.) I would be OK with this article being refocused and moved to Continuing Presbyterianism if people don't like the Anglican and Presbyterians being lumped together. Editors would do well to search for "continuing presbyterian" in their Google searches too. St Anselm ( talk) 19:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Disambiguate: Why are we talking about deleting this outright when there are already several "continuing church"-related articles on Wikipedia? Convert it to a disambiguation page that links to Continuing Anglican movement, Church of England (Continuing), Free Church of Scotland (Continuing), etc. Any truly useful content that can't be merged into an existing article should be moved to a new page for the group/denomination in question (as StAnselm suggests in the previous comment) and then added to the disambiguation list. Jdcompguy ( talk) 18:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Yes, and both the Presbyterian Church in Canada and the Presbyterian Church of Australia were for a while called the "Continuing Presbyterian Church" in secondary sources. St Anselm ( talk) 19:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Again StAnselm, you have no secondary RS defining the concept of "continuing church" the way you did, you are making a SYNTH and drawing your own conclusions. Veverve ( talk) 20:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Yes, I do. Have you read all the new references I added to the article? St Anselm ( talk) 21:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Yes, I saw them. Veverve ( talk) 21:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as evidence has been given of Presbyterian as well as Anglican continuing churches, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 17:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Atlantic306: the question is not whether or not some denominations use the expression "continuing". The question is whether or not the alleged concept that would encompasse the whole Christendom of "continuing church" notably exists and is defined as such in the summary of that article. So far, no secondary RS defining "continuing church" this way has been provided to prove this existence and notability. Veverve ( talk) 18:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- This is about a real phenomenon, where certain congregations stand aside from denominational mergers. A case of which I know, not mentioned in the article is congregational churches in England, which declined to join United Reformed Church. In contrast "continuing Anglicans" are liable to be churches that opted out of the main episcopal/Anglican church, regarding it as not keeping its original doctrines. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
I went ahead and added the Congregational Federation. St Anselm ( talk) 02:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Appropriately referenced, topic is notable. Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 18:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment More than a couple editors have voted keep on the principle that this phenomenon is notable, but it does not appear notable under this terminology. If there is a keep, we need to find a term that is relevant specifically to non-Anglican denominations, rather than SYNTHing the term from Anglicanism onto Presbyterianism (which seems to be the direction this article is taking). ~ Pbritti ( talk) 19:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Notable topic. Nuff said. - TheLionHasSeen ( talk) 22:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ TheLionHasSeen: An WP:ITSNOTABLE does not help. Veverve ( talk) 23:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

The Society of Mercy

The Society of Mercy (  | 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)

Clear lack of secondary WP:RS. All Google Books and Google Scholar hits are about older Christian groups which shared a similar name. No secondary RS mentions this alleged Old Catholic group (and as a reminder, WP:SPSs cannot establish notability).
Therefore, per WP:GNG and WP:NCHURCH, this article should be deleted. Veverve ( talk) 13:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Probably delete -- The article seems to be a history of dissent and splits among Old Catholics, not about the priestly society of mercy. 50 congregations might make a small denomination (which should be kept), but with fragmentation, it is not clear that this is about a significant group. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:13, 29 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 per WP:SNOW. There was no further discussion in two weeks, during which further comments were not added. There was still some time left to add comments, however the outcome of this AFD has become almost certain to the point it is not going to change before the time closes and no need to prolong discussion further. Not relisted for a third time per WP:RELIST ( non-admin closure) MaxnaCarter ( talk) 05:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Tom Crosshill

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

Article is sourced almost entirely to his website. Can't find any sources with WP:SIGCOV. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 01:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Authors. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 01:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete no sources found. I wonder if he has 900 gold medals like the fellow above does? Oaktree b ( talk) 03:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep. Looks like the sole objections (limited sources/no sources found) have been addressed by User:MaryMO (AR), leaving, it appears to me, nothing to debate. BPK ( talk) 16:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ BPK2 I looked at the sources added. I don't see any of them that are independent, reliable and have significant coverage. I also don't see enough for WP:NAUTHOR (there's one review [14] I found of one of his novels but that's all I could find in terms of non-blog reviews). The sources in the article right now that are not by Tom Crosshill himself either verify that he was nominated or got an award for one of his stories, are interviewing him about some financial topic. There's one interview with him about himself but interviews are not really independent and one WP:INTERVIEW by itself is not enough for WP:NBIO. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 23:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 14:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

International Dialogue for Environmental Action

International Dialogue for Environmental Action (  | 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)

There is nothing to indicate that this is a notable subject. This article is just puffery for the daughter of Azerbaijan's authoritarian leader. Thenightaway ( talk) 13:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Power-up in standby

Power-up in standby (  | 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:DICDEF. Most content is WP:OR or about a Western Digital product, and all current sources are from Western Digital manuals. I'm not fully convinced that it either meets or fails WP:GNG; the closest I could find to an encyclopedic RS is [15], which is a dictionary entry.

MarcZ ( talk · contribs) suggested in June 2009 that this page be merged to Spin-up because there are few links and it is only a feature of spin-up, but that article is also nominated for deletion. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 08:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete3. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this is just a dictionary definition. Jacona ( talk) 13:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete some minor content might merit a brief mention in "Hard disk drive" but otherwise WP:DICDEF and inadequate sources sources for WP:GNG. -- mikeu talk 00:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There has been strong discussion but only two formal votes. Relisting did not produce clearer consensus, and there has been no further discussion over the last week making relisting a likely pointless exercise. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarter ( talk) 02:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Market Wrap

Market Wrap (  | 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)
Asia Market Wrap (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
European Closing Bell (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite the show's longevity, I could find no sources about the show. All hits on ProQuest were variants of "X to appear on Market Wrap", superficial name-drops in articles about the hosts, or reports on viewership numbers, none of which constitutes WP:SIGCOV. It also doesn't even have an IMDb page, which is very telling. This seems to be a case akin to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields where the nature of the show means it's unlikely to garner any media attention, regardless of how long it aired. Including the Asia and Europe spinoffs for similar reasons. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 03:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that a total of three articles are nominated for deletion herein.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 13:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. ~XyNq t c 13:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Two mentions of it being CNBCs most popular show.
  • Peter Truell. The New York Times. February 17, 1997. In regards to CNBC: The channel's most popular show, Market Wrap, which is on from 4 P.M. to 5 P.M. on weekdays, has about a quarter-million viewers at any one time.
  • RE:CNBC - Marc Gunther. Fortune Magazine May 24, 1999. Today a typical spot on Market Wrap, the network's top-rated show, sells for $4,000 to $5,000, and a handful of advertisers pay nearly twice that much. (The fact that ratings have doubled hasn't hurt.)
Found other passing mentions or small coverage, but more searching is needed. I do think the Asia/Europe versions should be merged into the main Market Wrap, since they both were originally based on it. A topic to discuss if we do end up keeping this. Deleting this seems unnecessary as Closing Bell seems to be a natural successor for a merge as they kept Mathisen and Bartiromo as the host and brought Griffeth back in later. WikiVirus C (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
If there's so little to say about the show itself other than "it's popular", then maybe it should be merged/redirected to CNBC. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Preferred merge target for me would be Closing Bell, for a redirect List of programs broadcast by CNBC. I don't feel the international versions have enough warrant to have entire content merged to Closing Bell, but if Market Wrap is kept, then it can take it. If all three are to go, then Market Wrap into Closing Bell. Excluding tables, the main article is pretty much a stub which can easily merge without being undue. International table could be put into short prose summary. A longer merge discussion would of been preferable but since we are in a deletion discussion, my vote will probably be Keep/Merge/Merge or Merge/Del/Del. WikiVirus C (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗ plicit 14:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Cecil E. Rhode

Cecil E. Rhode (  | 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)

Rhode was a journalist. I cannot find any substantial sources on him. The short geographical blurb is not enough. I found one mention of his name and nothing more in a long list of people who ran amateur radio stations, and I found mention of him in a hearing report from Congress, which is a primary document. As far as I can tell there are no indepdent secondary sources that give significant coverage. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment someone thought he was important enough to name a mountain after him ( Cecil Rhode Mountain). That alone does not make him notable. Nor does the 3500 results I found on Newspapers.com by sheer count make him notable. But it makes me very suspicious that he may turn out to be. Will follow up in the next day or two. Jacona ( talk) 01:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There are a great many sources on newspapers.com, a book Wild Shots which discusses him, and of course, a mountain named after him. I've added several of these to the article, there is certainly enough material to do a lot of expansion! Jacona ( talk) 12:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the excellent work done Jacona. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Lugnuts. Well-sourced article on notable photojournalist. DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 13:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The article could do with lots of improvement, but he's a fairly famous nature photographer/photojournalist. Ari T. Benchaim ( talk) 01:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Jacona above. Carrite ( talk) 21:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 14:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

The Untimely Gift

The Untimely Gift (  | 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)

despite being nominated for two awards, doesn't appear to be notable, never received critical coverage/reviews and doesn't appear otherwise to meet WP:NFILM PRAXIDICAE💕 14:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • This was somewhat difficulty to research because the ordinary nature of the search term brought up a lot of false positives. In the end, I couldn't find anything on newspapers.com, gSearch, GBooks, GNews, so Delete. Jacona ( talk) 13:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America 1000 14:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Duties of local government in the United Kingdom

Duties of local government in the United Kingdom (  | 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)

While a good idea for an article, Duties of local government in the United Kingdom currently has no references and one note. It is also extremely short and has had expansion tags on it since its creation in August 2019 (it also hasn't had any edits since then). The article Local government in England currently has more detail on the functions of various levels of local government in England, for instance. Therefore, I do believe it would be best if the article is deleted and any additional information on the duties of local government in the UK that any editor wishes to add in the future be added to the appropriate local government in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland article. FollowTheTortoise ( talk) 17:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. Shellwood ( talk) 17:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy merge/redirect Local government in England can cover this, without need for discussion about a largely empty page. Reywas92 Talk 17:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I don't think that it's best to have an article at the United Kingdom level about this, as the duties vary between the constituent countries of the UK, all but one of which have a devolved assembly/parliament and a functioning or non-functioning executive. Phil Bridger ( talk) 09:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 01:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect to Harry Turtledove bibliography. There is no consensus here that any book, or the series, has enough coverage to warrant an independent page. Instead there is consensus to redirect. Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Alternate Generals

Alternate Generals (  | 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 has two sources, both primary; searches on archive.org, newspapers.com, and google news turned up little, so I'm not seeing a WP:GNG pass. This could be redirected to Harry Turtledove bibliography, even though it's a collection? theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/ they) 20:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

I'm also nominating these two:

  • Redirect. If we can't find more sources for the three Alternate Generals books, we should redirect the three articles to the Harry Turtledove bibliography article as theleekycaudron said. While they might be story collections with most of the stories written by other authors, Harry Turtledove did edit and release them (though the first book was also edited by Roland J. Green and Martin H. Greenberg). I am a bit steamed about this, given I was the one who stopped the articles from being simply redirects in the first place a few years back and spent quite a bit of time fixing them up. JCC the Alternate Historian ( talk) 21:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep if they are combined? Redirect. I found the following coverage:
AG I: Review by Jackie Cassada, Library Journal, 1998-08-01, Vol.123 (13), p.140 (no online access)
AG II: Booklist Publishers Weekly PW passing mention Review by Sherry Hoy, Kliatt, Vol. 38, Issue 4, 2004, 161 wds (paywalled w/ no link)
AG III: Booklist Publishers Weekly
If we count PW as a source for NBOOK, that squeaks AG II and AG III over the line for WP:NBOOK. Because AG I is older, it seems likely that there is a second review for in print somewhere, probably in a specialist magazine. But the sourcing is pretty thin so I haven't entirely talked myself into a keep. I'd be more inclined to group them into one article. It would also be nice to check biographies of Turtledove and scholarship on the alternate history genre to see if those have more discussion of these collections. But there might not be much more to find. ~ L 🌸 ( talk)
@ LEvalyn: hmm, I'm not inclined to count the Publishers Weekly sources? Good finds, but I only see critical analysis/review to the extent that they come off just a smidge promotional. The Booklist coverage looks to be passing mentions. Even if Cassada's review is the stuff NBOOK reviews are made of, I'm not sure I see an NBOOK pass. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/ they) 18:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
theleekycauldron I think I agree though I'd quibble with how you're wording it. Neither PW nor Booklist are promotional sources to my eye, because they are always entirely independent reviews (not press releases). It doesn't make sense to call them passing mentions either since the books are the sole topic of the reviews. But I think you might be responding to the fact that these kinds of reviews are a bit WP:ROUTINE for books from reputable publishers, since almost every book gets some mention there, and I do agree that they are really marginal for NBOOK qualification. I prefer to only count starred reviews from Booklist/PW for NBOOK since those are the ones that express special notice being taken. I really wanted to talk myself into a keep here because the lists are well-done, but coming back to look at it again-- and with nobody turning anything up in eg biographies of Turtledove-- I think we only have two solid NBOOK reviews (Cassada and Hoy) for two different books, which is not enough for a keep. Changed my !vote above. ~ L 🌸 ( talk) 19:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 06:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Dangiuz

Dangiuz (  | 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)

He has done a lot of PR for himself, but no one can buy notability. No in-depth source to pass WP:GNG. Jsfodness ( talk) 03:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC) reply

As someone who tries to keep updated and create many criteria-meeting articles related to Digital Art/CryptoCurrency/NFTs, I'm quite surprised to see this one being nominated for AfD, as it's arguably one of the most notable digital artists and possibly the most famous Italian (digital) one. While I do realize the niche of the topic discussed, I'm gonna address the issues like the related article suggests. Some of the issues were already addressed and reviewed in past, in fact, there are many reliable sources in the article and a couple of new ones that still needs to be added. I'm gonna reference the missing ones below and I will be furthermore adding them to the article.
Vanity Fair [1]
GQ Italy [2]
GQ Japan [3]
WWD [4]
Fanpage.it [5]
Yahoo News [6]
  1. ^ "E adesso tutti a visitare MetaVanity". VanityFair.it (in Italian).
  2. ^ "Vanity Fair presenta MetaVanity, il primo museo nel Metaverso". gqitalia.it (in Italian).
  3. ^ "八村塁、バスケとファッションを語る──初プロデュースのアウター「ブラックサムライDC桜版kimono」は500枚限定！". gqjapan.jp (in Japanese).
  4. ^ "Vanity Fair Italy Presents New Metaverse Project". WWD.com.
  5. ^ "Piazza Gae Aulenti a Milano diventa una galleria d'arte digitale a cielo aperto". fanpage.it (in Italian).
  6. ^ "SuperRare is Coming to SoHo". news.yahoo.com.
___
My vote is KEEP. Always assume good faith, but some sources are 3 clicks away and really should be checked into before proposing an AfD. JohnnyCoal ( talk) 08:38, 8 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Every single of the english-speaking and italian sources you gave us does mention Dangiuz. As one of many. There is no WP:SIGCOV. Delete. Lurking shadow ( talk) 13:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC) reply
While this is partially true, this applies only to the six sources listed in the AfD discussion, and not to the other 35+ sources listed on the article itself. On top of that, even on the mentions, might be worth to mention that the main images in the given sources are in fact credited as Dangiuz's art works. Keep JohnnyCoal ( talk) 13:53, 8 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep The sources I see do grant WP:ARTIST notability. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 09:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

Keep WP:ARTIST notability is met exactly like in other related articles eg Sarah Zucker / XCOPY (artist) / Refik Anadol & more. Skyfullofstars96 ( talk) 09:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep per JohnnyCoal. Established artist. Multiple exhibitions, media coverage and commercial stats should be considered enough to pass WP:GNG. Alsl8920 ( talk) 22:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep how is this even an AfD? significant references and mentions and showcasing in museums. user ( User:Jsfodness) who proposed the AfD has been proposing about 100 AfD in one day and even got WP:ANI’d for doing so… probably vandalism. AlsPkY ( talk) 23:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America 1000 14:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Serious Tubes Networks

Serious Tubes Networks (  | 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)

Obscure stub AS whose entire basis for notability seems to be a peering error made by Global Crossing in 2011 that temporarily impacted one of their customers DefaultFree ( talk) 11:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC) reply

If it should be merged, then into the Pirate Party of Sweden, who owned the service. The Pirate Bay was just a site it hosted. // Julle ( talk) 20:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC) reply
I don't see how any substantial part of this would make sense in either of those articles. Both the Pirate Party of Sweden and the Pirate Bay are significant entities, and this is an ISP which has merely been a service provider to both of them. By merging it into those articles, we'd a) mark this content as more important is it currently is, putting it in front of more readers, who (as opposed to those who find the article now) hadn't asked to read about this ISP and b) add information which has a rather feeble connection to the topic of the article. I'd argue it would require more notability, not less, to be merged into e.g. The Pirate Bay. // Julle ( talk) 23:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply
If there's a nexus of ownership between Serious Tubes Networks and Pirate Party of Sweden, I think that would warrant at least a brief mention. But, otherwise, I agree. I'm having trouble finding a reliable source that would support the claim, and I don't have any relevant personal knowledge. DefaultFree ( talk) 06:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Absolutely, if ownership was part of the picture it could merit mentioning. But since the article doesn't suggest that it is ... That was just me misreading something, in my first comment. / Julle ( talk) 10:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that sourcing is not of sufficient quality Star Mississippi 02:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Zarakh Iliev

Zarakh Iliev (  | 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 hint of person's significance. Huge problems with WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Poor PR sources Bash7oven ( talk) 21:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Shellwood: please, research the link and sources more carefully. Basically non of the sources passes the criteria of independente reliable source with deep independent coverage of the subject - per WP:NRV. The Forbes link to profile is not RS as it is only a directory-type listing. Another Forbes link is forbidden in wikipedia (depreciated) as it is Forbes Contributor article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2014/01/25/stalins-bedtime-nightmare/#44565c1f54d3. Please read the rule here: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Forbes.
@ Edwardx: Yahoo News cannot be used at all as it is a press-release spam. Another link to Jpost doesn't meet Reliable source criteria, as it doesn't make any deep coverage, but only highlights some event and briefly mentions Zarakh. -- Bash7oven ( talk) 20:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment User Bash7oven seems to have nominated many articles on Russians purely out of spite. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment no meeting of WP:SIGCOV -- Bash7oven ( talk) 20:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep! You have nominated several articles by a statement for all the nominations! If you check out the article and the sources on Google, you will easily understand he is notable! —Natalie RicciNatalie 01:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I followed the Keep suggestions for some solid evidence and followed through with an additional search to verifiy what is being claimed, i.e. that our subject is "notable" or "clearly notable". And the verdict is in: Not by a long shot he is not!
What we have and can find: A couple of dead links such as this from "Richest Russian", a vanity website, or this; this "overview" of our subject's company Kievskaya Ploshchad in Bloomberg, but not about Iliev; we get a 2013 Moscow Times item about a Moscow shopping mall being sold to two buyers of whom our subject is one. Ah yes, the much invoked "Forbes profile"! It's actually nothing more than a laconic appearance in the Forbes list of 2022's billionaires, in which Iliev ranks #823. End of story. The whole contraption is an exercise in promotion, whether unwittingly or not. - The Gnome ( talk) 16:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, A check of the Russian Wikipedia page for this man shows that it is sourced entirely to vanity press, which needless to say is not a contributor to a GNG pass. I made a search in cyrillic, and I could only find what were obviously unreliable puff pieces. Maybe someone else could dig up something, but at the moment a GNG fail. The Gnome's source analysis above is persuasive on the sources cited by the 'Keep' arguments. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 23:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. clear consensus to keep and no active discussion occurring in the last three days. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarter ( talk) 02:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply

German trawler V 206 Otto Bröhan

German trawler V 206 Otto Bröhan (  | 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 any notability, just a name among many in some lists, and a standard entry in Lloyd's which doesn't indicate any notability. No actual reliable, indepth sources about this ship apparently. Perhaps there is a good redirect target? Fram ( talk) 12:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep First and foremost, all three sources meet WP:RS. Major warships of navies are generally well covered on Wikipedia. The auxiliary ships less so. This is one of a series of articles on WWII Vorpostenboote. There is enough material on most of them to create an article of at least start class. On the odd occasion where there isn't, then the ship doesn't get an article (see the enry for V 203 Heinrich Buermann). There may well be offline, or foreign language sources, with which to expand the article, as well as other online sources such as the Kriegsmarine war diaries which I recently added to WP:SHIPS/R#Kriegsmarine. Wikipedia is better for having the article than not having it. Mjroots ( talk) 12:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
      • Not saying "I told you so", but look how the article has been expanded. Mjroots ( talk) 10:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    • None of the three WP:RS are indepth though (which is required, I never argued that they weren't reliable), they are
      • [16] a two line entry in a ships database
      • [17] two very simple listings in a database
      • [18] an extremely passing mention
    • "One of a series of articles": yes, and most of the others seem to have the exact same sources with the exact same issues. Your hope that better sources exist is not sufficient to keep an article which currently clearly fails WP:N. Fram ( talk) 12:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
      • OK, Fram, we've both had our say. Shall we leave it to others to decide? Mjroots ( talk) 12:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
        • Well, you know the valid reasons to keep or delete (or redirect) an article, and instead you chose to start a strawman argument ("all three sources meet WP:RS", which wasn't disputed) and ignored the actual reason for deletion, that there aren't any reliable indepth sources. It's of course your right to stick to that position and not even try to show that this is a notable subject, but the closing admin is likely to simply ignore your "keep" then. Fram ( talk) 12:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
          • An you're the one that linked "No actual reliable, indepth sources about this ship apparently" to WP:RS and claimed that you never said the sources weren't reliable. I'm outta here. Mjroots ( talk) 12:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
            • That's why I said "reliable, indepth", not just "reliable". WP:GNG require significant coverage from reliable sources, but you have only provided trivial coverage from reliable sources. You know, the start of my deletion nomination, "No evidence of any notability"... Fram ( talk) 13:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist ( talk) 13:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Weak Keep change due to RS added by Nigel Ish and identified by Sturmvogel 66. Mztourist ( talk) 05:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I've found another source and expanded the article. Fram I invite you to withdraw this nomination. Mztourist, please look at the expanded article and consider whether or not you wish to change your !vote. Mjroots ( talk) 16:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    • I should withdraw this nom because you found some forum [19]? Oh, and some personal website [20]? Again, you need reliable, indepth sources, not on the one hand some reliable sources without significant coverage and on the ther hand a few more indepth sources which aren't reliable. Fram ( talk) 16:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
      • Just a comment in passing: the site is run by a Klaus Intemann, who doesn't appear to have published anything that would establish him as an expert in the field per WP:SPS (assuming this individual is the same Klaus Intemann appearing in Worldcat). As far as I can tell, it's just a hobbyist site. Parsecboy ( talk) 18:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
        • Mjroots not with the sources you have given, however the sources provided by Nigel Ish may tip my view. Mztourist ( talk) 06:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Lloyd's Register is quite a reliable source. The Banner  talk 16:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC) P.S.: Personal attacks and/or sour remarks do not make arguments stronger. Contrary... reply
    • Which isn't disputed. But how does that entry actually give any notability? It's just an entry in a register, some basic facts, not a n actual secondary source with indepth information about the ship. Lloyd's lists 1000s upon 1000s of ships in this shorthand manner. Fram ( talk) 17:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
      • Why do you try to shoot down one of the most essential, secondary, reliable sources? And to answer your snipe in the summary: yes. I checked in fact all the given sources. The Banner  talk 17:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
        • Because it is just a very short database entry amongst thousands of similar entries? It is a register of ships, for insurance purposes, of "all seagoing, self-propelled merchant ships of 100 gross tons or greater" (from our article). The current edition for all currently active ships runs to 5 big volumes. This is not a selective book, this is just a database. This doesn't mean it isn't reliable, but that it doesn't give any notability whatsoever to ships included in it. Simply existing is sufficient. Fram ( talk) 17:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
        • While I can't find the exact number of entries in Lloyds for the moment, the current merchant fleet alone, worldwide, is around 92,000 ships [21]. Fram ( talk) 17:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I've added a little more on her loss (in particular where she was scuttled) from a new RS and the date of her loss from Rohwer (also reliable). Paterson states that the ship is sometimes to have clashed with British paratroopers on D-Day but that this appears to be incorrect. I have also backed up some of the details for the ship in French Service from Jane's Fighting Ships. Nigel Ish ( talk) 18:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Long consensus has been to keep all commissioned military vessels. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 09:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Not this again... Consensus is that article subjects need to be notable, not that some groups have magical notability. A country nationalizing fishing ships and turning them into cannon fodder doesn't miraculously make that ship notable. Fram ( talk) 10:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep While the ship did have an uneventful wartime career, she is covered in some detail in Roche and Gröner, our two of our basic sources for French and German warships. But I'll let Mjroots add their info himself.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 03:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep I can't say that the nomination was wrong but discovery of new sources [22] would justify keeping the page. Georgethedragonslayer ( talk) 14:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It adds to our understanding of WWII, and more generally in how vessels move between roles, especially in the transition between war and peace, and gets away from a "Boy's Own" focus on the big vessels. Acad Ronin ( talk) 02:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep on the basis that it meets WP:GNG, not made up criteria like "all commissioned ships are notable" or "it adds to our understanding". - Indy beetle ( talk) 09:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply
And "Notability" is not a "Made-up criterion"? Acad Ronin ( talk) 11:56, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply
>Insert eye roll< Ok, replace "made up criteria" with "personal opinions lacking in wider consensus that account for much" - Indy beetle ( talk) 19:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 09:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

List of College Football on NBCSN commentators

List of College Football on NBCSN commentators (  | 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)

Remember late 2019 when a whole bunch of commentator pairing lists were given AFD's? Almost every commentator pairing list was brought up at some point. Some were kept, others were deleted, but this particular list was never mentioned once. Considering it stops about 4 years before the channel's closure, and the fact it has absolutely no sources whatsoever, I absolutely believe it should be deleted. 100.7.36.213 ( talk) 23:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus after two relists, and insufficient reason to relist for a third time per WP:RELIST. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarter ( talk) 02:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Martin Moloney

Martin Moloney (  | 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 appear to meet WP:GNG; in line with developing consensus at deletion discussions, meeting the sports-related notability guidelines is no longer sufficient in and of itself. Stifle ( talk) 08:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 11:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarter ( talk) 02:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Star Brand

Star Brand (  | 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 very subpar case of comic fancruft, pretty much all plot summary, even the publication history is mostly untouched and unreferenced. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. While I'd prefer a softdelete redirect over hard delete, I am not sure what would be a good target, given that this name refers to several objects within the Marvel Universe, connected to different comic book series. There also was a comic book series called Star Brand, but it doesn't appear to meet WP:NMEDIA. Lastly, lower case star brand is a term that, in academic literature, refers to top brands, and on the off chance this is kept, it needs to be renamed, as my BEFORE suggests the primary meaning of a star brand is related to management/economics, not pop culture. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Added some refs and removed the notability tag. A lot more refs still need to be added to bolster the various appearances and publication history but that does not seem like it would be too hard, there's a lot out there. Artw ( talk) 18:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC) reply
You are proving the existence of this entity, but not it's notability. Please let us know when you've written a reception section. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The existence of this entity is somthing you should already no from basic WP:BEFORE. Prior to the AfD the article already had significant material on the reception and publication history of the character/title, which you should know from reading the article. Consolidating some of that in a reception section may make that clearer but the article remains within WP:N regardless since significant coverage in reliable sources is present. Artw ( talk) 13:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Maybe we are looking at different articles. "Prior to the AfD the article already had significant material on the reception". Huh. Do quote that material. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Material related to the development, publication history and reception:
"The Star Brand was created by Marvel Comics editor-in-chief Jim Shooter to be the flagship series of the New Universe line. Mark Gruenwald's notes from the meeting in which the New Universe concept was fleshed out indicate that the original title was "Will Power", and that the name "Star Brand" was taken from an unused concept by Archie Goodwin."
"The series was originally written by Shooter. The New Universe had no budget with which to hire big-name talent, so it was to Shooter's surprise that John Romita, Jr. (a rising industry star) and Al Williamson (an esteemed comics veteran) volunteered to be the penciler and inker, respectively, of Star Brand. The stories followed protagonist Ken Connell in his struggle to use his near limitless power in the right way. Jim Shooter's run on Star Brand was unique in that, unlike nearly every other superhero comic up to that time, it was not told from omniscient point-of-view, and instead showed only Ken Connell's firsthand experiences. After issue #7, Shooter was fired from Marvel, and Romita and Williamson left the series. Star Brand was taken down to bi-monthly status, and consisted of fill-in issues for the next half year."
"John Byrne, at the prompting of New Universe editor Howard Mackie (a close friend of Byrne's), took over both the writing and breakdowns with issue #11. Shortly after, a meeting between Byrne, Mackie, and DP 7 writer Mark Gruenwald was held to come up with a plot device to raise interest in the New Universe. The idea of the Star Brand destroying Pittsburgh was devised at this meeting and implemented in The Star Brand #12. Following this issue, Ken Connell was reduced to a supporting character, and the series became a more generalized account of the effects of the Star Brand on humankind. The series was cancelled with issue #19."
"Following the dissolution of the New Universe imprint, Mark Gruenwald, the writer of the New Universe title DP7, used the Star Brand and other New Universe characters some years later in Quasar. He later used them in the Starblast limited series and crossover which ended when The Stranger used the Star Brand to move the Earth of the New Universe into orbit around his labworld."
"Writer Warren Ellis re-imagined the New Universe and has since named it newuniversal, portraying Kenneth Connell as the Star Brand, originally from Optima Down, Oklahoma. The origin of the Star Brand is central to the entire New Universe re-imagining. "
"Brand/New Universe creator Jim Shooter (Shooter had modeled many aspects of the Connell character on himself). Issued around the time of the downsizing of the New Universe line and Shooter's departure from Marvel, the scene in Legends depicts Sunspot/Connell/Shooter at one point exclaiming "I wield the ultimate power...the power to create a New Universe!", which was then followed by his accidentally shooting himself in the foot. This issue was written by John Byrne, who shortly thereafter returned to Marvel to take over the writing of the Star Brand comic itself."
"John Byrne, at the prompting of New Universe editor Howard Mackie (a close friend of Byrne's),[6][9] took over both the writing and breakdowns with issue #11. Shortly after, a meeting between Byrne, Mackie, and DP 7 writer Mark Gruenwald was held to come up with a plot device to raise interest in the New Universe. The idea of the Star Brand destroying Pittsburgh was devised at this meeting[9] and implemented in The Star Brand #12. Following this issue, Ken Connell was reduced to a supporting character, and the series became a more generalized account of the effects of the Star Brand on humankind. The series was cancelled with issue #19."
So it was pivotal to a new line of comics created by Jim Shooter, survived the firing of Shooter and that collapse of that line of comics to reappeared under multiple creative teams in multiple fictional universes, and was the lynchpin of the creative vision of at least one of them. It also had sufficient impact to be worth parodying. In addition and not quoted there's plenty of material on other appearances across multiple titles involving dozens of creators, muddled with a lot of in universe material but still significant. Absolutely seems a worthy basis of an article to me. Artw ( talk) 16:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Thanks. Now I think this can be rescued, but, sigh, work is needed. I think until the work is done, some sort of copyedit templates should remain in the article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Cut the condescension. You did not perform WP:BEFORE, to the extent that you did not even read the article. Please withdraw this AfD and any others that you have falsely claimed to have doen WP:BEFORE for. Artw ( talk) 12:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Totally unencyclopedic article (see WP:FANCRUFT). The argument that the piece requires to be renamed is also very sound (if this is kept, a request move procedure will be necessary). - GizzyCatBella 🍁 14:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC) reply
I'm not seeing it. 1) it's just two common words combined, that isn't particularly surprising 2) I can get three pages in to google results before seeing it used that way 3) If it was a thing how comes there's no article? Artw ( talk) 18:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Let this page stay. We have had different incarnations of Star Brand in Marvel Comics and it should be worth mentioning on this website somewhere. Plus, @ Artw: is right about his claims. -- Rtkat3 ( talk) 00:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 11:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

One other suggestion should the keeps fail would be redirecting the article to List of Marvel Comics characters: S. Right? -- Rtkat3 ( talk) 19:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Certainly. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:50, 28 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) MaxnaCarter ( talk) 02:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Gramogram

Gramogram (  | 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:DICDEF. Prod contested by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 20:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC) reply

*Delete. Agree with nominator. Not a dictionary. CT55555 ( talk) 21:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC) reply

I'm removing my delete due to the convincing argument of Lord Belbury CT55555 ( talk) 12:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Seems broader than a simple dictionary definition, given the half-sourced arts and culture section which the nominator deleted as trivia immediately before prodding the article last week. There's surely more to be said about their use in SMS language and possibly telegram style, also. -- Lord Belbury ( talk) 08:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Deletion based on nominator's gutting of it would set a dreadful precedent. Agree article could be improved, but deleting it on those grounds would also set an impossible precedent. -- Soundofmusicals ( talk) 03:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 11:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per above points, looks like it has enough content to be encyclopedic. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 20:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I knew that deletion of the IPC section was highly questionable, since it has secondary sources for some entries. However, the other content that is not in the current version was correctly deleted as OR. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 20:50, 31 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) MaxnaCarter ( talk) 02:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Serhiy Volynskyi

Serhiy Volynskyi (  | 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 coverage is quite collateral, not WP:SIGCOV. It is not uncommon for a commander to be named in the context of a military unit's actions, but that's not necessarily coverage of the individual. There is not much I could find that could be considered coverage of the individual per se. Ari T. Benchaim ( talk) 11:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect to 1881–82 FA Cup. History is under the redirect if sufficient sourcing is confirmed for this to be spun back out. At the moment, consensus is against that Star Mississippi 01:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Esher Leopold F.C.

Esher Leopold 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)

I redirected this to 1881–82 FA Cup, as all this club did was lose in a first round match in the FA Cup (playing the FA cup was no mark of distinction, all clubs could enter and many were supposed to play but never showed up anyway). No evidence that this is a notable organization, fails WP:NORG, only has routine coverage. Fram ( talk) 09:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep for the following reasons.

1. The criteria for notoriety in football are confusing. WP:FOOTYN seems to be the only attempt to create one and the club passes that as being a participant in a national - at the time, one of only three in the world - cup competition.

2. There needed to be some level of notoriety to participate in the Cup; a club needed to be a member of the FA and so needed to have the membership and the subs to do so. There were fewer entries to the Cup that year than there are current League clubs. I'm not drawing an exact one-to-one correspondence, but this was a club that had spun out of one that had won a tie the previous year, were unlucky enough to draw the holders in the first round, were not completely disgraced, and would at the very least have been the equivalent of a decent level non-league club today. There were dozens of clubs, currently in the League, who were around at the time and who did not enter the Cup.

3. That I have found nothing more about them does not mean that there is nothing more to find (I wonder if there was a name-change) but that would be better suited for someone closer geographically to check the sources, I cannot do so. One quick bout of research found that the club captain, Frederick Fricker, was still a teenager and became a professional photographer, there are surely more fruitful areas to get more details.

4. There are wikipedia articles on a number of clubs who played once in the first round of the FA Cup. They are all part of the gradual growth of the game and evidence of the quantum froth in the early part of the game as teams came in and out of existence, while club membership was a movable and non-exclusive feast.

5. The FA Cup match itself had full reports in at least four newspapers; the Field, the Referee, Athletic News, and (oddly) the Nottingham Evening Post. So it gained national (if specialist) coverage.

6. If there were a general catch-all page for FA Cup entrants in which the mayflies could be listed and described that would be perfect for this club, and many others; but that's obviously not wikipedia policy. So where else can an article about a short-lived, but briefly on the national stage, club go? There have been articles on clubs of a similar stature on wikipedia for years with nothing but the most basic details; I have fleshed some of them out, but nobody suggested deleting e.g. Saxons FC which for three years had a page looking like [ [23]]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by In Vitrio ( talk • contribs) 10:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

    • FOOTYN is not an accepted guideline; WP:NORG is. Not every subgroup of articles has their own dedicated notability guideline. As for the second point; FA cup was not only open to clubs in certain competitions or level of competitions, everyone who wanted could enter (e.g. here a brandnew club without any other standing: see also many other very minor clubs who participated in those first decades, or who folded before they could even play their schedule FA game). That many clubs didn't choose to enter is hardly an indication that those who did are more notable. You are basically claiming notability from a) an essay and b) through inheritance (FA cup is notable, so every team that competed is notable), which goes against WP:NOTINHERITED. That there are match reports for that one game is routine coverage, that their captain became a photographer is hardly a reason to believe this team to be notable. There is, until evidence of the opposite is shown, not a shred of evidence that this team has received indepth or sustained coverage, as required. Fram ( talk) 16:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
      But WP:NORG doesn't apply here - as it says in the first paragraph, "The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams." Emphases added. So we have to look elsewhere. And WP:FOOTYN seems as good a guideline as any.
      Or we look at the sports notability guideline does not have one for football, but does say "A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of significant coverage, that is, multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". So, this club had multiple published secondary sources, in national magazines and at least one regional newspaper which are not trivial, secondary, reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the club. There may have been others to which I have no access.
      However one puts it, this club participated in what was the number one tournament in the entire world. That is of itself notable. In Vitrio ( talk) 18:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
      If NORG doesn't apply, then we fall back on WP:GNG. Multiple articles about the same event (the one match in the FA cup), giving routine coverage of a match, are trivial though. And "the number one tournament in the entire world" is meaningless if the remainder of the world didn't care and the tournament was open to every English club which wanted to participate. If you compete in the Marathon of London, you don't become suddenly notable, even though that marathon is perhaps the most important of the yearly ones. Fram ( talk) 18:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
      Because the London Marathon has 20,000 participants, most of whom are not "competing" but taking part. This is different. Clubs did not come from nowhere, even poor hammered Farningham had matches before entering the FA Cup, and their captain learned the game at Charterhouse. There are pages on people who had one race in early NASCAR when it was a very bush league series; pages on clubs that have never made the first round of the FA Cup; pages on Canadian minor league baseball teams who had one season. This is a direct equivalent, if anything more prominent because so few clubs entered the FA Cup in those days. And someone out there may have more about them but won't know what or how it all comes together. In Vitrio ( talk) 18:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to 1881–82 FA Cup as sole claim to fame. Not independently notable. Giant Snowman 18:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    And that applies to lots of other teams - including a quarter-finalist. Does that mean all of those need to be deleted as well? And how helpful is it to take articles away? If you exclude teams that get further than the first round, isn't that basically putting it down to the luck of the draw? How about non-league teams that never made it this far? To pick a team at random, Eton Wick F.C. have an article; they were flagged in 2011 as "not notable as it has not been shown that this football team has competed in the FA Cup which is one of the criteria of Football team notability in England" but they are still there as having passed the threshold - despite being 12 promotions away from the League. You don't have to go far to find others of a similar low stature; Oakengates Athletic, Lambourn Sports, even the original Argonauts page was about a team which never existed (I added bits in about a separate club that did to avoid confusion).
    The easiest way for a consistent policy is to consider any team to have got so far as the 1st round of the FA Cup to be notable. Because they had enough about them to get into a national competition. And they were the subject of significant coverage (there was even at least one match preview in a national magazine), and played the Cup holders, which got them national attention. Given there were no leagues then, there is no other criterion by which to judge notoriety. In Vitrio ( talk) 08:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to 1881–82 FA Cup. They don't look to pass WP:GNG, but are a team mentioned in that article. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 07:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to 1881–82 FA Cup for now.

    But in general, I don't see why a general catch-all page for FA Cup entrants in which the mayflies could be listed and described as suggested by In Vitrio wouldn't work. List of FA Cup entrants/participants/whatever, with selection criteria of not already having a WP article of their own. I don't see any policy objection: WP:CSC bullet 2 says that Lists are commonly written to satisfy one of the following sets of criteria: ... Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles. A list isn't just a table of one-line entries: we are allowed descriptions of the items listed, see e.g. Grade II listed buildings in Brighton and Hove: M or the featured list that is List of places of worship in Brighton and Hove. cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 13:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep passes GNG.-- Ortizesp ( talk) 17:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarter ( talk) 02:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Idea (news agency)

Idea (news agency) (  | 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)

Single reference used which is (from my understanding) a list of publishers / publications in the area rather than something focussing specifically on the subject of the article. It may be that the references in the German version of the page can be used to expand the page and show notability. Gusfriend ( talk) 08:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 09:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

List of people on the postage stamps of Uruguay

List of people on the postage stamps of Uruguay (  | 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:LISTN. Largely abandoned, incorrect (e.g. the first stamp for Suarez is given as 1896, while it appeared in 1881), incomplete. Fram ( talk) 08:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Uruguay. Fram ( talk) 08:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as prodder. Same faults as all the other "lists of people on the postage stamps of X" list, as Fram elaborated on. No idea why this was deprodded. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The fact that we would have a list that states it is complete through 1960 is just plain insulting. If we are going to do something we should do it right. A list that is 62 years old is not doing things right. We do not have the multiple reliable sources that discuss this topic as a group to justify having this article. We are now down to only 120 of the 251 nations and territories of the world having such articles, and way too many (vritually all of them) are plagued by the same problems we see here. I am not convinced that anyone has ever convincingly argued why this is a notable topic and not List of animals on the postage stamps of Uruguay or List of buildings on the postage stamps of Uruguay. If people appearing on postage stamps of Uruguay has been discussed meaninfully in reliable sources we can say somethign about that in Postage stamps and postal history of Uruguay. I see no reason to have this article at all. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Even that article has now had a notice of giving undue weight to some topics for about 9 years. There is a lot of ultra niche coverage of philately in Wikipedia. Including way too many articles that say essentially "John Brown (1902-1994) was an American philatelist. He signed the role of distinguished philatelists in 1970 [1]" And that is the whole article, one sentence saying he was recognized by a group, sourced to the website of the group that gave the recognition. These are clearly not encyclopedic articles, especially in a general encyclopedia. These may in fact be notable philatelists, but we would need more sources showing broad coverage to demonstrate such. On the other hand, some of these people may in fact be notable for other things, but it is being entirely ignored. I have seen cases where an article on an Olympain neglected to mention they were in the national legislature of Tanzania, a country that currently has over 50 million people, to know that one problem with some stub biographies is that they focus too much on only one aspect of a person's life. Sports and politics are sometimes treated as the only thing that matters, even if a person was more notable for other endevors than their politcal contributions. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, all of these are unmaintained and unmaintainable, failing WP:LISTN. Jacona ( talk) 13:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. This is something for another kind of project, outside of Wikipedia. BD2412 T 21:48, 30 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! 05:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

List of people on the postage stamps of Bulgaria

List of people on the postage stamps of Bulgaria (  | 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:LISTN. Unsourced and abandoned since its creation in 2003, tagged as such since 2010. Apparently Bulgaria has not put any people on postage stamps since the 1930s, if one was to believe this article. Not of any use to readers, and luckily they don't care to read it either (25 pageviews in the last 90 days excluding one very anomalous spike). Fram ( talk) 08:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Bulgaria. Fram ( talk) 08:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is a relic of the wild-west style of Wikipedia that existed before about 2006 (although some allowances for too much article creation persisted. That we are still bringing articles created in 2003 that never had any substantial sources to discussion for deletion shows we have yet to overcome the poor decisions made during the early days of Wikipedia on how to include new articles.) John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Delete, same issues as all the other "lists of people on the postage stamps of X" articles. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 04:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete Fails WP:LISTN, and if the article has been abandoned since its creation all the way back in 2003, this is just dead wood that needs to be trimmed. TH1980 ( talk) 04:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, all of these are unmaintained and unmaintainable, failing WP:LISTN. Jacona ( talk) 13:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. This is something for another kind of project, outside of Wikipedia. BD2412 T 21:46, 30 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. Per relatively low participation here for all of these articles, closing with no prejudice against speedy renomination of each article as standalone discussions (having only one discussion for each separate article). North America 1000 13:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Davidkhanian Mansion

Davidkhanian Mansion (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
David Khan (diplomat) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alexander Khan Setkhanian (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Meguertitch Khan Davidkhanian (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Markar Khan Davidkhanian (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Eskandar Khan Davidkhanian (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Martiros Khan Davidkhanian (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tsatur Khan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Set Khan Astvatsatourian (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a series of articles about the Davidkhanian family created by now blocked editor TheEdgarBox ( talk + · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser). They are a mess. Most of the articles' text has little to do with the actual subject of the article itself. The images are all nominated for deletion because the tags were false.

The sourcing is highly questionable, at best. Nearly everything of substance in several of the articles appears to be derived from the Alice Navasargian book Immortals, which is self-published and not reliable. ( See page 9 for confirmation of self publishing).

If any of these subjects are notable, we would be best served by deleting these articles and starting over. agtx 18:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Iran. Shellwood ( talk) 19:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all There is not enough sourcing to justify any of these. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I just looked at one of the articles Alexander Khan Setkhanian, seems like it has adequate amount of sources to have its own article. ZaniGiovanni ( talk) 11:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ ZaniGiovanni: But did you look at the references? Nearly all of the supporting references for sentences about the subject of the article (as opposed to general propositions about history) are from the self published Navasargian book. The citations to the Zia-Ebrahimi piece are likewise forged. The article is a short book review that does not support any of the statements it's cited for. agtx 16:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

  • Keep Nominating all of these together was a mistake imo. Several of the subjects do appear to be notable, and the articles all contain multiple published sources besides the self-published book. The nominator has not made a convincing case that these other sources do not demonstrate notability in any of the articles. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 13:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Ficaia: Can you help me understand which sources you're looking that support notability? Not all of the sources are readily available, but there is a serious forgery problem here (see explanation of Zia-Ebrahimi piece above). If there are particular ones you find convincing, I will try to track them down. agtx 21:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    I think the issue is that the book by Zia Ebhrahimi contains much information about the family, while the article in the historical review about the book is a mis-citation meant to cite the book itself. The citation should be changed to the book. 169.232.70.99 ( talk) 02:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC) — 169.232.70.99 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

2021 White Plains mayoral election

2021 White Plains mayoral 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)

Fails WP:NEVENT. In particular, the event lacked significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group and the scope of sources that covered it were of limited geographic scope. There was relatively little coverage, which makes sense considering the election was wholly uncontested. Per WP:EVENTCRIT, the above indicates that the event is likely non-notable. Since this event fails to meet the relevant notability guideline, the article should be deleted along the lines of WP:DEL-REASON#8. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 05:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete Elections in U.S. suburbs with population under 100,000 tend not to be notable. If you think it is, you need to have more info and sources than just the results data. Reywas92 Talk 13:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. and Reywas92. Fails WP:NEVENT. Sal2100 ( talk) 20:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete city elections in a city that is a smaller city in an area dominated by a much larger city (New York City just to the south has over 10 times the population of White Plains, There are 3 cities in Westchester County that have more people than White Plains (Yonkers, New Rochelle and Mount Vernon) Yonkers is over 3 times the size of White Plains. Westchester County has over 1 million people, White Plains 59,000, so less than 10% of the county population lives in White Plains, as mentioned New York City which borders Westchester County on the south has over 8 million people. This is also one town in Westchester County that has 95,000 people. So there is nothing to suggest an election in White Plains will be of regional interest. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

2017 White Plains mayoral election

2017 White Plains mayoral 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)

Fails WP:NEVENT. In particular, the event lacked significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group and the scope of sources that covered it were of limited geographic scope that involved the routine local coverage of an election in a medium-sized municipality. Per WP:EVENTCRIT, this indicates that the event is likely non-notable. Since this event fails to meet the relevant notability guideline, the article should be deleted along the lines of WP:DEL-REASON#8. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 05:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and New York. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 05:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Elections in U.S. suburbs with population under 100,000 tend not to be notable. If you think it is, you need to have more info and sources than just the results data. Reywas92 Talk 13:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. and Reywas92. Fails WP:NEVENT. Sal2100 ( talk) 20:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete city elections in a city that is a smaller city in an area dominated by a much larger city (New York City just to the south has over 10 times the population of White Plains, There are 3 cities in Westchester County that have more people than White Plains (Yonkers, New Rochelle and Mount Vernon) Yonkers is over 3 times the size of White Plains. Westchester County has over 1 million people, White Plains 59,000, so less than 10% of the county population lives in White Plains, as mentioned New York City which borders Westchester County on the south has over 8 million people. This is also one town in Westchester County that has 95,000 people. So there is nothing to suggest an election in White Plains will be of regional interest. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

2013 White Plains mayoral election

2013 White Plains mayoral 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)

Fails WP:NEVENT. In particular, the event lacked significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group and the scope of sources that covered it were of limited geographic scope and involved the routine local coverage of an election in a medium-sized municipality. Per WP:EVENTCRIT, this indicates that the event is likely non-notable. The article should be deleted in line with WP:DEL-REASON#8, since this event fails to meet the relevant notability guideline. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 05:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and New York. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 05:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Elections in U.S. suburbs with population under 100,000 tend not to be notable. If you think it is, you need to have more info and sources than just the results data. Reywas92 Talk 13:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. and Reywas92. Fails WP:NEVENT. Sal2100 ( talk) 20:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete city elections in a city that is a smaller city in an area dominated by a much larger city (New York City just to the south has over 10 times the population of White Plains, There are 3 cities in Westchester County that have more people than White Plains (Yonkers, New Rochelle and Mount Vernon) Yonkers is over 3 times the size of White Plains. Westchester County has over 1 million people, White Plains 59,000, so less than 10% of the county population lives in White Plains, as mentioned New York City which borders Westchester County on the south has over 8 million people. This is also one town in Westchester County that has 95,000 people. So there is nothing to suggest an election in White Plains will be of regional interest. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Who cares. Why are you actively trying to prevent information from being collected, catalogued, and shared. I put in all this work making a really nice presentation of the data for all the White Plains Mayoral elections on record and you go ahead a delete it because you think its small and irrelevant. You people are losers and gatekeepers, simple as. Guy Hanes ( talk) 21:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC) reply
You are a loser. Guy Hanes ( talk) 21:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 05:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

List of people on the postage stamps of Burundi

List of people on the postage stamps of Burundi (  | 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)

Survived a prod in 2009 despite having only two people on it. In the eleven years since, the list hasn't changed one iota, just like all these other "list of people on the postage stamps of X" articles. This is almost speedy-worthy but it doesn't fit into any of the categories Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 04:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Boris Bondarev

Boris Bondarev (  | 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:BLP1E. Only time WP:RS mention him is for his resignation. Firestar464 ( talk) 04:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Weak Keep Could develop more medial receiption as a dambuster in russian retreats. Ｔｏｍ ( talk) 09:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

The proposal of ansh definitely makes sense. Agree. --united we are strong, says Landkraft 09:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep. This Russian career diplomat has been widely reported in the media around the free world and the Russian invasion of Ukraine will be always a main topic in world history and the history of Europe. NAIDEPIKIW NONA ( talk) 11:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

You might wanna have a read of BLP1E. Firestar464 ( talk) 01:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep. -way too fast to delete. It is true that -at the moment- WP:RS sources all over the world mention him only in the context of his resignation. WP:BLP1E states: We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:

  • If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
  • If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
  • If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented.

Bondarev is hardly a low-profile individual and this is no insignificant event. He can still be included on Protests against the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Politicians and government officials-- Wuerzele ( talk) 12:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • He was basically unmentioned in any sources before this event, and he's certainly not the only Russian official to resign. We wouldn't write an article Resignation of Boris Bondarev. ansh. 666 15:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep — to avoid, e.g., a situation, where information on him (his deeds) can be found only via Wikipedias in other languages... ☆☆☆—Pietadè Talk 13:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep. Definitely! Wikipedia shall provide important, useful, correct information to the people. It is very important that a senior member of the Russian diplomacy has acted as he has done. It is very useful to know that also among high level Russian civil servants there are mixed attitudes to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. He has made it to the front page of a huge number of newspapers. From a quick look at Google, it may seem that more than 100 000 web pages have mentioned Boris Bondarev. It would be very strange if Wikipedia should refuse to let people know who this person is.

The "Subjects notable for only one event" guideline is not absolute. Lee Harvey Oswald is known only for one event, and yet nobody would dream about removing his Pikipedia pages in more than 50 languages.

Wikipedia has set aside space for hundreds of curling players. It would be very strange to deny space for a person who contributes to changing world history.

The English-language Wikipedia article about Boris Bondarev has already been expanded and tweaked by several Wikipedia contributors. Obviously all these see the article as important enough for spending time on improving it.

Wikipedia articles about Boris Bondarev are now appearing in several other languages than English. Obviously there are lots of Wikipedia contributors who see Boris Bondarev as important enough for writing about him.

Joreberg ( talk) 13:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

WP:ATA (your arguments fall under many of these categories), plus sports players have their own notability criteria, and Boris isn't one. Firestar464 ( talk) 01:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep per Wuerzele.-- A09090091 ( talk) 19:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

I wouldn't object to what he's saying but this article should at the very least be merged with Protests against the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Firestar464 ( talk) 01:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep The subject has received notable coverage. ArsenalGhanaPartey ( talk) 02:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep Subject has received notable coverage. Autarch ( talk) 04:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply

For only one event (resigning). Firestar464 ( talk) 06:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep It's entirely possible, likely even, that his resignation will lead to other noteworthy events that will further justify this page's existence. Even if that wasnt the case, a diplomat to Geneva isn't a trivial role, and Wikipedia contains numerous pages of living persons who serve analogous roles. In fact, this Wikipedia has an article for nearly every American ambassador to Geneva and Switzerland from the last 100 years. Why wouldn't we have a page for a Russian diplomat serving the same role, who, in addition to serving this role, resigned in protest of the government's actions in a country where dissent is historically harshly punished? I see absolutely no reason to delete this article, even if nothing else were to come of this. DeVosMax [ contribs • talk • created media ] 10:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply

I agree with you. Help keep Boris safe Wikipedians. NAIDEPIKIW NONA ( talk) 10:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Dude, it's not about liking the page...I commend what the dude has done but it's not about how much you like him. Firestar464 ( talk) 02:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
WP:OSE. Just because one thing exists doesn't mean that the other should. Besides, I had a look at many of the articles in the list you provided, and many did more than "just resign." Firestar464 ( talk) 02:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep -Notwithstanding mentions of BLP1E- a major 1E with an immensely important context. BB far exceeds importance of many BLP0E articles out there (which do not necessarily need culling). Following on from User:DeVos Max, perhaps we need a list of Russian Ambassadors to Switzerland &c. Yadsalohcin ( talk) 14:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply

I do not see formal compliance with rules, but this is one of the cases when we can have an exception WP:5P5. Keep. Is my decision biased? Yes. Are most of the above as well? I think so. With regards, Oleg. Y. ( talk). 16:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi, could you please elaborate? Why is the exception useful? Firestar464 ( talk) 00:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Of course. Saying no to Putin nowadays the way he did may mean 15 years in jail. He was brave enough to do it. With regards, Oleg. Y. ( talk). 01:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply
So your argument is basically " I admire him." That does not indicate suitability for inclusion. Wikipedia is not a fan blog. Firestar464 ( talk) 03:12, 31 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) Atlantic306 ( talk) 20:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Maximum Drive

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

Very few hits on ProQuest. Prod contested on basis of LA Times article, which only passingly covers the show Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 03:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. "'Maximum' racers compete for gold cup during playoffs". The Olympian. 1994-11-03. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "In the final two weeks of competition, kids representing three of twelve remaining teams on the new Family Channel sports competition show "Maximum Drive," psyche themselves up to battle to the end during the Thanksgiving playoffs. Competing to separate the turkeys from the Wolves, Cobras, Bats and nine other wild animal teams, contestants age 10-14 rev their engines to discover which sports team has the ability to out-think, out-maneuver and out-pace their opponents for the coveted gold cup."

    2. "FAM's 'Maximum Drive' gets kids' feet wet for summer fun". The Olympian. 1995-05-15. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: ""Splish, splash!" this summer with sopping-wet adventures on The Family Channel's "Maximum Drive." When kids gear down for summer fun, "Maximum Drive" makes waves in a personal water craft competition, called the "Ball Drop" race. Also featuring competitions employing two- and four-wheeled motor vehicles, a six-wheeled amphibious motor vehicle and a hovercraft, "Maximum Drive" roars into action 5 p.m. Mondays through Fridays, 9:30 a.m. Saturdays and 10:30 a.m. Sundays on The Family Channel. The "Ball Drop" race, a hybrid sport engaging a personal water craft, ... The results are wild, considering 15 teams of contestants ages 10 to 14 years."

    3. "'Turkey Toons' features cartoons, kids' game shows". Oshkosh Northwestern. 1994-11-18. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Start your motors at 11 a.m. and 4 p.m. for "Maximum Drive," where kids compete on two- and four-wheeled motor vehicles, a six-whelled amphibious motor vehicle, a Hovercraft and a Jet Ski. In the new original 30-minute game show, host Joe Fowler ("Coach") and co-hosts Brian "The Verm" Vermiere and Mercedes Colon cheer for child contestants racing around the track, over the wall, through the mud hole, atop the lake and into the winner's circle for the coveted gold cup. "Maximum Drive" airs regularly at 4 p.m. weekdays, with encores at 8:30 a.m. Saturdays and 9:30 a.m. Sundays."

    4. Farren, Julie (1994-10-11). "Driving ambition. Ten-year-old dirt bike enthusiast from Devore puts his driving skills to the test on TV's 'Maximum Drive.'". The San Bernardino Sun. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "But the 10-year-old boy faced a bigger challenge this summer as a contestant on the Family Channel show, "Maximum Drive." As one of the 45 contestants on the program emphasizing safety and off-road vehicle racing, Jeff learned to steer a six-wheel war wagon called an Aro. ... Filming took place on one of the back lots at Universal Studios Hollywood. Jeff and his family commuted from his Devore home to Universal Studios five days a week for a little more than two weeks last August. ... Five half-hour shows were taped each day and Jeff was featured in one out of every five shows. Each show featured three teams of contestants ages 10 to 14. The three-member teams would compete in a variety of races featuring off-road vehicles. ... The Argo relay, which featured the six-wheel war wagon, also was a challenging and sometimes messy race for the kids."

    5. Less significant coverage:
      1. "Animated live-action shows both on the bill". The Indianapolis Star. 1994-09-04. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28 – via Newspapers.com.

        The article notes: "Maximum Drive: Weekdays, Saturdays, Sundays on Family Channel (premiered Aug. 29). Kids propel themselves through obstacles in 40 episodes with host Joe Fowler."

      2. Gill, Suzanne (1994-08-28). "Family Channel spins two new game shows". San Angelo Standard-Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28 – via Newspapers.com.

        The article notes: ""Maximum Drive" takes young competitors outdoors for tests of strength, endurance, skill and teamwork on an auto-themed race course. At the end of each half-hour, one contestant is declared the champion. The show is produced by Vin di Bona Productions, makers of "America's Funniest Home Videos.""

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

    Cunard ( talk) 05:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: Pinging Donaldd23 ( talk · contribs), who removed the proposed deletion. Cunard ( talk) 07:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the multiple sources identified by Cunard above. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - the sources identified by Cunard do the job. I found a couple of more but nothing better than those; in any case, they provide sufficient significant coverage in independent reliable sources to satisfy GNG. Jacona ( talk) 14:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Mayors of Bergenfield, New Jersey

Mayors of Bergenfield, New Jersey (  | 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 small-town mayors. Fails WP:NLIST Rusf10 ( talk) 01:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, and New Jersey. Rusf10 ( talk) 01:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I am not sure there is any place with under 30,000 people we need to have a list of mayors of. Clearly not in the case of a place this size in any country in the New York City metro region. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. and John Pack Lambert. Lacks significant coverage in reliable independent sources as a group, thus fails WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. Sal2100 ( talk) 22:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, these lists of mayors are routine, don't have significant independent coverage, are difficult to maintain, and aren't particularly useful. Jacona ( talk) 14:07, 29 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! 05:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Mayor of Verona, New Jersey

Mayor of Verona, New Jersey (  | 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 small-town mayors, not notable and clearly fails WP:NLIST Rusf10 ( talk) 01:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, and New Jersey. Rusf10 ( talk) 01:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is part of one of three odd almost walled gardens of overly detailed local coverage in Wikipedia. The New Jersey one has been pruned a little, but there is still too much. There is also the Lousiana one that I believe ended in the creator being blocked. Then there is Dedhamania, focused not on local coverage throughout a state, but leading to way too much coverage of Dedham, Massachusetts. Just look at how many articles we have on the history of that place. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The creator of this article was also banned.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 01:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. and John Pack Lambert. Fails WP:NLIST, and sources aren't enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Sal2100 ( talk) 22:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or Merge Patapsco913 ( talk) 03:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, these lists of mayors are routine, don't have significant independent coverage, are difficult to maintain, and aren't particularly useful. Jacona ( talk) 14:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There doesn't seem to be any agreement whether or not list articles such as these are suitable. An RfC might be suitable moving forward. Some of the arguments from both sides are somewhat weak and making it difficult to determine consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Mayors of Ramsey, New Jersey

Mayors of Ramsey, New Jersey (  | 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 small-town mayors. Not otherwise notable and poorly sourced. Fails WP:NLIST Rusf10 ( talk) 01:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep "Not otherwise notable" notable is subjective. Useful for people researching nation, state and town history as well as new references. "poorly sourced" History books and news articles reflect the basic facts of the start of end dates of their terms as well as names.

jjrj24 ( talk) 11:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be an indiscriminate collecton of all knowledge. A detailed listing of every mayor of a place with under 20,000 people within the New York City Metro Area is clearly a case of a detailed indiscrminate listing of everything. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
How could such a list be indiscriminate when its parameters are very clear and very specific? Djflem ( talk) 03:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. and John Pack Lambert. Fails WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. Sal2100 ( talk) 21:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per (bold mine) plus fact that city size is not a Wikipedia policy-based criteria and that Wikipedia lists do not require persons, places, things on lists to be individually notable. Per cited WP:NLIST, "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y")", such as this one which is well-organised.
    • Wikipedia:SALAT: This list fulfills objective as it is limited in size and topic and is not trivial and is encyclopedic and related to human knowledge
    • Wikipedia:LISTPURP #1: This list fulfills requirement because the list structured around a theme and is annotated.
    • Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA: This list fits this criteria because listed items fit its narrow scope and are topically relevant making it encyclopedic, comprehensive (and possibly) complete.
    • Wikipedia:NOTDIR#1: This list does not contravene this policy as it is not a loosely associated topic and its entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic.
    • Wikipedia:CSC: This list fulfills this criteria explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles. There is parent article in which it can be embedded for a merge, but would overwhelm that article. Djflem ( talk) 03:54, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Djflem Patapsco913 ( talk) 03:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I was about to relist the discussion, but felt it would be better to comment here. I think an RfC is in order because there is a wide variety of views about the notability of these lists. On one hand is the argument made by Djflem (above) suggesting that the topic does meet the criteria set up in WP:NLIST and there are other editors who believe that lists of mayors need to show "some evidence of reliable source coverage about the people, not just to content self-published by the place's own municipal council," and other editors point to the size of the municipality as justification to reject the list article. These are underlying policy questions that cannot be fully resolved in deletion discussions. -- Enos733 ( talk) 16:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nominator. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I totally agree that Wikipedia should not contain indiscriminate lists - and this list is decidedly not indiscriminate. Looking at the list criteria, all known mayors of not only a specific city, but part of that city, means this list is actually very selective. A list of every mayor in the U.S would be indiscriminate. There is no good reason why this list should be deleted. MaxnaCarter ( talk) 01:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Comment@ Such-change47:, @ Djflem:, @ Patapsco913: Here are one [24], two [25] AFDs, both closed just one month ago for List of Mayors from. None had one single notable person listed. Both ended in deletion. One of those towns was population 15 thousand something, the other 41 thousand something. What makes Ramsey New Jersey, population under 15,000, so special? ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC) reply
      Past AFD closures can be indicative, but they are not binding on future AFDs. MaxnaCarter ( talk) 00:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply
      Population/municipality size is not a policy-based criteria and is simply a Wikipedia:I just don't like it, which is Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Djflem ( talk) 03:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply
      • No, that's actually a valid point. The mayor of a large city can be presumed notable, the mayor of a little town cannot be, you're going to have to find a lot of sources to prove this is a list of notable people. WP:NLIST states the eithier the group as a whole or the individual people must be notable, I don't see either here.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 13:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Pointing to Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF as above is not a valid AfD argument. Djflem ( talk) 19:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:NOTPAPER. I'm pretty skeptical of Wikipedia editors doing original-research-by-synthesis with complicated list criteria, but a list of mayors is the kind of thing that's acceptable. Yes, it's a small town - so what? As long as valid sources exist, it's fine. SnowFire ( talk) 02:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - these type of lists, as long as they are sourced, form a valuable, if tiny, resource for researchers. Onel5969 TT me 12:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Not a policy-based reason, see WP:VALUABLE-- Rusf10 ( talk) 20:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply
See Wikipedia:LISTPURP: The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists Djflem ( talk) 05:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Similar to Enos733, I came here to close, but felt better to contribute. While often true across AfD more than we would like, I get the sense that particularly with this topic, depending on who turns up to these AfDs will determine the outcome. IMHO, Djflem's points are very persuasive on the basis of policy and I see nothing here that has successfully refuted that contribution, yet, I'm certainly aware that there are community tendencies that see these lists as not notable as WilliamJE's citing of other AfDs shows. I would support Enos733's call for a more general RFC. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 22:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Week keep Could possibly be merged into Ramsey,_New_Jersey#Local_government, but it also seems reasonable that WP:LISTPURP is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The idea that we would have lists - complete with WP:BLP implications - of mayors of towns of less than 15,000 people seems wildly out of line with our current practices and standards around lists or how we handle politicians. I would not be opposed to MrsSnoozy's suggestion of a merge, but this doesn't meet our current handling of this topic area as demonstrated by the AfDs noted above. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) MaxnaCarter ( talk) 02:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Dr. Henry's Emergency Lessons for People

Dr. Henry's Emergency Lessons for People (  | 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)

While the series won an Emmy, I was unable to find any reliable source coverage. All of the hits on ProQuest are just obituaries on either Henry J. Heimlich (who was apparently a consultant) or of one cartoonist who worked on the show. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 01:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Comics and animation. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 01:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment There's also a paywalled New York Times article about him, [26]. I assume it would add to notability for the individual, not sure about the TV show. Also a very brief mention in an animation book, confirming the Emmy win [27] Oaktree b ( talk) 01:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - per Emmy Award win (and Oaktree's sourced confirmation of it). matt91486 ( talk) 14:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Keyword "brief mention". Emmy wins aren't inherently notable if there's no other coverage on the show. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Winners of major awards generally confer notability. matt91486 ( talk) 15:48, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I've pulled up Henry Heimlich's obituaries from 2016, no mention of the TV show in the Lancet and the NY Times. It could be redirected to his article. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. "Series offers children first aid lessons". Kenosha News. 1980-01-05. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "The series, titled "H.E.L.P.!!" (Dr. Henry's Emergency Lessons for People), entertains and instructs young viewers on how to be knowledgeable "calm reactors" in situations requiring fast first-aid responses. The 60-second segments prepared in consultation with noted physician Dr. Henry Heimlich, will air twice each Saturday — between 8:30 and 9 a.m. during "The Plasticman Comedy/Adventure Show" and between 10 and 10:15 a.m. during the broadcast of "Scooby and Scrappy Doo." So far, four segments have been completed and have been appearing on an irregular basis since the fall of 1979. Others are being planned for the future. Illustrator Rowland Wilson has created characters who respond to emergency situations ranging from the treatment of drowning victims to remedies for cuts, burns and bumps. Each of the segments begins with the sound of an accident happening in an otherwise quiet, tree-lined community."

    2. Hoffman, Steve (1980-02-02). "'HELP' Speaks To The Young". The Cincinnati Enquirer. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Dr. Henry Heimlich was offered the chance to create the medically oriented but humorous "HELP" spots in ABC's Saturday morning children's programs. The offer came last spring while he was making a New York appearance on "Kids Are People, Too." Thus far, four spots have aired—ones dealing with burns, drowning, cuts and head injuries. Among 10 upcoming spots are ones about acute appendicitis, fractured limbs, allergies and skin conditions. ... He is involved in "HELP" through the entire production, from approving final storyboards all the way to the animation sketches."

    3. Less significant coverage:
      1. "Fall Kids' Lineup Scheduled by ABC". Asbury Park Press. 1979-07-08. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28 – via Newspapers.com.

        The article notes: "Additionally, Mr. Rushnell announced the production of a new series of health/emergency spots for children, titled "H.E.L.P.!!" Prepared in cooperation with Dr. Henry Heimlich, "H.E.L.P.!!" (Dr. Henry's Emergency Lessons for People) is a series of funny, clever and informative animated first-aid lessons."

      2. Fincher, Cheryl (1981-05-20). "Doctor makes saving lives fun". The Macon News. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28 – via Newspapers.com.

        The article notes: "Help! Someone needs Dr. Henry's emergency lessons for people!" On Saturday morning, between "Scooby Doo" and "Plastic Man" cartoons, you can hear this cry for help. For those more than 10 years old, Dr. Henry, of the Saturday morning animated information minute, is better known as Dr. Henry Heimlich, the originator of the Heimlich maneuver, a life-saving technique for choking victims. ... This led him to originate the one-minute animated cartoon to teach medicine to children called "H.E.L.P." (or Dr. Henry's Emergency Lessons for People). The popular series appears nationally on children's shows on the ABC-TV network. It received an Emmy for Best Children's Informational Program-Short Form for 1980."

      3. Perlmutter, David (2018). The Encyclopedia of American Animated Television Shows. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. p. 274. ISBN  978-1-5381-0374-6. Retrieved 2022-05-28 – via Google Books.

        The book notes that H.E.L.P.! aired from 1979 to 1980. It says the studios were 8 Films, Dahlia, and Phil Kimmelman, the distributor was ABC, the executive producers were Ken Greengrass and Phil Lawrence, and the producer was Lynn Ahrens. The book notes: "A series of educational vignettes similar to the same network's Schoolhouse Rock (q.v.). The title was an acronym for Dr. Henry's Emergency Lessons for People, as the focus of the vignettes was first aid and general safety. The series won an Emmy Award in 1980."

      4. Oliver, Myrna (2005-07-11). "Rowland B. Wilson, 74; Playboy Cartoonist, Disney Animator". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28.

        The article notes: "As an animator, Wilson won a daytime Emmy Award in 1980 for his work on ABC’s “HELP! Dr. Henry’s Emergency Lessons for People” and worked on educational animation, including the television series “Schoolhouse Rock.”"

      5. Chawkins, Steve (2016-12-16). "Henry Heimlich, doctor who invented lifesaving anti-choking procedure, dies at 96". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28.

        The article notes: "In 1980, his TV series for children, “H.E.L.P!: Dr. Henry’s Emergency Lessons for People,” won a daytime Emmy Award."

      6. McFadden, Robert D. (2016-12-17). "Dr. Henry J. Heimlich, Famous for Antichoking Technique, Dies at 96". The New York Times. Retrieved 2022-05-28.

        The article notes: "His animated series for children, “Dr. Henry’s Emergency Lessons for People,” won an Emmy in 1980."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Dr. Henry's Emergency Lessons for People to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 04:48, 28 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) MaxnaCarter ( talk) 02:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Second Honeymoon (TV series)

Second Honeymoon (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)

Prod contested with sources, but one of the two is just a local human-interest story about a contestant, and the second is a press release. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 01:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Gooch, Donna (1987-09-18). "Kids tattle on parents in new show". The Iola Register. Archived from the original on 2022-05-27. Retrieved 2022-05-27 – via Newspapers.com.

      The review notes: "Kids get to spill the beans on Mom and Dan in an unusual new game that gets the entire family involved. The tots tell true tales on their folks by answering questions about things such as what the parents are like at home, who pays the bills, who's the real boss, and how the money is spent. ... With children on board to tell all, it's a spontaneous show that can prove embarrassing, touching and very funny."

    2. "Game show gives away second honeymoons". The Danville News. 1987-10-23. Archived from the original on 2022-05-27. Retrieved 2022-05-27 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "There's nothing second hand about the prize given away on television's newest game show. "Second Honeymoon" offers just that — a dream escape to Rio or Rome, Venice or Venezuela — for the winning couple. "Second Honeymoon" airs exclusively on CBN Cable Network. ... Children and their parents are the contestants on "Second Honeymoon." In the only game show that includes children, family members show how well (or how little) they know each other."

    3. Rebalski, Nick (1987-08-13). "Our town's got fun families, say new game show producers". Vancouver Sun. Archived from the original on 2022-05-27. Retrieved 2022-05-27 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "It's called Second Honeymoon, the latest inspiration from veteran Los Angeles game show host Wink Martindale and his production partner Jerry Gilden. ... The new show is loosely based on the others, but now the whole family gets involved. Mom and Dad are kept out of earshot while their kids collaborate on the answers to a couple of questions about each parent; if the parents come up with identical answers, they earn points. The parents with the most points at the end of the show win a one-week "second honeymoon" to such romantic locales as Paris, Hong Kong, New Orleans and Disney World. The kids get a week of great house parties."

    4. Horwood, Holly (1987-06-29). "Just Not Too Game". The Province. Archived from the original on 2022-05-27. Retrieved 2022-05-27 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article note: "Producer Tony Blake said it's Seattle families who are jockeying for a spot on the daily game show called Second Honeymoon. ... Kids will be asked which actor they think their dad would pick to portray his life, and what they think their mum would do if she discovered someone damaging garments in a clothing store."

    5. Mallette, Michelle (1987-11-25). "Kids win a second honeymoon". Chilliwack Progress. Archived from the original on 2022-05-27. Retrieved 2022-05-27 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "A Chilliwack couple is taking a second honeymoon to Alaska, thanks to BCTV's newest game show. Donna and Don Kozak and their three daughters competed on the family game show, Second Honeymoon, on Nov. 7 in Vancouver. ... Taping of Second Honeymoon is done only once a week. On the day of the Kozaks' taping, four other shows were recorded. With three families per show, 15 families were needed for one day."

    6. Schreiner, John (1987-08-31). "Meta hopes Second Honeymoon secures future". National Post. Archived from the original on 2022-05-27. Retrieved 2022-05-27 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "About 1,100 shareholders, including Bank of Nova Scotia, are counting on a pleasant Second Honeymoon with Meta Communications Group Inc., Vancouver. Second Honeymoon is the name of a television game show that Meta's subsidiary, Northern Lights Media Corp., puts into production next week in Vancouver. The plans call for 65 episodes with a total budget of $1.8 million. The f irst 30 are contracted to be aired on CBN, an American cable network, and on BCTV in British Columbia. Both networks are backers of Seocnd Honeymoon, and both have options to show most of the other segments if the show clicks."

    7. Less significant coverage:
      1. Eaton, Patricia (1987-10-04). "Cut ... and Print". The Sunday News. Archived from the original on 2022-05-27. Retrieved 2022-05-27 – via Newspapers.com.

        The article notes: "Second Honeymoon, with Wayne Cox as host, is a show where kids of all ages spill the goods on their parents while trying to win them a second honeymoon. There must be two kids and they can be any age from 6 to 60. The parents are out of earshoot while the kids are being questioned then return to answer the same questions. If the answers are identical, they earn points. The family with the most points at the end of the game wins a romantic second honeymoon."

      2. Bentley, Rick. (1987-08-31). "In a 'Wink': Martindale riding wave" (pages 1, 2, and 3). The Town Talk. Archived from the original (pages 1, 2), and 3 on 2022-05-27. Retrieved 2022-05-27.

        The article notes: "Martindale ... has partnered with Jerry Gilden to form a production company responsible for "Second Honeymoon," the first-run game show on the Christian Broadcasting Network. ... Her idea was to have children win second honeymoons for their parents. They win the prize by answering questions based on information about their parents. The show is unique in that the contestants include all age groups."

      3. "Personal mention". Houston Chronicle. 1987-07-27. Archived from the original on 2022-05-28. Retrieved 2022-05-28.

        The article notes: "The Christian Broadcast Network is all set to unveil its first game show, but it may need to work out a few wrinkles. "Second Honeymoon," hosted by veteran game-show emcee Wink Martindale, gives kids a chance to win a second honeymoon for their parents by coming up with the right answers about their family's lifestyle. The concept is modeled after the often-risque "Newlywed Game" but CBN officials insist that their show is good, clean family viewing with no double-entendre jokes. So let's hear one of the questions on the premiere show: "Kids, what would your dad do if he woke up one morning and discovered that he didn't have any clean underwear?" The multiple-choice answers include: He would put on a dirty pair; he wouldn't wear any underwear at all; or he would put on a pair of mom's underwear."

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

    Cunard ( talk) 00:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Show was on multiple major networks. Megainek ( talk) 23:21, 29 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 List of P. G. Wodehouse characters. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn ( talk) 22:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC) reply

List of minor Ukridge characters

List of minor Ukridge characters (  | 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)

None of these characters have significant coverage in reliable third party sources to meet the WP:GNG. Sources show passing mentions or less, with no meaningful coverage to reach notability. Tried to remove this content through the WP:PROD process but was reverted with no reason or effort to address the issue. Jontesta ( talk) 01:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect to Jabberwocky. ✗ plicit 11:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Vorpal sword

Vorpal sword (  | 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 object has no detailed coverage in reliable third party sources as required by the WP:GNG. There are only passing mentions which aren't enough for significant coverage and Notability. Tried to remove this content through the WP:PROD process but it was reverted with no effort to address the reason for deletion. Jontesta ( talk) 01:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

although as one of the great nonsense poems..... Coolabahapple ( talk) 16:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Jabberwocky, possibly with expansion (ie. including other occurences eg. D&D, alice video games - American McGee's Alice, Alice: Madness Returns), after all, it is a unique word that is now a well known part of the english language. Coolabahapple ( talk) 16:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Jabberwocky. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I can't find significant coverage of that phrase by multiple independent reliable sources, so it fails WP:GNG, but its use in the (in)famous poem about the Jabberwocky makes for a reasonable redirect to that page. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 20:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Jabberwocky. There is some mergeable content. I concur the current sourcing does not seem sufficient to keeping this as a stand-alone article. Note that the Russian and French wiki articles are longer, but it's just a WP:IPC-violating list of various media that mentions this. Italian is the best given the section it:Vorpal#Nella_cultura_di_massa but I don't think it's exstensive enough and refeenced enough to warrant keeping this (but if anyone wants to save this, it may be a starting point). Sadly, for now no WP:SIGCOV required to keep this as a separate article has been found. Ping me if this changes and I'll reconsider my vote.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect per above. For a glimpse into Wikipedia's past (and for ideas where else vorpal swords are mentioned), consider this massive version full of uncited pop culture references. — Kusma ( talk) 13:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Kusma This is still Wikipedia's present in hundreds of articles... we list them here occasionally, multitude still remain. When we are lucky, they end up properly rewritten. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Jabberwocky. Vorpal Swords in Dungeons and Dragons and related FRPG/Computer games [28] [29] might be worth a mention in the media section there but I am not seeing enough of that here to make it worthwhile merging over. I guess if sufficient sourcing were found on that specific aspect it could be the subject of a standalone artlce in this namespace? Artw ( talk) 15:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. Star Mississippi 02:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Toot Sweets

Toot Sweets (  | 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)

Element does not have significant coverage in reliable third party sources as mandated by the WP:GNG. A search shows primary sources and passing mentions, nothing to establish WP:Notability. The article is an indiscriminate collection of times this pun was used. Tried to remove this content using the WP:PROD process but was reverted without any effort to address these issues. Jontesta ( talk) 00:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete : citations are not legitimate thirrd-party sources. Volcom95 ( talk) 03:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ role of distinguished philatelists
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_May_24&oldid=1091079214"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE