Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 23 July 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 delete‎. ✗ plicit 23:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

List of peers retired and removed under the House of Lords Reform Act 2014

List of peers retired and removed under the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 (  | talk | history | 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 list of people who have resigned from the House of Lords is already absurdly long, and it is only going to get longer every year. What's the point? It may have seemed like a novelty when the first resignations began happening, but this law has been in force for nine years now. No other article about a legislature maintains a list of everyone who has resigned from it. Richard75 ( talk) 23:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

What about having a yearly one Earl of Sutton Coldfield ( talk) 00:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
What about having it in list of decade of retired peers Earl of Sutton Coldfield ( talk) 14:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
That would help with the length, but it still doesn't deal with notability. Why does this list need to exist at all? Richard75 ( talk) 15:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply
That doesn't address notability though. Richard75 ( talk) 15:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply
OK but it would work if you had them in decades. Earl of Sutton Coldfield ( talk) 22:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Deleted I created these as this maybe the solution:
List of peers retired under the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 (2014–2020)
List of peers retired under the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 (2021–present)

It is easier to maintain and just keep up to date with either the deaths and the future retirements.

Earl of Sutton Coldfield ( talk) 13:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

I’m not convinced that those meet notability standards, seeing as how they are essentially forks of this article. 64.107.163.147 ( talk) 16:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 23:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

St Fidelis College (Lucknow, India)

AfDs for this article:
St Fidelis College (Lucknow, India) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We are now a lot stricter on schools since the last AfD. Unreferenced and no coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar ( talk) 23:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete can't find many sources apart from two TOI (first linked above ), however both are linked to the same event and don't necessarily talk about the school — Karnataka talk 16:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Naked Capitalism

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

This article frankly reads like an advertisement for the subject and, as of now, it's unclear that it meets WP:GNG.

Of the fourteen cited sources: four ([10]-[13]) are interviews with the website's creator; two ([1] and [6]) are About pages from the website; two are posts on the website itself ([8] and [14]); one ([7]) is a self-published blog post by one of the website's contributors; and one ([5]) is a post on another website by the website's creator. This leaves four reliable secondary sources, two of which only briefly mention Naked Capitalism in passing as recommendations, and the other two of which are short biographical stubs about the website's creator, without more than a passing reference to the website.

One thing that becomes immediately clear upon going through these sources is that they lack significant coverage of the website - often only briefly mentioning the website as a product of its creator, without any further detail. There seems to be more information about the website's creator than the website itself, so if no more significant coverage from reliable sources can be found, maybe a short stub about her could be salvaged from this. But in its current state, I don't think this article meets GNG and as such, am recommending it for deletion. Grnrchst ( talk) 12:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 17. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 17:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Delete. Even using the sourcing given above, it's one in a list of items. Nothing at length about it... I can't find much for sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk) 17:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Oaktree b I should mention that the article in the Risk journal mentions that it is based on a piece in the journal Credit, a sister publication; this runs to three pages. People can have a look; it is available on ProQuest via the WP:Library. The Financial Times interview article (1,750 words) actually was one of a series about the blog (final instalment here. Even the TIME listing is over 200 words. There are brief endorsements in the New York Times like this one. I can have a further look around, but even just with those I would have thought GNG is well met.
    The one thing that does make things difficult is that Smith has written so many news articles that it's hard to find stuff about her and her blog in Google News. A lot of the hits are links to articles by her, with the author info mentioning the blog. (Note that Yves Smith – a pun on Adam Smith – redirects to Naked Capitalism.) Andreas JN 466 19:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Honestly these sources just confirm to me that, if this article is to exist, it should be about Yves Smith. None of these sources refer to Naked Capitalism as anything other than Smith's blog. It isn't clearly independently notable from her, although she is clearly a notable figure herself. -- Grnrchst ( talk) 10:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    As I see it, the sources are primarily about the blog. Take the TIME and CNBC listings, or the Financial Times interview, which is all about the blog, or the Institutional Investor piece. It's the blog that makes Smith notable, not Smith that makes the blog notable. Andreas JN 466 11:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Move to Susan Webber (blogger) and keep at that title. BD2412 T 18:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ BD2412 The problem with that solution is that even though Naked Capitalism was started by Webber (a.k.a. Yves Smith), and she remains the most high-profile contributor, it is a group blog and is indexed as such here for example by EconAcademics.org (a site hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.)
    A past version of the article included a bunch of contributing writers (another editor deleted them because they were unsourced). Some of those contributors have been referred to or had their NC posts republished by third-party sources; e.g. Matt Stoller here, David Dayen (see [9], Alternet running a piece previously published on NC, also cf. [10]), Philip Pilkington ( [11] [12]), Nathan Tankus ( [13]), Jerri-Lynn Scofield [14] etc.
    So I think the solution is to bring the contributing writers back into the article, with references, and make clear to the reader that it is a group blog.
    (Indeed, if you look at https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/ today or its archives, posts by Smith are in the minority.)
    So could I ask you to give it another thought? Best, Andreas JN 466 14:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    • My impression is that the most notable aspect of the blog is its founder, and everything we currently have about it can fit in a section of an article on its found, with a redirect tagged with {{ R with possibilities}}. BD2412 T 19:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment The article has been almost completely revised and re-sourced since the AfD nomination. -- Andreas JN 466 01:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The article has been significantly improved since it was nominated. Naked Capitalism has received widespread coverage over a significant period of time. Thriley ( talk) 15:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: The article has changed substantially since the AfD nomination, thanks to the excellent and dedicated work of Andreas. As their edits have demonstrated clear notability, with significant coverage in reliable sources, my concerns have been thoroughly addressed and I no longer believe the article warrants deletion. -- Grnrchst ( talk) 15:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, as evidenced by Grnrchst, this has met WP:HEY. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 22:20, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 10:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Frank Feys

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

A biographical article about an acting tutor and working actor whose teaching work and film/TV roles seem significantly short of meeting the WP:NACTOR criteria. The closest may be the role in "La hija de un ladrón" but the subject is mentioned just in routine listings and by Lanaja Factory, which does not appear independent of the subject (see [15]); he is unmentioned on the film production company's page on the film [16]. AllyD ( talk) 17:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Kang Kuk-chol (footballer, born 1988)

Kang Kuk-chol (footballer, born 1988) (  | talk | history | 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 fails WP:GNG. Bear in mind there are two other footballers with the same name. Simione001 ( talk) 23:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply

But forget all that for a second - while starting a search on him, I discovered that there are three different North Korean footballers named "Kang Kuk-chol." They were all born within about a decade of each other, are almost exactly the same height, all play the same position (defender), and two of them even allegedly played on the national team in the same year. If that's accurate, that's absolutely hilarious. If there weren't headshots of them on the (very sparse) source links, I wouldn't believe it. That said, it's North Korea, so I'm not really inclined to believe it. Are we sure at least two of these aren't the same guy? Kalethan ( talk) 15:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
It wouldn't surprise me if two of them were indeed the same. North Korean football is such a mystery to me and I'd love it to explore it further but you never know what sources to actually trust. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - Searching Kang's name and football in Korean yields no useful sources, which perhaps isn't surprising since he plays football in North Korea. Unfortunately, this means the article is unlikely to ever satisfy WP:GNG. Jogurney ( talk) 12:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to The Kelly Family. ✗ plicit 23:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Jimmy Kelly (singer)

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

Seems non-notable Charsaddian ( talk) 22:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Also note that three of Jimmy Kelly's siblings also have their own articles that could probably be redirected as well. Joey Kelly may have a little potential due to getting some notice as an athlete outside of the band. I'm less sure about Kathy Kelly (musician) and Patricia Kelly because each is like Jimmy, with only band-related coverage and some solo albums that received little independent notice. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 13:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 23:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Malina Pardo

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

The subject has earned at least four caps for the Puerto Rico women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. This is a good piece, but is not independent as it's from her school's newspaper. JTtheOG ( talk) 21:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Puerto Rico, and North Carolina. JTtheOG ( talk) 21:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. WP:TOOSOON. Pro-club academy player who's still playing as a college graduate; injured in college play in 2021 and national team play in 2022, redshirted 2022. Might become notable, might not. - Socccc ( talk) 15:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Separately, student-run media are considered WP:RS (specifically WP:RSSM) if editorially independent in content, which Niner Times appears to be via its student-run editorial board. That linked piece isn't an athletic department press release. A more relevant guideline against notability is in RSSM: "A topic which can be sourced exclusively to student media, with no evidence of wider coverage in mass market general interest media, is not likely to be viewed as notable." - Socccc ( talk) 15:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Student-run media are absolutely not considered independent of topics related to their school. See the unanimous consensus here. I've clarified this at RSSM. JoelleJay ( talk) 21:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, sourcing does not establish GNG. JoelleJay ( talk) 21:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Union Properties PJSC. Viable ATD at the moment. Should that end up deleted, whether a redirect here makes sense will be resolved. Star Mississippi 02:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

The Tower (Dubai)

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

Yet another building with no evidence of notability. Basically impossible to search for sources due to the generic title. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 22:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Ryan Anthony (San Diego rapper)

Ryan Anthony (San Diego rapper) (  | talk | history | 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, nothing found in RS we can use. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Provided references are promotional, passing mentions, and/or primary sources. Article creator included an AfC tag in this creation--article was not approved at AfC. Creator's draft Draft:Ryan Anthony (Rapper) had been declined and subsequently deleted for inactivity per WP:G13. -- Finngall talk 20:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Nearly every reference is a promotion. The references from news sources are not about the subject, only things he happens to be attached to. The article is an unabashed hagiography. "Ryan started making clothes that resembled his music". Give me a break! Agentdoge ( talk) 20:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:NOTLINKEDIN, unfortunately refdumped, would need WP:TNT. There seem to be 2 RS, not nearly enough for WP:BASIC [18] and [19]. — siro χ o 21:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and above fails WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 23:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to 2019–20 Plymouth Argyle F.C. season#Stastics. Star Mississippi 22:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Jude Boyd

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

Seems non-notable Charsaddian ( talk) 20:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2019–20 Coventry City F.C. season#Appearances. Star Mississippi 22:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Daniel Bartlett (footballer)

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

Only one appearance so far in his career. Does not look notable Charsaddian ( talk) 20:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) CurryTime7-24 ( talk) 04:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Yakuza (band)

Yakuza (band) (  | talk | history | 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 citations are mostly self-promotion (e.g. from Prosthetic Records) and passing mentions in articles about other subjects. No sustained coverage from independent reliable secondary sources. AllMusic citations not ideal. CurryTime7-24 ( talk) 19:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Japan, and Illinois. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 19:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Here are examples of coverage from reliable sources: Kendrick, Monica (2023-05-17). "Chicago metal explorers Yakuza return with Sutra, their first album in more than a decade". Chicago Reader. Retrieved 2023-07-24. and "Yakuza: Of Seismic Consequence". Pitchfork. Retrieved 2023-07-24. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 20:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Thank you. Don't know why I didn't find these when Google-searching this band. I retract this AfD nomination. — CurryTime7-24 ( talk) 23:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, has significant coverage. Fulmard ( talk) 03:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Lexsynergy

Lexsynergy (  | talk | history | 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 corporation. Sourcing is largely primary or PR ish items. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Weak Delete. I'm unsure about if the article fails notability guidelines, however the whole thing is written like an advertisement. The Leadership section is basically a resume introduction. Article should probably be deleted or entirely rewritten. Agentdoge ( talk) 20:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - An article should speak for itself and explain to the reader what is notable about the subject. The article is about what the company says about itself, and not what third parties say about the company, so that it does not pass corporate notability. There is also a draft which is the same as this article, and the originator may have created two copies of the article so that the article could not be draftified. I have not reviewed the sources because the article has been reference-bombed, but it should not be necessary for a reader to read the references. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I waded through 55 citations in the Lexsynergy article so you don't have to. I also did an extensive reliable source web search. The result was nothing reliable and extensive enough sufficient to establish notability.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 04:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep. I don't believe the article fails notability guidelines, the company has been referenced by many third parties including non-profit industry bodies and other approved Wikipedia pages. It follows the same structure and referencing as other companies in the industry listed on Wikipedia: GoCompare, CSC and Markmonitor. Leadership and Philanthropy sections have been removed to maintain non-bias. KyleGouveiaPortsmouth ( talk) 07:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The majority of sources are from industry publications, non-profit industry bodies and domain registries. KyleGouveiaPortsmouth ( talk) 11:47, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply
@ KyleGouveiaPortsmouth, I'm not saying you're wrong to keep but I'm trying to reconcile what you're saying about the refs versus my understanding of our current guidelines which usually call for some sort of in-depth coverage. I'm sympathetic but I need to be convinced - can you help reconcile our guidelines with the point you're making?
As for the other companies, if they have similar problems then they're vulnerable to deletion, too. Someone's going to throw out " WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" to shoot down comments like yours. (I have some problems with the pejorative way people use that one, but I digress)
If you can't muster a convincing reply today, then I see two ways forward:
  1. Invoke WP:IAR. In my experience, that's sort of a Hail Mary pass in deletion discussions.
  2. Draftify this article for now, then start an RfC to change our notability guidance. Note that we already have some allowed exceptions for in-depth coverage for things like places (see WP:GEOLAND). Maybe we need one for companies like this, too.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 15:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Thank you for taking the time to reply, I really appreciate it. I do not want to Invoke WP:IAR, I would like to do this properly and inline with Wikipedia’s rules. Please see below for my convincing in relation to notability guidelines, if we need to go down the RfC, then I would love to be able to assist.
General notability guidelines:
1.Presumed. There are over 30 reliable sources from industry bodies and domain registries, some of which also list Lexsynergy on their Wikipedia page, meaning it is is not an Orphan.
2. Significant coverage. Only one source is from the Lexsynergy website.
3. Reliable. The majority of sources are secondary, from well-established news outlets or from industry verified (via non-profit industry regulator) vendors.
Subject-specific guidelines (organizations and companies):
1. Lexsynergy have attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product, such as well-established news outlets.
2. Smaller organizations and their products can be notable without being synonyms with fame. Lexsynergy have won several awards and are referenced across the internet and Wikipedia as an accredited registrar.
3. There are examples of substantial coverage, including reports by Industry bodies, providers and regulators. KyleGouveiaPortsmouth ( talk) 16:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Significant coverage is different from independence from the subject. Significant coverage requires that the coverage is in-depth. Please see WP:ORGDEPTH, which provides a lot of helpful guidance. ARandomName123 ( talk) 00:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: A random selection of references seems to show that most sources are either listings and provide no significant coverage, or are not independent of the subject. No indication it meets WP:NORG. ARandomName123 ( talk) 00:27, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 21:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Leesi Gabriel Gborogbosi

Leesi Gabriel Gborogbosi (  | talk | history | 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 businessperson, somewhat flowery language in the sourcing used. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Mojo Hand ( talk) 02:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Nothando Hlophe

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

Beyond being the wife of a famous person, I can't find notability as a singer. No mentions in RS. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 23:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Austin Forkner

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

Not finding discussion of this person in RS, only websites related to the sports that aren't RS. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Weak delete due to a lack of independent RS coverage.
SoniaSotomayorFan ( talk) 13:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. signed, Rosguill talk 04:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Five Mile House (Illinois)

Five Mile House (Illinois) (  | talk | history | 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 historical building. Not listed on the NRHP [21]. Sourcing is all primary. Appears PROMO for a tourist attraction. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Consdering the AfD posting was the third-ever edit to this new page, and the page is only sourced to primary sources, a good WP:BEFORE search is necessary and it's crystal clear this house comes up often in multiple local news sources (newspaper and television), and has been referenced in several books. There's a chance the coverage as a whole doesn't add up to GNG, but there's definitely coverage out there, and I haven't even searched old newspapers yet. SportingFlyer T· C 14:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Historical buildings don't have to be on the NRHP to be notable, and this one has plenty of coverage in non-primary sources: see [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]. It's included in the Illinois Historic Sites Survey Inventory, though their database is under construction so finding info is a bit of a pain right now. It's also been referenced in books, as SportingFlyer mentioned. The article needs cleanup and better sourcing, but AfD isn't cleanup. TheCatalyst31 Reaction• Creation 17:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 23:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Kasi Kelly

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

Does not meet WP:GNG as a former beauty pageant contestant. Let'srun ( talk) 19:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Elyzabeth Pham

Elyzabeth Pham (  | talk | history | 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 former beauty pagent contestant. Does not meet the WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG. Let'srun ( talk) 19:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Earl Thomas with Paddy Milner & the Big Sounds

Earl Thomas with Paddy Milner & the Big Sounds (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced article. Seems non-notable Charsaddian ( talk) 18:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Based on a True Story (Paddy Milner album)

Based on a True Story (Paddy Milner album) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems non-notable. Charsaddian ( talk) 18:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Paddy Milner

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

Multiple issues tag since 2011. Seems non-notable Charsaddian ( talk) 18:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to Das Boot (film)#Accolades. Mojo Hand ( talk) 02:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Trevor Pyke

Trevor Pyke (  | talk | history | 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 fails WP:BIO, current sources are a list of Academy Award nominations and a very brief obituary. Searching finds very little with coverage of the award nomination limited to the name appearing in articles listing all nominees. For example this list article. A redirect to Das Boot (film), where he is mentioned in the Accolades section, is an alternative to deletion. Gab4gab ( talk) 18:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

The German article has more information: de:Trevor Pyke. Unfortunately, despite Pyke's notability, neither the English nor the German articles have information about his life and career that doesn't come from IMDb, an unreliable source ( WP:IMDB), or his terse 2-sentence paid obituary. I found no good refs except some tiny little bits. [28] Hence the redirect; we just don't have enough to build an article with.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 03:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The Koldau article was interesting and while it never mentioned Pyke it is some coverage of his work that is helpful to notability. It would be helpful to have a source for the two awards mentioned. Gab4gab ( talk) 15:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Gab4gab, the awards come from Das Boot (film)#Accolades. And, yes, I'm a submarine movie aficionado, so I very much enjoyed that Koldau article, too.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 15:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
By the way, I'm amazed Das Boot didn't win Oscars for its sound and score -- they really set the tone for a great film (as Koldau noted).
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 15:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 21:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Walking on Eggshells

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

Completely unsourced article. Seems non-notable Charsaddian ( talk) 18:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Susan Binau

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

Delete. Does not meet WP:N, references cited are either not connected to notability, or passing remarks or self-published/promotional material, or completely irrelevant of the subject. Strong indication of WP:COI. Bulk of the article is written like a promotional material for subject's books and charity, violating WP:PROMOTION. Sabih omar 18:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 18:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete, very PROMO. Sources 17-19 are synth. They don't discuss this person, only the sound method used in treatments. Too many sources to wade through in Danish, no article in any other language wiki is a red flag. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Łuszczów-Kolonia, Hrubieszów County

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

Not many sources about this county, fails WP:GNG Brachy08 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. Hey man im josh ( talk) 12:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 17. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 17:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: (1) a kolonia is a legally recognized place under Polish law, so this is a populated, legally recognized place meeting the current wording of WP:NGEO; (2) while this article is a bit underdeveloped pl:Łuszczów-Kolonia (powiat hrubieszowski) has enough content as to be well within our remit as a encyclopedia and gazetteer; (3) I am seeing considerable discussion of the kolonia in books and articles discussing the WiN guerrilla organization in the postwar period, e.g. reports of this recent ceremony memorializing the Zarzyckis who were executed for sheltering WiN guerrillas there, so this can also meet the "sufficient sources to provide more information than a database entry" threshold (my paraphrase) that has recently been proposed as an update to NGEO. Applying the rules flexibly in accordance with our encyclopedic purpose, I think that this falls within both the letter and the spirit of NGEO. -- Visviva ( talk) 04:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. Normally I support the retention of articles on separate settlements, but as far as I can see this is just a few houses at one end of Łuszczów, itself a very small village spread out along a road. Nothing that I can see distinguishes it from the 'main' village, not even a road sign. It is not even "located away from previously existing buildings", but no further away than the other parts of the village. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 17:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep -- meets NGEO as a legally recognized populated place. The corresponding article in Polish WP has more sources if more sources are desired, but they're not needed. Central and Adams ( talk) 18:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Gmina Uchanie has a list of villages and settlements where Łuszczów-Kolonia is mentioned. The article seems more complete with this. WonderCanada ( talk) 18:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Do gole kože

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

Seems non-notable Charsaddian ( talk) 17:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Tone 22:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Brez dlake na jeziku

Brez dlake na jeziku (  | talk | history | 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 unsourced tag is mentioned since 2008. Seems non-notable Charsaddian ( talk) 16:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 22:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

The Bittersweet Constrain

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

Completely unsourced article. Seems non-notable Charsaddian ( talk) 16:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

List of apologies to clubs from PGMOL

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

This article is a short list of information that is inherently unverifiable because it is all based on reports of supposed apologies issued by a referee association. More importantly, this list violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This list has no place on Wikipedia, as we don't just stockpile information for the sake of it. At best, this could be a subsection on PGMOL's article. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 10:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Weak keep - The relevant guideline here is WP:NLIST which requires that the items listed have been discussed as a group/set by multiple independent reliable sources. I have found the following - [29], [30], [31] - which I think just about meet that requirement. The Mirror/Irish Mirror are not ideal sources but neither are they unreliable (see WP:DAILYMIRROR) - and I am not certain as to whether we should treat them as one source or two (they seem to be using the same source material, but the copy is different, with two different writers). Nevertheless, I think we just about have significant coverage in two or three reliable sources. This is also a potential source, although it does not focus directly on PGMOL apologies. No issues with the Squawka article as far as I can tell. This is not inherently unverifiable - all the incidents listed can be verified by reliable sources, such as news reports. Neither does this violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE - the list here does not compare with the examples given on that policy page. WJ94 ( talk) 12:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Complex/ Rational 15:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete They've made four apologies? I can't see the need for this list. I'm not ever sure what PGMOL is. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Referees and other sports officials make mistakes all the time, and these are only the apologies that have been publicly announced (I presume by the offended club). What makes these particular apologies notable? This seems to be WP:LISTCRUFT and is a prime example of WP:NOT. —  Jkudlick ⚓  (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Not encyclopedic at all. Grahaml35 ( talk) 17:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Clear consensus for deletion; and I'm not willing to draftify this, because the only content that is not Quranic quotes is entirely original research. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Objective Verses from The Holy Quran

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

Just a random bunch of quotes, with nothing to explain why they should be bunched together or, indeed, what is the subject the 'article' 

TheLongTone (
talk) 15:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
reply
Good evening, I searched many time in Wikipedia about about the verses of Quran having direct link some subject i.e. Allah (God) but could not find. Took a lot of time to find such objective verses pertaining to some particular matter. I think very; briefly I tried to relate Quranic verses to a particular matter/subject. I am still convinced that this page may not be considered for deletion, Thank You Khan Muhammad Akazai ( talk) 15:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Would you mind explaining in more detail what you intended for this article to be about? It's possible a new article could written. As someone else has already mentioned in this discussion, Wikipedia is not Wikiquote (see What Wikipedia is not). So there's shouldn't be an article of just quotes. But if these quotes are a topic that others have studied and have written about, Wikipedia could have an article summarizing what these others have said. I'm just not sure what the topic is. Tikwriter ( talk) 17:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete, I would have tagged this for speedy deletion, it's quotes from their holy book, serving no importance in wikipedia. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
I still request for retention of this page for some time. Meanwhile, I will also refer the few subjects chosen in the article to other books/ articles etc. I will also explain the matters/subjects in accordance with views / explanations given by renounced authors/publishers. I am in Wikipedia since 2011 and have always tried to strictly observe their policies / instructions.
Thank You Khan Muhammad Akazai ( talk) 17:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This isn’t an encyclopedia article at all. No objection to draftifying if the creator believes there is a genuinely encyclopedic subject relating to these quotes and wants to develop it further. Mccapra ( talk) 20:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • delete per "Wikipedia is not WikiQuote." Mangoe ( talk) 23:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Only a synthesised list of selected quotes rather than an article about them, and might duplicate pages on the sections of the Quran they come from. Xeroctic ( talk) 13:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • comment by nominator I can't see any reason why this should not be draftified; I've left a message on the creator's talk page outlining what seems to be needed. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Catfurball ( talk) 17:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ - WP:CSD#A7. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 21:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Hur Yoon-seo

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

Not even a claim of notability Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 10:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Bryce McGuire

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

Doesn't seem to be notable, yet, as the film is coming out in 2024. TOOSOON seems to apply as nothing else is notable at this time in his list of accomplishments. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 13:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Leigh-Taylor Smith

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

Does not meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun ( talk) 13:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to Chandra Lakshman. Liz Read! Talk! 05:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Kalyana Kurimanam

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

Could not find any sources of interest in English or Malayalam (കല്യാണ കുരിമാനം). DareshMohan ( talk) 21:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti *Let's talk!* 13:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Redirect seems ok. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Starbucks. ✗ plicit 13:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Pasqua Coffee

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

Marked for notability concerns 1.5 years ago. Does not appear to get widespread ot significant coverage to meet WP:CORP. LibStar ( talk) 12:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 10:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Cannamedical Pharma

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

Please complete the AfD for the article, because it's a commercial and irrelevant page with many citations missing. 92.200.176.150 ( talk) 13:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was merge‎ to List of most-watched television broadcasts. ✗ plicit 10:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

List of most watched television interviews

List of most watched television interviews (  | talk | history | 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:NLIST, topic likely isn’t notable to have a standalone list, and likely could just be merged into their respectful articles. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 10:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. No actual keep arguments and sourcing to timetables appears short of requirements. Spartaz Humbug! 07:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

List of LYNX Orlando bus routes

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

Just a bunch of routes with no reason why they are notable. No sources, appears run of the mill. Wikipedia is not a bus guide Ajf773 ( talk) 09:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Sources have since been added by the article's creator, although these are predominantly links to bus timetables. Ajf773 ( talk) 20:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into Lynx (Orlando). This is more than a timetable! Given the short nature of the target and modest list, it is a premature WP:SPINOFF. Like a list of players in the first squad of a club, if this later becomes outdated it can be deleted by the page editors. Note for the merger volunteer: make sure all text in the target appears above it (by swapping the order of fares and routes), and the picture gallery (yikes!), references, and external links below it! Thanks to nom for putting this up for discussion! gidonb ( talk) 19:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • This is really just a list of routes with the timetables accompanying them. All this can be found on the official transit authority's website. I can't see anything notable about any of these routes. Ajf773 ( talk) 10:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Look again. It's NOT a timetable! The routes are there, the ridership, the route length, but NOT A TIMETABLE. In other words, this table lays out the details on the fixed route service that the regional bus company provides. It details the operations of the company. Legitimate information and in other cases - not here, hence my merge - a legitimate spinoff. gidonb ( talk) 03:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply
I've never said the article was a timetable. I've said its only sourcing is from timetables. The routes are not notable. Ajf773 ( talk) 10:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Fixed routes is about everything that a regional bus service does. It's the CORE of the company's operations and doesn't need to be seperately notable. Just needs to be sometimes spun off. Not here but sometimes. Plus that statement isn't true. We know that news outlets regularly report on changes, efficiencies and needs of bus services. It is highly notable. Just it doesn't need to be, as long as the company and mode of transportation are notable. gidonb ( talk) 22:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom and per WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:LISTCRUFT (and to some extent WP:NOTDIR) - We're not a bus guide, No point merging there because it will only be deleted per the aforementioned WP pages, No evidence of any notability, Fails NOTGUIDE, LISTCRUFT, NOTDIR and GNG. – Davey2010 Talk 19:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Canada at the 2020 Summer Olympics#Field hockey. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Brendan Guraliuk

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

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. I found this and three sentences here, which would not be enough. JTtheOG ( talk) 08:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Canada. JTtheOG ( talk) 08:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or draftify This is one where I'm not sure an AfD was the way to go - he plays for a top-level club in a country where hockey is popular, and has national representation. With football, that's more than enough to be considered notable. Should we treat hockey the same as football in that regard? Anyway, he has not yet made a senior Olympics debut (only a 10th place Youth Olympics finish and the Canadian team qualifying for 2024): it will be easier to judge GNG notability after that and so the article should at least be draftified (not deleted and not content-removal redirected yet) for this purpose. Kingsif ( talk) 10:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    He did make a senior Olympic debut, he played at the 2020 Summer Olympics. Parwa104 ( talk) 13:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Soccer needs to meet GNG, even if they play for a top club. I am sure the same notability standards apply for field hockey. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 13:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete All I can find is coverage of him from his hometown - Delta Optimist only - like [33]. SportingFlyer T· C 13:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect. Article was created when WP:NOLYMPICS had a looser criteria. I cannot find anything to indicate WP:SIGCOV. I don't think drafting would work, as coverage is unlikely to improve in the short term. I suggest a redirect to Canada at the 2020 Summer Olympics#Field_hockey as a WP:ATD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportsfan 1234 ( talk • contribs) 13:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 13:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Nnaemeka Clinton

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

Every source included in the article is a passing reference and falls far short of the requirements to meet GNG. Thilsebatti ( talk) 06:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete Non-notable. No WP:SIGCOV. Uhooep ( talk) 12:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Just noting for the record that this page was "moved" by Rusty Soto from the draft space via copy/paste ( diff). While I have no opinion on the page itself (as I have not looked back) re-draftification may be more appropriate given the unilateral non-AFC manner in which this was moved to the Article space. Primefac ( talk) 13:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies. As with Winfield D. Ong, the argument against redirecting is weak. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Inga S. Bernstein

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

Failed judicial nominee who does not pass WP:GNG. All sources are primary or namedrops. Let'srun ( talk) 09:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Law, and Massachusetts. Let'srun ( talk) 09:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies as we're generally doing for these now — siro χ o 10:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    The reason I'm not proposing a redirect is that there isn't much to suggest that Bernstein was a controversial nominee, and her WP:BLP1E isn't covered in that article, as seen by her passing through the Senate Judiciary Committee with only 1 senator voting against the nomination. It appears that she simply never received a vote before the end of Obama's 2nd term, and I don't see any other possible redirect targets Let'srun ( talk) 13:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect, support siroχo's suggestion, above. While that article includes information about controversy in Obama's nominations, it's also a comprehensive list of all his nominees that were never confirmed. Many of them have their own pages, since becoming a nominee for the federal bench usually includes achievements that pass WP:GNG. In the interest of keeping that list complete, she should probably be redirected there even if her page is deleted. Kalethan ( talk) 18:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies. I don't find the argument against redirecting persuasive; the presence of a redirect doesn't say that this individual was controversial, only that the relevant information is found at the target. There is clear consensus against a standalone article. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Winfield D. Ong

Winfield D. Ong (  | talk | history | 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 person was not confirmed as a judge and does not meet the notability criteria as described by WP:GNG. All sources found regarding the subject are primary or namedrops. Let'srun ( talk) 09:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Indiana. Let'srun ( talk) 09:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies as we're starting to do with these. We have lawyers statements, and some relatively trivial coverage like [34] but nothing that amounts to SIGCOV as far as I can see. — siro χ o 09:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    The reason I'm not proposing a redirect is that there isn't much to suggest that Ong was a controversial nominee, and his WP:BLP1E isn't covered in that article, as seen by his passing through the Senate Judiciary Committee by a voice vote with the support of both Indiana senators. It appears that he simply never received a vote before the end of Obama's 2nd term, and I don't see any other possible redirect targets. Let'srun ( talk) 12:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as article creator. However, am open to the alternatives above, if they are pursued. Safiel ( talk) 17:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Srijan Bhattacharya

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

Doesn't meet GNG. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 08:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete. Student leader isn't notable. Not qualified under NPOL. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 07:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

List of types of proteins

List of types of proteins (  | talk | history | 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 case for TNT. The subject is certainly sensible, but the article is in a dreadful state. It's peppered with random definitions and quotations, unsourced, and often just general bits of cell biology with no particular connection to proteins. The referencing is dismal. Many items in the list don't lead anywhere (no link, no idea what they would link to anyway). The hierarchies of the list, if it has any, are very unclear, so it doesn't really organise the material in any useful way. I think this was a good idea in the distant past that's got lost, and it's time to get rid of it and start again. This is related to a current AfD on List of proteins in the human body Elemimele ( talk) 07:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Blank and Redirect to Protein as an ATD, to preserve history while the future of the article is considered. I completely agree with WP:TNT. Of interest is that the article has barely changed since 2005, so it's no surprise it's not up to 2023 standards, but there's no need to delete history here. — siro χ o 08:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Nothing to add to what Elemimele ( talk) said, with which I completely agree. Athel cb ( talk) 09:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. It's certainly not appropriately cited, and it would need radical work in all aspects to get it up to current standards (and current biology). Chiswick Chap ( talk) 09:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 10:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect either to Protein or List of proteins. I can't see the list ever being useful, because as the page incoherently tries to show, there are many different ways of classifying proteins. It's like making a list of types of businesses, inherently a mess. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 14:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 17:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The protein article does it better. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 17:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The current content is practically unusable, this article needs completely starting from scratch, if it is required at all. GraziePrego ( talk) 06:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment As a potential alternatve to this list, consider List of proteins. Perhaps a few parts of this list could salvaged and merged into this other list. (Ducks head) Boghog ( talk) 15:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete article is unreadable gibberish Dronebogus ( talk) 14:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • delete, even if the topic is notable it can't be salvaged from the current list. Artem.G ( talk) 17:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of rail accidents (2020–present). Liz Read! Talk! 07:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Madukuro train crash

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

A train crash in which nobody died and one person was injured. That's it - the sum total of this thing. That's yer lot. Delete with absolute surety that this event does not trouble notability in any way whatsoever. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 07:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Muhammad Hassan Ilyas

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

Pakistani theologian, associated with philosopher. No notability whatsoever. Sources are not RS. Being the son in law of a philosopher does not confer notability. Fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 06:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. But it might be worth reconsidering deletion at some point in the future to see if coverage is lasting. Liz Read! Talk! 06:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Justyn Vicky

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

Winner of the Muscle Beach Bali competition, Indonesian weightlifter and bodybuilder Justyn Vicky died an unfortunate death at a tragically young age. However, he is otherwise not notable and fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC. Adding WP:1E. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 05:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bodybuilding and Indonesia. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 05:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and improve. Justyn Vicky's death has received coverage from reliable sources: Times of India Fox News. I am surprised that the article doesn't cite these... -- TheLonelyPather ( talk) 06:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Its just the source was too much, I fried up my brain last night because of this -_- Asphonixm ( talk) 07:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    The Times of India piece was authored by a third party (per the disclaimer down at the bottom). Fox News has been caught lying to get views, I'd be wary of using them as a source. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    The use of Fox News should be fine here, since there's multiple other sources that confirm the same info. ARandomName123 ( talk) 00:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the sources. NYC Guru ( talk) 08:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Sources are presented. Sometimes notability only surfaces after a sad event like this, the claim to notability is not only the circumstances of death. I would respect WP:RAPID (while also respecting WP:BLP in the content for the recently deceased) and not delete this right now. — siro χ o 08:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Looks like his death has received international coverage, which seems to be enough - I'd still like to see other coverage per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, it's possible it's already in the article. SportingFlyer T· C 12:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete This is from CNN Indonesia, in Indonesian. [37]. Coverage in English media seems to be PR-ish. I'd argue the CNN coverage is purely local/in the native language, not helping notability here. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per sources from article, Fox news article, and this article from People: [38]. ARandomName123 ( talk) 00:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Abass Ibrahim

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

Doesn't meet the criteria of notability or coverage, as per WP:MUSIC PARVAGE talk! 05:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 05:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Weak Keep The sources in the previous AfD aren't the best, but I think they're enough to pass WP:GNG. JML1148 ( talk | contribs) 06:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Week keep per prior AFD and nominator's uncertain motivations. I am not doing a BEFORE for such a nomination. — siro χ o 10:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Bishonen | tålk 08:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Yubaraj Khatri

Yubaraj Khatri (  | talk | history | 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 was PRODded by Liz because it is Self-promotional, created by the article subject. Of course, the PROD was removed by the article subject, so here we are. According to the relevant ANI thread (which is how I found out about that page), the article has one possibly reliable source and zero reputable sources. If the subject is notable, it might be worth TNT-ing the article. LilianaUwU ( talk / contributions) 04:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel ( talk) 02:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

List of wealthiest historical figures

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

Nominating it after small discussion on WP:FTN.

I agree that this article is WP:OR and WP:LISTCRUFT. The stated amount of the wealth is broadly inconsistent among the low quality sources that provide coverage to this subject. Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk) 04:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete The last nom was in 2009, so this isn't a frivolous renom. A list like this is inherently unworkable. Estimating the net worth of historical figures is fraught with uncertainty, and it's not clear that you can meaningfully compare the net worth of people who died hundreds or even thousands of years apart. The criter for what qualifies one to be on this list is also very unclear. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 04:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Honestly, the sheer breadth of time involved makes this type of list unworkable. Furthermore, the fact that the sources evidently do not agree is another severe issue with listing historical figures by wealth. ― Susmuffin  Talk 07:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Unlike lists such as those of the tallest mountain, oldest living person, etc., there is no possible way to make anywhere near accurate estimates. That's abundantly clear for historical figures where not only are there almost insurmountable problems to convert what we think is their wealth to current values, we often cannot be sure we have sufficient evidence. Even with living people it's difficult to determine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller ( talk • contribs) 08:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment in its current state, the list is clearly unworkable. It attempts to give extensive information on each individual, which means it's going to have to find an unreasonably tight criterion on richness to avoid being huge. And the inflation-adjusted wealth values are pretty meaningless as one goes back into the mists of time. But, I think there is a case for a simple navigational list, made up only of article-names, pointing to articles of historical figures who are particularly noted for being outrageously wealthy (e.g. Croesus). This is clearly a reasonable encyclopaedic question that a reader might ask, and they can browse the articles on the individuals themselves. It would also be easy to define (must have an existing article, WP article must cite multiple references mentioning enormous wealth specifically; usually wealth would feature in the Lead) and it wouldn't need to address quantitatively wealth-in-modern-terms (that, if estimates are available and deemed useful, belongs in the target article). Elemimele ( talk) 08:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Hemiauchenia. This just devolves to guesswork. 〜 Festucalex • talk 08:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, History, and Economics. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 17:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as necessarily requiring original research. If you find a list that is well-attested and agreed to along with criteria that is rigorous, by all means let us know. But Wikipedia cannot create that list. jps ( talk) 21:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per all the arguments given above. I concur with Elemimele's comment- there might be a case for something like a "list of historical figures noted for their wealth," but this article as it stands (the ranking and equation stuff) represents an untenable project, and it's impossible to imagine a version of it that avoids OR, SYNTH, etc (unless it's just reproducing a list given in an RS). Yspaddadenpenkawr ( talk) 15:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete because the list of such figures is ambiguous (pre-Industrial Revolution wealth is nearly impossible to precisely measure), seems to heavily include English nobility but not that of many other European countries or regions, and is dynamic--new discoveries could change the numbers. I would keep or note the Industrial Revolution magnates, whose wealth is less ambiguous and can be adjusted for inflation though in a separate article. JohnAdams1800 ( talk) 00:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Matty Healy. Daniel ( talk) 02:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

P05

P05 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is full of biased language and includes analysis of the citations to imply a particular point of view. It also conflates different issues (i.e. mentioning a laundry list of Healy's past "controversies", Banks' comments), and tries to connect it to the episode with much editorial bias, and even links it to other pages (i.e. Olivia Benson). Some examples below:

There was also an attempt to shoehorn the page to another page the editor created with the same conflation and bias:

This page is unnecessary as material for this page has already been discussed at length on Matty Healy's page. This should be deleted / redirected to The Adam Friedland Show instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BiasedBased ( talk • contribs) 03:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)— BiasedBased ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

I would like to express my amazement that in six days, no other editors from the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matty Healy (2nd nomination) or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ross MacDonald discussions have chirped in on this. (I'm not planning on pinging anyone, as that would be WP:CANVASSING, although I see that 119.94.172.56 has done just that.) The then-bloated Background section I included due to the wealth of "what is the Matty Healy controversy" style articles that came out in May such as [39] [40] [41], though I suppose it is already covered in the parent article, and the Banks section is well within scope as a reliably sourced direct response to Healy's comments on the controversy. To expand upon the above, I would like to point out to the closer of this nomination the following:
  1. that purported bias is a surmountable problem and therefore not a reason for deletion,
  2. that WP:ATTACK does not apply here as all content requiring reliable sources has them (i.e., not the WP:LEDE or MOS:PLOT - although I'd really like to see better sourcing for what's left of the Background section),
  3. that plots are supposed to be primary sourced per WP:PLOTCITE (which is what I meant by "what I heard"), and
  4. that with five months of coverage, this article makes mincemeat of WP:GNG.
WP:DUE "requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources", and I am satisfied that I have done so.-- Laun chba ller 12:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete / Merge: This does not need its own page per WP:NOPAGE as this page is mere WP:NPOVFACT-- "an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. POV forks are not permitted on Wikipedia."
The page's original title before move was Matty Healy's appearance on The Adam Friedland Show The page move with the podcast title can be argued as another evasion of WP:NPOVFACT given its content. The content of the page has already been covered in Matty Healy's page (after disputes, and eventual consensus by several editors), as well as the podcast's page.
*Evidence of content forking to evade neutrality *
(1) The creator of this page has a history of editing Healy's page repeatedly about the podcast episode like here and here among a few, and even listed all of the things Healy has apparently been accused in the page's lede despite claims not being reflected with WP:NPOV in the body.
(2) Violates WP:NOTSCANDAL / WP:NOTOPINION, giving undue weight and rehash upon rehash of the topic. A cherry-picked list of Healy's perceived past indiscretions included by the creator to serve as "Background" section of this page even though sources cited do not relate it to the podcast is an attempt to establish notability and highlight negative viewpoints. Pages should be WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTDIARY with the page creator having also done this in Healy's page previously like here. This page is a patchwork very loosely sewn together to appear notable in itself.
(3) Page also does not pass WP:NOTESSAY especially after a particular mass revert by the page creator after another editor's cleanup with an Edit Summary stating "Sorry, but I know what I heard." despite The Guardian explicitly saying: "It’s worth noting that a lot of fans are incorrectly attributing a lot of the co-hosts’ comments to Healy." [1] And The New Yorker recounting: "Later, he laughed as the hosts did impressions of hypothetical Japanese guards at German concentration camps." [2] ThijsStoop ( talk) 15:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • MERGE OR DELETE Using WP:DEL-REASON, there are three reasons why this page should be deleted (tho, personally merging it with the podcast would suffice).
One, this is basically an WP:ATTACK page based on the point of view it was written, content (full of editorialising, original research, sourcing bias, indiscriminate inclusion of irrelevant incidents to put the subject in a worse light), and intolerance of the creator in revisions by other users as pointed above. The tone has already been an issue on Matty Healy's page for so long (one editor was even named "I Hate Matty Healy" lol), and his page just recently became stable WP:STABLE. Which leads me to...
Two, conveniently, after Healy's page reached its stable version after much content disputes and edit warring, this was created. This is simply content forking for WP:WEIGHT to what was already covered extensively in Healy's page.
Three, again, this is riddled with original research. Maxen Embry ( talk) 11:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete due to the biased language and sources which put Friedland and Mullen in a worse light, per WP:WEIGHT, although I think adding a section dedicated to this episode under the Adam Friedland Show page wouldn't be too bad of an idea. ChessPiece21 ( talk) 13:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/30/taylor-swift-matty-healy-fan-culture
  2. ^ https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/06/05/who-is-matty-healy

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I'd like to hear from other editors whether or not this article could be seen as an attack page. I do know I've never seen 29,303 bytes written on ONE episode of a podcast series so it clearly is overly detailed in relation to its significance. The question is whether the bias that is argued is in the article is inherent in the article's existence or whether it can be corrected through editing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Merge I'd selectively merge to the Matt Healy article. This is perhaps too recent to discuss at this point; it appears to have had the normal celebrity news discussion cycle (entertainment news sections of the various media), not sure this has much of a lasting consequence. TOOSOON, perhaps revisit in a year. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
I have to admit, notability was the one element of this I wasn't expecting to be questioned. Five months is a pretty long news discussion cycle, more than enough I would have thought to satisfy WP:SUSTAINED.-- Laun chba ller 11:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Merge selectively to Matty Healy. Big POVFORK issues here. There shouldn't be a beat-by-beat description of the podcast episode. We should veer away from celebrity gossip and all quotations as much as possible. There are some middling-quality sources that are not good for sensitive BLP content: Forbes contributors are a bad source in general; Insider, HuffPost and Rolling Stone should be avoided for these claims. — Bilorv ( talk) 11:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. I don't see a consensus among participants but there are a lot of different opinions on what might happen with this article. I think, at the least, this is worth a discussion on the article talk page or, at some point (but not soon), another trip to AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 04:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Earlham Road

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

This article was nominated 17 years ago. It does not meet GNG. I have checked with a Google search, and you find zilch (except for maps and property ads). The cemetery is notable but has its own article. Davidstewartharvey ( talk) 13:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete the accident/event section might be notable, the road has no sourcing beyond maps. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:08, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply
In my BEFORE, I found no particular shortage of references on the nightlife and the sink hole. An occasional article addresses yet another topic. Hence my conclusions on what the road is mostly noted for. Elemimele maps some of that below. Note that I subscribe to WP:NOTINHERETED. If only one building or land use is discussed, it creates passing mentions and does not add to notability. Only if an article discusses many buildings or land uses along a road, the road turns into the actual focus of an article. Your response seems to imply that AFDISCLEANUP. It is not. Per WP:NEXIST, Earlham Road passes both the WP:GNG and WP:GEOROAD. gidonb ( talk) 21:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply
As Elemimele correctly points out, here the road proper is the focus of many of the sources. gidonb ( talk) 00:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, city streets are subject to GNG. I will also note that had the article been named B1108 road, it would have been summarily redirected away as a non-notable highway per Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/B roads in the United Kingdom, yet as a city street somehow the bar is lower (when it should be the other way around per GEOROAD). -- Rs chen 7754 19:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, as the bus incident alone, which is supported by a ref and could be supported by any number more, was quite a major event in Norwich history, and keeps coming up (or down!) in the news [42], as well as scholarly write-up. [43] I'd note too that the road is lined by notable places, for example the Plantation Garden, Norwich, whose chalk-quarry origins explain how the bus came to disappear so dramatically, the Earlham Road Cemetery, Norwich, the Catholic cathedral, Earlham Hall and the University. If nothing else, this road article provides a very useful "list" article allowing navigation of a whole set of undisputedly notable locations along its length, but it also puts them in context. Of course other things have happened there too, a well-known bust-up between developers and tenants that at one stage looked like it might result in a change in the law, and was documented by a photographer. [44]; some of its historic buildings could be referenced to Pevsner if that would help (e.g. [45]. Earlham road was also the site of one of the city's historic gaols (the other was the castle), and has importance for the history of Jews in Norwich (note Chantry place is a modern square situated between Earlham road and the next major arterial round). [46] As roads go, this one has many centuries of documented history, archaeology, coherence and relevance as the spine of a major suburb of Norwich today; it's very far from a minor B-road. The article's deletion would be a sad loss; it can very easily be improved by sources. Elemimele ( talk) 20:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Yes, but most of those have articles already. -- Rs chen 7754 20:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply
      Exactly. When you put a load of buildings in a row, with access down the middle, it's a street. And notable streets tend to be those that link a lot of notable buildings... If none of the buildings, parks, cathedrals, universities etc. in Earlham road qualified for an article, the road itself would indeed just be a minor B-road leading out of a city. In fact, this is one of the very few streets in the UK that has its own entirely independent claim on notability, an event that it achieved with the aid solely of a bus, and without needing to rely on any buildings at all. There are very few roads that have eaten a substantial item of public transport and been remembered for it for nearly a quarter of a century. Give the poor road a chance, if you deny it its notabiliy this time round, who knows what it will have to do to the unfortunate residents of Norwich to get itself an article next time. Elemimele ( talk) 21:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply
      Before I go on leave, i will break down the issues:
      • The article should exist because of the sinkhole incident. Should it? Do a search of wikipedia of sinkhole incidents, there is only one article i can find that has a page, Bayou Corne sinkhole. This page already has a notice to improve as there has been nothing updated since 2015. In fact no sustained proof on the article, and in reality it should be redirecred and merged into the Bayou Corne, Louisiana article. This has happened to other sinkhole incidents. The incident in Norwich, has sustained coverage but it should be in the Norwich page, as it is the locality of the incident or have its own page.
      • The article should exist as links together other notable areas. Well inherited notability is not allowed.
      • Secondly, The Cathedral is linked in the Norwich article, the cemetery should be linked to Norwich. The University and Park are in Earlham, not on Earlham Road (as the article points out!), which for some reason Earlham doesn't have a page, which is probably notable. The synagogue again is in Norwich so should linked in this article. Earlham Hall is in Earlham, again why no article. Golden Triangle is an area of Norwich, which is notable, but Earlham Road is the boundary of this area, is that notable? No, the article just needs link to Norwich. The Plantation Garden is already linked in on the Norwich page.
      So basically we have a road that isn't notable except for one incident, the notable locations along it are either linked to the area they are in, and we have a notable area of Norwich (and former civil parish) that the road is named after that doesn't have a page! There are more historically notable roads in Norwich that don't have articles, like Tombland that have not been written about. Davidstewartharvey ( talk) 06:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply
      Delete per above. Okoslavia ( talk) 14:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply
WP:JUSTAVOTE, casted as part of following me. This behavior was addressed by other editors in ANI and another AfD. [47] [48] Thank you! gidonb ( talk) 10:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. See proposal below Agree with User:Gidonb — the fact that a street has many notable buildings helps cement its own notability. A road is more than tarmac and pavement. As User:Elemimele points out the bus sink hole event makes the road notable. A recent source describes the changing nature of part of the road and feature points along it, https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/23637344.earlham-road-norwich-becoming-citys-top-food-spot/ There's history on the bridge crossing the River Yare [49] - admittedly a better source needs finding to verify the details. Believe this road was part of the Norwich-Watton turnpike trust est. in 1770. Rupples ( talk) 07:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Proposal. Keep but retitle the article "Earlham, Norfolk or Earlham, Norwich". This is the second time the article has been AfD'd. I acknowledge and take into account the concern expressed by the nominator and !delete votes. What struck me when searching for sources was surprise that no article had been written on Earlham. Earlham was an ancient and civil parish distinct from Norwich up until 1889 see https://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/unit/10093790 There is content on Earlham's history and I believe the encyclopedia would be better served by having an article on Earlham the place rather than one restricted to Earlham Road. The opening paragraph and some of the text would need amending but the majority of content could be retained as it is still relevant to Earlham the place. I believe the retitled article would fall under WP:GEOLAND as a former legally, recognized populated place and notability isn't temporary WP:NTEMP. Pinging all contributors to this AfD for their views on this proposal in the hope that consensus can be achieved: @ Davidstewartharvey, @ Let'srun, @ Oaktree b, @ Gidonb, @ Rschen7754, @ Elemimele, @ Okoslavia. Rupples ( talk) 16:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Hey Rupples, I think that both are notable. You are free to create said article! gidonb ( talk) 17:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply
That's a tricky one. I'd agree there's nothing wrong with writing an article about Earlham the historic parish, and it could blend into Earlham, the modern region of Norwich, but I personally don't know what determines the actual boundary of Earlham today, and almost by definition the Norwich end of Earlham road isn't Earlham (or wasn't in origin...) because it was historically the road out of Norwich that led to Earlham! The places where you'd hope for a definitive boundary seem to provide only a centre-point. [50] Elemimele ( talk) 19:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Yes, there's probably too much of the road outside of the historic boundary of Earlham to make a good fit. Oh well, seemed initially like a decent compromise. Guess this article will have to stand or fall as is. Thanks for replying and Gidonb. Rupples ( talk) 21:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Oops. Looks as if my proposal isn't such a good idea. Withdrawing it. Apologies in advance to those who return here from my ping. Rupples ( talk) 22:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Question - There are not sources enough to keep this article alive, but the bus-in-the-sinkhole (no, not a traditional East Anglian recipe, though I can see why one'd think that) is definitely worth keeping. I found two strong and two week sources in a cursory search. Maybe salvage that part into Norwich and scrap the rest? Last1in ( talk) 20:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    The bus sinkhole bit could conceivably fit within the sub-section "Other events" under Norwich#History 20th Century (2.6.4). Rupples ( talk) 01:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 03:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, seems to pass the GNG. While searching "Earlham Road" leaves one drowning in mundanities, searching for "Earlham Road" + "tram" yields considerably more interesting results. In particular this (paywalled) paper published in Engineering Geology has some very interesting background on the history of subsidence incidents along Earlham Road, neatly putting the bus incident into context. And this conservation area appraisal contains a wealth of historical information -- and even if the report itself is rejected as potentially being in the pocket of Big Road, it provides abundant starting points for further searches. This issue of Norfolk Archeology appears to have some in-depth discussion of the tunnels under Earlham Road that were re-discovered in 1823. All of these are well above the WP:SIGCOV threshold, covering the subject directly and in detail. In sum, there seems to be ample historical material to work with here. -- Visviva ( talk) 03:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    The Conservation Appraisal is a perfect example of why Earlham Road is not notable. The report is for Heigham Grove, not Earlham Road. This is a suburb of Norwich, again without a wiki article which is notable. In fact this book [51] on the parish of St Giles has no mention of the road, but describes how the hamlet of Heigham Grove grew to encompass the parish (from 1886). As per the previous arguments, the road isn't notable, but the suburbs of Norwich are, and so these articles should be created. Davidstewartharvey ( talk) 05:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Then I think we have a viable solution: Temporarily Keep this article until those are created, incorporate the useful (sourced) bits of this one, then retire this article as NN. Until that happens, though, this has enough sourced (and interesting) material to survive an AfD. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 12:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Okay the latest proposal is to Keep this article, create an article on the parish, Merge this article into that one and then turn this page into a Redirect. Is there support for this plan? Or do we go back to Keep vs. Delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Reading through the discussion, I support the plan, otherwise prefer a keep. Ultimately the article title doesn't matter too much to me. If either of these happen, I can offer to help with the resulting merge, or tag/trim unverifiable information after it happens, at an appropriate time if someone wants to ping me. — siro χ o 03:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Support for reasons stated @19-Jul-2023. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 23:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per everyone above - Notable road and notable bus accident as proven by sources provided above, Meets GNG. – Davey2010 Talk 19:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Why are we debating a proposal that was withdrawn? The AfD has not yet been withdrawn. I do not see much support for deletion. gidonb ( talk) 02:13, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete‎ per author request. ✗ plicit 12:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

MrShibolet

MrShibolet (  | talk | history | 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 streamer/internet person. Zero sources found in Gnews. Nothing for sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk) 03:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel ( talk) 02:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

100 Ways to Write a Book

100 Ways to Write a Book (  | talk | history | 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 book, no critical reviews of the work found, no sources of any kind really. Delete for not meeting GNG. Oaktree b ( talk) 03:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b ( talk) 03:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete U5. I've added tag. Cursory search doesn't show any RS. This or related articles have been declined by AFC twice at least, and there also seems to be a COI. — siro χ o 04:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The citations are only about the contributing authors, not the book itself. Doesn't satisfy WP:NBOOK. -- TheLonelyPather ( talk) 06:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. I haven't checked all of the references, but a random click-through seems to show that most sources don't even mention this book. Quality>Quantity. ARandomName123 ( talk) 02:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. If the page creator wants to work on this article in Draft space and submit it to WP:AFC, let me know. It was probably put into main space too soon and also nominated for deletion soon after creation which we try to discourage. Liz Read! Talk! 03:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Tommy Playboy

Tommy Playboy (  | talk | history | 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 in WP:ANYBIO , WP:NMODEL Worldiswide ( talk) 02:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment. I’ll comb through sources tomorrow and see if I can find a notable hook bc I am seeing that a statement of significance is missing. Elttaruuu ( talk) 04:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment. I definitely understand why this article isn’t quite there yet but just want to share, it is frustrating trying to find useable content for someone who only recently stopped using their dead name and then died. Obviously, not saying this as a critique of Playboy, herself. Her name is also difficult to research because of Tommy Lee and Pamela Anderson’s connection to Playboy. I would love to be able to add to the Wikipedia record her community organizing and artistic work but I may have to wait for more to be written about her. Elttaruuu ( talk) 13:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep. I think it’s clear from the sources utilized that Playboy was a big presence in the New York queer community. Them, Women’s Wear Daily, and Essence all wrote articles about her life, legacy, and death. Elttaruuu ( talk) 02:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete I'm not seeing notability. Having your photo published is not nearly enough for notability. Rest seems to be about their death; apart from the photo and the tragic demise, I'm not seeing notability. Oaktree b ( talk) 02:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete One of the cited sources Them magazine article by Uzumaki Cepeda reads in addition to Hatnim Lee’s photography from the memorial, we asked Uzumaki Cepeda, one of Tommy’s best friends, to share a few words and memories about the beloved New York icon.. This source is used to cite the trivia that the author and the article subject were both friends with Kehlani. This name drop is as meaningful as an article written by the subject's friend saying they both liked #1 value meal pack from McDonald's and I feel like it's an attempt to fluff up notability. Graywalls ( talk) 18:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 02:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

List of carnivorans by population

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

With the same reasoning presented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of felidaes by population- namely, that this is redundant to the excellent List of carnivorans and daughter-lists, which are also up-to-date and more informative overall. I would also like to bundle List of even-toed ungulates by population and List of odd-toed ungulates by population in this nomination, for the same reasons (out of date content forks to List of artiodactyls & daughters, and List of perissodactyls). SilverTiger12 ( talk) 02:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Lara Uebersax

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

The subject has earned at least four caps for the Liechtenstein women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 02:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - Agreed. Other than existence, there is no verification from a third party source thus no evidence of notability.
TheBritinator ( talk) 01:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Soucing is of insufficient depth and independence. Star Mississippi 02:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Frank Morano

AfDs for this article:
Frank Morano (  | talk | history | 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 media personality and political operative; sourcing is simply confirmation of where he works. Article is PROMO. Oaktree b ( talk) 02:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply

If the sourcing simply confirms where he works it wouldn’t matter because WP: SIGCOV. The multiple sources are Staten Island Advance, NY Times, Politico, Variety and Radio Insight are more than sufficient for WP: SIGCOV. The sources discusses his career as a radio producer and radio host, his radio program is based in the largest metro area in America. The sourcing discusses his unpaid career in third party politics on Staten Island which is a significant geographical area of over 400,000 people. Fodient ( talk) 02:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
I concur completely and I note this as someone who has spoken to him in person as well as on air many times. 100.37.241.149 ( talk) 17:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply
This article is more propaganda than fact. It should be deleted. Especially when Frank Morano has a fringe audience, even if he is now nationally syndicated. 100.37.241.149 ( talk) 17:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

This page should be deleted due to incorrect information.

Keep Well cited with reliable sources and significant coverage. Blordfam ( talk) 10:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Blordfam ( talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. reply
NoteWho said that this comment was from canvassing? Fodient ( talk) 05:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Tons of links in article, very well sourced, all about nationally ranked radio host. RobotUSA ( talk) 06:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)— RobotUSA ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
He's not as highly ranked as John Batchelor, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, or Brian Kilmeade. Nor is he as credible as any of them. This piece really reads more like an advertisement for a mediocre radio talk show host who disdains STEM but prefers to host science denialists and conspiracy theorists like RFK Jr and Michael Medved to name a few. 100.37.241.149 ( talk) 17:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply
This doesn’t matter due to wp:OTHERSTUFF Fodient ( talk) 16:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep As per wp:sigcov and wp:gng 107.127.7.6 ( talk) 18:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 107.127.7.6 ( talk) has been canvassed to this discussion. reply
NoteWho said that this comment was from canvassing? Fodient ( talk) 05:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get more participation from regular editors who aren't fans of his show to assess whether or not the sourcing is adequate. Personally, though I think the guest list of his wedding is the height of trivia, I have only seen content like that in biographies of royalty.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete: I don't see anything particularly notable about this "media personality/political operative", and agree with @ Oaktree b:, that the article is pure WP:PROMO. There are dozens of talk-show/podcast hosts out there, it doesn't mean they should all have a Wikipedia article, especially those with a fringe audience. - BlueboyLINY ( talk) 23:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
You're saying its a promo or a resume, but what about it is a promo or resume? Your statement of "There are dozens of talk-show/podcast hosts out there, it doesn't mean they should all have a Wikipedia article...", if there are reliable sources and significant coverage then yes, as long as someone makes an article they should be here. This article has the NY Times, Politico, Variety as major nationwide reliable sources, and other local or niche sources that exceed a minimum requirement for significant coverage. Fodient ( talk) 00:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Still doesn't meet the notability criteria for WP:ANYBIO. BlueboyLINY ( talk) 00:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Even if he didn't, that's not necessary. WP: ANYBIO is in the Additional criteria section that states "A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." He would qualify for WP:CREATIVE The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors which is demonstrated by the attendees at his wedding. Fodient ( talk) 01:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Having a large wedding doesn't imply any sort of notability I'm afraid. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
I agree it doesn't but it is indicative of The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors' Fodient ( talk) 01:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
It's PROMO simply by existing in wikipedia, it helps boost search rankings and adds to the online presence of the "thing". More hits equals greater ad revenue for the "thing". Oaktree b ( talk) 01:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Just by saying its a promo doesnt mean its a promo or that the intent is to promote something. Fodient ( talk) 01:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, without prejudice. (Disclaimer: Referred to dispute from RFC bot on subject article's talk page) I do think that there is an intent to promote, and I do see that there is reasonable cause for a close connection. He's not an iconic broadcaster on a global basis (like Joe Rogan) nor on a local basis (like Pittsburgh's Joe DeNardo); saying he could be in the future would be a WP:CRYSTALBALL violation. While anything is possible with him, we don't determine notability based on unconfirmed notions; rather, we wait until such figure becomes notable and then write. It's how things have gone for a long time, it's a policy I support, and I neither foresee nor desire that its core message be changed.InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 02:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    By saying he's not Joe Rogan is an WP:OSE argument. As you said "we don't determine notability based on unconfirmed notions", and that's true. We confirm notability based on reliable sources which are here by the way of the NY Times, Politico, and Variety, also local news from America's largest metropolitan area and niche sources confirm. If there's evidence to promote, then present it. Fodient ( talk) 02:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Such sources mention him in passing and little have SIGCOV. I don't think that my usage of Rogan and DeNardo constitutes as an OSE argument. The examples provided in OSE are along the lines of We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this; not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that Morano is not like Rogan where there are in-depth sources without affiliation to the subject. The NY Times article you bring up mentions him only ONCE, and in passing just for being the chair of some local board. I have qualified my statement of intent to promote with "I think"; since I am not god of the universe, I cannot know everybody's intentions, but I do get a gut feeling in my stomach based on previous debates that there is some intent to promote based on previous deletion. I qualify my statements when I am not 100% sure that something is the case, and it is important that you recognize such. If you would prefer that in my discussions with you that I replace "I think" with "I get the feeling", I would be happy to do so. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 03:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. From the looks of it, this is a situation where there seems to be enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, but there are serious problems with the way the article is written. While there are many citations throughout the article, in spotchecking the references, it seems like some of them fail verification – in other words, they don't always back up the specific claims made. The only way to justify saving this article is to fix this – fact by fact, sentence by sentence – because per our WP:BLP guidelines, Wikipedia cannot keep inaccurate/unverified information in biographies of living people. Cielquiparle ( talk) 04:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Give me an example of something that's not backed up by the sources? Fodient ( talk) 04:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    To start, I'm stuck at footnote 2 – "since been syndicated"? Cielquiparle ( talk) 04:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Thanks for fixing this. Cielquiparle ( talk) 04:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Footnote 4 – "a completely subjective power ranking"? That's non-neutral and you can't cite the ranking itself as the source for that claim. Cielquiparle ( talk) 04:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    I removed "completely subjective" for you. Cielquiparle ( talk) 04:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Footnote 7 – broken link to non-existent page, quote in reference also isn't relevant. Cielquiparle ( talk) 04:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Thanks. Typo on the link, fixed it. Fodient ( talk) 04:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Improper use of external link – That William Shatner reference needs to be correctly formatted as a citation, or removed. Cielquiparle ( talk) 04:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    I didnt put that there, I eliminated it. Fodient ( talk) 04:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    First section: Frank Morano is an American radio personality, radio, television and film producer, and political operative. He currently hosts the syndicated talk radio program The Other Side of Midnight from Red Apple Media's flagship station 770 AM WABC. Right out of his biography on WABC website. Not the best source but reliable enough to confirm his current employment.

    Radio host section: Starting in 2011, Frank Morano hosted Morano in the Morning on 970AM The Answer. In 2020, he began hosting The Other Side of Midnight overnights on WABC. The show has since been syndicated The source states he went to WABC in 2020. We know thats the name of his program. I just added a source stating his program is syndicated.

    Producer section: As a producer, Frank Morano has mostly worked in talk radio. He, produced programs on 770 AM WABC and 970 AM The Answer. The hosts of these programs included Joe Piscopo, Curtis Sliwa, and John Catsimatidis. On Newsmax, Morano was the managing editor for Liquid Lunch and a producer for Vito Fossella's Table Talk. He served as a producer for the 2017 Netflix documentary Get Me Roger Stone. I can remove As a producer, Frank Morano has mostly worked in talk radio., maybe its WP: OR but that seemed obvious based on the ratio from source. Newsmax's website listed him as managing editor for that program but that source was removed, probably incorrectly.

    Political section Frank Morano is a Staten Island resident that has been involved in local politics. Morano is currently the board chair for Staten Island Community Board 3. Morano was originally registered with the Independence Party of New York. He resigned from the Independence Party in 2010 after the party leadership refused to grant a Wilson Pakula to Republican State Assembly candidate Nicole Malliotakis. He went on to serve in a leadership role for New York State third parties with ballot access Reform Party and SAM Party. Everyone of those sources confirms everything in that section.

    Personal life Frank Morano is married to Rachel O'Brien. Vincent Ignizio was his best man, and their wedding was attended by Nicole Malliotakis, John Catsimatidis, John Gotti Jr., Joe Piscopo, Carol Alt, Betsy McCaughey, James Oddo, Joe Borelli, Michael Cusick, Ronald Castorina, Dan Donovan, Fred Cerullo, Vincent Gentile, Sal Albanese, Robert Auth. The SI Advance confirms everything here. Fodient ( talk) 04:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Well cited with reliable sources 2607:FB91:1980:D29:E00F:3922:8BEE:C3BD ( talk) 23:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Which reliable sources independent of the subject or his job are WP:SIGCOV? InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 03:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    He is the subject of articles. Additionally multiple news outlets have reached out to him for quote or felt his opinion was significant enough to be quoted in their news article. The significant coverage by reliable sources of the subject, his job, voluntary political work, and his personal life is what makes him notable. All of which occurs in the largest metropolitan area in America. Fodient ( talk) 17:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    What articles? The ones that are online and are from reliable sources which are presently cited in the article mention him once in passing, which doesn't meet our notability standards. The fact he's in the NYC area doesn't matter when it comes to notability; if that were the case every person from NYC would be notable and we'd be flooded with database-entry like articles which are solely justified per OSE matters. Some of them aren't even online as when I try to read them, I get a 404. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 17:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Being from NYC is a factor. A media personality in huge market is going to be more notable than a media personality in a small market, and when you add in syndication the notability increases. No one is saying that merely being from NYC makes you notable. Reference 2, 3, 9 and 13 are about the subject. Reference 11, 12 have him significantly mentioned - the politico article mentions his name thirteen times. Reference 4 has a notable publication demonstrating his rankings. Reference 5 and 6 are reliable sources that amplify his producer credits. Reference 7 and 8 provide reliable sources that indicate his community service. Although he isn't affiliated with one of the two major parties, the totality of the references indicate that the subject is a major local political figure in NYC third party politics WP:Politician. Fodient ( talk) 19:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Hosting a radio show which is only confined to one metro doesn't make such person notable. Morano did not make the same impact as a mayor or as a celebrity. Reference 13 is WP:TRIVIA. Bragging about community service as you've mentioned for refs 7 and 8 seem to me like a method to promote. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 03:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    The article mentions that he is syndicated and two refences support that, I don't understand why you're saying in one metro area. I have no affiliation with the subject. Are you claiming that I'm bragging for him with references 7 and 8? I guess to some degree personal life sections are always WP:TRIVIA, but the eclectic group of notable people indicates that this section supports person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. Fodient ( talk) 03:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. There are sources covering the subject, but not many go into depth about him. I do not see how his radio shows, marriage, party affiliation and community board service are notably different from many other people's. Senorangel ( talk) 23:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I am a regular listener to this show as I work odd hours. This article was started by fans when Frank Morano complained for a significant period one morning he didn't have a Wikipedia page. It did not originate from an organic interest in him as a public figure. There is currently an active attempt on Facebook in his fan group to have people visit and "vote" to keep this page, no doubt to inflate his ego. (see: https://www.facebook.com/groups/radiomorano/posts/1643373382824213) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.124.70 ( talk) 09:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    So there's canvassing here also? oh god... InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 18:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    It is understandable. But yes, it generally backfires. Doesn't matter if you're in nuclear policy research, a YouTuber, or a radio personality... Canvassing often results in the articles getting deleted, rightly or wrongly. Cielquiparle ( talk) 19:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Note This is appears to be not an unbiased user. By stating no doubt to inflate his ego is the user stating their personal feelings about the subject WP:IMPARTIAL. Fodient ( talk) 05:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - He seems to have passing mention in a few higher-quality sources, but essentially no direct coverage. NickCT ( talk) 15:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Note There's no evidence of canvassing. There's one user posting a non-existent link claiming that canvassing is occurring. Fodient ( talk) 05:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: Most sources in the article are not about him, and he is just mentioned in passing, not meeting WP:SIGCOV. Additionally, I'm not sure why the guest list for the wedding is needed. Seems way too trivial for this article. ARandomName123 ( talk) 23:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. given sources brought up in this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Lorin Ranier

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

Not meeting notability for business people or for sports, beyond this [52], rest are simply discussion of the racing teams he's worked with. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply

But he’s a team owner with a storied history in the sport? I understand your take on the matter absolutely but he’s the key figure to 2 of the top development programs in stock car racing currently and is a team owner, what’s the difference in him and other team owners with wiki pages? He just happens to not currently own a team, and if most crew chiefs like Chris Gabehart can have Wikipedia pages I see no reason a team owner can’t have one also, thank you for your time. OlHossNo.13 ( talk) 01:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep per WP:GNG. He's been covered in the Courier Journal, The Roanoke Times, the Knight Ridder Tribune, Bristol Herald Courier, and there was a Ranier Racing Museum covered in the Associated Press. APK whisper in my ear 05:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to review sources brought up in this discussion and whether they are sufficient to establish GNG for this article subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - clearly notable per refs found above. For the future, NASCAR team owners are probably always notable given the coverage of teams and drivers. I see stuff about them weekly.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 02:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Elizabeth J. Drake

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG as a failed judicial nominee. Let'srun ( talk) 00:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in the midst of proposals and counter proposals as consensus is far from clear and each AFD in this subject area is being closed differently.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 16:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply

The Pawnshop No. 8

The Pawnshop No. 8 (  | talk | history | 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:BEFORE search didn't yield reviews or WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 00:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, Entertainment, and Taiwan. Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 00:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment the article is not in a good state, but I hesitate to delete an article about foreign-language show that never made it to an English-speaking country, with a notable cast, that is currently being remade. Reliable sources almost certainly exist in other languages. There exist some maybe-not-so-reliable sources in English [53] [54] [55]. — siro χ o 09:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    If [r]eliable sources...exist in other languages, then great! Fantastic! Please show me them! I would actually love for an article about a show I enjoyed twenty years ago to be kept and improved to cover all the major info (reception, plot, etc.)! I, alas, and yes, to my own surprise, did not find sources to show WP:GNG for this show and not the cast, not a potential remake in English or in Chinese. I am more than happy to be proven wrong. Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 16:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Mak, Mun San (2004-03-28). "Television". The Straits Times. Archived from the original on 2023-07-29. Retrieved 2023-07-29.

      The article notes: "Hong Kong actor-singer Alex To may have been in the news last year for all the wrong reasons, but his latest outing in the supernatural drama The Pawnshop No. 8 should get everyone talking again - for the right ones. Adapted from a novel by popular Hong Kong writer Zita Law aka Deep Snow (pop idol Andy Lau is said to be a huge fan of her works), the Taiwanese serial stars To as the proprietor of a pawnshop during the late Qing dynasty. ... Try not to cringe when you see To, with his handsome face all contorted, declaring: 'I love her! I want to be with her during this lifetime, and the next, and the next...'If you can get past that, you should begin to appreciate the decent acting by him, Tien and the rest of the cast, which includes TV host A-ya and Matilda Tao's beau Li Li-jen."

    2. Wu, Qizong 吳啟綜 (2003-04-16). "杜德偉來台 開 當舖 天心 鄭家榆繞身旁 帥哥強調跟女友感情沒問題" [Alex To came to Taiwan to open a pawn shop. Tien Hsin, Carol Cheng are around,. The handsome guy emphasizes that he and his girlfriend have no relationship problems.]. Min Sheng Bao (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-07-29. Retrieved 2023-07-29.

      The article notes: "「第８號當舖」由「映畫」郭建宏製作、蔡揚名執導，劇情改編小說描述一間當舖，不僅可以典當金銀珠寶，還可以典當人的際遇、靈魂、愛情，甚至身體的任何部位。杜德偉飾演被賦予魔力長生不老的當舖老闆，而鄭家榆則飾杜的賢淑老婆，一路從20歲演到70多歲，很有挑戰性。天心則飾演非常時摩的當舖夥計。"

      From Google Translate: ""Pawnshop No. 8" is produced by "Yinghua" Guo Jianhong and directed by Cai Yangming. The plot is adapted from a novel describing a pawnshop that not only pawns gold, silver and jewelry, but also pawns people's fortune, soul, love, and even any part of the body. Du Dewei plays the pawnshop owner who is endowed with magical powers of immortality, while Zheng Jiayu plays Du's virtuous wife. It is very challenging to act from the age of 20 to her 70s. Tian Xin plays the pawnshop boy who is very fashionable."

    3. Yang, Qifeng 楊起鳳 (2003-05-14). "第8號當鋪 照燒！ 驚煞中開鏡 仁波切祈福" [The Pawnshop No. 8. Teriyaki! Shocked and opened the mirror, Rinpoche prayed]. Star News [ zh (in Chinese).

      The article notes: "衛視中文台「第8號當鋪」昨天開鏡，男主角杜德偉因屬港澳同胞無法來台，不過現場特別邀來格巴多傑仁波切大師及五位喇嘛，為全台灣人民進行祈福儀式，盼大家能平安渡過這次SARS席捲全球的風暴。在香港接受訪問的杜德偉說，為讓劇組能順利工作，他願意配合政府來台隔離十天的禁令。"

      From Google Translate: "Satellite TV's Chinese channel "Pawn Shop No. 8" started filming yesterday. The actor Du Dewei was unable to come to Taiwan because he is a compatriot from Hong Kong and Macau. However, Master Gepa Dorje Rinpoche and five lamas were specially invited to perform a blessing ceremony for the people of Taiwan. Hope everyone We can safely ride out the storm of SARS sweeping the world. Du Dewei, who was interviewed in Hong Kong, said that in order to allow the crew to work smoothly, he is willing to cooperate with the government's 10-day quarantine ban in Taiwan."

    4. Zhao, Dazhi 趙大智 (2003-08-24). "劉雪華 醜到把于莉嚇哭 暴牙、歪嘴進第8號當舖 大美女細數嚇人史 超得意" [Leanne Liu is so ugly that Yu Li was scared to tears. Toothy, crooked mouth into The Pawnshop No. 8. Scary history of beauties. Super interesting.]. Min Sheng Bao (in Chinese).

      The article notes: "劉雪華最近加入衛視中文台「第8號當舖」，昨天在華視地下4樓攝影棚拍一段精采劇情，先拍她25歲時因長相醜陋，到杜德偉和天心開設的當舖，打算出賣自己最珍貴之物，換取美貌；接著，她果真如願變成像天心一般的美女，身著華服但慾望反而愈來愈多，還想繼續典當下去，到最後，甚至連生育能力和視力都賣給魔鬼了。"

      From Google Translate: "Liu Xuehua recently joined Satellite TV's Chinese channel "No. 8 Pawnshop". Yesterday, she filmed a wonderful scene in the studio on the 4th floor of China TV. First, she went to the pawnshop opened by Du Dewei and Tianxin when she was 25 years old because of her ugly appearance. Then, as she wished, she turned into a beautiful woman like Tianxin, dressed in gorgeous clothes, but her desires grew more and more, and she wanted to continue pawning. In the end, even her fertility and eyesight were sold to the devil."

    5. "今晚新菜色 第8號當鋪" [New dishes tonight. The Pawnshop No. 8]. United Evening News [ zh (in Chinese). 2003-10-07.

      The article notes: "改編自香港知名小說家深雪同名小說的電視連續劇「第8號當舖」，由杜德偉和天心主演，是衛視中文台首齣花鉅資自製的八點檔連續劇。"

      From Google Translate: "Adapted from the novel of the same name by the famous Hong Kong novelist Shen Xue, the TV series "Pawn Shop No. 8", starring Du Dewei and Tian Xin, is the first self-produced 8 o'clock series on the Chinese Channel of Satellite TV with a huge investment."

    6. Fang, Chan 方嬋 (2003-10-12). "當鋪造勢 星情狂FUN 中南部辦簽名 天心小露性感 杜德偉好興奮" [Pawn shop to build momentum. Star lovers FUN. Autographing at Central South Office. Tien Hsin is sexy. Alex To is so excited.]. Star News [ zh (in Chinese).

      The article notes: "為了幫主演的「第8號當舖」造勢，天心以黑色薄紗加上若隱若現的Bra，色誘觀眾；而愛血拚的林韋君看到簽名會現場百貨公司正在打折，差一點衝進去大肆血拚。 衛視中文台大戲「第8號當舖」下中南部辦簽名會，男女主角杜德偉、李志希、天心、林韋君的魅力，將現場擠得水瀉不通。"

      From Google Translate: "In order to help the starring "Pawnshop No. 8" build momentum, Tianxin used black tulle and a looming Bra to seduce the audience; and Lin Weijun, who loves shopping, saw that the department store was on sale at the autograph session, and almost rushed in to do some shopping. Satellite TV's Chinese channel drama "No. 8 Pawnshop" held an autograph session in Xiazhongnan. The charm of the leading actors and actresses Du Dewei, Li Zhixi, Tianxin, and Lin Weijun crowded the scene."

    7. Li, Yiyun 李怡芸 (2003-12-07). "電視派不屑原著 小說派力挺深雪 吵成e團 當舖狂賣" [The TV school disdains the original work, while the novel school supports Miyuki Arguing into an e group, pawnshop selling wildly]. Star News [ zh (in Chinese).

      The article notes: "電視劇「第8號當舖」才因換了主角拍續集被網友痛批，這廂對於原著小說與電視劇的優劣之爭，亦在網上辯得沸沸揚揚，然而不論是褒是貶，結果是…原著小說因此再度熱賣。網友對於「第8號當舖」電視版和小說版的好惡，可說是涇渭分明，支持電視劇的人，認為小說沒有真正「說故事」，電腦天才林賢堂為婚姻的犧牲只是過場，孫卓也沒有談到友情及為成功的掙扎，更沒有劉至芳的人性轉變，因此認為賦予原著生命的，是編劇和演員，"

      From Google Translate: "The TV series "Pawn Shop No. 8" was criticized by netizens for changing the main character to make a sequel. The debate over the merits of the original novel and the TV series has been heatedly debated on the Internet. However, no matter whether it is praise or criticism, the result is... the original work The novel is therefore a hit again. Netizens' likes and dislikes between the TV version and the novel version of "No. 8 Pawnshop" can be said to be very different. Those who support the TV series think that the novel does not really "tell the story". Friendship and struggle for success, not to mention the transformation of Liu Zhifang's human nature. Therefore, it is believed that the scriptwriter and actors gave life to the original work."

    8. Cai, Yiling 蔡宜玲 (2004-01-31). "天心：叫我紅八點 一人三部戲 八點檔不看她也難" [Tien Hsin: Call me Red Eight. Three dramas for one person, it's hard not to watch her at eight o'clock]. United Evening News [ zh (in Chinese).

      The article notes: "2003年對天心是幸運的一年，「第8號當舖」在台灣收視長紅，創造有線台國語劇奇蹟 ... 由於天心人氣急速上升，正在播出的「第8號當舖」因有上檔壓力，天心每天都得趕拍"

      From Google Translate: "2003 was a lucky year for Tianxin. "The No. 8 Pawn Shop" became popular in Taiwan, creating a miracle in cable television Mandarin dramas; ... Due to the rapid increase in Tianxin's popularity, Tianxin has to rush to shoot every day due to the pressure of "Pawn Shop No. 8" which is currently being broadcast."

    9. Li, Meihua 李美嬅 (2004-03-10). "8號當舖開張 有價萬物全收 店名趕搭電視劇熱潮 工作人員穿制服凸顯「專業」 首日就有人拿名牌皮包、新款手機和名表典當" [The Pawnshop No. 8 opened, accepting everything of value. The name of the store catches up with the TV drama craze. The staff wear uniforms to highlight their "professionalism." On the first day, some people pawned designer bags, new mobile phones and famous watches]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p. B2.

      The article notes: "電視劇第8號當舖最近當紅，這家8號當舖名稱一樣，在夜晚時廣告霓虹燈閃爍，引人注意。三月八日才取得縣政府核發的營利事業登記證，昨天開張已有人上門把名牌皮包、新款行動電話和名表拿來典當。 ... 老闆徐嘉宏不否認取這店名是趕搭電視劇熱潮，但為與傳統當舖區隔，8號當舖門面很明亮，工作人員一律穿上深灰色制服，希望給顧客專業的感覺，"

      From Google Translate: "The No. 8 pawn shop of the TV series has become popular recently. This No. 8 pawn shop has the same name. At night, the neon lights of the advertisement flash, attracting attention. The profit-seeking business registration certificate issued by the county government was only obtained on March 8, and when it opened yesterday, people have pawned famous-brand leather bags, new mobile phones and famous watches. ... The owner Xu Jiahong does not deny taking this The name of the store is to catch up with the TV drama craze, but in order to distinguish it from traditional pawnshops, No. 8 pawnshop has a bright facade, and the staff all wear dark gray uniforms, hoping to give customers a professional feeling."

    10. Yu, Qingxuan 於慶璇 (2016-04-16). "《第8號當舖》13年過去了 如今這些主演..." ["The Pawnshop No. 8" aired 13 years, and now these leading actors...]. China Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-07-29. Retrieved 2023-07-29.

      The article notes: "《第8號當舖》是一齣相當別出心裁的電視劇，故事設定為清末民初之時，講述一間特別的當舖，在這間當舖裡接受任何物品，典當的不僅僅只是金銀珠寶、大屋樓契，還有一個人的四肢、內臟、運氣、機遇、快樂，以及靈魂。劇情看似記憶猶新，但不知不覺，這部電視劇已經過去有13年之久，究竟這些主演現在都過得如何呢？還記得他們嗎？"

      From Google Translate: ""Pawnshop No. 8" is a very ingenious TV series. The story is set at the end of the Qing Dynasty and the beginning of the Republic of China. It tells about a special pawnshop. Anything is accepted in this pawnshop. The pawns are not only gold, silver, jewelry, and property deeds of big houses. , and a person's limbs, guts, luck, chance, pleasure, and soul. The plot seems to be fresh in memory, but unknowingly, 13 years have passed since this TV series. How are these leading actors doing now? remember them?"

    11. Less significant coverage:
      1. Young, Debbie (2004-06-11). "Real drama queen". The Straits Times. Archived from the original on 2023-07-29. Retrieved 2023-07-29.

        The article provides two sentences of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "My most recent purchase is a 40-episode Taiwanese drama called Pawnshop No. 8, about the battle between the two worlds of good and evil. It cost me $100 for the set but I think it is money well-spent."

      2. Yang, Qifeng 楊起鳳 (2003-04-16). "杜德偉登台 忘掉麻煩 吸毒風波律師處理 舒服拍戲快樂玩" [Alex To on stage, forgetting the trouble. Lawyer dealing with drug scandal, comfortable filming and fun]. Star News [ zh (in Chinese).

        The article notes: "衛視與製作人郭建宏、導演蔡揚名合作拍攝八點檔自製劇「第 8號當舖」請來不老的情人杜德偉演男主角，首度在台拍電視劇"

        From Google Translate: "Satellite TV cooperated with producer Guo Jianhong and director Cai Yangming to shoot the 8 o'clock self-produced drama "No. 8 Pawnshop" and invited the ageless lover Du Dewei to play the leading role. It was the first time to shoot a TV series in Taiwan."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Pawnshop No. 8 ( traditional Chinese: 第8號當舖; simplified Chinese: 第8号当铺), also known as Pawnshop #8, to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 09:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per Cunard's sourcing, meets WP:GNG — siro χ o 11:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_July_24&oldid=1168180874"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 23 July 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 delete‎. ✗ plicit 23:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

List of peers retired and removed under the House of Lords Reform Act 2014

List of peers retired and removed under the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 (  | talk | history | 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 list of people who have resigned from the House of Lords is already absurdly long, and it is only going to get longer every year. What's the point? It may have seemed like a novelty when the first resignations began happening, but this law has been in force for nine years now. No other article about a legislature maintains a list of everyone who has resigned from it. Richard75 ( talk) 23:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

What about having a yearly one Earl of Sutton Coldfield ( talk) 00:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
What about having it in list of decade of retired peers Earl of Sutton Coldfield ( talk) 14:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
That would help with the length, but it still doesn't deal with notability. Why does this list need to exist at all? Richard75 ( talk) 15:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply
That doesn't address notability though. Richard75 ( talk) 15:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply
OK but it would work if you had them in decades. Earl of Sutton Coldfield ( talk) 22:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Deleted I created these as this maybe the solution:
List of peers retired under the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 (2014–2020)
List of peers retired under the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 (2021–present)

It is easier to maintain and just keep up to date with either the deaths and the future retirements.

Earl of Sutton Coldfield ( talk) 13:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

I’m not convinced that those meet notability standards, seeing as how they are essentially forks of this article. 64.107.163.147 ( talk) 16:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 23:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

St Fidelis College (Lucknow, India)

AfDs for this article:
St Fidelis College (Lucknow, India) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We are now a lot stricter on schools since the last AfD. Unreferenced and no coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar ( talk) 23:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete can't find many sources apart from two TOI (first linked above ), however both are linked to the same event and don't necessarily talk about the school — Karnataka talk 16:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Naked Capitalism

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

This article frankly reads like an advertisement for the subject and, as of now, it's unclear that it meets WP:GNG.

Of the fourteen cited sources: four ([10]-[13]) are interviews with the website's creator; two ([1] and [6]) are About pages from the website; two are posts on the website itself ([8] and [14]); one ([7]) is a self-published blog post by one of the website's contributors; and one ([5]) is a post on another website by the website's creator. This leaves four reliable secondary sources, two of which only briefly mention Naked Capitalism in passing as recommendations, and the other two of which are short biographical stubs about the website's creator, without more than a passing reference to the website.

One thing that becomes immediately clear upon going through these sources is that they lack significant coverage of the website - often only briefly mentioning the website as a product of its creator, without any further detail. There seems to be more information about the website's creator than the website itself, so if no more significant coverage from reliable sources can be found, maybe a short stub about her could be salvaged from this. But in its current state, I don't think this article meets GNG and as such, am recommending it for deletion. Grnrchst ( talk) 12:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 17. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 17:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Delete. Even using the sourcing given above, it's one in a list of items. Nothing at length about it... I can't find much for sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk) 17:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Oaktree b I should mention that the article in the Risk journal mentions that it is based on a piece in the journal Credit, a sister publication; this runs to three pages. People can have a look; it is available on ProQuest via the WP:Library. The Financial Times interview article (1,750 words) actually was one of a series about the blog (final instalment here. Even the TIME listing is over 200 words. There are brief endorsements in the New York Times like this one. I can have a further look around, but even just with those I would have thought GNG is well met.
    The one thing that does make things difficult is that Smith has written so many news articles that it's hard to find stuff about her and her blog in Google News. A lot of the hits are links to articles by her, with the author info mentioning the blog. (Note that Yves Smith – a pun on Adam Smith – redirects to Naked Capitalism.) Andreas JN 466 19:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Honestly these sources just confirm to me that, if this article is to exist, it should be about Yves Smith. None of these sources refer to Naked Capitalism as anything other than Smith's blog. It isn't clearly independently notable from her, although she is clearly a notable figure herself. -- Grnrchst ( talk) 10:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    As I see it, the sources are primarily about the blog. Take the TIME and CNBC listings, or the Financial Times interview, which is all about the blog, or the Institutional Investor piece. It's the blog that makes Smith notable, not Smith that makes the blog notable. Andreas JN 466 11:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Move to Susan Webber (blogger) and keep at that title. BD2412 T 18:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ BD2412 The problem with that solution is that even though Naked Capitalism was started by Webber (a.k.a. Yves Smith), and she remains the most high-profile contributor, it is a group blog and is indexed as such here for example by EconAcademics.org (a site hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.)
    A past version of the article included a bunch of contributing writers (another editor deleted them because they were unsourced). Some of those contributors have been referred to or had their NC posts republished by third-party sources; e.g. Matt Stoller here, David Dayen (see [9], Alternet running a piece previously published on NC, also cf. [10]), Philip Pilkington ( [11] [12]), Nathan Tankus ( [13]), Jerri-Lynn Scofield [14] etc.
    So I think the solution is to bring the contributing writers back into the article, with references, and make clear to the reader that it is a group blog.
    (Indeed, if you look at https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/ today or its archives, posts by Smith are in the minority.)
    So could I ask you to give it another thought? Best, Andreas JN 466 14:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    • My impression is that the most notable aspect of the blog is its founder, and everything we currently have about it can fit in a section of an article on its found, with a redirect tagged with {{ R with possibilities}}. BD2412 T 19:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment The article has been almost completely revised and re-sourced since the AfD nomination. -- Andreas JN 466 01:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The article has been significantly improved since it was nominated. Naked Capitalism has received widespread coverage over a significant period of time. Thriley ( talk) 15:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: The article has changed substantially since the AfD nomination, thanks to the excellent and dedicated work of Andreas. As their edits have demonstrated clear notability, with significant coverage in reliable sources, my concerns have been thoroughly addressed and I no longer believe the article warrants deletion. -- Grnrchst ( talk) 15:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, as evidenced by Grnrchst, this has met WP:HEY. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 22:20, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 10:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Frank Feys

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

A biographical article about an acting tutor and working actor whose teaching work and film/TV roles seem significantly short of meeting the WP:NACTOR criteria. The closest may be the role in "La hija de un ladrón" but the subject is mentioned just in routine listings and by Lanaja Factory, which does not appear independent of the subject (see [15]); he is unmentioned on the film production company's page on the film [16]. AllyD ( talk) 17:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Kang Kuk-chol (footballer, born 1988)

Kang Kuk-chol (footballer, born 1988) (  | talk | history | 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 fails WP:GNG. Bear in mind there are two other footballers with the same name. Simione001 ( talk) 23:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply

But forget all that for a second - while starting a search on him, I discovered that there are three different North Korean footballers named "Kang Kuk-chol." They were all born within about a decade of each other, are almost exactly the same height, all play the same position (defender), and two of them even allegedly played on the national team in the same year. If that's accurate, that's absolutely hilarious. If there weren't headshots of them on the (very sparse) source links, I wouldn't believe it. That said, it's North Korea, so I'm not really inclined to believe it. Are we sure at least two of these aren't the same guy? Kalethan ( talk) 15:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
It wouldn't surprise me if two of them were indeed the same. North Korean football is such a mystery to me and I'd love it to explore it further but you never know what sources to actually trust. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - Searching Kang's name and football in Korean yields no useful sources, which perhaps isn't surprising since he plays football in North Korea. Unfortunately, this means the article is unlikely to ever satisfy WP:GNG. Jogurney ( talk) 12:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to The Kelly Family. ✗ plicit 23:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Jimmy Kelly (singer)

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

Seems non-notable Charsaddian ( talk) 22:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Also note that three of Jimmy Kelly's siblings also have their own articles that could probably be redirected as well. Joey Kelly may have a little potential due to getting some notice as an athlete outside of the band. I'm less sure about Kathy Kelly (musician) and Patricia Kelly because each is like Jimmy, with only band-related coverage and some solo albums that received little independent notice. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 13:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 23:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Malina Pardo

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

The subject has earned at least four caps for the Puerto Rico women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. This is a good piece, but is not independent as it's from her school's newspaper. JTtheOG ( talk) 21:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Puerto Rico, and North Carolina. JTtheOG ( talk) 21:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. WP:TOOSOON. Pro-club academy player who's still playing as a college graduate; injured in college play in 2021 and national team play in 2022, redshirted 2022. Might become notable, might not. - Socccc ( talk) 15:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Separately, student-run media are considered WP:RS (specifically WP:RSSM) if editorially independent in content, which Niner Times appears to be via its student-run editorial board. That linked piece isn't an athletic department press release. A more relevant guideline against notability is in RSSM: "A topic which can be sourced exclusively to student media, with no evidence of wider coverage in mass market general interest media, is not likely to be viewed as notable." - Socccc ( talk) 15:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Student-run media are absolutely not considered independent of topics related to their school. See the unanimous consensus here. I've clarified this at RSSM. JoelleJay ( talk) 21:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, sourcing does not establish GNG. JoelleJay ( talk) 21:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Union Properties PJSC. Viable ATD at the moment. Should that end up deleted, whether a redirect here makes sense will be resolved. Star Mississippi 02:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

The Tower (Dubai)

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

Yet another building with no evidence of notability. Basically impossible to search for sources due to the generic title. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 22:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Ryan Anthony (San Diego rapper)

Ryan Anthony (San Diego rapper) (  | talk | history | 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, nothing found in RS we can use. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Provided references are promotional, passing mentions, and/or primary sources. Article creator included an AfC tag in this creation--article was not approved at AfC. Creator's draft Draft:Ryan Anthony (Rapper) had been declined and subsequently deleted for inactivity per WP:G13. -- Finngall talk 20:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Nearly every reference is a promotion. The references from news sources are not about the subject, only things he happens to be attached to. The article is an unabashed hagiography. "Ryan started making clothes that resembled his music". Give me a break! Agentdoge ( talk) 20:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:NOTLINKEDIN, unfortunately refdumped, would need WP:TNT. There seem to be 2 RS, not nearly enough for WP:BASIC [18] and [19]. — siro χ o 21:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and above fails WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 23:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to 2019–20 Plymouth Argyle F.C. season#Stastics. Star Mississippi 22:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Jude Boyd

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

Seems non-notable Charsaddian ( talk) 20:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2019–20 Coventry City F.C. season#Appearances. Star Mississippi 22:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Daniel Bartlett (footballer)

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

Only one appearance so far in his career. Does not look notable Charsaddian ( talk) 20:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) CurryTime7-24 ( talk) 04:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Yakuza (band)

Yakuza (band) (  | talk | history | 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 citations are mostly self-promotion (e.g. from Prosthetic Records) and passing mentions in articles about other subjects. No sustained coverage from independent reliable secondary sources. AllMusic citations not ideal. CurryTime7-24 ( talk) 19:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Japan, and Illinois. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 19:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Here are examples of coverage from reliable sources: Kendrick, Monica (2023-05-17). "Chicago metal explorers Yakuza return with Sutra, their first album in more than a decade". Chicago Reader. Retrieved 2023-07-24. and "Yakuza: Of Seismic Consequence". Pitchfork. Retrieved 2023-07-24. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 20:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Thank you. Don't know why I didn't find these when Google-searching this band. I retract this AfD nomination. — CurryTime7-24 ( talk) 23:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, has significant coverage. Fulmard ( talk) 03:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Lexsynergy

Lexsynergy (  | talk | history | 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 corporation. Sourcing is largely primary or PR ish items. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Weak Delete. I'm unsure about if the article fails notability guidelines, however the whole thing is written like an advertisement. The Leadership section is basically a resume introduction. Article should probably be deleted or entirely rewritten. Agentdoge ( talk) 20:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - An article should speak for itself and explain to the reader what is notable about the subject. The article is about what the company says about itself, and not what third parties say about the company, so that it does not pass corporate notability. There is also a draft which is the same as this article, and the originator may have created two copies of the article so that the article could not be draftified. I have not reviewed the sources because the article has been reference-bombed, but it should not be necessary for a reader to read the references. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I waded through 55 citations in the Lexsynergy article so you don't have to. I also did an extensive reliable source web search. The result was nothing reliable and extensive enough sufficient to establish notability.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 04:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep. I don't believe the article fails notability guidelines, the company has been referenced by many third parties including non-profit industry bodies and other approved Wikipedia pages. It follows the same structure and referencing as other companies in the industry listed on Wikipedia: GoCompare, CSC and Markmonitor. Leadership and Philanthropy sections have been removed to maintain non-bias. KyleGouveiaPortsmouth ( talk) 07:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The majority of sources are from industry publications, non-profit industry bodies and domain registries. KyleGouveiaPortsmouth ( talk) 11:47, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply
@ KyleGouveiaPortsmouth, I'm not saying you're wrong to keep but I'm trying to reconcile what you're saying about the refs versus my understanding of our current guidelines which usually call for some sort of in-depth coverage. I'm sympathetic but I need to be convinced - can you help reconcile our guidelines with the point you're making?
As for the other companies, if they have similar problems then they're vulnerable to deletion, too. Someone's going to throw out " WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" to shoot down comments like yours. (I have some problems with the pejorative way people use that one, but I digress)
If you can't muster a convincing reply today, then I see two ways forward:
  1. Invoke WP:IAR. In my experience, that's sort of a Hail Mary pass in deletion discussions.
  2. Draftify this article for now, then start an RfC to change our notability guidance. Note that we already have some allowed exceptions for in-depth coverage for things like places (see WP:GEOLAND). Maybe we need one for companies like this, too.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 15:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Thank you for taking the time to reply, I really appreciate it. I do not want to Invoke WP:IAR, I would like to do this properly and inline with Wikipedia’s rules. Please see below for my convincing in relation to notability guidelines, if we need to go down the RfC, then I would love to be able to assist.
General notability guidelines:
1.Presumed. There are over 30 reliable sources from industry bodies and domain registries, some of which also list Lexsynergy on their Wikipedia page, meaning it is is not an Orphan.
2. Significant coverage. Only one source is from the Lexsynergy website.
3. Reliable. The majority of sources are secondary, from well-established news outlets or from industry verified (via non-profit industry regulator) vendors.
Subject-specific guidelines (organizations and companies):
1. Lexsynergy have attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product, such as well-established news outlets.
2. Smaller organizations and their products can be notable without being synonyms with fame. Lexsynergy have won several awards and are referenced across the internet and Wikipedia as an accredited registrar.
3. There are examples of substantial coverage, including reports by Industry bodies, providers and regulators. KyleGouveiaPortsmouth ( talk) 16:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Significant coverage is different from independence from the subject. Significant coverage requires that the coverage is in-depth. Please see WP:ORGDEPTH, which provides a lot of helpful guidance. ARandomName123 ( talk) 00:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: A random selection of references seems to show that most sources are either listings and provide no significant coverage, or are not independent of the subject. No indication it meets WP:NORG. ARandomName123 ( talk) 00:27, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 21:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Leesi Gabriel Gborogbosi

Leesi Gabriel Gborogbosi (  | talk | history | 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 businessperson, somewhat flowery language in the sourcing used. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Mojo Hand ( talk) 02:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Nothando Hlophe

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

Beyond being the wife of a famous person, I can't find notability as a singer. No mentions in RS. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 23:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Austin Forkner

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

Not finding discussion of this person in RS, only websites related to the sports that aren't RS. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Weak delete due to a lack of independent RS coverage.
SoniaSotomayorFan ( talk) 13:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. signed, Rosguill talk 04:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Five Mile House (Illinois)

Five Mile House (Illinois) (  | talk | history | 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 historical building. Not listed on the NRHP [21]. Sourcing is all primary. Appears PROMO for a tourist attraction. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Consdering the AfD posting was the third-ever edit to this new page, and the page is only sourced to primary sources, a good WP:BEFORE search is necessary and it's crystal clear this house comes up often in multiple local news sources (newspaper and television), and has been referenced in several books. There's a chance the coverage as a whole doesn't add up to GNG, but there's definitely coverage out there, and I haven't even searched old newspapers yet. SportingFlyer T· C 14:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Historical buildings don't have to be on the NRHP to be notable, and this one has plenty of coverage in non-primary sources: see [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]. It's included in the Illinois Historic Sites Survey Inventory, though their database is under construction so finding info is a bit of a pain right now. It's also been referenced in books, as SportingFlyer mentioned. The article needs cleanup and better sourcing, but AfD isn't cleanup. TheCatalyst31 Reaction• Creation 17:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 23:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Kasi Kelly

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

Does not meet WP:GNG as a former beauty pageant contestant. Let'srun ( talk) 19:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Elyzabeth Pham

Elyzabeth Pham (  | talk | history | 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 former beauty pagent contestant. Does not meet the WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG. Let'srun ( talk) 19:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Earl Thomas with Paddy Milner & the Big Sounds

Earl Thomas with Paddy Milner & the Big Sounds (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced article. Seems non-notable Charsaddian ( talk) 18:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Based on a True Story (Paddy Milner album)

Based on a True Story (Paddy Milner album) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems non-notable. Charsaddian ( talk) 18:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Paddy Milner

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

Multiple issues tag since 2011. Seems non-notable Charsaddian ( talk) 18:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to Das Boot (film)#Accolades. Mojo Hand ( talk) 02:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Trevor Pyke

Trevor Pyke (  | talk | history | 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 fails WP:BIO, current sources are a list of Academy Award nominations and a very brief obituary. Searching finds very little with coverage of the award nomination limited to the name appearing in articles listing all nominees. For example this list article. A redirect to Das Boot (film), where he is mentioned in the Accolades section, is an alternative to deletion. Gab4gab ( talk) 18:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

The German article has more information: de:Trevor Pyke. Unfortunately, despite Pyke's notability, neither the English nor the German articles have information about his life and career that doesn't come from IMDb, an unreliable source ( WP:IMDB), or his terse 2-sentence paid obituary. I found no good refs except some tiny little bits. [28] Hence the redirect; we just don't have enough to build an article with.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 03:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The Koldau article was interesting and while it never mentioned Pyke it is some coverage of his work that is helpful to notability. It would be helpful to have a source for the two awards mentioned. Gab4gab ( talk) 15:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Gab4gab, the awards come from Das Boot (film)#Accolades. And, yes, I'm a submarine movie aficionado, so I very much enjoyed that Koldau article, too.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 15:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
By the way, I'm amazed Das Boot didn't win Oscars for its sound and score -- they really set the tone for a great film (as Koldau noted).
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 15:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 21:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Walking on Eggshells

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

Completely unsourced article. Seems non-notable Charsaddian ( talk) 18:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Susan Binau

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

Delete. Does not meet WP:N, references cited are either not connected to notability, or passing remarks or self-published/promotional material, or completely irrelevant of the subject. Strong indication of WP:COI. Bulk of the article is written like a promotional material for subject's books and charity, violating WP:PROMOTION. Sabih omar 18:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 18:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete, very PROMO. Sources 17-19 are synth. They don't discuss this person, only the sound method used in treatments. Too many sources to wade through in Danish, no article in any other language wiki is a red flag. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Łuszczów-Kolonia, Hrubieszów County

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

Not many sources about this county, fails WP:GNG Brachy08 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. Hey man im josh ( talk) 12:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 17. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 17:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: (1) a kolonia is a legally recognized place under Polish law, so this is a populated, legally recognized place meeting the current wording of WP:NGEO; (2) while this article is a bit underdeveloped pl:Łuszczów-Kolonia (powiat hrubieszowski) has enough content as to be well within our remit as a encyclopedia and gazetteer; (3) I am seeing considerable discussion of the kolonia in books and articles discussing the WiN guerrilla organization in the postwar period, e.g. reports of this recent ceremony memorializing the Zarzyckis who were executed for sheltering WiN guerrillas there, so this can also meet the "sufficient sources to provide more information than a database entry" threshold (my paraphrase) that has recently been proposed as an update to NGEO. Applying the rules flexibly in accordance with our encyclopedic purpose, I think that this falls within both the letter and the spirit of NGEO. -- Visviva ( talk) 04:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. Normally I support the retention of articles on separate settlements, but as far as I can see this is just a few houses at one end of Łuszczów, itself a very small village spread out along a road. Nothing that I can see distinguishes it from the 'main' village, not even a road sign. It is not even "located away from previously existing buildings", but no further away than the other parts of the village. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 17:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep -- meets NGEO as a legally recognized populated place. The corresponding article in Polish WP has more sources if more sources are desired, but they're not needed. Central and Adams ( talk) 18:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Gmina Uchanie has a list of villages and settlements where Łuszczów-Kolonia is mentioned. The article seems more complete with this. WonderCanada ( talk) 18:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Do gole kože

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

Seems non-notable Charsaddian ( talk) 17:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Tone 22:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Brez dlake na jeziku

Brez dlake na jeziku (  | talk | history | 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 unsourced tag is mentioned since 2008. Seems non-notable Charsaddian ( talk) 16:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 22:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

The Bittersweet Constrain

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

Completely unsourced article. Seems non-notable Charsaddian ( talk) 16:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

List of apologies to clubs from PGMOL

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

This article is a short list of information that is inherently unverifiable because it is all based on reports of supposed apologies issued by a referee association. More importantly, this list violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This list has no place on Wikipedia, as we don't just stockpile information for the sake of it. At best, this could be a subsection on PGMOL's article. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 10:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Weak keep - The relevant guideline here is WP:NLIST which requires that the items listed have been discussed as a group/set by multiple independent reliable sources. I have found the following - [29], [30], [31] - which I think just about meet that requirement. The Mirror/Irish Mirror are not ideal sources but neither are they unreliable (see WP:DAILYMIRROR) - and I am not certain as to whether we should treat them as one source or two (they seem to be using the same source material, but the copy is different, with two different writers). Nevertheless, I think we just about have significant coverage in two or three reliable sources. This is also a potential source, although it does not focus directly on PGMOL apologies. No issues with the Squawka article as far as I can tell. This is not inherently unverifiable - all the incidents listed can be verified by reliable sources, such as news reports. Neither does this violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE - the list here does not compare with the examples given on that policy page. WJ94 ( talk) 12:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Complex/ Rational 15:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete They've made four apologies? I can't see the need for this list. I'm not ever sure what PGMOL is. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Referees and other sports officials make mistakes all the time, and these are only the apologies that have been publicly announced (I presume by the offended club). What makes these particular apologies notable? This seems to be WP:LISTCRUFT and is a prime example of WP:NOT. —  Jkudlick ⚓  (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Not encyclopedic at all. Grahaml35 ( talk) 17:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Clear consensus for deletion; and I'm not willing to draftify this, because the only content that is not Quranic quotes is entirely original research. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Objective Verses from The Holy Quran

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

Just a random bunch of quotes, with nothing to explain why they should be bunched together or, indeed, what is the subject the 'article' 

TheLongTone (
talk) 15:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
reply
Good evening, I searched many time in Wikipedia about about the verses of Quran having direct link some subject i.e. Allah (God) but could not find. Took a lot of time to find such objective verses pertaining to some particular matter. I think very; briefly I tried to relate Quranic verses to a particular matter/subject. I am still convinced that this page may not be considered for deletion, Thank You Khan Muhammad Akazai ( talk) 15:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Would you mind explaining in more detail what you intended for this article to be about? It's possible a new article could written. As someone else has already mentioned in this discussion, Wikipedia is not Wikiquote (see What Wikipedia is not). So there's shouldn't be an article of just quotes. But if these quotes are a topic that others have studied and have written about, Wikipedia could have an article summarizing what these others have said. I'm just not sure what the topic is. Tikwriter ( talk) 17:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete, I would have tagged this for speedy deletion, it's quotes from their holy book, serving no importance in wikipedia. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
I still request for retention of this page for some time. Meanwhile, I will also refer the few subjects chosen in the article to other books/ articles etc. I will also explain the matters/subjects in accordance with views / explanations given by renounced authors/publishers. I am in Wikipedia since 2011 and have always tried to strictly observe their policies / instructions.
Thank You Khan Muhammad Akazai ( talk) 17:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This isn’t an encyclopedia article at all. No objection to draftifying if the creator believes there is a genuinely encyclopedic subject relating to these quotes and wants to develop it further. Mccapra ( talk) 20:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • delete per "Wikipedia is not WikiQuote." Mangoe ( talk) 23:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Only a synthesised list of selected quotes rather than an article about them, and might duplicate pages on the sections of the Quran they come from. Xeroctic ( talk) 13:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • comment by nominator I can't see any reason why this should not be draftified; I've left a message on the creator's talk page outlining what seems to be needed. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Catfurball ( talk) 17:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ - WP:CSD#A7. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 21:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Hur Yoon-seo

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

Not even a claim of notability Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 10:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Bryce McGuire

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

Doesn't seem to be notable, yet, as the film is coming out in 2024. TOOSOON seems to apply as nothing else is notable at this time in his list of accomplishments. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 13:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Leigh-Taylor Smith

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

Does not meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun ( talk) 13:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to Chandra Lakshman. Liz Read! Talk! 05:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Kalyana Kurimanam

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

Could not find any sources of interest in English or Malayalam (കല്യാണ കുരിമാനം). DareshMohan ( talk) 21:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti *Let's talk!* 13:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Redirect seems ok. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Starbucks. ✗ plicit 13:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Pasqua Coffee

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

Marked for notability concerns 1.5 years ago. Does not appear to get widespread ot significant coverage to meet WP:CORP. LibStar ( talk) 12:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 10:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Cannamedical Pharma

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

Please complete the AfD for the article, because it's a commercial and irrelevant page with many citations missing. 92.200.176.150 ( talk) 13:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was merge‎ to List of most-watched television broadcasts. ✗ plicit 10:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

List of most watched television interviews

List of most watched television interviews (  | talk | history | 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:NLIST, topic likely isn’t notable to have a standalone list, and likely could just be merged into their respectful articles. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 10:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. No actual keep arguments and sourcing to timetables appears short of requirements. Spartaz Humbug! 07:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

List of LYNX Orlando bus routes

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

Just a bunch of routes with no reason why they are notable. No sources, appears run of the mill. Wikipedia is not a bus guide Ajf773 ( talk) 09:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Sources have since been added by the article's creator, although these are predominantly links to bus timetables. Ajf773 ( talk) 20:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into Lynx (Orlando). This is more than a timetable! Given the short nature of the target and modest list, it is a premature WP:SPINOFF. Like a list of players in the first squad of a club, if this later becomes outdated it can be deleted by the page editors. Note for the merger volunteer: make sure all text in the target appears above it (by swapping the order of fares and routes), and the picture gallery (yikes!), references, and external links below it! Thanks to nom for putting this up for discussion! gidonb ( talk) 19:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • This is really just a list of routes with the timetables accompanying them. All this can be found on the official transit authority's website. I can't see anything notable about any of these routes. Ajf773 ( talk) 10:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Look again. It's NOT a timetable! The routes are there, the ridership, the route length, but NOT A TIMETABLE. In other words, this table lays out the details on the fixed route service that the regional bus company provides. It details the operations of the company. Legitimate information and in other cases - not here, hence my merge - a legitimate spinoff. gidonb ( talk) 03:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply
I've never said the article was a timetable. I've said its only sourcing is from timetables. The routes are not notable. Ajf773 ( talk) 10:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Fixed routes is about everything that a regional bus service does. It's the CORE of the company's operations and doesn't need to be seperately notable. Just needs to be sometimes spun off. Not here but sometimes. Plus that statement isn't true. We know that news outlets regularly report on changes, efficiencies and needs of bus services. It is highly notable. Just it doesn't need to be, as long as the company and mode of transportation are notable. gidonb ( talk) 22:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom and per WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:LISTCRUFT (and to some extent WP:NOTDIR) - We're not a bus guide, No point merging there because it will only be deleted per the aforementioned WP pages, No evidence of any notability, Fails NOTGUIDE, LISTCRUFT, NOTDIR and GNG. – Davey2010 Talk 19:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Canada at the 2020 Summer Olympics#Field hockey. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Brendan Guraliuk

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

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. I found this and three sentences here, which would not be enough. JTtheOG ( talk) 08:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Canada. JTtheOG ( talk) 08:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or draftify This is one where I'm not sure an AfD was the way to go - he plays for a top-level club in a country where hockey is popular, and has national representation. With football, that's more than enough to be considered notable. Should we treat hockey the same as football in that regard? Anyway, he has not yet made a senior Olympics debut (only a 10th place Youth Olympics finish and the Canadian team qualifying for 2024): it will be easier to judge GNG notability after that and so the article should at least be draftified (not deleted and not content-removal redirected yet) for this purpose. Kingsif ( talk) 10:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    He did make a senior Olympic debut, he played at the 2020 Summer Olympics. Parwa104 ( talk) 13:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Soccer needs to meet GNG, even if they play for a top club. I am sure the same notability standards apply for field hockey. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 13:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete All I can find is coverage of him from his hometown - Delta Optimist only - like [33]. SportingFlyer T· C 13:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect. Article was created when WP:NOLYMPICS had a looser criteria. I cannot find anything to indicate WP:SIGCOV. I don't think drafting would work, as coverage is unlikely to improve in the short term. I suggest a redirect to Canada at the 2020 Summer Olympics#Field_hockey as a WP:ATD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportsfan 1234 ( talk • contribs) 13:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 13:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Nnaemeka Clinton

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

Every source included in the article is a passing reference and falls far short of the requirements to meet GNG. Thilsebatti ( talk) 06:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete Non-notable. No WP:SIGCOV. Uhooep ( talk) 12:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Just noting for the record that this page was "moved" by Rusty Soto from the draft space via copy/paste ( diff). While I have no opinion on the page itself (as I have not looked back) re-draftification may be more appropriate given the unilateral non-AFC manner in which this was moved to the Article space. Primefac ( talk) 13:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies. As with Winfield D. Ong, the argument against redirecting is weak. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Inga S. Bernstein

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

Failed judicial nominee who does not pass WP:GNG. All sources are primary or namedrops. Let'srun ( talk) 09:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Law, and Massachusetts. Let'srun ( talk) 09:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies as we're generally doing for these now — siro χ o 10:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    The reason I'm not proposing a redirect is that there isn't much to suggest that Bernstein was a controversial nominee, and her WP:BLP1E isn't covered in that article, as seen by her passing through the Senate Judiciary Committee with only 1 senator voting against the nomination. It appears that she simply never received a vote before the end of Obama's 2nd term, and I don't see any other possible redirect targets Let'srun ( talk) 13:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect, support siroχo's suggestion, above. While that article includes information about controversy in Obama's nominations, it's also a comprehensive list of all his nominees that were never confirmed. Many of them have their own pages, since becoming a nominee for the federal bench usually includes achievements that pass WP:GNG. In the interest of keeping that list complete, she should probably be redirected there even if her page is deleted. Kalethan ( talk) 18:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies. I don't find the argument against redirecting persuasive; the presence of a redirect doesn't say that this individual was controversial, only that the relevant information is found at the target. There is clear consensus against a standalone article. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Winfield D. Ong

Winfield D. Ong (  | talk | history | 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 person was not confirmed as a judge and does not meet the notability criteria as described by WP:GNG. All sources found regarding the subject are primary or namedrops. Let'srun ( talk) 09:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Indiana. Let'srun ( talk) 09:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies as we're starting to do with these. We have lawyers statements, and some relatively trivial coverage like [34] but nothing that amounts to SIGCOV as far as I can see. — siro χ o 09:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    The reason I'm not proposing a redirect is that there isn't much to suggest that Ong was a controversial nominee, and his WP:BLP1E isn't covered in that article, as seen by his passing through the Senate Judiciary Committee by a voice vote with the support of both Indiana senators. It appears that he simply never received a vote before the end of Obama's 2nd term, and I don't see any other possible redirect targets. Let'srun ( talk) 12:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as article creator. However, am open to the alternatives above, if they are pursued. Safiel ( talk) 17:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Srijan Bhattacharya

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

Doesn't meet GNG. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 08:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete. Student leader isn't notable. Not qualified under NPOL. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 07:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

List of types of proteins

List of types of proteins (  | talk | history | 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 case for TNT. The subject is certainly sensible, but the article is in a dreadful state. It's peppered with random definitions and quotations, unsourced, and often just general bits of cell biology with no particular connection to proteins. The referencing is dismal. Many items in the list don't lead anywhere (no link, no idea what they would link to anyway). The hierarchies of the list, if it has any, are very unclear, so it doesn't really organise the material in any useful way. I think this was a good idea in the distant past that's got lost, and it's time to get rid of it and start again. This is related to a current AfD on List of proteins in the human body Elemimele ( talk) 07:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Blank and Redirect to Protein as an ATD, to preserve history while the future of the article is considered. I completely agree with WP:TNT. Of interest is that the article has barely changed since 2005, so it's no surprise it's not up to 2023 standards, but there's no need to delete history here. — siro χ o 08:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Nothing to add to what Elemimele ( talk) said, with which I completely agree. Athel cb ( talk) 09:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. It's certainly not appropriately cited, and it would need radical work in all aspects to get it up to current standards (and current biology). Chiswick Chap ( talk) 09:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 10:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect either to Protein or List of proteins. I can't see the list ever being useful, because as the page incoherently tries to show, there are many different ways of classifying proteins. It's like making a list of types of businesses, inherently a mess. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 14:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 17:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The protein article does it better. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 17:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The current content is practically unusable, this article needs completely starting from scratch, if it is required at all. GraziePrego ( talk) 06:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment As a potential alternatve to this list, consider List of proteins. Perhaps a few parts of this list could salvaged and merged into this other list. (Ducks head) Boghog ( talk) 15:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete article is unreadable gibberish Dronebogus ( talk) 14:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • delete, even if the topic is notable it can't be salvaged from the current list. Artem.G ( talk) 17:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of rail accidents (2020–present). Liz Read! Talk! 07:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Madukuro train crash

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

A train crash in which nobody died and one person was injured. That's it - the sum total of this thing. That's yer lot. Delete with absolute surety that this event does not trouble notability in any way whatsoever. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 07:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Muhammad Hassan Ilyas

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

Pakistani theologian, associated with philosopher. No notability whatsoever. Sources are not RS. Being the son in law of a philosopher does not confer notability. Fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 06:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. But it might be worth reconsidering deletion at some point in the future to see if coverage is lasting. Liz Read! Talk! 06:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Justyn Vicky

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

Winner of the Muscle Beach Bali competition, Indonesian weightlifter and bodybuilder Justyn Vicky died an unfortunate death at a tragically young age. However, he is otherwise not notable and fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC. Adding WP:1E. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 05:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bodybuilding and Indonesia. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 05:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and improve. Justyn Vicky's death has received coverage from reliable sources: Times of India Fox News. I am surprised that the article doesn't cite these... -- TheLonelyPather ( talk) 06:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Its just the source was too much, I fried up my brain last night because of this -_- Asphonixm ( talk) 07:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    The Times of India piece was authored by a third party (per the disclaimer down at the bottom). Fox News has been caught lying to get views, I'd be wary of using them as a source. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    The use of Fox News should be fine here, since there's multiple other sources that confirm the same info. ARandomName123 ( talk) 00:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the sources. NYC Guru ( talk) 08:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Sources are presented. Sometimes notability only surfaces after a sad event like this, the claim to notability is not only the circumstances of death. I would respect WP:RAPID (while also respecting WP:BLP in the content for the recently deceased) and not delete this right now. — siro χ o 08:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Looks like his death has received international coverage, which seems to be enough - I'd still like to see other coverage per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, it's possible it's already in the article. SportingFlyer T· C 12:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete This is from CNN Indonesia, in Indonesian. [37]. Coverage in English media seems to be PR-ish. I'd argue the CNN coverage is purely local/in the native language, not helping notability here. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per sources from article, Fox news article, and this article from People: [38]. ARandomName123 ( talk) 00:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Abass Ibrahim

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

Doesn't meet the criteria of notability or coverage, as per WP:MUSIC PARVAGE talk! 05:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 05:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Weak Keep The sources in the previous AfD aren't the best, but I think they're enough to pass WP:GNG. JML1148 ( talk | contribs) 06:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Week keep per prior AFD and nominator's uncertain motivations. I am not doing a BEFORE for such a nomination. — siro χ o 10:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Bishonen | tålk 08:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Yubaraj Khatri

Yubaraj Khatri (  | talk | history | 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 was PRODded by Liz because it is Self-promotional, created by the article subject. Of course, the PROD was removed by the article subject, so here we are. According to the relevant ANI thread (which is how I found out about that page), the article has one possibly reliable source and zero reputable sources. If the subject is notable, it might be worth TNT-ing the article. LilianaUwU ( talk / contributions) 04:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel ( talk) 02:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

List of wealthiest historical figures

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

Nominating it after small discussion on WP:FTN.

I agree that this article is WP:OR and WP:LISTCRUFT. The stated amount of the wealth is broadly inconsistent among the low quality sources that provide coverage to this subject. Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk) 04:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete The last nom was in 2009, so this isn't a frivolous renom. A list like this is inherently unworkable. Estimating the net worth of historical figures is fraught with uncertainty, and it's not clear that you can meaningfully compare the net worth of people who died hundreds or even thousands of years apart. The criter for what qualifies one to be on this list is also very unclear. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 04:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Honestly, the sheer breadth of time involved makes this type of list unworkable. Furthermore, the fact that the sources evidently do not agree is another severe issue with listing historical figures by wealth. ― Susmuffin  Talk 07:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Unlike lists such as those of the tallest mountain, oldest living person, etc., there is no possible way to make anywhere near accurate estimates. That's abundantly clear for historical figures where not only are there almost insurmountable problems to convert what we think is their wealth to current values, we often cannot be sure we have sufficient evidence. Even with living people it's difficult to determine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller ( talk • contribs) 08:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment in its current state, the list is clearly unworkable. It attempts to give extensive information on each individual, which means it's going to have to find an unreasonably tight criterion on richness to avoid being huge. And the inflation-adjusted wealth values are pretty meaningless as one goes back into the mists of time. But, I think there is a case for a simple navigational list, made up only of article-names, pointing to articles of historical figures who are particularly noted for being outrageously wealthy (e.g. Croesus). This is clearly a reasonable encyclopaedic question that a reader might ask, and they can browse the articles on the individuals themselves. It would also be easy to define (must have an existing article, WP article must cite multiple references mentioning enormous wealth specifically; usually wealth would feature in the Lead) and it wouldn't need to address quantitatively wealth-in-modern-terms (that, if estimates are available and deemed useful, belongs in the target article). Elemimele ( talk) 08:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Hemiauchenia. This just devolves to guesswork. 〜 Festucalex • talk 08:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, History, and Economics. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 17:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as necessarily requiring original research. If you find a list that is well-attested and agreed to along with criteria that is rigorous, by all means let us know. But Wikipedia cannot create that list. jps ( talk) 21:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per all the arguments given above. I concur with Elemimele's comment- there might be a case for something like a "list of historical figures noted for their wealth," but this article as it stands (the ranking and equation stuff) represents an untenable project, and it's impossible to imagine a version of it that avoids OR, SYNTH, etc (unless it's just reproducing a list given in an RS). Yspaddadenpenkawr ( talk) 15:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete because the list of such figures is ambiguous (pre-Industrial Revolution wealth is nearly impossible to precisely measure), seems to heavily include English nobility but not that of many other European countries or regions, and is dynamic--new discoveries could change the numbers. I would keep or note the Industrial Revolution magnates, whose wealth is less ambiguous and can be adjusted for inflation though in a separate article. JohnAdams1800 ( talk) 00:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Matty Healy. Daniel ( talk) 02:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

P05

P05 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is full of biased language and includes analysis of the citations to imply a particular point of view. It also conflates different issues (i.e. mentioning a laundry list of Healy's past "controversies", Banks' comments), and tries to connect it to the episode with much editorial bias, and even links it to other pages (i.e. Olivia Benson). Some examples below:

There was also an attempt to shoehorn the page to another page the editor created with the same conflation and bias:

This page is unnecessary as material for this page has already been discussed at length on Matty Healy's page. This should be deleted / redirected to The Adam Friedland Show instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BiasedBased ( talk • contribs) 03:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)— BiasedBased ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

I would like to express my amazement that in six days, no other editors from the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matty Healy (2nd nomination) or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ross MacDonald discussions have chirped in on this. (I'm not planning on pinging anyone, as that would be WP:CANVASSING, although I see that 119.94.172.56 has done just that.) The then-bloated Background section I included due to the wealth of "what is the Matty Healy controversy" style articles that came out in May such as [39] [40] [41], though I suppose it is already covered in the parent article, and the Banks section is well within scope as a reliably sourced direct response to Healy's comments on the controversy. To expand upon the above, I would like to point out to the closer of this nomination the following:
  1. that purported bias is a surmountable problem and therefore not a reason for deletion,
  2. that WP:ATTACK does not apply here as all content requiring reliable sources has them (i.e., not the WP:LEDE or MOS:PLOT - although I'd really like to see better sourcing for what's left of the Background section),
  3. that plots are supposed to be primary sourced per WP:PLOTCITE (which is what I meant by "what I heard"), and
  4. that with five months of coverage, this article makes mincemeat of WP:GNG.
WP:DUE "requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources", and I am satisfied that I have done so.-- Laun chba ller 12:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete / Merge: This does not need its own page per WP:NOPAGE as this page is mere WP:NPOVFACT-- "an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. POV forks are not permitted on Wikipedia."
The page's original title before move was Matty Healy's appearance on The Adam Friedland Show The page move with the podcast title can be argued as another evasion of WP:NPOVFACT given its content. The content of the page has already been covered in Matty Healy's page (after disputes, and eventual consensus by several editors), as well as the podcast's page.
*Evidence of content forking to evade neutrality *
(1) The creator of this page has a history of editing Healy's page repeatedly about the podcast episode like here and here among a few, and even listed all of the things Healy has apparently been accused in the page's lede despite claims not being reflected with WP:NPOV in the body.
(2) Violates WP:NOTSCANDAL / WP:NOTOPINION, giving undue weight and rehash upon rehash of the topic. A cherry-picked list of Healy's perceived past indiscretions included by the creator to serve as "Background" section of this page even though sources cited do not relate it to the podcast is an attempt to establish notability and highlight negative viewpoints. Pages should be WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTDIARY with the page creator having also done this in Healy's page previously like here. This page is a patchwork very loosely sewn together to appear notable in itself.
(3) Page also does not pass WP:NOTESSAY especially after a particular mass revert by the page creator after another editor's cleanup with an Edit Summary stating "Sorry, but I know what I heard." despite The Guardian explicitly saying: "It’s worth noting that a lot of fans are incorrectly attributing a lot of the co-hosts’ comments to Healy." [1] And The New Yorker recounting: "Later, he laughed as the hosts did impressions of hypothetical Japanese guards at German concentration camps." [2] ThijsStoop ( talk) 15:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • MERGE OR DELETE Using WP:DEL-REASON, there are three reasons why this page should be deleted (tho, personally merging it with the podcast would suffice).
One, this is basically an WP:ATTACK page based on the point of view it was written, content (full of editorialising, original research, sourcing bias, indiscriminate inclusion of irrelevant incidents to put the subject in a worse light), and intolerance of the creator in revisions by other users as pointed above. The tone has already been an issue on Matty Healy's page for so long (one editor was even named "I Hate Matty Healy" lol), and his page just recently became stable WP:STABLE. Which leads me to...
Two, conveniently, after Healy's page reached its stable version after much content disputes and edit warring, this was created. This is simply content forking for WP:WEIGHT to what was already covered extensively in Healy's page.
Three, again, this is riddled with original research. Maxen Embry ( talk) 11:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete due to the biased language and sources which put Friedland and Mullen in a worse light, per WP:WEIGHT, although I think adding a section dedicated to this episode under the Adam Friedland Show page wouldn't be too bad of an idea. ChessPiece21 ( talk) 13:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/30/taylor-swift-matty-healy-fan-culture
  2. ^ https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/06/05/who-is-matty-healy

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I'd like to hear from other editors whether or not this article could be seen as an attack page. I do know I've never seen 29,303 bytes written on ONE episode of a podcast series so it clearly is overly detailed in relation to its significance. The question is whether the bias that is argued is in the article is inherent in the article's existence or whether it can be corrected through editing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Merge I'd selectively merge to the Matt Healy article. This is perhaps too recent to discuss at this point; it appears to have had the normal celebrity news discussion cycle (entertainment news sections of the various media), not sure this has much of a lasting consequence. TOOSOON, perhaps revisit in a year. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
I have to admit, notability was the one element of this I wasn't expecting to be questioned. Five months is a pretty long news discussion cycle, more than enough I would have thought to satisfy WP:SUSTAINED.-- Laun chba ller 11:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Merge selectively to Matty Healy. Big POVFORK issues here. There shouldn't be a beat-by-beat description of the podcast episode. We should veer away from celebrity gossip and all quotations as much as possible. There are some middling-quality sources that are not good for sensitive BLP content: Forbes contributors are a bad source in general; Insider, HuffPost and Rolling Stone should be avoided for these claims. — Bilorv ( talk) 11:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. I don't see a consensus among participants but there are a lot of different opinions on what might happen with this article. I think, at the least, this is worth a discussion on the article talk page or, at some point (but not soon), another trip to AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 04:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Earlham Road

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

This article was nominated 17 years ago. It does not meet GNG. I have checked with a Google search, and you find zilch (except for maps and property ads). The cemetery is notable but has its own article. Davidstewartharvey ( talk) 13:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete the accident/event section might be notable, the road has no sourcing beyond maps. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:08, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply
In my BEFORE, I found no particular shortage of references on the nightlife and the sink hole. An occasional article addresses yet another topic. Hence my conclusions on what the road is mostly noted for. Elemimele maps some of that below. Note that I subscribe to WP:NOTINHERETED. If only one building or land use is discussed, it creates passing mentions and does not add to notability. Only if an article discusses many buildings or land uses along a road, the road turns into the actual focus of an article. Your response seems to imply that AFDISCLEANUP. It is not. Per WP:NEXIST, Earlham Road passes both the WP:GNG and WP:GEOROAD. gidonb ( talk) 21:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply
As Elemimele correctly points out, here the road proper is the focus of many of the sources. gidonb ( talk) 00:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, city streets are subject to GNG. I will also note that had the article been named B1108 road, it would have been summarily redirected away as a non-notable highway per Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/B roads in the United Kingdom, yet as a city street somehow the bar is lower (when it should be the other way around per GEOROAD). -- Rs chen 7754 19:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, as the bus incident alone, which is supported by a ref and could be supported by any number more, was quite a major event in Norwich history, and keeps coming up (or down!) in the news [42], as well as scholarly write-up. [43] I'd note too that the road is lined by notable places, for example the Plantation Garden, Norwich, whose chalk-quarry origins explain how the bus came to disappear so dramatically, the Earlham Road Cemetery, Norwich, the Catholic cathedral, Earlham Hall and the University. If nothing else, this road article provides a very useful "list" article allowing navigation of a whole set of undisputedly notable locations along its length, but it also puts them in context. Of course other things have happened there too, a well-known bust-up between developers and tenants that at one stage looked like it might result in a change in the law, and was documented by a photographer. [44]; some of its historic buildings could be referenced to Pevsner if that would help (e.g. [45]. Earlham road was also the site of one of the city's historic gaols (the other was the castle), and has importance for the history of Jews in Norwich (note Chantry place is a modern square situated between Earlham road and the next major arterial round). [46] As roads go, this one has many centuries of documented history, archaeology, coherence and relevance as the spine of a major suburb of Norwich today; it's very far from a minor B-road. The article's deletion would be a sad loss; it can very easily be improved by sources. Elemimele ( talk) 20:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Yes, but most of those have articles already. -- Rs chen 7754 20:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply
      Exactly. When you put a load of buildings in a row, with access down the middle, it's a street. And notable streets tend to be those that link a lot of notable buildings... If none of the buildings, parks, cathedrals, universities etc. in Earlham road qualified for an article, the road itself would indeed just be a minor B-road leading out of a city. In fact, this is one of the very few streets in the UK that has its own entirely independent claim on notability, an event that it achieved with the aid solely of a bus, and without needing to rely on any buildings at all. There are very few roads that have eaten a substantial item of public transport and been remembered for it for nearly a quarter of a century. Give the poor road a chance, if you deny it its notabiliy this time round, who knows what it will have to do to the unfortunate residents of Norwich to get itself an article next time. Elemimele ( talk) 21:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply
      Before I go on leave, i will break down the issues:
      • The article should exist because of the sinkhole incident. Should it? Do a search of wikipedia of sinkhole incidents, there is only one article i can find that has a page, Bayou Corne sinkhole. This page already has a notice to improve as there has been nothing updated since 2015. In fact no sustained proof on the article, and in reality it should be redirecred and merged into the Bayou Corne, Louisiana article. This has happened to other sinkhole incidents. The incident in Norwich, has sustained coverage but it should be in the Norwich page, as it is the locality of the incident or have its own page.
      • The article should exist as links together other notable areas. Well inherited notability is not allowed.
      • Secondly, The Cathedral is linked in the Norwich article, the cemetery should be linked to Norwich. The University and Park are in Earlham, not on Earlham Road (as the article points out!), which for some reason Earlham doesn't have a page, which is probably notable. The synagogue again is in Norwich so should linked in this article. Earlham Hall is in Earlham, again why no article. Golden Triangle is an area of Norwich, which is notable, but Earlham Road is the boundary of this area, is that notable? No, the article just needs link to Norwich. The Plantation Garden is already linked in on the Norwich page.
      So basically we have a road that isn't notable except for one incident, the notable locations along it are either linked to the area they are in, and we have a notable area of Norwich (and former civil parish) that the road is named after that doesn't have a page! There are more historically notable roads in Norwich that don't have articles, like Tombland that have not been written about. Davidstewartharvey ( talk) 06:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply
      Delete per above. Okoslavia ( talk) 14:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply
WP:JUSTAVOTE, casted as part of following me. This behavior was addressed by other editors in ANI and another AfD. [47] [48] Thank you! gidonb ( talk) 10:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. See proposal below Agree with User:Gidonb — the fact that a street has many notable buildings helps cement its own notability. A road is more than tarmac and pavement. As User:Elemimele points out the bus sink hole event makes the road notable. A recent source describes the changing nature of part of the road and feature points along it, https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/23637344.earlham-road-norwich-becoming-citys-top-food-spot/ There's history on the bridge crossing the River Yare [49] - admittedly a better source needs finding to verify the details. Believe this road was part of the Norwich-Watton turnpike trust est. in 1770. Rupples ( talk) 07:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Proposal. Keep but retitle the article "Earlham, Norfolk or Earlham, Norwich". This is the second time the article has been AfD'd. I acknowledge and take into account the concern expressed by the nominator and !delete votes. What struck me when searching for sources was surprise that no article had been written on Earlham. Earlham was an ancient and civil parish distinct from Norwich up until 1889 see https://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/unit/10093790 There is content on Earlham's history and I believe the encyclopedia would be better served by having an article on Earlham the place rather than one restricted to Earlham Road. The opening paragraph and some of the text would need amending but the majority of content could be retained as it is still relevant to Earlham the place. I believe the retitled article would fall under WP:GEOLAND as a former legally, recognized populated place and notability isn't temporary WP:NTEMP. Pinging all contributors to this AfD for their views on this proposal in the hope that consensus can be achieved: @ Davidstewartharvey, @ Let'srun, @ Oaktree b, @ Gidonb, @ Rschen7754, @ Elemimele, @ Okoslavia. Rupples ( talk) 16:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Hey Rupples, I think that both are notable. You are free to create said article! gidonb ( talk) 17:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply
That's a tricky one. I'd agree there's nothing wrong with writing an article about Earlham the historic parish, and it could blend into Earlham, the modern region of Norwich, but I personally don't know what determines the actual boundary of Earlham today, and almost by definition the Norwich end of Earlham road isn't Earlham (or wasn't in origin...) because it was historically the road out of Norwich that led to Earlham! The places where you'd hope for a definitive boundary seem to provide only a centre-point. [50] Elemimele ( talk) 19:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Yes, there's probably too much of the road outside of the historic boundary of Earlham to make a good fit. Oh well, seemed initially like a decent compromise. Guess this article will have to stand or fall as is. Thanks for replying and Gidonb. Rupples ( talk) 21:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Oops. Looks as if my proposal isn't such a good idea. Withdrawing it. Apologies in advance to those who return here from my ping. Rupples ( talk) 22:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Question - There are not sources enough to keep this article alive, but the bus-in-the-sinkhole (no, not a traditional East Anglian recipe, though I can see why one'd think that) is definitely worth keeping. I found two strong and two week sources in a cursory search. Maybe salvage that part into Norwich and scrap the rest? Last1in ( talk) 20:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    The bus sinkhole bit could conceivably fit within the sub-section "Other events" under Norwich#History 20th Century (2.6.4). Rupples ( talk) 01:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 03:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, seems to pass the GNG. While searching "Earlham Road" leaves one drowning in mundanities, searching for "Earlham Road" + "tram" yields considerably more interesting results. In particular this (paywalled) paper published in Engineering Geology has some very interesting background on the history of subsidence incidents along Earlham Road, neatly putting the bus incident into context. And this conservation area appraisal contains a wealth of historical information -- and even if the report itself is rejected as potentially being in the pocket of Big Road, it provides abundant starting points for further searches. This issue of Norfolk Archeology appears to have some in-depth discussion of the tunnels under Earlham Road that were re-discovered in 1823. All of these are well above the WP:SIGCOV threshold, covering the subject directly and in detail. In sum, there seems to be ample historical material to work with here. -- Visviva ( talk) 03:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    The Conservation Appraisal is a perfect example of why Earlham Road is not notable. The report is for Heigham Grove, not Earlham Road. This is a suburb of Norwich, again without a wiki article which is notable. In fact this book [51] on the parish of St Giles has no mention of the road, but describes how the hamlet of Heigham Grove grew to encompass the parish (from 1886). As per the previous arguments, the road isn't notable, but the suburbs of Norwich are, and so these articles should be created. Davidstewartharvey ( talk) 05:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Then I think we have a viable solution: Temporarily Keep this article until those are created, incorporate the useful (sourced) bits of this one, then retire this article as NN. Until that happens, though, this has enough sourced (and interesting) material to survive an AfD. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 12:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Okay the latest proposal is to Keep this article, create an article on the parish, Merge this article into that one and then turn this page into a Redirect. Is there support for this plan? Or do we go back to Keep vs. Delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Reading through the discussion, I support the plan, otherwise prefer a keep. Ultimately the article title doesn't matter too much to me. If either of these happen, I can offer to help with the resulting merge, or tag/trim unverifiable information after it happens, at an appropriate time if someone wants to ping me. — siro χ o 03:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Support for reasons stated @19-Jul-2023. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 23:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per everyone above - Notable road and notable bus accident as proven by sources provided above, Meets GNG. – Davey2010 Talk 19:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Why are we debating a proposal that was withdrawn? The AfD has not yet been withdrawn. I do not see much support for deletion. gidonb ( talk) 02:13, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete‎ per author request. ✗ plicit 12:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

MrShibolet

MrShibolet (  | talk | history | 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 streamer/internet person. Zero sources found in Gnews. Nothing for sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk) 03:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel ( talk) 02:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

100 Ways to Write a Book

100 Ways to Write a Book (  | talk | history | 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 book, no critical reviews of the work found, no sources of any kind really. Delete for not meeting GNG. Oaktree b ( talk) 03:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b ( talk) 03:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete U5. I've added tag. Cursory search doesn't show any RS. This or related articles have been declined by AFC twice at least, and there also seems to be a COI. — siro χ o 04:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The citations are only about the contributing authors, not the book itself. Doesn't satisfy WP:NBOOK. -- TheLonelyPather ( talk) 06:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. I haven't checked all of the references, but a random click-through seems to show that most sources don't even mention this book. Quality>Quantity. ARandomName123 ( talk) 02:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. If the page creator wants to work on this article in Draft space and submit it to WP:AFC, let me know. It was probably put into main space too soon and also nominated for deletion soon after creation which we try to discourage. Liz Read! Talk! 03:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Tommy Playboy

Tommy Playboy (  | talk | history | 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 in WP:ANYBIO , WP:NMODEL Worldiswide ( talk) 02:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment. I’ll comb through sources tomorrow and see if I can find a notable hook bc I am seeing that a statement of significance is missing. Elttaruuu ( talk) 04:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment. I definitely understand why this article isn’t quite there yet but just want to share, it is frustrating trying to find useable content for someone who only recently stopped using their dead name and then died. Obviously, not saying this as a critique of Playboy, herself. Her name is also difficult to research because of Tommy Lee and Pamela Anderson’s connection to Playboy. I would love to be able to add to the Wikipedia record her community organizing and artistic work but I may have to wait for more to be written about her. Elttaruuu ( talk) 13:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep. I think it’s clear from the sources utilized that Playboy was a big presence in the New York queer community. Them, Women’s Wear Daily, and Essence all wrote articles about her life, legacy, and death. Elttaruuu ( talk) 02:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete I'm not seeing notability. Having your photo published is not nearly enough for notability. Rest seems to be about their death; apart from the photo and the tragic demise, I'm not seeing notability. Oaktree b ( talk) 02:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete One of the cited sources Them magazine article by Uzumaki Cepeda reads in addition to Hatnim Lee’s photography from the memorial, we asked Uzumaki Cepeda, one of Tommy’s best friends, to share a few words and memories about the beloved New York icon.. This source is used to cite the trivia that the author and the article subject were both friends with Kehlani. This name drop is as meaningful as an article written by the subject's friend saying they both liked #1 value meal pack from McDonald's and I feel like it's an attempt to fluff up notability. Graywalls ( talk) 18:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 02:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

List of carnivorans by population

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

With the same reasoning presented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of felidaes by population- namely, that this is redundant to the excellent List of carnivorans and daughter-lists, which are also up-to-date and more informative overall. I would also like to bundle List of even-toed ungulates by population and List of odd-toed ungulates by population in this nomination, for the same reasons (out of date content forks to List of artiodactyls & daughters, and List of perissodactyls). SilverTiger12 ( talk) 02:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Lara Uebersax

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

The subject has earned at least four caps for the Liechtenstein women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 02:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - Agreed. Other than existence, there is no verification from a third party source thus no evidence of notability.
TheBritinator ( talk) 01:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Soucing is of insufficient depth and independence. Star Mississippi 02:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Frank Morano

AfDs for this article:
Frank Morano (  | talk | history | 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 media personality and political operative; sourcing is simply confirmation of where he works. Article is PROMO. Oaktree b ( talk) 02:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply

If the sourcing simply confirms where he works it wouldn’t matter because WP: SIGCOV. The multiple sources are Staten Island Advance, NY Times, Politico, Variety and Radio Insight are more than sufficient for WP: SIGCOV. The sources discusses his career as a radio producer and radio host, his radio program is based in the largest metro area in America. The sourcing discusses his unpaid career in third party politics on Staten Island which is a significant geographical area of over 400,000 people. Fodient ( talk) 02:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
I concur completely and I note this as someone who has spoken to him in person as well as on air many times. 100.37.241.149 ( talk) 17:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply
This article is more propaganda than fact. It should be deleted. Especially when Frank Morano has a fringe audience, even if he is now nationally syndicated. 100.37.241.149 ( talk) 17:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

This page should be deleted due to incorrect information.

Keep Well cited with reliable sources and significant coverage. Blordfam ( talk) 10:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Blordfam ( talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. reply
NoteWho said that this comment was from canvassing? Fodient ( talk) 05:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Tons of links in article, very well sourced, all about nationally ranked radio host. RobotUSA ( talk) 06:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)— RobotUSA ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
He's not as highly ranked as John Batchelor, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, or Brian Kilmeade. Nor is he as credible as any of them. This piece really reads more like an advertisement for a mediocre radio talk show host who disdains STEM but prefers to host science denialists and conspiracy theorists like RFK Jr and Michael Medved to name a few. 100.37.241.149 ( talk) 17:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply
This doesn’t matter due to wp:OTHERSTUFF Fodient ( talk) 16:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep As per wp:sigcov and wp:gng 107.127.7.6 ( talk) 18:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 107.127.7.6 ( talk) has been canvassed to this discussion. reply
NoteWho said that this comment was from canvassing? Fodient ( talk) 05:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get more participation from regular editors who aren't fans of his show to assess whether or not the sourcing is adequate. Personally, though I think the guest list of his wedding is the height of trivia, I have only seen content like that in biographies of royalty.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete: I don't see anything particularly notable about this "media personality/political operative", and agree with @ Oaktree b:, that the article is pure WP:PROMO. There are dozens of talk-show/podcast hosts out there, it doesn't mean they should all have a Wikipedia article, especially those with a fringe audience. - BlueboyLINY ( talk) 23:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
You're saying its a promo or a resume, but what about it is a promo or resume? Your statement of "There are dozens of talk-show/podcast hosts out there, it doesn't mean they should all have a Wikipedia article...", if there are reliable sources and significant coverage then yes, as long as someone makes an article they should be here. This article has the NY Times, Politico, Variety as major nationwide reliable sources, and other local or niche sources that exceed a minimum requirement for significant coverage. Fodient ( talk) 00:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Still doesn't meet the notability criteria for WP:ANYBIO. BlueboyLINY ( talk) 00:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Even if he didn't, that's not necessary. WP: ANYBIO is in the Additional criteria section that states "A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." He would qualify for WP:CREATIVE The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors which is demonstrated by the attendees at his wedding. Fodient ( talk) 01:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Having a large wedding doesn't imply any sort of notability I'm afraid. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
I agree it doesn't but it is indicative of The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors' Fodient ( talk) 01:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
It's PROMO simply by existing in wikipedia, it helps boost search rankings and adds to the online presence of the "thing". More hits equals greater ad revenue for the "thing". Oaktree b ( talk) 01:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Just by saying its a promo doesnt mean its a promo or that the intent is to promote something. Fodient ( talk) 01:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, without prejudice. (Disclaimer: Referred to dispute from RFC bot on subject article's talk page) I do think that there is an intent to promote, and I do see that there is reasonable cause for a close connection. He's not an iconic broadcaster on a global basis (like Joe Rogan) nor on a local basis (like Pittsburgh's Joe DeNardo); saying he could be in the future would be a WP:CRYSTALBALL violation. While anything is possible with him, we don't determine notability based on unconfirmed notions; rather, we wait until such figure becomes notable and then write. It's how things have gone for a long time, it's a policy I support, and I neither foresee nor desire that its core message be changed.InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 02:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    By saying he's not Joe Rogan is an WP:OSE argument. As you said "we don't determine notability based on unconfirmed notions", and that's true. We confirm notability based on reliable sources which are here by the way of the NY Times, Politico, and Variety, also local news from America's largest metropolitan area and niche sources confirm. If there's evidence to promote, then present it. Fodient ( talk) 02:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Such sources mention him in passing and little have SIGCOV. I don't think that my usage of Rogan and DeNardo constitutes as an OSE argument. The examples provided in OSE are along the lines of We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this; not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that Morano is not like Rogan where there are in-depth sources without affiliation to the subject. The NY Times article you bring up mentions him only ONCE, and in passing just for being the chair of some local board. I have qualified my statement of intent to promote with "I think"; since I am not god of the universe, I cannot know everybody's intentions, but I do get a gut feeling in my stomach based on previous debates that there is some intent to promote based on previous deletion. I qualify my statements when I am not 100% sure that something is the case, and it is important that you recognize such. If you would prefer that in my discussions with you that I replace "I think" with "I get the feeling", I would be happy to do so. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 03:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. From the looks of it, this is a situation where there seems to be enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, but there are serious problems with the way the article is written. While there are many citations throughout the article, in spotchecking the references, it seems like some of them fail verification – in other words, they don't always back up the specific claims made. The only way to justify saving this article is to fix this – fact by fact, sentence by sentence – because per our WP:BLP guidelines, Wikipedia cannot keep inaccurate/unverified information in biographies of living people. Cielquiparle ( talk) 04:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Give me an example of something that's not backed up by the sources? Fodient ( talk) 04:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    To start, I'm stuck at footnote 2 – "since been syndicated"? Cielquiparle ( talk) 04:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Thanks for fixing this. Cielquiparle ( talk) 04:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Footnote 4 – "a completely subjective power ranking"? That's non-neutral and you can't cite the ranking itself as the source for that claim. Cielquiparle ( talk) 04:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    I removed "completely subjective" for you. Cielquiparle ( talk) 04:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Footnote 7 – broken link to non-existent page, quote in reference also isn't relevant. Cielquiparle ( talk) 04:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Thanks. Typo on the link, fixed it. Fodient ( talk) 04:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Improper use of external link – That William Shatner reference needs to be correctly formatted as a citation, or removed. Cielquiparle ( talk) 04:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    I didnt put that there, I eliminated it. Fodient ( talk) 04:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    First section: Frank Morano is an American radio personality, radio, television and film producer, and political operative. He currently hosts the syndicated talk radio program The Other Side of Midnight from Red Apple Media's flagship station 770 AM WABC. Right out of his biography on WABC website. Not the best source but reliable enough to confirm his current employment.

    Radio host section: Starting in 2011, Frank Morano hosted Morano in the Morning on 970AM The Answer. In 2020, he began hosting The Other Side of Midnight overnights on WABC. The show has since been syndicated The source states he went to WABC in 2020. We know thats the name of his program. I just added a source stating his program is syndicated.

    Producer section: As a producer, Frank Morano has mostly worked in talk radio. He, produced programs on 770 AM WABC and 970 AM The Answer. The hosts of these programs included Joe Piscopo, Curtis Sliwa, and John Catsimatidis. On Newsmax, Morano was the managing editor for Liquid Lunch and a producer for Vito Fossella's Table Talk. He served as a producer for the 2017 Netflix documentary Get Me Roger Stone. I can remove As a producer, Frank Morano has mostly worked in talk radio., maybe its WP: OR but that seemed obvious based on the ratio from source. Newsmax's website listed him as managing editor for that program but that source was removed, probably incorrectly.

    Political section Frank Morano is a Staten Island resident that has been involved in local politics. Morano is currently the board chair for Staten Island Community Board 3. Morano was originally registered with the Independence Party of New York. He resigned from the Independence Party in 2010 after the party leadership refused to grant a Wilson Pakula to Republican State Assembly candidate Nicole Malliotakis. He went on to serve in a leadership role for New York State third parties with ballot access Reform Party and SAM Party. Everyone of those sources confirms everything in that section.

    Personal life Frank Morano is married to Rachel O'Brien. Vincent Ignizio was his best man, and their wedding was attended by Nicole Malliotakis, John Catsimatidis, John Gotti Jr., Joe Piscopo, Carol Alt, Betsy McCaughey, James Oddo, Joe Borelli, Michael Cusick, Ronald Castorina, Dan Donovan, Fred Cerullo, Vincent Gentile, Sal Albanese, Robert Auth. The SI Advance confirms everything here. Fodient ( talk) 04:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Well cited with reliable sources 2607:FB91:1980:D29:E00F:3922:8BEE:C3BD ( talk) 23:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Which reliable sources independent of the subject or his job are WP:SIGCOV? InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 03:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    He is the subject of articles. Additionally multiple news outlets have reached out to him for quote or felt his opinion was significant enough to be quoted in their news article. The significant coverage by reliable sources of the subject, his job, voluntary political work, and his personal life is what makes him notable. All of which occurs in the largest metropolitan area in America. Fodient ( talk) 17:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    What articles? The ones that are online and are from reliable sources which are presently cited in the article mention him once in passing, which doesn't meet our notability standards. The fact he's in the NYC area doesn't matter when it comes to notability; if that were the case every person from NYC would be notable and we'd be flooded with database-entry like articles which are solely justified per OSE matters. Some of them aren't even online as when I try to read them, I get a 404. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 17:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Being from NYC is a factor. A media personality in huge market is going to be more notable than a media personality in a small market, and when you add in syndication the notability increases. No one is saying that merely being from NYC makes you notable. Reference 2, 3, 9 and 13 are about the subject. Reference 11, 12 have him significantly mentioned - the politico article mentions his name thirteen times. Reference 4 has a notable publication demonstrating his rankings. Reference 5 and 6 are reliable sources that amplify his producer credits. Reference 7 and 8 provide reliable sources that indicate his community service. Although he isn't affiliated with one of the two major parties, the totality of the references indicate that the subject is a major local political figure in NYC third party politics WP:Politician. Fodient ( talk) 19:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Hosting a radio show which is only confined to one metro doesn't make such person notable. Morano did not make the same impact as a mayor or as a celebrity. Reference 13 is WP:TRIVIA. Bragging about community service as you've mentioned for refs 7 and 8 seem to me like a method to promote. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 03:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    The article mentions that he is syndicated and two refences support that, I don't understand why you're saying in one metro area. I have no affiliation with the subject. Are you claiming that I'm bragging for him with references 7 and 8? I guess to some degree personal life sections are always WP:TRIVIA, but the eclectic group of notable people indicates that this section supports person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. Fodient ( talk) 03:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. There are sources covering the subject, but not many go into depth about him. I do not see how his radio shows, marriage, party affiliation and community board service are notably different from many other people's. Senorangel ( talk) 23:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I am a regular listener to this show as I work odd hours. This article was started by fans when Frank Morano complained for a significant period one morning he didn't have a Wikipedia page. It did not originate from an organic interest in him as a public figure. There is currently an active attempt on Facebook in his fan group to have people visit and "vote" to keep this page, no doubt to inflate his ego. (see: https://www.facebook.com/groups/radiomorano/posts/1643373382824213) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.124.70 ( talk) 09:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    So there's canvassing here also? oh god... InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 18:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    It is understandable. But yes, it generally backfires. Doesn't matter if you're in nuclear policy research, a YouTuber, or a radio personality... Canvassing often results in the articles getting deleted, rightly or wrongly. Cielquiparle ( talk) 19:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Note This is appears to be not an unbiased user. By stating no doubt to inflate his ego is the user stating their personal feelings about the subject WP:IMPARTIAL. Fodient ( talk) 05:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - He seems to have passing mention in a few higher-quality sources, but essentially no direct coverage. NickCT ( talk) 15:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Note There's no evidence of canvassing. There's one user posting a non-existent link claiming that canvassing is occurring. Fodient ( talk) 05:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: Most sources in the article are not about him, and he is just mentioned in passing, not meeting WP:SIGCOV. Additionally, I'm not sure why the guest list for the wedding is needed. Seems way too trivial for this article. ARandomName123 ( talk) 23:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. given sources brought up in this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Lorin Ranier

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

Not meeting notability for business people or for sports, beyond this [52], rest are simply discussion of the racing teams he's worked with. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply

But he’s a team owner with a storied history in the sport? I understand your take on the matter absolutely but he’s the key figure to 2 of the top development programs in stock car racing currently and is a team owner, what’s the difference in him and other team owners with wiki pages? He just happens to not currently own a team, and if most crew chiefs like Chris Gabehart can have Wikipedia pages I see no reason a team owner can’t have one also, thank you for your time. OlHossNo.13 ( talk) 01:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep per WP:GNG. He's been covered in the Courier Journal, The Roanoke Times, the Knight Ridder Tribune, Bristol Herald Courier, and there was a Ranier Racing Museum covered in the Associated Press. APK whisper in my ear 05:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to review sources brought up in this discussion and whether they are sufficient to establish GNG for this article subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - clearly notable per refs found above. For the future, NASCAR team owners are probably always notable given the coverage of teams and drivers. I see stuff about them weekly.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 02:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Elizabeth J. Drake

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG as a failed judicial nominee. Let'srun ( talk) 00:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in the midst of proposals and counter proposals as consensus is far from clear and each AFD in this subject area is being closed differently.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 16:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply

The Pawnshop No. 8

The Pawnshop No. 8 (  | talk | history | 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:BEFORE search didn't yield reviews or WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 00:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, Entertainment, and Taiwan. Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 00:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment the article is not in a good state, but I hesitate to delete an article about foreign-language show that never made it to an English-speaking country, with a notable cast, that is currently being remade. Reliable sources almost certainly exist in other languages. There exist some maybe-not-so-reliable sources in English [53] [54] [55]. — siro χ o 09:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    If [r]eliable sources...exist in other languages, then great! Fantastic! Please show me them! I would actually love for an article about a show I enjoyed twenty years ago to be kept and improved to cover all the major info (reception, plot, etc.)! I, alas, and yes, to my own surprise, did not find sources to show WP:GNG for this show and not the cast, not a potential remake in English or in Chinese. I am more than happy to be proven wrong. Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 16:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Mak, Mun San (2004-03-28). "Television". The Straits Times. Archived from the original on 2023-07-29. Retrieved 2023-07-29.

      The article notes: "Hong Kong actor-singer Alex To may have been in the news last year for all the wrong reasons, but his latest outing in the supernatural drama The Pawnshop No. 8 should get everyone talking again - for the right ones. Adapted from a novel by popular Hong Kong writer Zita Law aka Deep Snow (pop idol Andy Lau is said to be a huge fan of her works), the Taiwanese serial stars To as the proprietor of a pawnshop during the late Qing dynasty. ... Try not to cringe when you see To, with his handsome face all contorted, declaring: 'I love her! I want to be with her during this lifetime, and the next, and the next...'If you can get past that, you should begin to appreciate the decent acting by him, Tien and the rest of the cast, which includes TV host A-ya and Matilda Tao's beau Li Li-jen."

    2. Wu, Qizong 吳啟綜 (2003-04-16). "杜德偉來台 開 當舖 天心 鄭家榆繞身旁 帥哥強調跟女友感情沒問題" [Alex To came to Taiwan to open a pawn shop. Tien Hsin, Carol Cheng are around,. The handsome guy emphasizes that he and his girlfriend have no relationship problems.]. Min Sheng Bao (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-07-29. Retrieved 2023-07-29.

      The article notes: "「第８號當舖」由「映畫」郭建宏製作、蔡揚名執導，劇情改編小說描述一間當舖，不僅可以典當金銀珠寶，還可以典當人的際遇、靈魂、愛情，甚至身體的任何部位。杜德偉飾演被賦予魔力長生不老的當舖老闆，而鄭家榆則飾杜的賢淑老婆，一路從20歲演到70多歲，很有挑戰性。天心則飾演非常時摩的當舖夥計。"

      From Google Translate: ""Pawnshop No. 8" is produced by "Yinghua" Guo Jianhong and directed by Cai Yangming. The plot is adapted from a novel describing a pawnshop that not only pawns gold, silver and jewelry, but also pawns people's fortune, soul, love, and even any part of the body. Du Dewei plays the pawnshop owner who is endowed with magical powers of immortality, while Zheng Jiayu plays Du's virtuous wife. It is very challenging to act from the age of 20 to her 70s. Tian Xin plays the pawnshop boy who is very fashionable."

    3. Yang, Qifeng 楊起鳳 (2003-05-14). "第8號當鋪 照燒！ 驚煞中開鏡 仁波切祈福" [The Pawnshop No. 8. Teriyaki! Shocked and opened the mirror, Rinpoche prayed]. Star News [ zh (in Chinese).

      The article notes: "衛視中文台「第8號當鋪」昨天開鏡，男主角杜德偉因屬港澳同胞無法來台，不過現場特別邀來格巴多傑仁波切大師及五位喇嘛，為全台灣人民進行祈福儀式，盼大家能平安渡過這次SARS席捲全球的風暴。在香港接受訪問的杜德偉說，為讓劇組能順利工作，他願意配合政府來台隔離十天的禁令。"

      From Google Translate: "Satellite TV's Chinese channel "Pawn Shop No. 8" started filming yesterday. The actor Du Dewei was unable to come to Taiwan because he is a compatriot from Hong Kong and Macau. However, Master Gepa Dorje Rinpoche and five lamas were specially invited to perform a blessing ceremony for the people of Taiwan. Hope everyone We can safely ride out the storm of SARS sweeping the world. Du Dewei, who was interviewed in Hong Kong, said that in order to allow the crew to work smoothly, he is willing to cooperate with the government's 10-day quarantine ban in Taiwan."

    4. Zhao, Dazhi 趙大智 (2003-08-24). "劉雪華 醜到把于莉嚇哭 暴牙、歪嘴進第8號當舖 大美女細數嚇人史 超得意" [Leanne Liu is so ugly that Yu Li was scared to tears. Toothy, crooked mouth into The Pawnshop No. 8. Scary history of beauties. Super interesting.]. Min Sheng Bao (in Chinese).

      The article notes: "劉雪華最近加入衛視中文台「第8號當舖」，昨天在華視地下4樓攝影棚拍一段精采劇情，先拍她25歲時因長相醜陋，到杜德偉和天心開設的當舖，打算出賣自己最珍貴之物，換取美貌；接著，她果真如願變成像天心一般的美女，身著華服但慾望反而愈來愈多，還想繼續典當下去，到最後，甚至連生育能力和視力都賣給魔鬼了。"

      From Google Translate: "Liu Xuehua recently joined Satellite TV's Chinese channel "No. 8 Pawnshop". Yesterday, she filmed a wonderful scene in the studio on the 4th floor of China TV. First, she went to the pawnshop opened by Du Dewei and Tianxin when she was 25 years old because of her ugly appearance. Then, as she wished, she turned into a beautiful woman like Tianxin, dressed in gorgeous clothes, but her desires grew more and more, and she wanted to continue pawning. In the end, even her fertility and eyesight were sold to the devil."

    5. "今晚新菜色 第8號當鋪" [New dishes tonight. The Pawnshop No. 8]. United Evening News [ zh (in Chinese). 2003-10-07.

      The article notes: "改編自香港知名小說家深雪同名小說的電視連續劇「第8號當舖」，由杜德偉和天心主演，是衛視中文台首齣花鉅資自製的八點檔連續劇。"

      From Google Translate: "Adapted from the novel of the same name by the famous Hong Kong novelist Shen Xue, the TV series "Pawn Shop No. 8", starring Du Dewei and Tian Xin, is the first self-produced 8 o'clock series on the Chinese Channel of Satellite TV with a huge investment."

    6. Fang, Chan 方嬋 (2003-10-12). "當鋪造勢 星情狂FUN 中南部辦簽名 天心小露性感 杜德偉好興奮" [Pawn shop to build momentum. Star lovers FUN. Autographing at Central South Office. Tien Hsin is sexy. Alex To is so excited.]. Star News [ zh (in Chinese).

      The article notes: "為了幫主演的「第8號當舖」造勢，天心以黑色薄紗加上若隱若現的Bra，色誘觀眾；而愛血拚的林韋君看到簽名會現場百貨公司正在打折，差一點衝進去大肆血拚。 衛視中文台大戲「第8號當舖」下中南部辦簽名會，男女主角杜德偉、李志希、天心、林韋君的魅力，將現場擠得水瀉不通。"

      From Google Translate: "In order to help the starring "Pawnshop No. 8" build momentum, Tianxin used black tulle and a looming Bra to seduce the audience; and Lin Weijun, who loves shopping, saw that the department store was on sale at the autograph session, and almost rushed in to do some shopping. Satellite TV's Chinese channel drama "No. 8 Pawnshop" held an autograph session in Xiazhongnan. The charm of the leading actors and actresses Du Dewei, Li Zhixi, Tianxin, and Lin Weijun crowded the scene."

    7. Li, Yiyun 李怡芸 (2003-12-07). "電視派不屑原著 小說派力挺深雪 吵成e團 當舖狂賣" [The TV school disdains the original work, while the novel school supports Miyuki Arguing into an e group, pawnshop selling wildly]. Star News [ zh (in Chinese).

      The article notes: "電視劇「第8號當舖」才因換了主角拍續集被網友痛批，這廂對於原著小說與電視劇的優劣之爭，亦在網上辯得沸沸揚揚，然而不論是褒是貶，結果是…原著小說因此再度熱賣。網友對於「第8號當舖」電視版和小說版的好惡，可說是涇渭分明，支持電視劇的人，認為小說沒有真正「說故事」，電腦天才林賢堂為婚姻的犧牲只是過場，孫卓也沒有談到友情及為成功的掙扎，更沒有劉至芳的人性轉變，因此認為賦予原著生命的，是編劇和演員，"

      From Google Translate: "The TV series "Pawn Shop No. 8" was criticized by netizens for changing the main character to make a sequel. The debate over the merits of the original novel and the TV series has been heatedly debated on the Internet. However, no matter whether it is praise or criticism, the result is... the original work The novel is therefore a hit again. Netizens' likes and dislikes between the TV version and the novel version of "No. 8 Pawnshop" can be said to be very different. Those who support the TV series think that the novel does not really "tell the story". Friendship and struggle for success, not to mention the transformation of Liu Zhifang's human nature. Therefore, it is believed that the scriptwriter and actors gave life to the original work."

    8. Cai, Yiling 蔡宜玲 (2004-01-31). "天心：叫我紅八點 一人三部戲 八點檔不看她也難" [Tien Hsin: Call me Red Eight. Three dramas for one person, it's hard not to watch her at eight o'clock]. United Evening News [ zh (in Chinese).

      The article notes: "2003年對天心是幸運的一年，「第8號當舖」在台灣收視長紅，創造有線台國語劇奇蹟 ... 由於天心人氣急速上升，正在播出的「第8號當舖」因有上檔壓力，天心每天都得趕拍"

      From Google Translate: "2003 was a lucky year for Tianxin. "The No. 8 Pawn Shop" became popular in Taiwan, creating a miracle in cable television Mandarin dramas; ... Due to the rapid increase in Tianxin's popularity, Tianxin has to rush to shoot every day due to the pressure of "Pawn Shop No. 8" which is currently being broadcast."

    9. Li, Meihua 李美嬅 (2004-03-10). "8號當舖開張 有價萬物全收 店名趕搭電視劇熱潮 工作人員穿制服凸顯「專業」 首日就有人拿名牌皮包、新款手機和名表典當" [The Pawnshop No. 8 opened, accepting everything of value. The name of the store catches up with the TV drama craze. The staff wear uniforms to highlight their "professionalism." On the first day, some people pawned designer bags, new mobile phones and famous watches]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p. B2.

      The article notes: "電視劇第8號當舖最近當紅，這家8號當舖名稱一樣，在夜晚時廣告霓虹燈閃爍，引人注意。三月八日才取得縣政府核發的營利事業登記證，昨天開張已有人上門把名牌皮包、新款行動電話和名表拿來典當。 ... 老闆徐嘉宏不否認取這店名是趕搭電視劇熱潮，但為與傳統當舖區隔，8號當舖門面很明亮，工作人員一律穿上深灰色制服，希望給顧客專業的感覺，"

      From Google Translate: "The No. 8 pawn shop of the TV series has become popular recently. This No. 8 pawn shop has the same name. At night, the neon lights of the advertisement flash, attracting attention. The profit-seeking business registration certificate issued by the county government was only obtained on March 8, and when it opened yesterday, people have pawned famous-brand leather bags, new mobile phones and famous watches. ... The owner Xu Jiahong does not deny taking this The name of the store is to catch up with the TV drama craze, but in order to distinguish it from traditional pawnshops, No. 8 pawnshop has a bright facade, and the staff all wear dark gray uniforms, hoping to give customers a professional feeling."

    10. Yu, Qingxuan 於慶璇 (2016-04-16). "《第8號當舖》13年過去了 如今這些主演..." ["The Pawnshop No. 8" aired 13 years, and now these leading actors...]. China Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-07-29. Retrieved 2023-07-29.

      The article notes: "《第8號當舖》是一齣相當別出心裁的電視劇，故事設定為清末民初之時，講述一間特別的當舖，在這間當舖裡接受任何物品，典當的不僅僅只是金銀珠寶、大屋樓契，還有一個人的四肢、內臟、運氣、機遇、快樂，以及靈魂。劇情看似記憶猶新，但不知不覺，這部電視劇已經過去有13年之久，究竟這些主演現在都過得如何呢？還記得他們嗎？"

      From Google Translate: ""Pawnshop No. 8" is a very ingenious TV series. The story is set at the end of the Qing Dynasty and the beginning of the Republic of China. It tells about a special pawnshop. Anything is accepted in this pawnshop. The pawns are not only gold, silver, jewelry, and property deeds of big houses. , and a person's limbs, guts, luck, chance, pleasure, and soul. The plot seems to be fresh in memory, but unknowingly, 13 years have passed since this TV series. How are these leading actors doing now? remember them?"

    11. Less significant coverage:
      1. Young, Debbie (2004-06-11). "Real drama queen". The Straits Times. Archived from the original on 2023-07-29. Retrieved 2023-07-29.

        The article provides two sentences of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "My most recent purchase is a 40-episode Taiwanese drama called Pawnshop No. 8, about the battle between the two worlds of good and evil. It cost me $100 for the set but I think it is money well-spent."

      2. Yang, Qifeng 楊起鳳 (2003-04-16). "杜德偉登台 忘掉麻煩 吸毒風波律師處理 舒服拍戲快樂玩" [Alex To on stage, forgetting the trouble. Lawyer dealing with drug scandal, comfortable filming and fun]. Star News [ zh (in Chinese).

        The article notes: "衛視與製作人郭建宏、導演蔡揚名合作拍攝八點檔自製劇「第 8號當舖」請來不老的情人杜德偉演男主角，首度在台拍電視劇"

        From Google Translate: "Satellite TV cooperated with producer Guo Jianhong and director Cai Yangming to shoot the 8 o'clock self-produced drama "No. 8 Pawnshop" and invited the ageless lover Du Dewei to play the leading role. It was the first time to shoot a TV series in Taiwan."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Pawnshop No. 8 ( traditional Chinese: 第8號當舖; simplified Chinese: 第8号当铺), also known as Pawnshop #8, to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 09:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per Cunard's sourcing, meets WP:GNG — siro χ o 11:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_July_24&oldid=1168180874"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE