Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_June_17 References

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 16	June 18 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Tarun Anand

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

Article is created by subject. Review of sources shows none of them are actual independent, in-depth secondary coverage of the subject. Instead, it is press releases, interviews and passing mentions in relation to the university, FX company and Reuters. Fails WP:NPERSON and WP:GNG. Slywriter ( talk) 13:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Education, and India. Slywriter ( talk) 13:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Hi Slywriter,

I hope you doing well.

Kindly briefly explains this issue and what we will remove and add. Your valuable suggestion needs to our Founder & Chairman Wikipedia Profile standard on Wikipedia. Waiting for your reply the team will work on Tarun Anand's Wikipedia Profile with notability.

Thanks Tarunanand30 ( talk) 08:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete Only link I can find is to the "Economic Times" saying how the subject drinks green tea. Appears to be clickbait site. Non-notable. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Thanks for your valuable suggestion and We removed "Economic Times" link. Kindly check and solve this issue. Tarunanand30 ( talk) 08:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 19:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete. The main case for notability I see is through WP:NPROF C6, but I don't believe that Universal Business School is a major academic institution. Any marginal notability is tempered by WP:TNT and WP:NOBOGOF: per the disclosure in Special:Diff/1091433803, the article has been mainly edited by a role account, with appearances of editing for pay. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 07:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For evaluation of the edits made just over a day ago.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete Article does not demonstrate any sign of notability. NMasiha ( talk) 19:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Charles Mussry. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 00:52, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Irwan Mussry

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

Businessman doesn't seem to meet WP:ANYBIO- coverage is mostly about his father (Charles Mussry) or based on churnalism articles. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Merge/redirect to Charles Mussry, with emphasis on the "redirect" part. BD2412 T 23:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

This AfD discussion includes a proposal for merger to Charles Mussry, and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to that page on June 22. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from that page.

Redirect to Charles Mussry (I think a line saying that his son is a CEO really counts as a merge, and that's really all that would be relevant.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. and none appears likely to emerge Star Mississippi 01:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Our Republic (Scotland)

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

Fails WP:GNG - no significant coverage, no real proof that we actually have a 'thing' here, sources cited do not add to any argument of notability for the 'Our Republic' movement or its impact or activism. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 14:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Scotland. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 14:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment I'll need time to comment on notability, but can see it does exist: https://www.thenational.scot/news/20176454.edinburgh-rally-offer-republican-alternative-jubilee-scotland/ CT55555 ( talk) 15:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Has a website: https://ourrepublic.scot/ CT55555 ( talk) 15:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply

My early analysis (I may refine this later) is that they exist, but are not notable. CT55555 ( talk) 16:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete The sources provided do not establish notability or cover the organisation sufficiently to meet WP:GNG. Coldupnorth ( talk) 11:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep The organisation has already been covered in the press, and may yet be covered further.- TrottieTrue ( talk) 13:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 21:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk) 23:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment - While I have doubts about the notability of the organisation itself to merit a full article, I wonder if just as there is a Republicanism in the United Kingdom, the general topic of Republicanism in Scotland (which as concept has a much longer history) might be notable enough for its own article? Dunarc ( talk) 22:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment - If there's any consensus behind this approach I think it's an acceptable compromise (though I wouldn't have set up the article if I didn't think it was worthwhile) and would be happy to help flesh out the wider Republicanism in Scotland article. I think it's distinct enough from the wider Republicanism in the United Kingdom article to potentially merit an entry in its own right. TrinePGTL ( talk) 10:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Timote Polovili

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - Since NFOOTY has been retired, this person no longer qualifies based on GNG. Samanthany ( talk) 00:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Amone Suli

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:24, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:24, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - Since NFOOTY has been retired, this person no longer qualifies based on GNG.Not much in Google can be found other than profiles. Samanthany ( talk) 00:59, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Suani Uelese

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete - Since NFOOTY has been retired, this person no longer qualifies based on GNG.Not much in Google can be found other than profiles. Samanthany ( talk) 01:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Sipiloni Sila

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete - Since NFOOTY has been retired, this person no longer qualifies based on GNG.Not much in Google can be found other than profiles. Samanthany ( talk) 01:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was 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 23:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Malakai Savieti

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Heneli Sa'afi

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Timote Maamaaloa

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete we do not have a level of coverage to reach the GNG threshold. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ✗ plicit 00:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Lafaele Moala

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep He has had a long and prominent managerial career; see [1] in particular. There are also several articles covering his activities in Loop Tonga and other sources. EternalNomad ( talk) 03:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep per sources found by EternalNomad. Giant Snowman 11:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep Passes GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 01:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Sitenilesili Mafi

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. This page was created by mistake. (non-admin closure) Steve Quinn ( talk) 23:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Charles Segoing

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

This subject does not seem to be covered in independent reliable sources. There are external links but these go to works authored by the subject. These pages do not indicate notability for this person. Fails WP:BIO and GNG. Steve Quinn ( talk) 23:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and History. Steve Quinn ( talk) 23:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ✗ plicit 00:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Jimmy Kelly (boxer, born 1992)

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

People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Hence, this article fails WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. The subject of the article is only notable for one event, the bout against Jaime Munguía on 11 June 2022 given it was created on said event's date. As per WP:BLP1E, an article on a person should be avoided if the following conditions are met:

If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual.
If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented.

All three of these conditions are met.

Furthermore, as per WP:NBOX, significant coverage is likely to exist for a boxer if they:

Have won a regular/full (non-interim) non-world title listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing/Title Assessment.
Have been ranked in the world top ten of any weight class by the IBF, WBA, WBC, WBO, or The Ring magazine.
Have fought, as an amateur, in the final of a national amateur championship for an International Boxing Association/Association Internationale de Boxe Amateur (AIBA) affiliated and World Amateur Boxing Championship medal-winning country (for Men, see Medal table (1974–present), for Women see Medal table (2001–present)), or have represented their AIBA affiliated country in a continental (or higher) tournament.

Only meets criterion #1 but lacks significant coverage and does not meet criterions #2 and #3. Therefore, based on the reasons provided, this article should clearly be deleted. Gilbert.JW ( talk) 23:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 June 17. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, and United Kingdom. Shellwood ( talk) 22:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

User:Squared.Circle.Boxing what are your thoughts? Gilbert.JW ( talk) 08:34, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

I have added as much as I can for now for the article. Article still in discussion for deletion however. Gilbert.JW ( talk) 09:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep. I have found more sources so meets WP:N. Gilbert.JW ( talk) 13:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep, although I believe this can now be closed as withdrawn. It took me a while to wade through all the somewhat-routine fight coverage, but I eventually found a few sources to establish notability ( 1, 2, 3). Along with this interview piece added by @ Gilbert.JW:, I believe the above sources can be used to beef the article up with some background details (I'll try and add some later if I can). – ². O. ^Boxing 14:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep: I agree with the editors above. It looks like it meets GNG. -- Rabbiweiner ( talk) 14:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Hatuqway. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 05:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply

House of Limaf

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

Hard to find WP:SIGCOV, and given sources aren't helping towards establishing notability at all. Merko ( talk) 18:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Merko ( talk) 18:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Asia and Turkey. Kadı Message 19:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 22:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Hatuqway as ATD. Nothing found in Russian or Turkish. Mccapra ( talk) 14:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I endorse this redirect as well. Merko ( talk) 16:34, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Redirect as suggested. The article has very little substantive content, nothing worth merging. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 00:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Susy Schultz

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

Most of this page appears to be a resume/ personal page as it lists 11 places she worked and her family. Further, many things are unsourced and the articles was orphaned for a number of years. Bareit98 ( talk) 16:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Journalism. Shellwood ( talk) 17:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment: At the very least, this needs updating. It asserts her to be executive director of the Museum of Broadcast Communications whose own website indicates a different person in that role. - Jmabel | Talk 00:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Weak keep. While this currently reads a bit like a resume, it reads like the resume of someone notable enough for an article. I think this should be improved, not deleted. - Jmabel | Talk 00:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk) 17:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment I did a quick edit to at least get it into the normal layout, it still lacks citations and probably needs a tone/style copy edit. CT55555 ( talk) 19:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep. The article needs more improvement but she seems notable. Her new jobs are often written up not just as press releases but as both media trade pieces (like [2] for her current position) but also general public like when she was named Exe Director of a museum and the Trib wrote an article [3]. I added both of of those and [4] to the article to update it a bit. She's also been featured on NPR as an expert on Chicago Media [5] (not sure how/if to include it), wrote an article that apparently was published by a journal [6] about the fairness doctrine, and going even further back was quoted by name at a protest at her college in the early 80s [7]. And there's more passing to significant mentions in various PR/trade press. Skynxnex ( talk) 21:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment: Made a minor update to section on personal life and will start adding citations to the rest of the article. I’m new to editing so wary of removing information without being sure, was anyone able to find information on the Pulitzer nomination? Her name doesn’t come up in any results and there is no evidence I can find to suggest she was a finalist. Number 21 on Pulitzer’s FAQ page states they discourage saying someone was nominated simply because an entry was received, but I’m unsure if this is the case here. BLELicaN ( talk) 12:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The recent comment about not being able to confirm the Pulitzer nomination raises questions about sourcing in the article that I think could benefit from an additional week of examination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 22:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment. Leaning weak delete, but more independent coverage could push this into GNG.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Robert Feder blog 1		"He operates his blog under an agreement with the Daily Herald." This does not seem to be one of the few circumstances where a newsblog is RS.	2 sentences on her	✘ No
Chicago Reader			value not understood Mostly derived from an interview, but does have some independent commentary	? Unknown
deadlink to Lawrence site			?	✘ No
LA Times article by Schultz				✘ No
Daily Journal article by Schultz				✘ No
Chicago Tribune			Draws mostly from a press release and personal profile, only ~4 sentences on her directly	✘ No
Robert Feder blog 2				✘ No
Daily Journal	Schultz was formerly managing editor		basic background details	✘ No
Journalism and Women Symposium	Schultz was formerly president			✘ No
Association for Women Journalists				✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.

There is also a brief quote from her in her ex-husband's obituary. JoelleJay ( talk) 23:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep. She appears notable per the references cited. Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 00:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply
There are only two sources cited that are both independent and reliable. Do you know of other sources that have SIGCOV? JoelleJay ( talk) 00:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Weak keep. I have just added seven independent secondary sources via Newspapers.com. While none are in depth on their own, they show a life and career that’s been regularly covered by the press. It’s enough for me. Innisfree987 ( talk) 03:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Fehmi Kacem

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found in WP:BEFORE nor coverage in the sources given on the page, if reliable. Is a creation of Losail, a blocked sock. Iseult^Δx parlez moi 22:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Tunisia. Shellwood ( talk) 22:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. No sources, just a vague wave at notability without backing Star Mississippi 01:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

St. Andrew's Secondary School, Adikpo

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 16:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Nigeria. Shellwood ( talk) 17:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:TNT and WP:GNG. Currently of marginal notability at best, according to my standards, and is filled with red links and weasel phrases. Bearian ( talk) 17:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk) 17:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep Lack of references is simply due to lack of research. The school is well known. Hopefully, the article will be developed Exquisit ( talk) 13:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Provide your research results, then. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 14:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 22:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was 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 23:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Sultan Faqihi

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found in WP:BEFORE nor coverage in the sources given on the page, if reliable. Is as a creation of Losail, a blocked sock. Iseult^Δx parlez moi 22:24, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Shellwood ( talk) 22:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to List of radio stations in U.S. Territories#Puerto Rico. Indeed per WP:BCASTOUTCOMES, no source-based argument has been made to keep a dedicated article. czar 03:52, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

WLUZ

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

As far as I can see, this article has never been sourced. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Wikipedia is not a directory. Seems to meet WP:DEL6 and WP:DEL14. scope_creep^Talk 22:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Puerto Rico. Shellwood ( talk) 22:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep radio stations licensed with the FCC and broadcasting original content are considered notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(
What did I screw up now?)} 00:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

That argument is based in a now deprecated policy following a recent RFC ruling (see comments below). It's no longer considered a valid argument. 4meter4 ( talk) 02:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep per 10-lb. Hammer. Stereorock ( talk) 02:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep as per WP:BCASTOUTCOMES. Nate • ( chatter) 04:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment The article fails WP:SIGCOV which is first and foremost for an article to remain on Wikipedia, it must be sourced.The fact they are notable, doesn't preclude from needing referencing. It is currently unreferenced, so it doesn't pass WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 09:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep Sourcing is going to be tough to come by, especially historically, simply because of being in Puerto Rico — finding old newspapers here is among the most difficult tasks, and I say that having written in this topic area in every US state and territory except PR. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment Then if sourcing is non-existant then that is the very definition of non-notable. Simply stating it is notable and its an automatic keep because of a few words in random policy, that completely bypasses the whole notability criteria for Wikipedia, breaks the WP Terms of Use and 5 pillars, as though they don't exist in 2022 is unacceptable. It currently fails WP:SIGCOV. It will draftified if no sources are found, and shrunk to a single line article with no content. scope_creep^Talk 20:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Lastly WP:BCASTOUTCOMES is an essay and has no standing on Afd to prove notability. scope_creep^Talk 20:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment There is a reference on the article, right at the very bottom which I never saw. scope_creep^Talk 21:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment I've asked a question at the Village Pump-policy to determine if the WP:BCASTOUTCOMES is policy and to determine exactly how it applies in this situation. scope_creep^Talk 08:33, 19 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I am confused by those who are pointing to WP:BCASTOUTCOMES to support keeping this article… BCASTOUTCOMES actually calls for deletion when there is no significant coverage. Blueboar ( talk) 11:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Blueboar, your confusion is understandable. There was a recent RFC at Wikipedia talk:Notability (media)/Archive 2#Status which led to the changing of the text/policy at WP:BCASTOUTCOMES. The users above are citing an older version of that policy which has been recently deprecated (a fact they probably were not aware of). The new language is very different, and no longer supports the argument made above. BCASTOUTCOMES used to support all radio stations with original programming regardless of sourcing. It no longer does. 4meter4 ( talk) 02:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Redirect to List_of_radio_stations_in_U.S._Territories#Puerto_Rico, unless someone can show significant coverage, or if there is a policy (or essay/summary; whatever you want to call it) affirming what 10lb said (can't see anything in Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines). Per, WP:BCASTOUTCOMES "Licensed broadcast radio and TV stations are generally deleted if they lack significant coverage in reliable sources". — PerfectSoundWhatever ( t; c) 18:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Redirect to List_of_radio_stations_in_U.S._Territories#Puerto_Rico per WP:BCASTOUTCOMES. That policy currently recommends a redirect in a case like this. Some reviewers may not have actually read BCASTOUTCOMES recently because it was changed after this RFC discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (media)/Archive 2#Status. The language which used to support the argument made by TenPoundHammer at BCASTOUTCOMES is now deprecated following that RFC, and has been removed. Pinging Stereorock, Mrschimpf, Sammi Brie, & TenPoundHammer. You all may want to reconsider your position in light of the fact that BCASTOUTCOMES has changed significantly and no longer supports the rationale made here in the keep arguments. 4meter4 ( talk) 02:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is sufficient sourcing exists, but would caution against using that Daily Mail source in a BLP. Whether the draft needs history merging or other treatment can happen editorially. Star Mississippi 01:55, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Judson Clarke

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

Judson Clarke

Australian rules footballer who does not satisfy general notability. There is no special notability guideline for Australian football, so that general notability is the only guideline. The lede sentence and the section on early life and junior football state only that he exists, but Wikipedia is not a directory. The paragraph on his 2022 career states that he played for Richmond, which is a database item of the sort that is no longer a basis for sports notability. Nothing is said about coverage by a reliable source.

There is already a draft, Draft:Judson Clarke, which has somewhat more information, but is also not ready for acceptance. The draft contains a note that the subject does not satisfy WP:NAFL, but that guideline has itself now been deleted. A one-sentence stub was then inserted into article space, which was tagged for BLPPROD. The article was then expanded to the present three sentences with one (paywalled) reference, and the BLPPROD was properly removed, but the article does not make any claim of notability.

The subject may have a fan club of ultras. Wikipedia does not need to accept inadequate stubs written by fan clubs. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, and Australia. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete Lacks sigcov 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 15:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep. Clarke satisfies the stupidly deleted NAFL and has had more coverage than was listed in the article at time of nomination. Nomination also fails to consider alternatives to deletion. duffbeerforme ( talk) 06:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 22:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep. Doesn't seem like WP:BEFORE happened here - a quick search indicates that Clarke had decent specific coverage of his career in the AFL from day one. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 13:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep Do you even know how to google Robbie? two news articles on him. Not his team, not routine match report, but his debut. Struggling to think how deleting NAFL or other NSPORTS is making this place better at all except for sports hating nuts who think that thrwing around terms like "Ultras" makes them cool.. The-Pope ( talk) 13:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 07:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Colombo South International College

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

Fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 12:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Sri Lanka. Shellwood ( talk) 13:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete fails the requirements of WP:NSCHOOL - references are merely mentions in passing - no significant coverage. Dan arndt ( talk) 01:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 22:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails WP:GNG. NMasiha ( talk) 18:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Bung Karno Seclusion House

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

Non-notable as per WP:SIGCOV. Article has been a stub for eight years Davidelit (Talk) 03:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Strong Oppose The place is notable with lots of coverage and historical significance

1. https://www.kompas.com/sains/read/2022/06/01/160200523/jokowi-kunjungi-rumah-pengasingan-bung-karno-di-ende-ini-sejarahnya?page=all

See Google translated version in English.-- Doncram ( talk) 05:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply

2. https://www.liputan6.com/regional/read/3545434/semarak-parade-pancasila-mengenang-kedatangan-bung-karno-di-ende

See Google-translated version. "Bung Karno"="Sukarno". There's an annual boat parade. The site is all about conception of 5 principles (pancasila). -- Doncram ( talk) 05:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply

3. https://www.tribunnews.com/nasional/2022/06/01/jokowi-dan-iriana-sempatkan-waktu-singgah-di-rumah-pengasingan-bung-karno-di-kabupaten-ende-

Translated. Site is in recent news, with current president Jokowi visiting June 1, 2022. It's a political pilgrimage photo op destination, perhaps to invoke spirit of pancasila (politics) when cross ethnic reconciliation is needed ( my speculation). In Tribune News(?), perhaps Tribune Content Agency, associated with Chicago Tribune? -- Doncram ( talk) 05:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply

FWIW, Tribunnews is the online news site of Tribun Network. IMO a RS, 100% Indonesian-owned, no relation to similar sounding US media (such as the Los Angeles Tribune). – Austronesier ( talk) 19:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply

4. https://travel.kompas.com/read/2020/06/06/170100927/7-tempat-wisata-yang-rekam-napak-tilas-soekarno?page=all

7 tourist sites following Sukarno's footsteps, translated. The 2 exile houses, and the devotional park with breadfruit tree in Ende are 3 of the 7. By the way i now think "Sukarno Exile Houses" would be better article name. -- Doncram ( talk) 05:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply

--- Nyanardsan ( talk) 07:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:NBUILD "Buildings, including private residences, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." (my bold). Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 10:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Merge to Sukarno#Exile. As it stands now, the page is effectively a dab to two topics (= two places where Sukarno stayed in exile), but without targets. Instead, it has one (!) sentence for each place. Unless we can't say more than is already found in the main article about Sukarno, we don't need this ill-composed stub. – Austronesier ( talk) 09:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC) reply

There is more to say. The article should be developed and/or tagged to call for development. E.g. from this source and other travel/museum sources give details that the house was rented and is east-facing (towards Mecca i think is the importance), there is an associated breadfruit tree, the museum includes furnishings, etc., detail that is not appropriate for the Sukarno article. Also place-type categories needed, not appropriate for a bio article.-- Doncram ( talk) 00:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply

One Indonesian government propaganda article does not make WP:SIGCOV. Davidelit (Talk) 03:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply

About what more there is to say about both places, see Indonesian language wikipedia article webpage put through Google Translate (hope this link works). Besides details about both places and a photo that can be used, both sites are apparently listed buildings on Indonesia's register of historic/cultural properties. So like US sites on National Register of Historic Places, there will exist more documentation. Slam. -- Doncram ( talk) 04:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 22:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete - it is a case where a single title for two locations seems to be missed somehow... (there was a tradition for some rulers of three hundred years earlier, that each place where the ruler slept was considered sacred or special...) - the information tendered could be re-allocated at a more suitable location perhaps. JarrahTree 12:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep. The site in Ende is a museum; see wp:ITSAMUSEUM (to which i contributed). This account of a visitor in Indonesia Expat gives background on significance: it is in a remote area of Indonesia where Sukarno, who became Indonesia's first president and who led it to independence from the Dutch, was exiled for four years. It was a formative, creative period. And, as a preserved place, it seems highly significant to Indonesian history. Like, say, Monticello where an American writer involved in the American Revolution lived (but that was his chosen home). I think there are other places of exile important in other nations' history: how about the prison island where Nelson Mandela was held, where he wrote and developed as a great leader?

The Indonesia Expat source states alternative name for the home/museum as "Situs Pengasingan Soekarno", which should also be searched upon.

Of course Americans like me know little about history of Indonesia, the largest Muslim nation by population. Hardly any Americans would guess the population rank of Indonesia among countries (4th largest!). About 0.000% could distinguish Sukarno vs. military dictator Suharto; i certainly haven't been always been clear myself. Deletion here would amount to bias. -- Doncram ( talk) 20:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment So the page is actually about the one place in Ende? This is what I gather from the keep/oppose !votes so far. But the article in one breath talks about the much less known site in Bengkulu too. So what's notable then? The museum in Ende? It certainly is. Or the overarching topic of two houses that served as places for Bung Karno's exile? That's a dab or a category, but not an article. – User:Austronesier ( talk) 20:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply

I'm glad we agree there is notability. My impression is that they were both places of exile, or at least homes of Sukarno, and they certainly could both be covered in one article. If there's plenty to say about the other one, too, like if it is clearly separately Wikipedia-notable then it can be split out. Otherwise the article can just have short mention of it, which would be fine. Leave it to editors actually developing the topic to make sensible decisions. -- Doncram ( talk) 22:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Also some/more !voters oughta translate the references provided by first commenter; i have not done so.-- Doncram ( talk) 22:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply

This provides more info. Certainly the article can mention the breadfruit tree nearby, under which Sukarno contemplated pancasila (politics), the 5 principles. -- Doncram ( talk) 22:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment ~~None of delete !voters above~~I suspect neither of the two delete !voters above after the nominator had read translated versions of the four sources named by "strong oppose" first commenter [because i found it difficult to get translations myself, and they don't say they did]. Frankly i think this is ready to be closed "Keep". -- Doncram ( talk) 05:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply

You don't know what people read. I read the original articles - except for the one that is a deadlink. Two report the same story, while one has a few sentences with almost no content. Still doesn't meet [[ WP:SIGCOV. Davidelit (Talk) 06:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Okay i modified my assertion. You're the deletion nominator. What source is a deadlink? Perhaps u mean the Floretourism one, second source in the article (i'm not sure it's dead)? None of the 4 sources cited by strong opposer above are deadlinks. You probably didn't find all four and read them before your nomination, did you?; have you now read them? - Doncram ( talk) 06:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment The first source is a press release. The second doesn't mention the house. The third source is from the same press release. The fourth source is a mention in a listicle. To reiterate my delete vote above, which was clearly unread, "Fails WP:NBUILD "Buildings, including private residences, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability."" Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 07:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep. A clearly notable place. It is listed to Indonesia's equivalent to American National Register of Historic Places. It can be seen in this site. In depth coverage by reliable sources can be seen here, here and here. Indonesian government sources (in this case, their Cabinet Secretary) has called the place to be the birthplace of Indonesian Pancasila. Per WP:NBUILDING as the building is clearly a national heritage buildings for Indonesia, notability is assumed. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 08:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep because a translation of the government page states "Bung Karno's House of Exile, the Beginning of the Birth of Pancasila." This cite posted by SunDawn convinces me this site is a notable place. -- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 11:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply
- Comment and CNN Indonesia states Pancasila (politics) is the "basis of the Indonesian state". Bung Karno Seclusion House, was the "birthplace" of Pancasila. -- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 11:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply

This AfD discussion includes a proposal for merger to Sukarno, and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to that page on June 22, 2022. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from that page.

Keep. Passes WP:NBUILDING per the cogent argument made by SunDawn. 4meter4 ( talk) 07:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 01:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

History of street lighting in the United States

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

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

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:

{{subst:
spa|username}}

; suspected canvassed users:

{{subst:
canvassed|username}}

; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry:

{{subst:
csm|username}}

or

{{subst:
csp|username}}

.

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

The article is a bloated mess, wandering constantly off topic into minutiae about the lights without explaining their relevance to the United States. In fact, the "High pressure sodium", "Metal halide", and "Induction lamp" headers don't even talk about the US at all, and one section wanders entirely off-topic into street light usage in Mexico. The sourcing is also horrendous, mostly being tourism sites or fan archives. Most of the content in the lead -- including Benjamin Franklin creating street lights in Philadelphia or Charles Brush using them in Cleveland -- is not expanded on in the article's body.

The article seems to be mostly a pet project for editor Tpirman1982 ( talk · contribs), who at one point even linked his own street light gallery hosted on a personal website. Other editors have tried to stem Tpirman1982's excessively detailed additions, but he is still using the article in an expository, cataloguing manner not suitable for Wikipedia.

Further more, no other country has its own "Street lighting" subpage, making this one stick out like a sore thumb. The sources in the article do not expound on the subject as a whole, just individual details about certain types of lights that have been used in, but are not exclusive by any means to, the United States. It's the same logic as those infernal stamp articles: yes, we can prove the US has used these types of lights, but we can't prove that the overlaid subject of their specific use in America is notable. Most of the relevant points here are already covered at street light, leaving this article to be WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR with a side of WP:OFFTOPIC.

If there is an article under all this, then WP:TNT clearly needs to be applied. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(
What did I screw up now?)} 22:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Transportation, and United States of America. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(
What did I screw up now?)} 22:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment If there were better sources, I'd vote keep. This is an occasional citation then tons of prose without citation. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
There might be a notable topic here, but what's here right now is so poorly cited and lacking in encyclopedic style that I would not be opposed to deleting the entire thing per WP:TNT. Stubifying would also be a good solution. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 01:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I'm concerned there might also be some WP:COMPETENCE issues with Tpirman1982 as well. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(
What did I screw up now?)} 16:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep per the extensive improvements made by User:Cielquiparle. The article at the time of the nomination was a disaster, and the changes made by ARS weren't much of an improvement (they were more about other countries than the United States) but now it is worth retaining. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 21:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 18:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Street light#History. This is essentially a personal essay and lacks references and cohesion. There may be a notable topic here, and redirects are cheap, but this text is not going to work. Better than stub-ifying because an entirely empty "History of street lighting in the US" article would beg the question of the reader, what history? - Indy beetle ( talk) 11:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Due to all the above problems, including lack of citing, I agree on the proposal of History of street lighting in the United States completely deleted from Wikipedia. You have my vote on having this page entirely deleted. Tpirman1982 ( talk) 17:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC) reply

*Delete As per nomination. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep thanks to the improvements since nomination. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

[Strong] Keep [upgraded to 'Strong Keep' after very good page improvements during the run of this AfD, added 13:18 23 June], a notable long-term topic from 2004 well worth the page and the work involved in writing and researching it. The Benjamin Franklin information was new to me and I'll add the Franklin template. As to questioning editors' competence, see WP:CIRNOT. The nomination's criticisms seem entirely fixable, and arguments that no other country has such a page, or the name "United States" isn't repeated enough, seem picking objections without the objections being actually objectionable. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
The problems are far greater. The sources are abysmal, and vast swaths of the article are entirely off-topic. None of the sources discusses the underlying topic as a whole, just various subsets. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(
What did I screw up now?)} 15:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply

A topic can be notable and still deleted, per WP:TNT. That doesn't mean you can't create a properly written version after the deletion in that case. Of course, if the criticisms are entirely fixable, anyone is welcome to prove this so and in such a case I would vote for keeping. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 16:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Are we all reading the same article? "Vast swaths" of it seem fine and educational (encyclopedia=educational), and I learned a lot from reading it. AfD is another world, a world where, in the past, canceling key opposing editors is a normal response to logical opposition. Bottom line, the article is fine, a long-term (started in 2004) Wikipedia page, and any problems are both surmountable and easily solvable by a bit of editing. Seriously, thanks for inadvertently pointing out this interesting page while wishing for its demise. Randy Kryn ( talk) 00:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I'm such an evil deletionist trying to destroy everything that I even said that the only reason I wanted it deleted was per WP:TNT, and that there would be zero issue with someone rewriting the article from scratch in that case. Believe it or not I do care about encyclopedic content and do plenty of content writing. I don't just go around with a wrecking ball all day. But by all means keep assuming bad faith. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 01:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Incorrect, I assume good faith in that I trust that editors putting up pages and voting on AfD actually believe what they say and stand behind. While I don't agree, and know that not everyone has the same point of view, I hold to the principal that if a fair proportion of editors vote to 'Keep' it also means that they represent a large percentage of readers who themselves don't mind the pages and find them useful. Those unheard from but represented readers' points of view seem just as valid and important to these discussions as those who see things like TNT as a solution to what they consider a problem. I'd say that the comments in this AfD, for example, puts it within the shadow of Keep, which to my own reasoning (and a yet incomplete essay) means it should, at that point, be automatically kept, the RfD removed, and an afterparty held with dancing bears and numerous types of pizza. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep Article can be improved; sources exist. But the cited reasons are not a reason to delete, but to improve. WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 18:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
If you think it can be improved, perhaps demonstrate it instead of just answering the canvass from ARS. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 18:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply

I already did. "This was posted above as being at the project. Your "canvas" accusation does not help advanced this discusion. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 20:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply

7&6=thirteen, it seems that your additions were 1) a statement about street lighting in other countries 2) a quote about street lighting in London and 3) a student's assignment about a town in Australia (actually, it turns out that you had only made addition #1 at the time of your comment). How do these address the issues raised in this AfD discussion? They seems like a random grab-bag of Google results for "street lighting". Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Article is not what it was when nominated for deletion. WP:HEY Indeed, WP:BEFORE could have revealed more sources now in the article. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 14:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Street light#History per Indy beetle PianoDan ( talk) 18:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Redirect per Indy beetle. The article body appears to give a more generalized history of street lighting and the methods used, with minuscule mentions of US regions and events, and the lead doesn't summarize the article at all. Not to mention that the sourcing is awful, for lack of a better word. These issues are too prominent for me to !vote for the article to be kept. XtraJovial ( talk) 20:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep There is some referenced information about street lighting in America. The general information about how each light source worked should be at Street_light#History, not here. Dream Focus 22:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
It's referenced to sources like tourism bureaus and self published sites though. Not one source seems to be WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(
What did I screw up now?)} 22:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I found this https://edisontechcenter.org/ArcLamps.html to confirm information in the opening about the first arc lamps in the nation. Arc_lamp#Carbon-arc_lighting_in_the_U.S. has some additional referenced information about this. Dream Focus 22:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
However, street lighting in the U.S. is barely mentioned (just one city in a list of many others) in that article. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply

A lot of improvements have been made to the article. Hopefully everyone will look at the changes and judge it now. Dream Focus 13:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply
~~Redirect to street light.~~ I wouldn't be opposed to a merge, but there just simply doesn't look like any reliably sourced content to merge that isn't already in the target article. It's an interesting subject, but this doesn't seem to add anything -- anything reliable sourced -- beyond the main article. So per WP:NOPAGE and WP:TNT, redirect. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply
- Reaffirming !vote after recent edits. Most of the citations added today are to .... commercial websites of lighting companies? The two other links are to an image-based listicle and this LA Times piece about an art exhibit. Somewhat relevant, but still not persuaded this wouldn't better be handled in the main article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply
- Second update. Kudos to Cielquiparle for improving the article with good sources and removing the terrible sources added early in this AfD. Whereas the latter just added to the problems, Cielquiparle's edits give the article some potential. It could still use a bit more, and relies really heavily on one source, but it's a good one. It might make sense to just ditch the "history of" part of the title, but that's a separate conversation. Keep. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep Significant improvements with really good sourcing, article can continue to improve and topic has meet notability criteria. Kudos ARS crew in fairness. Redirect to Street light#History or Delete. The sourcing is highly dubious and some circular - for example heisolar.com points back to historyoflighting.net, wikipedia, a blog and a commercial site (which in turn points back to historyoflighting.net, etc). A lot of the article deals with older methods of providing lighting which are neither exclusive to the USA nor have been explained in a manner relevant to the topic and most of the "factoids" are completely unsources (e.g. dates of first use or availability or "became common"). HighKing⁺⁺ 15:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC) HighKing⁺⁺ 21:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment This isn't personal. There are no winners or victors. This is not about deletionists or antideletionists or Exclusionists (forgot the mention them). It is not about WP:ARS or its pretenders. Let's WP:AGF and talk about the improved article. YMMV.

So what?

It's an open encyclopedia, and this discussion should be too.

Petty reciminations should be left by the wayside. Just sayin' ... 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 16:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Street lighting#History per above. It sounds like it’d be a notable and interesting topic but in its current state it’s just a pointless fork to nowhere. Dronebogus ( talk) 21:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Update, the page has been greatly improved even since the last comments. As it is right now it likely would have never been nommed, so affirming a Keep. Randy Kryn ( talk) 13:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Street lighting#History, merging whatever would be useful. Many of the "improvements" actually make the problems requiring a redirect even worse, since they added huge swaths of text and sources not specific to the United States - underlining the fact that we lack the sources to properly support this as an independent article. The few paragraphs here specific to the US place undue weight on a single source and would be better covered more briefly on Street lighting#History. -- Aquillion ( talk) 19:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep the subject of street lighting in the United States is notable. 1909, 1939, 1950, 1957 and 1926 this mention of tallow candles inside of globes in New York. Our notability guidelines WP:SIGCOV appear to be met. The nominator calls for WP:TNT which means start over, not delete. But I do not think we need to start over with this topic - it looks like some editors have already performed some major cleanup on the article. Bruxton ( talk) 02:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep per WP:HEY — PerfectSoundWhatever ( t; c) 17:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep per WP:HEY: the article received a major overhaul from June 20 to June 24 (UTC), and it is a notable topic. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was 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 23:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Alaeddine Gmach

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found in WP:BEFORE nor coverage in the sources given on the page, if reliable. Is a creation of Losail, a blocked sock. Iseult^Δx parlez moi 22:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Tunisia. Shellwood ( talk) 22:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:13, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was 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 23:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Aymen Ezzine

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found in WP:BEFORE nor coverage in the sources given on the page, if reliable. Was previously G5'd as a creation of Losail, so salting might be in order. Iseult^Δx parlez moi 22:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Tunisia. Shellwood ( talk) 22:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:13, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was 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 23:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Abdullah Al-Sulaiti

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found in WP:BEFORE nor coverage in the sources given on the page, if reliable. Is a creation of Losail, a blocked sock. Substantial contributions by a CU-blocked IP. Iseult^Δx parlez moi 22:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Qatar. Shellwood ( talk) 22:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was 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 23:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Fahad Waad

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found in WP:BEFORE nor coverage in the sources given on the page, if reliable. Is a creation of blocked sock Losail. Iseult^Δx parlez moi 22:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Iraq. Shellwood ( talk) 22:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

George Dimitrov

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

I am unable to find multiple reliable sources about this subject in order to establish notability. The only source given is a parked domain and probably wouldn't have been sufficient anyway. Works appear to be run of the mill presentations at conferences. ... discospinster _talk 22:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Psychology and Bulgaria. ... discospinster _talk 22:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete promotional in nature, nothing notable. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 10:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was 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 23:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Naif Al-Hadhrami

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found in WP:BEFORE nor coverage in the sources given on the page, if reliable. Was previously G5'd as a creation of Losail, so salting might be in order. Note contribs of blocked sock Lilianasri. Iseult^Δx parlez moi 22:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Qatar. Shellwood ( talk) 22:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was 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 23:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Jamal Maroof

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found in WP:BEFORE nor coverage in the sources given on the page, if reliable. Was previously G5'd as a creation of Losail, so salting might be in order. Iseult^Δx parlez moi 20:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United Arab Emirates. Shellwood ( talk) 21:01, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was 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 00:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Vai Lutu

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 20:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 20:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Jonatas (footballer, born 2001)

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found in WP:BEFORE nor coverage in the sources given on the page, if reliable. G5 declined due to significant contributions of others. Iseult^Δx parlez moi 20:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Brazil. Shellwood ( talk) 21:01, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Pahiy ( talk) 19:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was 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 00:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Anthony Likiliki

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 20:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 20:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was 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 00:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Sione Kite (footballer)

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 20:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 20:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was 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 00:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Sione Lelenga

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 20:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 20:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was 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 00:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Fahad Al-Keldi

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found in WP:BEFORE nor coverage in the sources given on the page, if reliable. Is a creation of Losail, a blocked sock. Not G5'ing owing to contribs of an IP previously blocked for adding unsourced BLP material. Iseult^Δx parlez moi 20:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Yemen. Shellwood ( talk) 21:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was 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 00:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Suhail Al-Harbi

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found in WP:BEFORE nor coverage in the sources given on the page, if reliable. Is a creation of Losail, a blocked sock. Not G5'ing due to 203-byte contrib of IP. Iseult^Δx parlez moi 20:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United Arab Emirates. Shellwood ( talk) 21:01, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was draftify. ✗ plicit 00:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Chengiz

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

According to wikipedia's rule WP:TOOSOON. Trakinwiki ( talk) 19:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Trakinwiki ( talk) 19:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India. Shellwood ( talk) 20:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Move to draft, which will give more than enough time for actual release details to develop. BD2412 T 23:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Move to draft: WP:NFF, this is an unreleased film without the substantial coverage that would allow it to meet NFF. Move to draft with the OP firmly told NOT to move the article on their own. Ravensfire ( talk) 01:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Draftify until release and is shown to meet WP:NFILM requirements. Does not meet NFF criteria for unreleased films yet. -- Ab207 ( talk) 15:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was 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 00:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Abdulrahman Al-Ameri

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found in WP:BEFORE nor coverage in the sources given on the page, if reliable. Was previously G5'd as a creation of Losail, so salting might be in order. Iseult^Δx parlez moi 19:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United Arab Emirates. Shellwood ( talk) 19:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was 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 00:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Sultan Mabkhout

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found in WP:BEFORE nor coverage in the sources given on the page, if reliable. Was previously G5'd as a creation of Losail, so salting might be in order. Iseult^Δx parlez moi 19:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United Arab Emirates. Shellwood ( talk) 19:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was 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 00:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Mansoor Al-Harbi (footballer, born 1999)

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found in WP:BEFORE nor coverage in the sources given on the page, if reliable. Was previously G5'd as a creation of Losail, so salting might be in order. Iseult^Δx parlez moi 18:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United Arab Emirates. Shellwood ( talk) 18:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was 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 00:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Abdullah Malallah (footballer, born 1998)

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found in WP:BEFORE nor coverage in the sources given on the page, if reliable. Was previously G5'd as a creation of Losail, so salting might be in order. Iseult^Δx parlez moi 18:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United Arab Emirates. Shellwood ( talk) 18:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Badr Al-Shabibi

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found in WP:BEFORE nor coverage in the sources given on the page, if reliable. Was previously G5'd as a creation of Losail, so salting might be in order. Iseult^Δx parlez moi 18:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United Arab Emirates. Shellwood ( talk) 18:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete. As per the nom, this fails WP:GNG-- Rabbiweiner ( talk) 14:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was 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 00:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Mayed Obaid

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found in WP:BEFORE nor coverage in the sources given on the page, if reliable. Was previously G5'd as a creation of Losail, so salting might be in order. Note contribs of blocked sock Lilianasri. Iseult^Δx parlez moi 18:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United Arab Emirates. Shellwood ( talk) 18:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was 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 00:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Ibrahim Al-Mesmari

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found in WP:BEFORE nor coverage in the sources given on the page, if reliable. Was previously G5'd as a creation of Losail, so salting might be in order. Iseult^Δx parlez moi 18:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United Arab Emirates. Shellwood ( talk) 18:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was 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 00:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Jamal Abdallah

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found in WP:BEFORE nor coverage in the sources given on the page, if reliable. Was previously G5'd as a creation of Losail, so salting might be in order. Iseult^Δx parlez moi 18:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United Arab Emirates. Shellwood ( talk) 18:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was 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 00:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Ahmed Abdulla (footballer, born 1999)

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found in WP:BEFORE nor coverage in the sources given on the page. Is a creation of Losail, a sock. Not G5'ing because of volume of contributions from other editors. Iseult^Δx parlez moi 18:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United Arab Emirates. Shellwood ( talk) 18:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was 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 00:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Jamal Al-Hosani

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found in WP:BEFORE nor coverage in the sources given on the page, if reliable. Was previously G5'd as a creation of Losail, so salting might be in order. Iseult^Δx parlez moi 18:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United Arab Emirates. Shellwood ( talk) 18:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was 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 00:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

A-Navigation (Autonomous Navigation)

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

No secondary references found. Originator of article blocked for advertising. One of the other articles deleted, Marinet, is the company making A-Navigation. Fails WP:GNG, probably written for pay. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2022-05 ✍️ create

-- Cewbot ( talk) 00:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was 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 00:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Ahmed Jshak

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found in WP:BEFORE nor coverage in the sources given on the page. Was previously G5'd as a creation of Losail, so salting might be in order. Note contributions of three blocked socks. Iseult^Δx parlez moi 18:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United Arab Emirates. Shellwood ( talk) 18:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was 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 00:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Aymen Assou

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found in WP:BEFORE nor coverage in the sources given on the page. Originally a creation of Losail, a blocked sock. Not G5'ing only because of substantial contributions by an IP, which may or may not be linked. Iseult^Δx parlez moi 18:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and France. Shellwood ( talk) 18:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Ahmed Moosa Saqer

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found in WP:BEFORE nor coverage in the sources given on the page. Was previously G5'd as a creation of Losail, so salting might be in order. Iseult^Δx parlez moi 18:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United Arab Emirates. Shellwood ( talk) 18:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete Unfortunately the aspect of notability is missing Proton Dental ( talk) 14:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was 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 00:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Khalfan Hassan

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found in WP:BEFORE nor coverage in the sources given on the page (not sig or appear unreliable). Was previously G5'd as a creation of Losail, so salting might be in order. Iseult^Δx parlez moi 18:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United Arab Emirates. Shellwood ( talk) 18:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was 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 00:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Darwish Bin Habib

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found in WP:BEFORE nor coverage in the sources given on the page. Was previously G5'd as a creation of Losail, so salting might be in order. Note contribs of blocked sock. Iseult^Δx parlez moi 17:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United Arab Emirates. Shellwood ( talk) 18:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was 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 00:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Hamad Al-Badwawi

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found in WP:BEFORE nor coverage in the sources given on the page. Was previously G5'd as a creation of Losail, so salting might be in order. Iseult^Δx parlez moi 17:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United Arab Emirates. Shellwood ( talk) 18:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was 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 00:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Omar Saeed

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found in WP:BEFORE nor coverage in the sources given on the page. Was previously G5'd as a creation of Losail, so salting might be in order. Note contributions of blocked socks. Iseult^Δx parlez moi 17:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United Arab Emirates. Shellwood ( talk) 18:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was 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 00:11, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Rashid Lahi

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found in WP:BEFORE nor coverage in the sources given on the page. Was previously G5'd as a creation of Losail, so salting might be in order. Note confirmed sock Lilianasri's contributions. Iseult^Δx parlez moi 17:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United Arab Emirates. Shellwood ( talk) 18:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was 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 00:11, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Ali Yaqoub

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found in WP:BEFORE nor coverage in the sources given on the page. Was previously G5'd as a creation of Losail, so salting might be in order. Iseult^Δx parlez moi 17:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United Arab Emirates. Shellwood ( talk) 18:01, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5. ✗ plicit 00:13, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Jeanie Roland

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

No credible claim to notability, just another of the thousands of contestants on cooking reality shows. valereee ( talk) 17:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. valereee ( talk) 17:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Connecticut. Shellwood ( talk) 18:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Mild Keep Not a ton of sources, but mostly from New England media, confirming/discussing her time on the Bobby Flay chef show. [8] or here: [9] and a few others, nothing substantial, but enough to pass notability. She's also published a few cookbooks. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Weak Keep The Day, the Providence Journal, and The Tampa Bay Times are all reliable, independent, secondary sources. Reference 2 in particular [10] provides significant coverage of the subject. I have removed the "Personal Life" section as being uncited and promo, but the rest of the article is fine. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 01:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete as creation by a blocked or banned user evading their block. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 23:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete WP:G5. MarioGom ( talk) 18:48, 19 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment Creator of this article and the others all blocked for socking by LTA. valereee ( talk) 20:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete: criteria G5. –– FormalDude talk 23:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Strong Delete Sock UPE creation. G5 scope_creep^Talk 05:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete as G5. -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 17:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete G5. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 21:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete as G5, UPE. Pikavoom ^Talk 08:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete Created by confirmed sockpuppet. — Maile ( talk) 20:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Just Crack an Egg

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

Non-notable brand. It's not actually easy to google this since it's a common term, but I'm not finding much beyond the press releases and industry-niche coverage already provided. valereee ( talk) 17:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. valereee ( talk) 17:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete. I would say the closest thing we have to a usable source would be the Chicago Tribune article, but the attribution is not entirely clear. It seems to me that most, if not all, the content about the subject are directly from people associated with the company. I also see that it was PROD/PROD2 and DEPRODed end of May, can't say I remember whether it's normal to notify those people though. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 11:34, 19 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete: Non-notable product due to no significant coverage. SL93 ( talk) 21:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to Over the Hedge (film). Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 00:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Hammy's Boomerang Adventure

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

Found only passing mentions. No reviews or other third-party coverage were found in a WP:BEFORE. Closest was a review of the Over the Hedge DVD which dedicated only one sentence to the short. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(
What did I screw up now?)} 16:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(
What did I screw up now?)} 16:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment At the very least this could be redirected to Over the Hedge. NemesisAT ( talk) 20:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment – Has potential to be selectively merged to Over the Hedge (film). Per the article, Hammy's Boomerang Adventure is based upon the film, and the film is based upon the Over the Hedge syndicated comic strip. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Merge to Over the Hedge (film) per the located source. Artw ( talk) 18:06, 19 June 2022 (UTC) reply

This AfD discussion includes a proposal for merger to Over the Hedge (film), and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to that page on June 22. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin McE ( talk • contribs) 17:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Merge to Over the Hedge (film). WP:ATD-M. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Nick Elliott

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

Subject is not notable, and most of the content seems to have been added by Elliot's "Press Office" in violation of COI JeffUK ( talk) 17:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and United Kingdom. Shellwood ( talk) 18:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete: I nominated this page earlier in the year for deletion for the same reasons stated.

The page was clearly constructed by Nick Elliott and/or his PR company (NickElliottInfo) and although the interest was declared at the onset of the page creation, there is a clear conflict of interest. There have been multiple additions by NickElliottInfo written for promotional gain, which have been identified and deleted by Wiki users to correct this.

Although, there are a number of sources in the media, these are very clearly a result of the work of a PR company, who have written, negotiated, published, and potentially paid for, the coverage. The independence of the journalism is questionable. Many of the sources cited are actually hosted on NickElliott.info - Nick Elliott’s self published Press Office.

~~There is no significant evidence of notability. Nick Elliott does not appear to have achieved anything significant beyond that of any other commercial photographer.~~ Libran Weighting ( talk) 18:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)— Libran Weighting ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (Blocked sock, see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/TheTaskman). Spicy ( talk) 23:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete Many hits on a politician with his name, none for a photographer, Gnews, GNewspapers, nothing found. COI also tells me it's not reliable. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep - This article seems to be either an autobiography or a creation from a PR agent, thus I agree with the COI claims. However when checking the existing sourcing (even before an online BEFORE search) it is clear to me that this commercial photographer has had enough significant coverage WP:SIGCOV to establish notability per WP:GNG. They do not meet WP:NARTIST but that is not a reason for deletion. There has been significant coverage in multiple reliable sources over an extended period of time to meet our general notability guideline. Netherzone ( talk) 22:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC) reply
You can be forgiven for not being familiar with the Rutland Times, 'Norfolk Rocks' and Lynn News. They are all tiny local publications/newsletters bordering on self-published; there may be significant coverage but not from reliable sources and not even necessarily independent. He's a local personality, that doesn't make him notable. JeffUK ( talk) 23:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - Significant coverage in the media, whether worthy press or not, does not support notability. From the sources, it looks like this is down to the skills of a good Public Relations company in securing it or being in the “right place at the right time”. The content of the stories published is definitely promotional rather than newsworthy and a lot of the information in the page is supported by quotes from Nick Elliott himself rather than third parties. TheTaskman ( talk) 17:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)— TheTaskman ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Music, and Visual arts. Netherzone ( talk) 23:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment - There may be value in reviewing this 2017 version of the article that was accepted through the AfC process. GoingBatty ( talk) 16:26, 13 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would like comments from more established editors before determining the consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete In my view, this article just scrapes past the general notability guideline (given that notability is not temporary). I have arrived at this view with some hesitation because many of the sources are in effect local papers or niche magazines and perhaps not all are independent. But the GNG is not concerned with geographic scope, they number, and they do cover the subject in some detail. This all said, I have concerns that the essential purpose of the article is for promotion rather than as coverage of a notable individual. This is perhaps not surprising given there has been a conflicted editor involved along the way. Given: (1) the subject's marginal notability; (2) the tendency of the article to conflate/equate the notability of the individuals supposedly photographed by/who worked with the subject, with notability of the subject; (3) the promotional nature of the article, including in its genesis (containing claims like "very successful career"); leads me to form the view, in totality, that deletion is appropriate. Thanks to @ GoingBatty: for the helpful suggestion of reviewing the approved AFC draft. Local Variable ( talk) 16:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:NARTIST as there are multiple independent references which address the subject or his work “directly and in detail”. Yes there are COI and PROMO issues that need fixing, but that is not what AFD is for per WP:DINC. We have better ways to address those problems using the editorial process and relevant community resources. 4meter4 ( talk) 07:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Fewell Rhoades, Indiana

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

PROD contested by User:XZae on the grounds that we have lots of articles on minor places. My counterarguments is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

WP:BEFORE indicates that this is a generic subdivision. WP:GEOLAND has been held in prior AFDs to not extend down to the subdivision level, so that bar is not met. WP:GNG is not met because all I'm turning up is autogenerated clickbait, GNIS/wikipedia mirrors, real estate listings/ads, and a single interview with a subdivision resident about zoning. With GEOLAND not met and the coverage not rising to GNG, there's no support for an article on this subject. Hog Farm _Talk 15:15, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Hog Farm _Talk 15:15, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete Non-notable housing development. Reywas92^Talk 18:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
delete Literally every book hit I found was for some sort of geographical index. It's plainly just a development with no notable history. Mangoe ( talk) 04:13, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was 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 00:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Portsmouth Pirates

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

I can't find evidence this is a notable team, and their league doesn't have an article with which to merge. BEFORE found only short local items with nothing to indicate GNG. Star Mississippi 14:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and England. Star Mississippi 14:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 11:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. This has been open for over a month and I'm grasping the nettle and saying we're not going to get an outcome. WP:NPASR applies. Stifle ( talk) 15:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC) reply

List of people on the postage stamps of the Canadian provinces

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

Like all of the other "lists of people on the postage stamps of X" articles, this one is woefully imcomplete. Are we supposed to believe that British Columbia, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island only ever had one person on a postage stamp ever? There are no sources in sight, and the article has barely been even touched or viewed since 2010. Given the sheer number of postage stamps list at AFD or prod as of this writing, it's clear that this kind of list is not going to ever be reputably sourced. Prod contested because don't think this would nessecarily be an uncontroversial deletion. If this content could be sourced, it might be useful merged somewhere?, but I don't see anything worth merging. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(
What did I screw up now?)} 03:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Canada. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(
What did I screw up now?)} 03:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment – I'm the person who removed the proposed deletion template. It seems like the AfD nominator has more experience in regards to postage stamp lists so I think that's something that's important to keep in mind. I didn't know that this was apparently a common issue. I saw the prod at Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/Article alerts. I literally know next to nothing about stamps. To me, deleting an article because it was Stubby, incomplete, unsourced, untouched since 2010 didn't seem uncontroversial. Sometimes articles get ignored, so it didn't really surprise me that something like that could happen. This list is specifically about postage stamps of Canadian provinces before Canadian Confederation because stamps were issued by individual British North America provinces before that happened. That sounded like it could be a historically significant difference. I agree that the list is woefully incomplete, especially compared to List of people on the postage stamps of Canada. Even that list looks like it could be substantially improved. Clovermoss (talk) 08:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC); edited 08:45, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Update (as of Friday afternoon in my timezone): I made some inquiries. My local library doesn't have anything, but they pointed me towards the direction of other resources that could be useful. There's a museum that I could visit that has a book about the history of postage stamps in Canada, so that seems promising. I've made a few phone calls but no one's got back to me yet. I wouldn't be surprised if I don't hear anything until after the weekend because a lot of people have those off. Clovermoss (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply

I'm leaning towards Keep or merge, based off the sources that Stan Shebs has access to. A page move might be nessecary to avoid confusion about what exactly the list covers. I also will have access to a source about the postal history of Canada on Wednesday. Depending on what I am able to find, that might be enough to cement my opinion. I think that this would likely meet the purpose of lists as defined at WP:LISTPURP and WP:LISTCRIT, although I'm willing to convinced otherwise with a policy-based argument. I think this way because it's informational and provides navigation to someone who is interested in the topic of people on stamps. Isn't that what you'd expect from a list like that? I will say that even if this sort of thing is obvious to someone whose passionate about stamps, the average person likely doesn't see it as obvious. That's why citations are important if it's not something like the sky is blue. Clovermoss (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC); edited to strike text 16:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Update after museum visit – so I was able to look at a copy of The Postage Stamps and Postal History of Canada by Winthrop Smillie Boggs. I found this on page IX:
As the title implies this book is primarily concerned with the Postage Stamps and Postal Development of Canada. No explanation therefore is nessecary for omitting revenue stamps. The issues of the Provinces of British Columbia, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island are studies in themselves and are touched on only insofar as they are reflected in the operation of the Canada Post office, while the stamps and postal history of Newfoundland has been covered in a previous work.
I got the impression that this was done in an attempt to be concise, as the introductory pages mentioned that hundreds of hours went into the research of everything. I think that implies that there's at least a historical distinction between the provinces and Canadian confederation in 1867 and that that history in regards to Newfoundland could be notable. I think that Stan might have access to this source? Unless the author is referring to a previous work of their own. I wasn't able to read all 800+ pages of the book in one sitting and I wasn't allowed to bring it home or anything (which makes sense). But there was only so much I could read and take notes on in an hour. I still have to think a bit more about what all this means in regards to whether or not this should qualify as a standalone list, be merged, or deleted. I need a bit more time to think on all that, especially since I start work soon. There was also this quote from page 89 (this part of the book was still covered aspects of the pre-Confederation postal system and was included as part of that content, despite the previous statement):
The process of designing, engraving and printing Canadian adhesive stamps has, without exception, been identical to the production of bank-notes, in order to safeguard against counterfeiting. Some of the same designers and engravers work alternatively on postage stamps, revenue stamps and other securities, so what applies historically to one applies equally to the other.
That sounded like it could be relevant, but I'm not certain. I have to sift through all my notes and think more about Wikipedia policies. I should have a stronger !vote one way or another by tomorrow. I'm not going to make a SOURCESMUSTEXIST argument, so this might be something that could qualify for #3 on WP:DRVPURPOSE "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". Regardless, I think it's amazing I found out about more resources that I can access and that I got to learn new things. I'll probably spend the next few weeks or months working on improving content about the postage system of Canada, depending on how often I can visit the museum and how long they'll let me stay. Clovermoss (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC), edited 16:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Going through my notes again, there isn't really anything crucial I missed in my last comment. I think I'm just going to let my comments stand for themselves because this is the first time iirc that I've tried to evualate the suitability of a list's inclusion and it's throwing me off. If we were going off GNG I don't think this would qualify unless reliable sources were suddenly discovered, but factors like WP:LISTPURP, WP:LISTCRIT and WP:NLIST are throwing me off because I don't know enough about lists to know with certainity if Stan's potential source is enough for that/the usefulness it might have for navigation/encylopedic topical relevance. I don't feel confident enough to cast a !vote. Sorry to whoever may be reading this massive wall of text. I am going to keep this page on my watchlist because I'm curious what other editors think about all this if more people participate. Chances are if I'm the only one who thinks a certain way I'm the one whose wrong, so that's something to keep in mind. Clovermoss (talk) 01:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Very Strong Delete This is exactly why people who know nothing about a subject should let people who know a little more handle it. After 12 years an article having no sources is an insult to Wikipedia. It is an insult to Wikipedia that it is so hard to keep it from being flooded with various crufts, in this case philatelycruft. Considering the history of postage stamps, how new there were before British Columbia became part of the confederation, and related factors, I would not be surprised if only one person was ever pictured on them. I think at that stage postage stamp variation was not much more than coin variation. Ths idea that we can picture a huge variety of things on postage stamps seems, much in excess of what is pictured on coins, seems to be largely a 20th-century innovation. Deleting articles that have had no sources for over 10 years should only be controversial if people are able to produce sources about the subject. This is philatelycruft and we need to remove it from Wikipedia. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Johnpacklambert: That's the reason I commented instead of !voted. It was also 4 am at the time. I woke up in the middle of the night and I thought I should explain my thought process a bit more. I have things to do today, but I'll try to see if there's sources. My library might have something. I'm not going to vote !keep and make a "sources must exist" argument if I can't find any, y'know? If this list is deleted, List of people on the postage stamps of Canada should be updated to reflect that there isn't another list article for stamps before Confederation. If sources can be found but it isn't useful as a seperate list, maybe a "Before Confederation" section would be useful? Clovermoss (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply

- - Personally I think every one of these lists of the trivial fact of who was pictured on postage stamps need to be deleted. Their very existance is a net negative for Wikipedia. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Yes, most of the provinces only issued their own stamps for only a brief period before confederation, with the exception of Newfoundland. Let's please keep the criticisms fact-based and stop with all the pejoratives. (Is this level of nastiness the new norm for WP? I admit I've been a little taken aback by it.) Stan ( talk) 15:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply

- When articles have persisted for over a deacade with no sources they are seen as a very clear frustration to the purposes of Wikipedia. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  - I am actually understanding the problem. This article still has 0 sources. It was created on 7 December, 2002. There are article on US senators at the time that were not created until the fall of 2003. Beyond this, the name is just plain wrong. This should if we keep it be called List of people on Postage stamps of colonies in British North America. Newfoundland was not a Canadian province at any point the stamps were issued, nor were any of these other places. We have lines in here such as "The listings below are believed to be reasonably complete." By whom? How do we know this with no sources? Even if they are, why are people an important enough sub-group from postage stamps to cover so? What reliable sources show that we should give this special attention to people on postage stamps? I keep asking for reliable sources, and no one is producing them. Wikipedia is not a place to publish orignal research. The last edit of some substance was changing the number from 5 to 6, not because of some found source but because the article actually had 6 places listed? Even Postage stamps and postal history of Canada has had a notification of needing better sourcing for over a decade. This article literally went from July 2015 to October 2018 with no edits at all, even of the most trivial nature. This article has existed for over 19 years without sources. That is hoprefully a record. To get things in perspective Wikipedia was only launched in 2001. Wikipedia would not even reach 100,000 articles until sometime in 2003, yet somehow this article has stood since 2002 with absolutely no sources added to it ever. This situation is just plain not acceptable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    If I do end up getting access to that book about postal stamps (see my comment above for the update), I'd likely be making an improvements to a series of articles regarding the history of postal stamps in Canada, so that should resolve your concerns. I think the article was titled provinces because provinces was a term used before it meant provinces of Canada. See Province of Canada. I'm not oppposed to the content being put at a title like you suggested, though. I'm also aware that the article has been unsourced for pretty much my entire lifetime, which I find absolutely fascinating. Clovermoss (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    - I do not think there are enough reliable sources to justify a content split from the general article on the postage stamps and postal history of Canada. A topic split is not justified based on the state of reliable sources on the matter. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
      - We'll see, I guess. My point was more that I am making an effort to actually see if there are reliable sources that exist, even if no one's added them for 19 years. Not everything is nessecarily accessible online, even in 2022. That book isn't the only potential option, but it's the only material I know right now that definitively exists. AfD discussions can run for 7 days (or longer if they're relisted), so I'm not in any particular rush. It's been here 19 years, what's another week? I do have a job and obligations in real life. I do realize that the onus is on me to prove that sources exist, though. Clovermoss (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC), edited 18:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
        I personally have about eight printed works on the stamps and postal history of Canada and its forerunners, so there is plenty to work from. But at the same time, the claim is being made that this is all "trivia" and "philatelycruft", which if that's the consensus, then there is no possible source that will be deemed satisfactory. Stan ( talk) 20:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
        
        Hi Stan Shebs. Sorry it took so long to get back to you, I had to go to work. I try my best to always be polite and courteous to others. I will say that I've been active editor for about 3 and a half years and I wouldn't say the community as a whole displays nastiness as a new norm. I've had lots of friendly interactions with others. My experience might be a bit different because I don't often participate in potentially controversial areas like ANI, though. I will also say that I think it's inspiring that you started editing Wikipedia 19 years ago. The changes you must have seen. I also think that people are more likely to !vote keep if you cite the sources that you have. It sounds like you have an incredible collection and I would appreciate you sharing your knowledge with us. :) The museum did call me back on my dinner break, so it looks like I'll be able to access that book I was talking about. I had to reserve time to go see it on Wednesday. Even if you add sources, I think I'll still go. I wasn't that interested in stamps before, but now I'm at least intrigued. That's one of the reasons I like editing Wikipedia, it can broaden your horizons. Clovermoss (talk) 04:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC); edited 04:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply
        Thanks for your kind comments, that means a lot to me! So to take a specific example, I have the Robson Lowe "Encyclopedia of British Empire Postage Stamps" Volume V from 1973, which covers Newfoundland and British Columbia. Its 150-odd pages have quite a lot of detail, far more than seems reasonable for Wikipedia - "Air rate in 1933 was 30c, but there was no air service; in 1942, 9 cents per oz." Moving on to the coronation issue of 1911, there are no less than 10 members of the royal family featured, including Prince Albert the unexpected King George VI, and the obscure Prince John of the United Kingdom, in what I believe is his sole appearance on a stamp, ever. But at no point does Robson Lowe include a list of people on the stamps of Newfoundland, nor does it say anything like "people on stamps is an important topic, and future encyclopedists should make online lists with wiki links." The most one can say is that it takes care to identify the individuals accurately, with phrasing like "Duke of Connaught, uncle of King George V". Stan ( talk) 05:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply
        Stan Shebs, thank you. That was insightful. I will admit that I am slightly confused (maybe my mind isn't working right because it's 7 am). I have to go to work but I'll be back in ~8 hours or so. But I've read your comment a few times and it still isn't clear to me. Can you clarify if any of your books mention what people have been in stamps? Even if it's not in a list format, just verification that these stamps existed? Or is it about the general history of how stamps worked and how much they cost at the time, etc? I think you're saying that stamps featuring the royal family are discussed in depth? I think it's reasonable to assume a book wouldn't explicitly say "people on stamps is an important topic, and future encyclopedists should make online lists with wiki links" but if a published book has written about people on stamps, we can likely have a list about it. Clovermoss (talk) 11:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply
        Yes, the Robson Lowe book individually describes and illustrates all of the stamps ever issued by Newfoundland, plus postal rates and other historical information about the postal system. The amount of detail varies; so the Wilfred Grenfell issue of December 1941 gets a half-page, including that the image on the stamp was from a painting by Gribble, design was approved by George V, etc etc. The Duke of Connaught stamp gets only the one line, exactly as I typed in above, and no background material on why the whole family was included in a coronation issue, an unusual step for those times. Typically there are more specialized works that go to that next level of detail. Stan ( talk) 13:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Wow! This article has had no sources for over 19 years! That has to be a record. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 18:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
To the extent that anybody thought about it, it would have been "duh, look in any stamp catalog, do we really have to tell people how to do that?". It's easy to add, but given that the deletion nomination asserts that there is no possible source that could make this list worth keeping, it seems like we need to get to consensus on that first. Stan ( talk) 13:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply
You actually do have to add sources to the article. WP:V and WP:RS aren't optional. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(
What did I screw up now?)} 21:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply
- There is a source that could make this list worth keeping. It is a book published in a way that makes it reliable that has the whole list, or an article in a journal that meets the definition of a reliable source that has the whole list. Stamp catalogs inherent include lists, and so are not reliable sources on which to base lists. Wikipedia is supposed to in the main consist of articles that boradly summarize a topic, nor of lists that include every possible point of minutia. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment If we do keep this article, we need reliable sources. We also need to sort it by year. That is the only way to approach it in a way that has historical value. It also would help emphasize what is more trivial or less trivial. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply
And the list still remains unsourced. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Yes, I agree about the sources. They should be added. I really hope Stan gets around to it, maybe he's busy? Or just feeling discouraged with the way this discussion has gone? I will be able to look at that book about the postal history of Canda tomorrow at the museum, so that might be able to give what's needed. If it does, I'll cite that information tomorrow. I agree that sorting the list by year would be a good idea. Clovermoss (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply
- The book would have to give a complete list of only the people on postage stamps. If the list it gives mixes people and other things, than it is not a reliable source treating this topic as a subject and so cannot be used to support this article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  Wouldn't dedicating several pages to this sort of thing count as WP:SIGCOV? Of course I won't know for sure until I actually see the source, but GNG says that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". Also, aren't the general requirements for lists lower? Or am I misunderstanding WP:NOTESAL? Because wouldn't they be notable as a set under that criteria? Clovermoss (talk) 04:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC), edited 05:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment Based on Stan's own comments we should delete this article because the subject is not covered as a distinct and comprehensive subject in the reliable sources. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply
But it goes beyond even just listing them? He says they include details like The amount of detail varies; so the Wilfred Grenfell issue of December 1941 gets a half-page, including that the image on the stamp was from a painting by Gribble, design was approved by George V, etc etc. The Duke of Connaught stamp gets only the one line, exactly as I typed in above, and no background material on why the whole family was included in a coronation issue, an unusual step for those times? Wouldn't the ones that actually go into detail be more noteworthy? But because it's a set wouldn't together it be enough for WP:LISTN? I hate to sound like a broken record, but if you're more specific about why you don't think this counts as sigificant coverage and why it fails LISTN, I'm still willing to be convinced. Clovermoss (talk) 04:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Hmm, taking another look at Stan's comment I see he only specifies that that book specfically only covers the stamps issued by Newfoundland. If it doesn't include the ones issued by other provinces before Confederation, I can see the point you're trying to make. I'm still going to the museum this morning (I need to sleep first because it's late) so I'll see if that book-length history of postage stamps in Canada has anything useful then. Still, if the potential sourcing for a stand-alone list isn't good enough, maybe it could merged and be part of a Before Confederation section at List of people on the postage stamps of Canada? My instinct is that if possible, knowledge should be preserved. Being able to cite it to reliable sources is important, though. Clovermoss (talk) 05:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC) reply
There are still exactly 0 sources on the article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 12:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I'm aware. I did follow through with that museum visit, you can see my comment there above. Stan's the one who has access to a source that at least verifies the stamps listed for Newfoundland. Given his comments above, I think he found the tone of this discussion off-putting. Maybe he's decided to step away. Clovermoss (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Yes, the tone of the discussion is off-putting, and I question whether WP has been overrun by unpleasant behavior, or if I just have rosy memories and have just forgotten participating in hand-to-hand combat with Wik and the like in the early days. :-) The reason these lists have survived for nearly 20 years is that random editors would see them and say "well yes, obviously notable", kind of like list of national capitals, which has not a single source declaring that a list of national capitals is notable, and yet I don't think anyone is going to make a serious argument that it is "lacks sources" and is therefore not Wikipedia-worthy. So, the question having been put about the notability of a list of people on stamps, I'm inclined to take it seriously and ask "why have generations of editors agreed that they are worth keeping?" Were they ignorant? Maybe, or maybe they were smarter than the current generation is giving them credit for? In any case, I think there is a real question to be answered, and it's worth thinking about, but it's going to take more than couple weeks, and needs to be more thoughtful than shouted epithets in AfD. I'll continue to think about it even all the current lists are deleted, because the question is itself of interest. Stan ( talk) 03:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment In the Roman Tradion of repeting important information. There are still no sources. I would also recomend that all editors here read Wikipedia:Fancruft which gives a good summary of why niche lists like this that collect trivia are not suitable for Wikipedia. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply
So this "niche list" that is "not suitable for Wikipedia" should be deleted ("Very Strong Delete" iirc), but people should also keep editing it up until the moment of deletion? Really? Stan ( talk) 15:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply
- If you ever hope to change people's minds on keeping the article you will need to add sources. There is no justification for having an article that has no sources at all. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep User:Stan_Shebs has stated that they have various offline sources (books) that prove notability, I assume good faith and believe this. I don't agree with the statement about that to prove notability sources must be added to the article in the next few days, that is not how this works, editors just need to prove that it's notable, the fixes can happen without urgency. I think it's notable. In this context of someone saying they have sources draftification is surely the most extreme action that anyone should propose, but I'm happy to say keep here. CT55555 ( talk) 16:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Since this discussion has been relisted, I've made a few edits. The list isn't completely unsourced now. I'm going to make some improvements to the companion list about after confederation, too. Since no one else has added sources and that was the main thing being reiterated, I started going through snippets of text in GoogleBooks with various search terms. So far I've had success with verifying what I can, but I believe that Stan has access to offline sources that could be of use. Since there's a flood of similar articles/prods going on right now, I understand if his focus is on other things. Clovermoss (talk) 19:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry to say, but I don't plan to expend any further effort on this. Even if one adds sources, they will be attacked for being the wrong kind of source, or not saying things in the right way, or whatever. The one list that survived AfD (Faroes) and was improved to a pretty nice state, completely sourced and all, is now relisted for deletion, on the basis that the "keep" votes were not really valid. I feel like I've expended irreplaceable hours of my life debating people whose minds were already made up, and who are not going to be convinced by any argument. So I'm following the sage advice in Wikipedia:Enjoy yourself and stepping back. Stan ( talk) 05:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC) reply

I'm disheartened a bit with the way this discussion turned out myself, but I get why it's more difficult for you. That's completely understandable, Stan Shebs. None of us owe Wikipedia anything. I do wish you the best of luck. Hopefully stepping back will help. It's beautiful this time of year, at least for me. Maybe spending some time outdoors would be useful? If you ever want to discuss hobbies, you can email me through Special:Email. I have found that learning more about stamps and getting connected to resources like museums to be fascinating, and again, I wish you the best in real life. Clovermoss (talk) 08:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment None of these sources are giving coverage of the whole topic in a way that justifies an article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 12:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete No evidence whatsoever exists that this meets WP:NLIST, as already stated: not in this AfD, and not in the article (all-inclusive philatelical catalogues are not evidence of notability; and they are even less evidence that this is of broader, encyclopedic interest such as to obviate the NOT concerns). Otherwise, this and all similar pages fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY (as generally "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit."); and furthermore, because having this is definitively a WP:BADIDEA (as evidenced by the fact people keep citing the existence of these lists as a reason to keep having them even when they fail inclusion criteria), as Wikipedia is not a philatelical catalogue and there is no indication how this kind of page is of any broader encyclopedic significance. An encyclopedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, even if it is true, and despite it possibly being interesting to a limited number of dedicated philatelical enthusiasts. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 14:17, 9 June 2022 (UTC) reply
@ RandomCanadian: Thank you for that comment. I will say I disagree with the very last part about only being interesting to a limited number of philatelical enthiuasts, because I didn't care about stamps before this AfD and I find it interesting. I think it has potential historical revelance. I also don't think the desire to create lists like this is a bad idea, even if they might not meet our standards for inclusion. I guess the main thing that was throwing me off is that the line of thinking that could distinguish WP:LISTCRIT from WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I'm still not confident enough in my line of thinking to cast a !vote. I will say that in my attempt to verify that these stamps existed, I've been pritorizing citing sources that do more than just say it existed, but it's still quite limited information in general. I'm aware that existance isn't the same as notability. If we were going off GNG for an article in general I don't think the sources I'm citing would count as significant coverage. Maybe Stan's source does. The Robert Lowe book he describes earlier seems like it could be enough for WP:NOTESAL. Everything that makes lists more nuanced is throwing me off, as I stated earlier. But thank you for the way you approched this and for explaining your thinking about if this meets WP:NLIST. Clovermoss (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep there should be a general discussion about these stamp lists -- Lupe ( talk) 22:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete. Trivia that fails WP:NLIST, about as notable as list of people who appeared in advertising on Canadian TV, or on the packaging of Canadian food products, or similar. I.e. indiscriminate, random collection of information. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 18:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete an indiscriminate list that fails WP:NLIST. LibStar ( talk) 05:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply

This AfD discussion includes a proposal for merger to List of people on the postage stamps of Canada, and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to that page on June 22. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from that page.

I would oppose a merger because looking at the proposed merge target I do not think it has sufficient sources treating the subject as a whole to justify a list article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 12:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I'm leaning towards supporting a merge, but I'm still not sure. I'm the person who removed the prod with a comment that it might be useful merged somewhere and proposed the merge target. However I recognize that many of these lists of people of postage stamp on x country have been deleted, so it might not be useful to merge if the target is also deleted. I will say that this Afd discussion has been open for pretty much a month at this point and I'm the only one whose explicitly supported a merge, so it seems unlikely that that's the way consensus would be heading. While I said earlier on that waiting a week was no big deal (especially when I was waiting to hear back from the museum - unfortunately our availability's don't match much), ideally an AfD shouldn't endlessly be relisted. I don't participate much, so maybe that's the norm. But I think trying to find out whether people support the merge or not is a good idea. Clovermoss (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Draftify per CT5555. Given that Stan_Shebs has indicated that he has off-line references with significant coverage that would pass SIGCOV/NLIST, I think draftifying this list and allowing it time to be sourced properly would be a reasonable solution. It can then go through the normal review process at WP:AFC before moving back into main space. 4meter4 ( talk) 18:11, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Modussiccandi ( talk) 18:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Jessica Abo

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

Does not meet GNG. Most of the refs are unreliable, not-independent, or do not provide significant coverage about her. There seems to be more written about her book than her as an author. MB 20:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MB 20:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep With all due respect to the nominator, WP:GNG is not the correct citation, it is WP:AUTHOR.

To meet the criteria for WP:Author you need just ONE of:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; or
The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); or
The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

In this case she meets 1) as she is widely cited by peers. See here https://www.google.com/search?q=%22jessica+abo%22&safe=active&rlz=1C1ONGR_enUS945US945&tbm=bks&sxsrf=ALiCzsZzRriK8T5IQkLieQElzpmzCWu1BA:1654720097876&ei=YQahYpeGNYPrtAbbrLToCw&start=10&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwjXuovd2J74AhWDNc0KHVsWDb0Q8NMDegQIARBP&biw=1920&bih=929&dpr=1

She meets 3) as many articles in the sources cite her work. PaulPachad ( talk) 20:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: PaulPachad ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. reply

Please look higher up in WP:BASIC where it discusses notability by restating GNG, and then says People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included regarding the author additional criteria. My assessment stands. MB 20:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Weak Delete Minor mention in Forbes [11] and another one in Ms magaazine [12] are about as good as I can find. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC) reply

I don't think it's a "major role", she's basically a motivational speaker. Nothing revolutionary. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment: I added new references to ABC news, good morning america, and DC's CBS affiliate. In total there are now strong references from ABC, KTLA, Forbes, Ms Magazine, WUSA9 (CBS) Fast Company, and ABC7 NY. In my opinion, I believe it clearly passes WP:GNG. I also do not think its accurate to say "most of the references are not reliable". Thank you to all editors for your kind consideration. PaulPachad ( talk) 21:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Suggest Keeping the article to see how things develop. I won't personally vote as someone notified by PP on the name of the article in AfD. Just on the basis that I know Paul as a positive force in the encyclopaedia and suggest going with it. Maybe the recent changes may be enough to save the article in their own right. Otherwise, editors don't always get much for their work. This might be something. At least, leave it for ~a few years to what develops. Greg Kaye 21:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC) reply
That's not how the AfD process works at all. – The Grid ( talk) 23:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. The refs provided are refspam at most. – The Grid ( talk) 23:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep per WP:AUTHOR. Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 22:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Citation counts for authors, refers to their use in academic publications. In this case, the citation count is zero as Abo is not cited in academic literature at all; only in a small amount of books (most of them self published) in google books. This is not being "cited by peers" in a given field; so fails criteria 1 and 3. Additionally, none of the sources are independent; as all of them are interviews or have connections to the subject or her publisher. As such, the article does not meet the minimum sourcing requirements to meet WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 ( talk) 00:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete run of the mill "motivational" speaker with no true independent, in depth coverage (and for those who keep insisting that Forbes makes it hit the mark, it's a contributor piece and thus unreliable.) PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep. The nominator wrote that this fails WP:GNG. But I see dozens of prominent reliable sources, like Entrepreneur, ABC, KTLA that discuss her in depth, that are not interviews. I have seen many more encyclopedia entries with much less sources and less reliable sources. If this one cant be accepted for failing GNG , then half of the entries on wikipedia should not be accepted. Rabbiweiner ( talk) 14:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC) — Rabbiweiner ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Your argument is a textbook definition of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I would suggest pointing out exactly what makes the sources stand out on their own. – The Grid ( talk) 20:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV, refs are particularly poor. I don't see any real reviews on the book, so doesn't pass WP:NAUTHOR. What else is left? Columinst for Entrepreneur magazine. It would be ok if there much better general secondary sourcing to support the article, but there isn't. I scope_creep^Talk 13:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was withdrawn. ✗ plicit 14:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Kenya Cuevas Fuentes

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Single effective reference and that is tenuous at best. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 14:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

This article cited eight sources when nominated. Which is considered to be the single effective one? Phil Bridger ( talk) 17:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Speedy Keep. When searching news, I found lots of sources in Spanish, then when I searched in English, I dropped the Fuentes and found some more. I added a bunch of these to the article. It's easily significant, extremely in-depth coverage. Easily meets GNG with the added sources, be careful what you search for. Here's an English source to go with the dozen or so Spanish sources now in the article. [13]. Jacona ( talk) 18:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Some more... [14], [15]. The sources I've found include the BBC, various Mexican sources, Cuba, United States. This subject has international coverage, lots of it, and in extreme depth. Jacona ( talk) 18:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep per Jacona. 8 13 generally reliable sources seem like she is notable. interstate five 13:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment Coolio. I found a couple of big articles, really big, so there is more than enough coverage. Nomination Withdrawn scope_creep^Talk 16:25, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was draftify. czar 04:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Holy Fvck Tour

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

Too soon per WP:NTOUR which says "Concert tours are probably notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Such coverage might show notability in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms. Sources that merely establish that a tour happened are not sufficient to demonstrate notability." This should be drafted/draftified until more information is available otherwise it is simply promotion for the artist which goes against WP:NOTPROMO. WP:CRYSTAL also says "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." as well as "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place, as even otherwise-notable events can be cancelled or postponed at the last minute by a major incident." ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 19:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 19:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep. There's enough coverage out there on this to prove its notability as a topic independent of the artist and the album it is intended to support. The existence of an article does not inherently indicate it serves as or was created with the intention of being promotion for an artist, and I don't see anything to indicate it was created with such an intention. Ss 112 21:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep. As stated above. Also, more information will be out in the coming weeks, so no reason to delete this just to recreate in a couple of weeks. Harut111 ( talk) 20:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Draftify. Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NEVENT. Planned events sometimes never happen, as real world events sometimes ruin plans (planned tours were canceled due to COVID19 in 2020 for example). There is a reason why we have CRYSTAL as a policy. Further, the RS does not meet the standards of notability as described at WP:NEVENT and WP:NTOUR. (largely because the event has not yet happened and there is no way to demonstrate sustained coverage from diverse sources). Best to wait until the tour begins and we have critical reviews demonstrating that the event does meet that policy. Then we can move the article back to mainspace. 4meter4 ( talk) 00:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Move to draft until actual reviews of tour dates develop. BD2412 T 23:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Draftify per 4meter4's reasoning; better safe than sorry. QuietHere ( talk) 22:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Feedzai

AfDs for this article:

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

Issues from the last WP:AFD persist. While sources have been added, the quality hasn't changed much, as added coverage is limited to funding round announcements, interviews with executives and brief coverage about the number of patents that they have filed for. What WP:NCORP requires is significant coverage about the operations and impact of the company, and it seems that it's still WP:TOOSOON for that, unicorn status notwithstanding. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Portugal. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
(Note: I was notified of this discussion by the article's main editor, Ssfdz, who has a conflict of interest.) I think the Wall Street Journal, Reuters, and VentureBeat references might be enough to establish notability, but I'm not sure of the reliability of (and can't really evaluate) the Portuguese sources. Tol ( talk | contribs) @ 02:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
To address Tol's comment - the Portuguese media sources provided are all very reputable and notable. Links to their Wikipedia sites are included:
Ssfdz ( talk) 17:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC) Ssfdz reply
- Comment It is largely irrelevent whether the publications mentioning the topic company are "reputable and notable" so long as they pass WP:RS. Since the topic is a company, WP:NCORP guidelines apply and the references fail ORGIND as they are entirely based on information/PR/Announcements from the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 05:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep I have located several analyst reports on the topic company (e.g. Gartner, Forrester, Aite) which pass WP:NCORP. Topic is notable. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete Is a unicorn inherently notable? No. Is significant, independent sourcing evident? No. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 13:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC) reply
- Response Nope, a unicorn is not inherently notable. We look to NCORP's criteria for establishing notability for companies for that and we look for appropriate references. It is long established that analyst reports that profile the topic company meet NCORP's criteria for intellectually independent in-depth opinion and analysis. Although many of the reports are only available to purchase, we can see that the topic company has been profiled in the following:

More than enough to meet NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete - Sources mentioned can indicate notability for a publicly traded company per WP:NCORP, which this is not. Notability not established. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 03:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC) reply
- That's not what NCORP guidelines say. Which guidelines say that analyst reports can only establish notability of publicly traded companies? With respect, what you're saying does not make sense at all, there's no difference in our criteria for companies whether they're publicly traded or not. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep. Passes WP:NCORP per HighKing. 4meter4 ( talk) 19:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment. It’s time to close this discussion as no consensus. To quote the relevant guideline: “Relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure … Relisting debates repeatedly in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended, and while having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for its editors. Therefore, in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice.” Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 16:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Disagree. This has already been to AFD. Issues persist since then. So far I have only seen one policy based argument, the other is just "per" that vote. Mine and the other delete vote rely on NCORP, and these reports are not appropriate sources to demonstrate notability. It is my interpretation of NCORP that analyst reports can be used for publicly traded companies. This is not a publicly traded company. There is a special allowance for the use of analyst reports at NCORP because publicly traded companies are likely to be notable but may not have been covered by traditional media sources. Being publicly traded on a well known index is almost in my view, a de-facto indicator of notability. This discussion should be left open for as long as possible to allow for more commentary. It is likely this article will be up for discussion again if it is just closed and the issues left unaddressed. I am quite concerned that hidden reports are all that is being relied on. While WP:PAYWALL technically applies, surely if these are the only sources, this is a verifiability issue. Usually someone, somewhere on Wikipedia has access to paywalled content through the library or another means. I do not see evidence anyone relying on these analyst reports has even read them, given the $3000+ fees...how can someone rely on sources not read? Can anyone here declare they've read the source and summarise what it says? MaxnaCarta ( talk) 04:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply

You say "Mine and the other delete vote rely on NCORP" - I think you meant to say "My Delete !vote and one Keep !vote have been debating NCORP guidelines"? The purpose of AfD is to determine whether the topic is notable (or not). You're saying analyst reports can only be used by publically traded companies - I assume you're basing that assumption on WP:LISTED which says:

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability.

Applying your logic to all of this sentence would also imply that "independent press coverage" also can not be used except for publicly listed companies. Clearly that isn't the case. Analyst reports are regarded as in-depth, significant and independent.
Now, although I do not have access to the full versions of those reports, nor even to the parts of those reports that talk about the topic company, parts of reports that deal with specific companies are sometimes made available by those specific companies. This is useful for those that have not seen or read analyst reports previously. You often need to provide a "business" email address in order to receive a link to the company-specific reports. I have managed to locate sections that do not require a business email address - this is an extract from the Aite Matrix report for SAS and here is one for NICE (another vendor). I believe it is safe to assume that these reports meet NCORP criteria for those companies and I also believe it is safe to assume that the sections on this topic company will also be sufficient to meet NCORP.
Finally, you're aware of WP:PAYWALL but WP:NEXIST also says we only require the *existence* of suitable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the *possibility* or *existence* of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. So while I have not seen any of the reports in which the topic company has been listed in the table of contents as being covered by analysts within the report, I have read hundreds of analyst reports and those from reputable analyst firms are as close to a gold standard that we have for meeting NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 14:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Sam Gorski

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

WP:BLP of a filmmaker and YouTuber, not properly referenced as passing WP:CREATIVE. His strongest notability claim is winning a minor award for web content, which would be fine if the article were well-sourced but isn't highly meganotable enough to confer an instant notability freebie in the absence of a WP:GNG-worthy volume and depth of sourcing -- but four of the five footnotes are his own self-published content about himself in his YouTube videos and the website of his own company, and the only source that's actually independent of him comes from a community hyperlocal alt-weekly in his own hometown, which isn't enough coverage to singlehandedly vault him over GNG all by itself if all of the other sourcing is primary.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source something better than this, but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more than just one hit of media coverage. Bearcat ( talk) 14:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Bearcat ( talk) 14:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Decisions regarding renames or reorienting the article to another subject can be handled through editing decisions and discussions on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 00:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Damage control

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

Best left as the disambiguation page, as people searching this term are rarely doing so for ship emergency repairs. Article is also almost entirely unsourced giving no indication on why the term itself is notable under the article's definition. — Ixtal ^{(
T /
C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 00:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — Ixtal ^{(
T /
C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 00:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment Would a redirect to Wiktionary maybe work? Most people are likely to be looking for the definition of the term. ★Trekker ( talk) 12:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Weak keep IMO emergency ship repairs is a subject that should have an article, although I don't have a strong opinion as to whether it is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I did a search on navy.mil and found the following sources, which may or may not be useful: [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]. I don't think a redirect to Wiktionary would work well (at least, it would be awkward without changing the main page to the disambiguation page, and then the Wiktionary link would be a bit weirdly placed). -- Pokechu22 ( talk) 19:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I would point out the universality of the term for naval, maritime (civilian sea-going), and sailing (civilian commercial and pastime) purposes. It applies as much to a canal narrowband springing a leak as to the Russian ship Moskva sunk from missile attack during the 2022 Ukraine war. The term may not be well known outside marine circles, but that probably means it deserves to be searchable in the 'pedia.- Peter Ellis - Talk 06:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Pokechu22 and Peter Ellis the thing is that the term is not by any means exclusive to or primarily known for its use in ships emergencies. Ships are not the only places where damage needs to be controlled (public relations is a major example that comes to mind, for example, and definitely more notable/prominent than the maritime use of the term). — Ixtal ^{(
T /
C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 06:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC) reply

OK, so it gets a 'suffix', say "(maritime)". Then, let others do articles for those other uses.- Peter Ellis - Talk 15:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 02:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep, rename & disambiguate, I agree with the other comments that damage control in a maritime context is notable, but that there is no primary topic. This content should be moved to Damage control (maritime), and this page should become the disambiguation page. Damage control as an action limiting the impact of a hazard, is a term that is widely applied in many different contexts. SailingInABathTub ( talk) 22:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep, but change the focus to damage control in the general sense of the term, with maritime as an example. SWinxy ( talk) 01:35, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Langley, Illinois

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

What I see in the topos and the like is a former C&NW siding with a grain elevator which has been converted into a biker bar. They claim to have a Langley address, but the post office does not agree. At any rate there's no surrounding settlement, and I find scant reference to the place: one site says that mapping utilities can't find the bar if you say it's in Langley. Mangoe ( talk) 02:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Illinois. Hog Farm _Talk 04:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Weak delete. I at least found evidence that Langley was a settlement at one point; it had its own local news section in the Bureau County Tribune, and its residents occasionally made the news [22] [23]. The trouble is, I haven't been able to find anything that we could actually use to build an article. The History of Bureau County, Illinois has nothing on it either. I hate to delete verified settlements, but I don't think we have enough to go on here; for all we know based on the sources, the name might have just been applied to the farmland around the railroad station, and there may not have been a proper settlement. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•
Creation} 00:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete. This unreliable source has a few details about what the writer calls a ghost town with the Psycho Silo Saloon located in the former grain silo, apparently, but that's not much good. Clarityfiend ( talk) 10:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep, per WP:GEOLAND. As was mentioned, the Bureau County Tribune had a regular section in its paper devoted to Langley. The newspaper covered a period from 1905 to 1920, and clearly indicates this was a populated place. Moreover, Bureau County recognizes Langley as an unincorporated area. Magnolia677 ( talk) 21:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply

It means it's a placename; it doesn't mean it's a distinct settlement. Mangoe ( talk) 05:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC) reply

The county still recognizes it as a place. Moreover, "Miss Emma Hamrick of Langley, spent Saturday and Sunday with her sister, Mrs. Ralph Carroll". There are dozens of entries like this for over a decade in the county newspaper. "Of Langley", "to Langley", "from Langley". This was a place where people lived. It had a train station. This certainly meets WP:GEOLAND. Magnolia677 ( talk) 09:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep. Meets WP:GEOLAND. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC) reply

I don't disagree that it's a name on a map. I do disagree that it represents a distinct settlement, and none of these citations says that. You are trying to infer what it is from a bunch of passing references, but none of them say anything about it. Mangoe ( talk) 19:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi ( talk) 08:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep. It seems clearly like a human settlement. If you google local businesses "psycho silo saloon" you'll see its address is there. If you go on Google Maps you can a Grain Silo, and a few homes and farms. This photography websites mentioned it. http://johnmarvigbridges.org/UP%20Hennepin%20Canal%20Bridge.html None of this is reliable sources for notability, but I think enough to say it exists, which I think is all we need. CT55555 ( talk) 13:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep. Meets WP:GEOLAND. Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 15:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 07:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

British Private Equity and Venture Capital Association

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

No evidence of any notability. Searches reveal only repurposed text from the source itself. plus some (limited) social media. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and United Kingdom. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Most of the best coverage is behind paywalls. Rathfelder ( talk) 14:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply

the updated information is accurate and from the BVCA itself as the source Bvca marketing ( talk) 14:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Bvca marketing clearly doesnt get it. Rathfelder ( talk) 22:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep. The BVCA is not a huge organization but it is indeed the main lobbyist for the private equity industry in the UK. Most of the WP:RS are necessarily going to be in the financial press and in the financial pages of the UK broadsheets, but they certainly pass the threshold of WP:GNG. Fiachra10003 ( talk) 03:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep. There is clearly coverage in the Financial Times, as you might expect, but I dont have a subscription. Rathfelder ( talk) 07:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MaxnaCarter ( talk) 01:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 02:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep and Comment. This is referenced and meets general notability guidelines. It was also time to close this as a keep two weeks ago. Your own guidelines say that these discussions are not supposed to drag out for longer than two weeks. Instead, several of these articles are being relisted for a third time. After two weeks, close it as keep or no consensus. To quote from the relevant guideline: “Relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure … Relisting debates repeatedly in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended, and while having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for its editors. Therefore, in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice.” It’s time to close this discussion. Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 15:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sufficient sourcing exists that this isn't BLP/Delete territory. Can be renominated at a time you think more input is coming Star Mississippi 02:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Brandon Armstrong (dancer)

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

Fails GNG, as coverage is trivial and merely reflects his behind-the-scenes role on DWTS. PK650 ( talk) 01:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PK650 ( talk) 01:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete Background dancer, trivial coverage. He's more of a "grunt" on the show if that makes sense, just another employee. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep It is true that he does not have an important role, but he is cited many times in People Magazine, ET and other entertainment publications. Some of the sources discuss him at length. I think that makes him pass WP:GNG PaulPachad ( talk) 02:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 02:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Utah. Radioactive ( talk) 02:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Any instances you can show us of this "at length" coverage? PK650 ( talk) 11:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 14:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Kumar Neeraj

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

Film editor who has starting directing in 2021. Nothing of significance. References don't support an article. Fails WP:BIO, WP:FILMMAKER, WP:SIGCOV. Previously created. scope_creep^Talk 18:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood ( talk) 18:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 19:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment I don't see any evidence that this article is a recreation of a deleted article. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 19:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 23:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment Can you please get some more input into this. scope_creep^Talk 09:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Evi Siskos

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

No indication that she meets WP:NBIO. – Ploni ( talk) 12:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ploni ( talk) 12:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and New York. Shellwood ( talk) 12:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete Six hits in Gnews, one explaining her color choice when redecorating, rest are only mentions. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I found a bit more. Not a lot thought. See below. CT55555 ( talk) 03:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete not even close to meeting the inclusion guidelines for either television hosting or acting. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep. Host of a daily show on a major network. Gamaliel ( talk) 16:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC) reply
- Comment Acceso Total is a local show airing on Telemundo O&O stations which is not a part of the national schedule, and which has advertorial segments. The version mentioned in New York on WNJU is merely a seven-minute segment of their noontime newscast. Commonly we don't keep articles for local advertorial show hosts. Nate • ( chatter) 04:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello my name is Evi Siskos I am the actual person behind this name. I am a NY Emmy Nominated television host that has worked for many years on the Spanish Network Telemundo as a television host. I am currently the host of a travel show called Conectate y Explora on Display TV. I have over 10 years of experience in television and voice over work. My voice can be heard on various tv shows and animations such as the famous childrens tv shows like Pinkalicious as the voice of Flora. If you need more information about me you can find my information on my social media pages at Evisiskos 182.1.69.149 ( talk) 07:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Can you link to those specific social media posts which can highlight significant contribution or otherwise significant coverage from sources that are independent of you? Abhishek0831996 ( talk) 17:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Please do not edit the article. You should not edit articles about yourself. CT55555 ( talk) 03:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply

~~Very weak keep, not sure~~. A borderline one. 1 + 2 suggest notability. They are not enough, but I wonder if there are non English sources. I did make some improvements, the tone of the article is promotional, I've made some edits, more are needed. CT55555 ( talk) 03:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete - Updating my !vote...seeing that a Spanish search was done by Beccaynr that tilts the balance from weak keep to weak delete.

Delete - there appears to be insufficient support in independent and reliable sources for WP:BASIC notability based on my research (including a Google search in Spanish) and sources identified in this discussion; it also seems WP:TOOSOON for WP:NACTOR/ WP:ENT notability, and a regional Emmy nomination is not sufficient support for WP:ANYBIO notability. Beccaynr ( talk) 05:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete per Beccaynr. 4meter4 ( talk) 18:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG, perhaps WP:TOOSOON. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 19:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was 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. Star Mississippi 02:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Laura Ann Kesling

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

As per WP:NACTOR. Does not appear to have had any significant roles since appearing in one film in 2008. – Ploni ( talk) 11:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Arizona. Ploni ( talk) 11:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete I don't think her roles are sufficient for notability, NACTOR requires multiple important roles. BrigadierG ( talk) 11:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment: FWIW, pretty much everyone else with a comparably-sized role in Bedtime Stories has an article. - Jmabel | Talk 00:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 ( talk) 00:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Crystal Allen

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

Has not had significant roles in multiple notable productions, as per WP:NACTOR. – Ploni ( talk) 11:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and California. Ploni ( talk) 11:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete Many mentions of "unconfirmed" or "uncredited", rest are one-offs or bit parts. Nothing notable for our purposes here. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment I added in coverage of her work. The Calgary Herald covered her extensively after her role in Falling in Love with the Girl Next Door^[1] and her role in Beware of Mom generated some press.^[2] DaffodilOcean ( talk) 14:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply

References

^ Partridge, Jennifer (4 February 2006). "Calgarian gets break as girl next door". Calgary Herald; Calgary, Alta. [Calgary, Alta]. pp. D5. Retrieved June 3, 2022.
^ Krishnamurthy, Chaitra (August 15, 2020). "'Beware of Mom': Meet Crystal Allen, Rene Ashton and rest of the cast of Lifetime's thriller movie". meaww.com. Retrieved 2022-06-03.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For evaluation of the sources above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR applies. ✗ plicit 14:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Nawayug Academy

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 08:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Nepal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Modussiccandi ( talk) 18:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Tammy Hostetler

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

All awards mentioned in sources were awarded at junior level, sourcing is scanty at best, no mainstream media coverage. Fails WP:GNG; WP:BASIC. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 13:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Martial arts. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 13:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep Passes GNG, If the basis is that she won in junior tournaments, this is false. The sources clearly show that she medaled in a national tournament and two international tournaments. ^[1] BlackAmerican ( talk)

References

^ https://www.judoinside.com/judoka/20411/Tammy_Hostetler/judo-career

Keep. The Herald & Review mention is confusingly stated, but the British Open and U.S. National medals don't appear to be at the junior level and would meet WP:MANOTE notability requirements. — Carter (Tcr25) ( talk) 13:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 23:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC) reply

~~Delete~~. Comment: WP:MANOTE is an essay and so carries zero weight at AfD; the appropriate guideline is NSPORT, which requires GNG be met. BlackAmerican what multiple independent, secondary, and reliable sources have you found that give her SIGCOV? EDIT: The coverage in Black Belt magazine seems substantial, but we'd need more than one source. American Judo newspaper is published by the org she belongs to and so is not independent, and none of the other sources appear to contribute to GNG. JoelleJay ( talk) 22:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC) reply

MANOTE is relevant in that NSPORT has no additional guidance for judoka. She has several mentions in Black Belt articles during her active career, are you asking for additional publications covering her? There is repeated coverage of her in the Decatur Herald and Review, including her national and international competitions. I'd also question the idea that a national association's newspaper wouldn't be considered independent of a member of the association; it could be different for coverage of an association's leader or association activities, but reporting on competitions and any given competitors would seem to be outside of the individual's ability to influence the coverage. Carter (Tcr25) ( talk) 15:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC) reply

No, MANOTE is not an SNG so it does not have anything beyond essay status. Athletes that aren't covered by an NSPORT sub-SNG default to SPORTCRIT, which is essentially GNG.

I can't access the first Herald & Review article, but the second wouldn't be considered SIGCOV as it has just a few sentences on her reporting event results. But I can believe she has more coverage based on the magazine profile so if there's a lot more content directly on her in the other H&R piece then that's probably sufficient for GNG.

National organizations are never considered independent of their members -- they (orgs) are financially obliged to promote positive material related to the org and therefore are not neutral or reflective of actual wider interest. Hope that helps. JoelleJay ( talk) 17:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep Passes criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO as a medalist in both national and international events at the top tier (not the junior level as inaccurately stated by the nominator) of her sport. 4meter4 ( talk) 18:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply
No, that's not correct. Per longstanding consensus, upheld by the recent massive RfC, we still require athletes with such achievements to meet GNG (hence the wording in NSPORT that "SIGCOV is likely to exist", rather than "is presumed notable"). JoelleJay ( talk) 20:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

@ JoelleJay, I think you are mischaracterizing the consensus from that RFC which specifically targeted "participation based criteria" (see summation of that RFC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability) not medalists/ winners of a major sporting event. That RFC was addressing many of the prior lax issues at NSPORT such as everyone who has participated at the Olympics or in a national sports team as notable. Clearly they aren't, and SIGCOV needs to be demonstrated. The consensus was that many of the participation based SNGs at NSPORT were poor predictors of notability (ie subjects may or may not have significant coverage for merely competing at the top tier of a given sport). However, that RFC consensus does not extend to people who have won a major competition (a medalist); which still meets criteria 1 at ANYBIO. 4meter4 ( talk) 03:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC) reply

@ 4meter4, No, it absolutely does cover medalists. One of the major consensuses was to change "presumed notable" to "SIGCOV is likely to exist" for all criteria, including for medalists. NSPORT also still requires GNG to be met for all subjects. JoelleJay ( talk) 17:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC) reply

If honors like being in the Baseball Hall of Fame were considered automatic ANYBIO passes, this would be reflected in the NBASEBALL guidance, which was revamped following the RfC and would have addressed this point then if it was valid. But as it stands there is no achievement in sports that has received consensus support for automatic ANYBIO notability. JoelleJay ( talk) 17:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC) reply

I still maintain that the higher policy of ANYBIO applies here. Changes to one area of policy language doesn't necessarily impact the application of other relevant policies. It seems odd to me that NSPORT wouldn't have some threshold for notability based on achievement. That doesn't seem congruent with our wider policies on biographical notability. On a side note, I wouldn't equate winning an international competition at the highest competitive level of a sport the same as being inducted into a Hall of Fame. One is an achievement, the other is an award. Best. 4meter4 ( talk) 17:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC) reply

One is an achievement, the other is an award. I specifically used the HoF example because achievements aren't included in ANYBIO. Awards are an indication that independent bodies have determined, through consensus, that a person merits special recognition for their accomplishments. JoelleJay ( talk) 23:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep per 4meter4. I think it's fair to say guidelines that apply to all biographies would trump guidelines for only sportspeople. WP:ANYBIO is clearly passed. ♡RAFAEL♡^(
talk) 05:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep in light of historical significance of her achievements. Women in judo were unable to compete in the Olympics until 1992. When Hostetler was competing in the 1970s, there weren't many other international competitions either, so the fact that she did earn medals at the British Open as an American judoka was significant (not to mention the gold medal at the National Judo Association championship, and all the other medals in other US competitions). In terms of sources establishing notability, it's important not to miss the forest for the trees, and look at the aggregate. The Black Belt magazine profile is solid as independent, reliable, in-depth coverage. In addition to that, there is enough non-trivial coverage in multiple sources such as Judo magazine (British) and American Judo (where she is on the cover). Both pieces go beyond "routine game coverage" in that they are covering national or international championships. Even if coverage from publications affiliated with sports associations alone is insufficient, she has coverage that goes beyond that in Black Belt, and one could even argue that the British Judo magazine is "independent" in the sense that Hostetler was not part of that association. Also, in highly specialized fields such as judo, mainstream media understanding of the sports is poor to non-existent; in this particular instance, I would weight the association articles more heavily, because they specifically are not puff pieces. Cielquiparle ( talk) 08:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ✗ plicit 14:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Tomiko Yoshikawa

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

According to the stats never won anything. Notability tenuous at best. Fails WP:NSPORTS and WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 13:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Japan, Motorsport, and Women. A7V2 ( talk) 07:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
While I can't find much, I did find this article in a potentially reliable source [24] which could count as substantial coverage, but more importantly in mentions an article in Chunichi Shimbun about the subject which I believe is citation number 2 in the article (found at [25]), and also provides substantial coverage. It seems her being a female racing driver at that time, even without much success, made her at least stand out, and potentially there would be much more coverage, in particular in Japanese print magazines and newspapers from the time (the one I've mentioned above is from 2005). So for now I think weak keep. A7V2 ( talk) 07:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Weak keep - I agree with A7V2. This really needs someone who can read Japanese to go over sourcing, but the sources that are already in the article seem to indicate that the subject likely passes the WP:GNG. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 08:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment It is most mediocre article as the women, hasn't won one race. scope_creep^Talk 09:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep in 1991 she was on the first all-female team at LeMans, and this was covered in USA Today and other media (now in article). This also resulted in coverage in a sports psychology textbook. While USA Today did not do an extended story on her, as noted above, citation #2 appears to be extended coverage. DaffodilOcean ( talk) 12:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep In addition to the coverage given above, I also found some coverage in a Japanese magazine ( Diet library has the title for this piece). Seems she is notable for the first Japanese women to participate in the races she raced in & there is enough for WP:BASIC. Jumpytoo Talk 19:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winning players

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

List cruft that could be better served as a category. Its sources also appear to not meet WP:RS. Seasider53 ( talk) 13:01, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, Football, and Europe. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:59, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom, pure LISTCRUFT. Giant Snowman 14:40, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment I neither see this as list craft, nor do I see a problem with the limited sources in the article, if anything it's the opposite, the article could do with a lot more sourcing. Categories are more hidden in wikipedia structure, people could find this list easier, I feel there is a lot of validity here. Govvy ( talk) 09:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom, LISTCRUFT and total overkill. Kante4 ( talk) 09:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. Nehme ₁₄₉₉ 15:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep we have similar list like: List of Premier League winning players. we can have article for this important cup too.(because category is not enough. refs must be improved (squad of each team is clear in every season).-- Miha2020 ( talk) 16:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep Reasons for suggesting a deletion of the article are quite shaky. There are Wikipedia articles on Champions League topic. How this article cannot be suitable for that? NextEditor123 ( talk) 18:28, 19 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Which of the reasons are “shaky”? Also, WP:OTHER, which was mentioned in the WPF thread but some people are ignoring. Seasider53 ( talk) 20:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC) reply

~~Keep~~ We should keep this article active as it contains tons of information about all winning players of the biggest club football tournament in Europe with references and notes. At least we could find a way to improve the article instead of discarding this topic entirely from Wikipedia. NextEditor123 ( talk) 17:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply

~~Delete~~ Don't know why you're including your choice again, but I suppose I can follow suit. You didn't answer my question. Seasider53 ( talk) 20:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep The list shows information that the category would not show. It provides quick access to statistics and information about the winners of the competition, which would otherwise take too long to obtain. Piotr Bart ( talk) 13:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete Agree with nominator. Stevie fae Scotland ( talk) 15:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. Questionable sourcing. I'm also not sure about the criteria to warrant inclusion: is it everyone in the squad? Everyone who has played a match in competition? Everyone who played the final? It seems to start with the first and, as one scrolls down, shift to the last criterion. Regarding similar lists, WP:OTHER is not an argument. The arguments to keep boil down to showing useful information, in this case, statistics; Wikipedia, though, is not a WP:NOTDATABASE. I'm concerned that further research on the matter, particularly on the topics of inclusion vis-à-vis older squads, will veer into WP:SYNTHESIS territory. As it stands, this all seems like WP:LISTCRUFT to me. Iseult^Δx parlez moi 18:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment Based on comparison between datas and sources, it seems that the list includes everyone who has played a match in competition. WP:SYNTHESIS is a combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source which I don't see that case in the article. NextEditor123 ( talk) 18:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply

I don't think I was clear in my reasoning; my apologies. My first point is that it's not clear what the list is about. The latter point is that given this, I have concerns that the list will violate WP:SYNTHESIS, not that it already has, but also not that it has not already. Iseult^Δx parlez moi 22:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete: List without reliave sources which not explain the UEFA's criteria for recognise any footballer as competition's winner.-- Dantetheperuvian ( talk) 16:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to 2022 United States House of Representatives election in Wyoming. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 23:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Harriet Hageman

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as an as yet non-winning candidate in a political party primary. As always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se (even candidates on the general election ballot don't get articles for that, let alone primary candidates) -- the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, while a candidate must demonstrate either preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten her an article anyway (the Cynthia Nixon test), or a credible reason why her candidacy should be seen as so much more special than everybody else's candidacies that even if she loses the election she would still pass the ten year test for enduring significance anyway (the Christine O'Donnell test). But this demonstrates neither of those things.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in November if she wins the general election, but just running in a party primary is not sufficient grounds for a Wikipedia article at all. Bearcat ( talk) 12:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Wyoming. Bearcat ( talk) 12:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete Per nom., no prejudice against re-creation if she wins the general election, but the subject presently fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sal2100 ( talk) 16:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
- Redirect to 2022 United States House of Representatives election in Wyoming, per Curbon7's comments below. Per nom., no prejudice against re-creation if/when she wins the general election. Sal2100 ( talk) 17:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Restore redirect: I think having this go to AfD was pointless as you could've just reverted the IP lol. Either way, as Hageman is practically guaranteed to win at this point, just restore the redirect until she actually wins the primary. This maintains the page history and makes it easy to have an already written version that can quickly be retrieved. Curbon7 ( talk) 21:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Redirect > 2022 United States House of Representatives election in Wyoming. Djflem ( talk) 06:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Redirect per Curbon7. — Carter (Tcr25) ( talk) 10:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Redirect as WP:ATD. Is perhaps WP:TOOSOON. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 16:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC) P.S. WP:CRYSTAL. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 14:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Restore redirect to 2022 United States House of Representatives election in Wyoming. She is very likely going to win the Republican primary in August, so for now we can just restore the redirect, instead of deleting. Lefcentreright Discuss 17:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete. An obscure far-right aspiring politician. Not a member of a national parliament (generally a minimum requirement for someone not notable for something else), not even a candidate for a seat in a national parliament (generally not sufficient in itself anyway), just some obscure local figure who wants to unseat the incumbent from her own party. -- Tataral ( talk) 04:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete not notable at the prersent time. If she wins the general election in November she will be notable, and maybe if she wins the primary (depending on if that results in actual widespread coverage about her) but not before then. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply
The primary is not until August 16. If, and that is a big if, Hageman wins then, she may (or may not) become notable for such, depending on the actual coverage. Before that an article is not justified. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Deleting this article will definitely tell everyone which side you stand on. In politics it should be important to hear all voices, not just the ones you want people to hear. I think it’s time that the media did not take a political side and allowed the people to use their voice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.21.209.85 ( talk) 20:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia is not "the media", and is not a platform for "people to use their voice" — Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, with rules about who qualifies to have an article on here and who doesn't. Bearcat ( talk) 11:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT 1 & 2: lack of rationale and clear act of revenge. (non-admin closure) ~Styyx^Talk? 12:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Belarus in the Eurovision Song Contest 2021

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

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 June 17. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment: this AfD is being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Entirely copy-pasted deletion discussion. ― Jochem van Hees ( talk) 11:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Belarus. Shellwood ( talk) 11:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep: ignoring any shenanigans going on behind this AfD, and concentrating on the article, there is obviously well-referenced material available for this event, and no reason to delete the article. Elemimele ( talk) 12:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Speedy keep: bad faith nomination, no proper rationale given by the nominator. ― Jochem van Hees ( talk) 12:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Speedy keep no rationale even present anymore after fake comments removed. WikiVirus C ^(talk) 12:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Stanford University in popular culture

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

Classic list of works that mention Stanford University. Sigh. No inclusion criteria, no evidence any other reliable work has attempted to list such works and discuss them as a phenomenon. This article has the same problems as the recently deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Navy SEALs in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta Force in popular culture Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defense Intelligence Agency in popular culture and like. Mainly: "mostly unreferenced TVtropic listcruft." Like them, it fails numerous policies, guidelines and like: as an 'in popular culture' article, WP:IPC and MOS:POPCULT/TRIVIA, as a list, WP:NLIST and WP:SALAT, as a potential topic, WP:GNG and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, due to lack of references, WP:OR and WP:V (partially). This type of content is not encyclopedic - it's pure OR that belongs at https://tvtropes.org/ . Ping User:Regpath who just tagged it with a relevant copyediting templates. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 10:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Popular culture, Education, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 10:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 12:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - A list of times that Stanford was "mentioned in fictional works of popular culture", which is the criteria of the list, does not pass WP:LISTN. The closest thing currently in the article that is a reliable source is the Stanford alumni magazine article, and even that just briefly mentions a handful of examples, many of which are user contributions themselves. Note that we also have List of Stanford University people#Fictional Stanford alumni, which is largely duplicative of many of the examples here. Rorshacma ( talk) 14:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:SALAT. No proof that this is a notable topic worth listing. Also WP:NOTTVTROPES. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(
What did I screw up now?)} 16:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete: While there might be some potential for an article here, the current one needs to be destroyed so that something else can be built. There are few reliable sources and no criteria for inclusion here. On the other side of things, the list contains a sizeable amount of original work and indiscriminate information. Nothing here is worth saving. ― Susmuffin ^Talk 03:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete- Wikipedia is not TVTropes. Reyk _YO! 22:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - It's conceivable that there's a notable topic for this title, but a list of times someone said "I went to Stanford" in movies/tv isn't it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete Largely original research. Orientls ( talk) 16:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete Collection of trivia. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tulane University in popular culture. Georgethedragonslayer ( talk) 13:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate repository of information, it is not a grab bag of trivia. TThis is WP:OR trying to WP:SYNTH random mentions into a list article by the school's fans. We don't need this type of article. Jacona ( talk) 10:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

List of people on the postage stamps of Kenya

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

Fails WP:LISTN. Also: unsourced since its creation in 2005, very incomplete (even for the years supposedly covered, e.g. 1981 Lady Di or 1989 Henri Dunant), and not of interest to readers (one visitor every few days). Fram ( talk) 10:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Kenya. Fram ( talk) 10:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - clearly not notable. -- Bduke ( talk) 10:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete clearly fails WP:LISTN . LibStar ( talk) 14:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete We have no sources, let alone sources that demonstrate coverage of this thing as a group. The list claims it was up to date 27 years ago, which is longer than Wikipedia has been around, so it was never up to date. We need reliable sources that give coverage to this topic, we have none at all. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete, no sources, no evidence that this is a topic that should be listed per WP:SALAT. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(
What did I screw up now?)} 16:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete fails WP:LISTN Jacona ( talk) 12:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete. Unreferenced trivia failing NLIST. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 18:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by Athaenara ( talk · contribs) ( G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page) (non-admin closure) WikiVirus C ^(talk) 12:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Anjali Chaturvedi

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

The only source is an interview of the judge; otherwise fails WP:JUDGE Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 09:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: author has blanked the page, which would be interpreted as an author request for deletion. 0x Deadbeef 10:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Deleted per {{ db-g7}}. – Athaenara ✉ 10:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Although numerically, the deletes outnumber the keeps, AFD is not a vote. Few of the delete comments have detailed policy based rationales supporting them, and early on in the AFD there is confusion as to if the article is about the intersection or the neighborhood defined by the intersection. By the end of the AFD it becomes apparant that the article is about both, and the word "intersection" in the article title is a poor attempt at disambiguation. Although the present iteration of the article only cites 2 sources, keep proponents have found several promising potential sources, but language is a barrier to properly evaluating them under reliable source criteria and including them in the article. In short - neither the delete nor the keep comments make a convincing argument, so I'm closing this as no consensus. ~ ONUnicorn^{(
Talk|
Contribs)} problem solving

Post closing comment - I have added a {{ Cleanup AfD}} tag to the article. To be clear, the specific concerns identified in the AFD that the article requires cleanup to address are the article title, and the addition of more sources (ideally by someone fluent in the language). ~ ONUnicorn^{(
Talk|
Contribs)} problem solving 20:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Khae Rai Intersection

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

Reviewed during New Page Patrol. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Also not a practice to keep under wp:outcomes. This is an intersection of two roads. ~~Previously deleted~~ North8000 ( talk) 17:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Thailand. Shellwood ( talk) 17:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete It would have to take something extraordinary for a road intersection to be notable. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 00:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment Is there a notability guideline for road intersections that we can check? I'm not saying WP:WHATABOUTX, but there are many articles in Category:Road junctions by country. It would be nice if we can discuss based on principles. By the way, I couldn't find the history of it being previously deleted unless you mean redirect being deleted to make way for move? Aithus ( talk) 09:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment: No, this had never been deleted. The nom's claim is incorrect. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 14:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment: For articles like this, their main scope is usually the neighborhood known after the intersection, rather than the traffic infrastructure itself. The sources already cited in the article go in-depth into the junction and neighbourhood's name and history, and its long-standing congestion problems and past projects aimed at addressing the issue have been widely reported on. [26] [27] That said, I wouldn't be against merging without prejudice to Highway 302 (Thailand), seeing as there's not much content that would warrant covering them separately. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 14:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
- Make that a keep or merge without prejudice. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 12:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply
~~Comment~~ The intersection will be the terminal of 2 different mass transit routes (Brown - construction not yet started, and Pink lines - to be in service late 2022) and passed by another (Purple line - already in service), is the location of Nonthaburi province administration center, and the location of Ministry of Public Health. It's a major interchange there. -- Lerdsuwa ( talk) 03:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC) reply
- Change the above Comment to ~~Keep and rename to Khae Rai~~ so it can cover the neighborhood. But note that there is no district, subdistrict, road, or any other thing with the original name Khae Rai except the intersection. So the neighborhood name actually comes from the intersection name. And many businesses, buildings have Khae Rai attached to their name. Google search for its Thai names gives 1M hits [28] though a small fraction of them refers to a different Khae Rai in another province. -- Lerdsuwa ( talk) 02:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  - Khae Rai is currently a disambiguation page, with the other item being the subdistrict in Samut Sakhon. I guess there's a case to be made that this subject is the primary topic, but I didn't move it there before as the original author seemed to think differently. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 09:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC) reply
    - Change that again to Keep -- Lerdsuwa ( talk) 05:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete. The obvious caveats about searching for foreign language subjects applies, but I wasn't able to find any evidence that there's significant coverage of the intersection itself. As mentioned by Paul_012, it's extremely rare for any intersection articles to exist because the content makes much more sense in other places—either the road, or the neighborhood the intersection is located. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply
- That's not what i said. In Thailand, the neighbourhood where the section is located is the intersection. See for example the articles under Category:Road junctions in Bangkok, which are all neighbourhoods and junctions. This article is titled as such due to disambiguation requirements. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 09:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 08:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

This AfD discussion includes a proposal for merger to Highway 302 (Thailand), and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to that page on June 22. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from that page.

Lean keep We really need someone who can read Thai for this one. I don't, but I tried doing a Google Books search for "แคราย" and it turned up a fair number of results, so it looks like there might be significant coverage out there for this topic. The best I could do is copy-paste the "found inside" text into Google Translate (I can't actually highlight within the ebook itself) so my ability to judge the quality of the content is severely limited. Some of the books are definitely fiction, and others appear to only mention "แคราย" in passing. But, again, I can't read Thai, so these may very well be more than passing mentions and I'm just unable to tell.

Among the "passing mentions" that might turn out to have worthwhile information: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) seem to talk about transportation and infrastructure-related developments in the area; 4 in particular seems the most likely to have useful content since it describes it as "a location that has high demand for apartments". This one (7) seems incomprehensible to me, but its page on Google Books lists it as "history" and "military" and it seems to be nonfictional. This one (8) looks like just a passing mention, but it's talking about history as well so it might be useful. Similarly, this one (9) mentions an explosion at a police station here in 2007, although that might be all it says about Khae Rai. This one (10) might be a false positive but it seems to be talking about transportation and economic activity in a "Khae district" (no "Rai", which is why I think it might be a false positive). This one (11) mentions that the "Khae Rai - Bang Bua Thong area" is getting a lot of real estate/business development, but again it might be referring to a different Khae Rai. This one (12) is talking about the name but, like the rest of these, I can't tell if it's meaningful coverage or not.

Then these (13) (14) (15) (16) don't seem very promising - they look like mere passing mentions - but along with some others they seem to indicate that the name "Khae Rai" also applies to the whole area. Finally, this one (17) just seems incomprehensible; I'm not sure if it might be useful or not.

But I want to draw attention to a couple of sources that definitely do seem like more than passing mentions. This one (18) seems to be talking about the place's name and the history behind it. Meanwhile, this one (19) is talking about the place's history and how it used to have fewer roads connecting, etc. The content in both cases is already in our article (and already cited; to other sources) so these sources aren't really useful in establishing notability, but it indicates that at least some substantial coverage is out there.

Again, I don't think we can really make an informed decision here without someone who can read Thai. There are at least a couple of sources providing substantial coverage on this topic, but I can't tell if any of these other potential sources really count as significant. Some of them seem promising, so I think there's probably enough sources covering the topic to establish notability, but it's beyond my ability to properly evaluate this. 3 kids in a trenchcoat ( talk) 05:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply

(1) to (5) refers to the Pink Line, for which the first phase runs between Khae Rai and Min Buri. Hence the line is often referred to in the media as Pink Line (Khae Rai-Min Buri) or Pink Line Khae Rai-Min Buri secion. (7) talked about a Coup d'état with military seized the Thaicom satellite control station at the intersection and then people seized it back. (8) just about the author lived in the intersection area. (9) one of terrorist bombing around 0:00 on New Year was at the intersection. (10) talked about the Pink Line mentioned above. (11) Google only shows some of the matches for me (not the Khae Rai-Bang Bua Thong which is indeed the correct Khae Rai) so can't decide. (12) is about calling place name using Khae Rai as example. Google only shows a few lines of text so not sure how much the coverage is there. Haven't looked at others. -- Lerdsuwa ( talk) 02:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete this barely-sourced item about a street intersection, of all things. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:32, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply
- See my above comment. The article is about the neighbourhood and major road intersection, which share the name. The article is titled as such due to disambiguation requirements. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 09:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 ( talk) 18:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete Coverage is WP:ROUTINE for a road intersection. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete Mediocre to the extreme. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ROUTINE. scope_creep^Talk 13:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Despite the length of this AfD, only one person wants to keep these articles, and their excessive verbiage merits discounting in view of WP:BLUDGEON. (All right, one other person wants to keep Amora (given name), but that doesn't change the consensus either.) Sandstein 16:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Reverie (given name)

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

No evidence of any notability for this given name. Fram ( talk) 08:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Also nominated for same reason:

Delete all] -- not notable. Three of these articles have illustrations that do not show people with the given names. Athel cb ( talk) 09:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep only Amora (given name), which contains links of two people with the name. Standalone name lists allowed per MOS:DABNAME and consistent with WP:APO/S. Delete the rest if no standalone bios for those names identified, as those pages don't meet WP:GNG.— Bagumba ( talk) 11:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply
- Just to clarify, Amora didn't contain any links to people with that name at the time of creation. Thank you for adding those! Fram ( talk) 11:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  Yes. Didn't mean to imply that you ignored them before.— Bagumba ( talk) 11:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep. The relevance of Amora and Navy and Dream is their recent inclusion on the U.S. popularity charts. Reverie has increased in usage. I have been attempting to create or expand articles for names listed on different popularity charts as I come across them. These articles were never originally intended to only include people with a certain name either and I don’t think notability depends on it. They are about the history and usage of a particular name. The images are intended to illustrate the article. The image with Navy is of two children wearing navy blue clothing and one a sailor suit. The source says the name comes from either the color or the Navy. Reverie is the title of the image included, etc. -- Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 12:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply
These articles were never originally intended to only include people with a certain name either and I don’t think notability depends on it.: No. Namelists can be treated as a WP:SETINDEX if we have articles of multiple people with that name. Otherwise, pure name articles are expected to meet WP:GNG.— Bagumba ( talk) 12:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Since everyone appears to have abandoned discussions on this page over the last few days and have not responded to the improvements I made, I will mention again that all four of these articles now either meet WP:GNG or WP:SETINDEX mentioned above by User:Bagumba. I provided citations for articles in mainstream papers or TV networks and published name dictionaries as well as blogs and lifestyle sites that give more extensive coverage of the specific names. For Reverie (given name) I also created cited articles about two notable people with the name. At least one of the articles, Eloisa Reverie Vezzosi, has survived two attempts to delete it after two separate editors agreed she is notable and the citations are solid. Therefore, Reverie (given name) meets WP:SETINDEX as well, though I think it also meets WP:GNG. I again say the articles deserve to be kept and the deletion discussion should now be closed. Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 14:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply
'Comment Thanks for the ping. I still stand by my earlier !vote. It might not have been your intention, but the many refereces added come off as a WP:REFBOMB of trivial mentions of the respective names. WP:GNG requires signficant coverage. Per the guideline WP:WHYN:
We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list.
Those other pages remain a stub, looking at the new sources that I have online access to, there's no indication that the page content can ever grow.— Bagumba ( talk) 14:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply

I still stand by my comments earlier that the naming blogs with extensive commentary on these names should qualify as references for general notability, as do the newspaper and magazine articles that have been cited that are evidence of broad commentary/coverage. The articles Eloisa Reverie Vezzosi and Reverie Love can likely be expanded with more time based on the news articles I found. Some about Vezzosi are in Italian, which I don’t speak, but she appears to be a performance artist who has been covered in different media. I’m not particularly interested in Love or underground hip hop but she’s had coverage and someone out there probably is more interested than me and will work on that article. I’ll say again that I am not a deletionist. I think Wikipedia has been too quick in general to delete cited articles that are of interest or could be expanded upon. These are just four of them and they are clearly of interest to a lot of people based on the references I listed. Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 15:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply

I have also just added additional See also to the Dream article referring to film maker Dream Hampton and two others who use it as a pseudonym or stage name and added additional description based on the name dictionary and a news article. Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 23:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Your one-line bio creation doesn't seem too credible at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reverie Love. Adding You Tube handles and people with a "dream" syllable in their name seems disingenous.— Bagumba ( talk) 08:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Reverie Love is probably the weaker of the two articles and could be deleted, though I found media interviews and reviews that had been listed and looked notable to me, though I’m hardly an expert or interested in hip-hop. The Eloisa Reverie Vezzosi article can probably be expanded by people who speak Italian and can do more than run them through Google Translate. There is additional independent coverage on what appears to be a notable and interesting personality. As for the Dream article, Dream Hampton is a notable figure and Dream appears to be her name from birth. I didn’t see any disambiguation page listing The-Dream or Dream (YouTuber) so includes them as well though they might better be listed under a See Also at the bottom of the page. I somewhat question the quality of the Dream (YouTuber) article but it’s not for me to judge. Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 10:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply

The inclusion on the popularity charts is notable. Navy currently ranks No. 452 on the U.S. popularity chart and was mentioned as having jumped up 258 slots on the chart from the previous year. Dream was ranked No. 351 on the chart and has similarly increased in use etc. In some of these articles I tried to avoid giving specific rank and numbers because it dates the article and they will have to be continuously updated from year to year. The notability for most of these is that they are names that dramatically increased in use and will probably continue to do so, often because of some celebrity influence — I.e., Dream is influenced by the child of Rob Kardashian and Reverie by the daughter of Rebecca Woolf. Neither of the specific children are notable themselves and probably should not be mentioned in the name articles for privacy’s sake but the celebrity influence is mentioned in the references cited as a reason for the increase on the charts. Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 12:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply
I have added additional references to the Dream and Navy article to establish notability. More certainly exist. All of these names have been mentioned in multiple articles as having increased in popularity, influenced by celebrities, etc. Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 13:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Looking at your sources for "Navy", I see the primary source ssa.gov (statistics), and then Nameberry.com [29], not much readson to see it as a reliable source, and Appellation Mountain is just a blog apparently. So no reliable sources, like books or newspaper aricles, about these given names and their popularity? Fram ( talk) 13:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply

I’d argue that naming blogs are acceptable sources for very recently popular names but I just added the following as well: ^[1] Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 14:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply

While Time obviously is a reliable source, that is the perfect example of what is known as a "passing mention", the use of a name (in this case "Navy" as an example, without further explanation. Fram ( talk) 14:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply

And the naming blogs are certainly indicative as supporting evidence that these names are of note and are increasing in popularity and are being talked about, etc. I’m not a “deletionist.” I think names that are on a popularity chart are of note to an encyclopedia and people are probably going to want to know what they mean and where they came from and want to look them up. These are all notable names. If you want more references, I’ll certainly dig them up but the ones that are there already ought to be sufficient. Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 14:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply

14:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)14:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)14:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)~

This is a published reference that contains the same information in the entry for the name as on the above listed Nameberry site that is run by the same authors. ^[2] Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 14:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply

For which names? That source is from 2007, and names like Reverie or Dream weren't on the radar back then. Fram ( talk) 07:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Navy above. It refers to the naming of a daughter of R&B singer Nivea, just as the website dictionary does. I think that child was born in 2005. I also have additional references to all of those articles from blogs, news articles, etc. For Navy, there are articles that reference the naming of the daughter of country singer Jason Aldean and why he and his wife chose the name and others citing the birth and naming last year of the daughter of the blogger Arielle Charnas as an influence on the name. For the article Reverie there are citations for multiple blog entries over the past 11 years, one mentioning that the name increased in use from 5 in 2010 to 61 in 2020 after the birth of the author and blogger Rebecca Woolf’s daughter. Also included are links to Woolf’s 2011 blog entry describing the naming of her twins and to a 2014 HGTV.com feature describing how “well known blogger” Woolf created a nursery for her twins that was as “Bohemian as their names.” I added additional citations to the article Amora with separate articles from February listing it among other names that mean “love.” I also added citations for the article for Dream with articles citing the influence of names chosen by the various members of the Kardashian family, including of Rob Kardashian’s daughter. I consider the naming blogs acceptable contemporary references for these articles about very recently popular names, especially as supporting evidence for the Social Security Association stats that are also listed. In the case of the Nameberry site, the majority of the information for the online dictionary comes from previously published books by the authors who own the site, updated with contemporary information they add. Some of the other sites are blogs run by other published authors. Other articles cited are from online lifestyle sites or online magazines, etc. In any case, there are now many references for these two or three paragraph articles all supporting their notability. Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 12:07, 18 May 2022 (UTC) reply

"In any case, there are now many references for these two or three paragraph articles all supporting their notability." Looking at Reverie, I can't access the HGTV article (not available from Europe), but none of the others are the kind of reliable sources that actually give notability (either primary sources, or blogs). Fram ( talk) 12:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Entries in published name dictionaries, articles that mention a name has increased in popularity due to its use by a certain celebrity, articles describing a certain person as notable, etc., are not considered notable? I can’t agree. The blogs are all copyrighted and in many instances employ writers who conduct interviews and publish articles on the sites with commentary on notable names and editors who edit the content. Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 12:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Reverie (given name) has no "Entries in published name dictionaries" (even if it had, it would depend on how significant the entry was, such books have thousands of very short entries usually), it has no "articles that mention a name has increased in popularity due to its use by a certain celebrity", and "articles describing a certain person as notable" don't give notability to a given name. "The blogs are all copyrighted" is meaningless, if I or you start a blog tomorrow everything we write on it is copyrighted as well. Something like this has no indication at all why it would be a reliable source. Fram ( talk) 13:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC) reply

All of the others do and I stand by what I said earlier regarding why I consider the naming blogs notable and why Reverie is of note too. If anything they are probably more trustworthy because the people writing them are experts on the subject matter. All of the articles should be kept. Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 13:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC) reply

"All of the others do"? Right, so I checked the second one, Dream (given name), and no, it has again no "Entries in published name dictionaries", it has an ultro-short mention of Dream in an article [30], and an even shorter one here on a sports radio website (no idea why they post an artucle on this subject, very weird). Even if copyright wasn't an issue and you were allowed to post the relevant bits of these two articles in full, you would still have a very, very short article. Anyway, I'm done chasing after your changes and checking your claims against reality, I'll let others decide on this. Fram ( talk) 13:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC) reply

The article was written after the release of a report on naming trends from the previous year, which is considered of interest by various media outlets. Some people consider the topic trivial but others obviously find it notable. Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 14:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Anyone still interested in this discussion might note that I have added multiple additional references, including a published name reference by Laura Wattenberg that mentions all four of these names. Wattenberg is often quoted as a name expert in mainstream media articles as an expert on naming trends. The blogs and content/lifestyle sites referenced can be viewed as additional supporting evidence. I also have created an article Reverie Love with supporting references. Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 00:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Bookworm has just added "a published name reference by Laura Wattenberg that mentions all four of these names. Wattenberg is often quoted as a name expert in mainstream media articles as an expert on naming trends." as apparently the clincher to establish notability for these names. So, fine, I checked: for Reverie, the "full" info is "Reverie". That's it, nothing more. The index indicates that it can be found on page 394, and that page has a long list of names which includes Reverie (and Navy and presumably the other two). [31] It adds no information and doesn't help at establishing notability, but it sounds good if you can say that you have added a book of course. As the other sources are just "additional supporting evidence", we are still left with nothing. Can someone else please educate Bookworm on what is acceptable sourcing and what actually establishes notability? Fram ( talk) 12:11, 20 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Reverie is included in a list of names in the Wattenberg book where the significance is the meaning of the vocabulary word. The other names in the book are mentioned under similar lists. Dream is listed under a dictionary entry in the book that lists the Kardashian connection, etc. It’s a popular reference book on naming trends and suggestIons for parents, not a scholarly treatise, but Wattenberg is frequently interviewed as an expert as are the authors who run Nameberry, for that matter. I also listed an assortment of articles as references under the Dream, Navy, and Amora articles. Dream and/or Navy are referenced in the articles on CNN and others as being among the fastest rising names of the year, as noted in the Social Security Administration report on rising names. The references are cited. I guess anyone interested can judge for themselves. I’ve explained above and at length why I believe these are notable names and why the blogs ought to qualify as acceptable sources for notability. I continue to disagree with Fram. When I searched for people by the name Reverie, I found fictional references and a rap performer who uses it as a stage name, who I decided was clearly notable enough for a Wikipedia article based on the news coverage of her. I hope that stub article on Reverie Love will be expanded upon by people who are more knowledgeable about underground hip-hop than I am. Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 12:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC) reply

"the significance is the meaning of the vocabulary word."? Fram ( talk) 13:11, 20 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Yes. Wattenberg compiled a list of recently coined “word names” that are in use and make a statement because of the meaning. The author and others note this is a naming trend particularly in the United States in the past few years and is evident on the popularity charts. Destiny is another example. With Reverie, usage increased from five in 2010 to 61 in 2020 (60 uses last year.) The blogger is considered the main influence but I’d speculate that the rapper probably has as well since she has been performing during the same time frame. I found a couple of news articles mentioning non-notable children called Reverie during my hunt for sources. Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 13:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC) reply

To be clear, Wattenberg included the name in a long list, nothing further: everything else comes from blogs and primary sources or is your original research. Fram ( talk) 13:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC) reply

I would strongly object to your claim that I conducted “original research.” In writing these articles, I searched for and provided multiple citations for a few stub articles about names that multiple authors, bloggers or journalists all considered notable enough to comment on and write about after noting that they have risen in usage. Three of the name articles you want to delete are mentioned by others as notable because they are now on the popularity chart in the U.S. and continuing to rise in use; the fourth is mentioned as noteworthy as having dramatically increased in use over the past 12 years. Original research would mean I saw the stats and wrote the articles based on my own interpretation, which I did not. The comments I made here about why a name is popular are not in the articles, which just give statistics and assertions made by authors, bloggers, content writers or reporters, etc. And I’ve said above why these should be considered notable. Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 13:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment to Fram's request, this is an ongoing fingers-in-the-ears issue with this user about what constitutes reliable sources, and merely being a website or a published book doesn't confer reliability to the sources or notability to their contents, see recent discussion at Talk:Maya (given name)#Bad sources where the use of such sources was explicitly called out as not reliable and Bookworm just bludgeoned by the noticeboard precedents. JesseRafe ( talk) 19:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Yes, we do disagree about what constitutes notability and reliable sources. I don’t think that necessarily constitutes a “fingers-in-the-ears” issue so much as an ongoing philosophical disagreement. As can be seen with the articles and the ongoing content dispute at Maya, which has yet to be resolved, I have improved upon all of the articles mentioned here with additional citations that I do think demonstrate that they are notable and should be kept. Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 19:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete I think the three names with no bios linked should be deleted. Amora, serving as a DAB page for people with that name, can stay. Rockphed ( talk) 04:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Dream (given name) and Reverie (given name) both now also include bios linked. Dream (given name) includes a link to the article Dream Hampton as well as to The-Dream and Dream (YouTuber), none of which I wrote. Reverie (given name) includes links to the articles Eloisa Reverie Vezzosi and Reverie Love, both of which I did write. However, both can be expanded upon and, at least two other editors also apparently considered the references in Eloisa Reverie Vezzosi notable enough to halt speedy deletion attempts. Three of the four meet WP:SETINDEX] But as I said above, I also believe all four meet general notability guidelines under WP:GNG. Other editors above have expressed some objections to listing blogs such as Nameberry or Appellation Mountain as sources. I noted above that Nameberry contains material previously published (by independent publishers) in multiple books by the authors who run the site. They are frequently interviewed by journalists and quoted as experts on naming trends in some of the news articles also cited. Author Wattenberg, whose book I also cited, has also been interviewed as an expert on naming trends in mainstream media. The article on what qualifies as a reliable source at Wikipedia does note that self published material can qualify if it is by an expert in the field. I originally wrote three of the four articles because the names had been mentioned by the U.S. Social Security Administration on its list of fastest rising names for 2021 on its popularity chart. The fourth, Reverie (given name), had been mentioned in connection with Dream (given name). The articles are all sourced. Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 05:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply

I have also added a link to the bio for actress Dreama Walker to the article Dream (given name) along with a citation from a published source that supports including it as a variant of the name. Dreama (given name) may merit its own article but I would probably make it a redirect to the Dream article since Dream is a far more commonly used name. Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 14:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply

I would urge you to remove that link and false claim. Dreama (and many variants thereof, like dreamah, dreamar, ...) are given with the meaning "dreamer", and with no indication that it is a variant of "Dream" [32]. You can find it between "Dotty" and "Drew". The given name "Dream" has no separate entry in this book of 100,000+ names, indicating just how incredibly notable it is... Fram ( talk) 14:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply

I assume we can agree that dream and dreamer are etymologically related words. Dreama has been around as a name since the early to mid 20th century, per the two additional sources I added from the Wattenberg book and the Appellation Mountain blog. Dream is a more recent coinage and has only recently been used in large numbers, which explains why it isn’t included in the Lansky book. However, the film maker Dream Hampton was born in 1972. Dreama also appears in the American Social Security stats, albeit in low numbers. There was a prostitute character on an episode of the show CSI who says her father named her from the song Dream a Little Dream of Me. Should we decide that the name Dreama warrants its own article instead of being included in the Dream (given name) article, that could be mentioned. I probably would not create a stand alone article on a name that is pretty rare. I would be comfortable saying Dream and Dreama are related names with the references I cited. Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 15:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Please no, not more poorly sourced (or incorrectly represented sources) articles on non-notable names. Fram ( talk) 15:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Dream and dreamer are related words; Dreama is mentioned in a blog entry at Appellation Mountain under the entry for Dream; Dreama is also included in a list entitled “Mid-Century America” and along with Dream in a list entitled “Modern Meanings” in the Wattenberg book. They have hardly been misrepresented. The two books cited are both published references. I have also included links to bios in the article for people with these names, which would meet the criteria under WP:SETINDEX. Dreama might merit a separate article or list due to the actress Dreama Walker. There do appear to be other actresses called Dreama based on cast lists referenced in Wiki articles but I didn’t find any other articles with the quick search I did. I still say these names are generally notable also because they now appear among the top 1,000 names in the U.S. or have been mentioned as rising in use. The name Dreama does not meet that criteria. Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 15:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted for additional input. As it stands, there is an absence of consensus, and I suspect that some unexplored alternative solution is available.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 06:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment. Please note that I have added some additional material to the Dream (given name) article today and done a bit of editing/cleanup. I added a citation for an archived interview with Dream Hampton, who said her father named her after the I Have a Dream speech by Martin Luther King Jr. I also moved the bio links for The-Dream, Dream (YouTuber), and Dreama Walker under a See Also heading. I stand by what I said earlier above regarding why all of these articles meet WP:SETINDEX and WP:GNG as well. I have added references and made substantial improvements to all of these articles since they were originally listed in an attempt to address some of the concerns that were expressed, though I also think the original versions were adequately cited. These articles are notable and should be kept. Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 11:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Note that I've seen the later comments, and my !vote above still stands. Also, a page created after (and perhaps in response) to this AfD, Reverie Love , was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reverie Love— Bagumba ( talk) 03:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC) reply

As does mine, for all of the reasons I cited above. I have done an enormous amount of work on these articles, which I think were all fine to begin with and were of general notability because they are either listed among the top 1,000 names on the U.S. Social Security Administration site or noted as rising in use. Three of the four include links to bios of people by the name. The link to the article on Eloisa Reverie Vezzosi still stands and that one can be expanded. Multiple citations have been included for all of them to news articles, books, blogs by experts etc. I have already said why I consider the blogs to be acceptable sources. Self published works are listed as acceptable by experts in the field. Several of these authors have been interviewed and quoted as experts on numerous occasions over the last decade by the New York Times or other papers. Much of the material on the Nameberry site was previously published in one of their independently published books. All four of these articles should be kept. Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 03:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC) reply

As does mine...: Yes, your 28 May 2022 comment is right above, which is below all your other comments. Thank you. — Bagumba ( talk) 12:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC) reply

References

^ Wilson, Chris (10 May 2016). "Why There Are So Many More Names for Baby Girls". Time.com. Time. Retrieved 17 May 2022.
^ Rosenkrantz, Linda; Satran, Pamela (2007). The Baby Name Bible: The Ultimate Guide by America's Baby-Naming Experts. St. Martin's Griffin. ISBN 978-0312352202.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I can see consensus to keep Amora, but not the other two names. More input is required to clarify this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist before I am comfortable closing as no consenus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 08:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment. It’s time to close this discussion as no consensus. To quote the relevant guideline: “Relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure … Relisting debates repeatedly in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended, and while having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for its editors. Therefore, in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice.” Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 16:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Guerillero: It seems that there is consensus from all but one !voter to delete eveything besides Amora (given name). I'd be interested in how you are interpreting it as no consensus. (Also, a third relisting is quite rare.) Regards.— Bagumba ( talk) 07:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
User:Bagumba voted to keep Amora based on the addition of links to bios of other people with the same name to that article. Since that vote, I did extensive work on all four of the other articles. Both Dream and Reverie also now include links to other bios to people with the same names, just as Amora does. They meet the same WP:SETINDEX criteria that Amora does. All four of them are referenced. I also still say the claim to WP:GNG is met by media coverage of their inclusion on the top 1,000 list of most popular names and/or their recent increase in popularity. Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 11:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete all The sourcing is almost invariably fluff like "top x baby names", "top trending names", blogs or government databases, with little if any in-depth discussion of the names themselves or any demonstration of long-term significance. I'll refer to the nominator's comments above for a more detailed description. Amora can be deleted too, there's already a dab page for the term itself and there's no need to split it for the sake of two people. Avilich ( talk) 01:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete all Per nom and Avilich. 4meter4 ( talk) 07:13, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete all As per Avilich. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment. I’ll say again that three of the four articles include links to biographies of people with the name, which meets WP:SETINDEX and they are formatted exactly like dozens of existing name articles on Wikipedia. I think they are notable for other reasons as well. The “fluff” references referred to include published references and news articles as well as blogs by people who have been quoted as experts on the topic in the New York Times and other publications. Self-published articles can be acceptable references when they are by experts. Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 01:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC) reply

SETINDEX doesn't mean GNG, NLIST or other guidelines don't have to be met, and GNG is what matters here. Picking sources at random, one finds such things as "The Baby Name Wizard: A Magical Method for Finding the Perfect Name for Your Baby"; "100,000+ Baby Names name book"; names databases (nameberry.com, government websites); a blog titled "Bewitching Names: Naming Enthusiasm from a Wiccan Perspective". Whatever reliable sources may be found all contain passing mentions only. None of this comes close to meeting GNG. If there are any publications by "experts" (whatever that means with regard to names) here I must've missed them, but caution is urged even for expert SPS sources. Avilich ( talk) 04:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Also several of those listed on "Dream" have it as pseudonyms, and so don't qualify for a SETLIST other than a dab page. Avilich ( talk) 04:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Laura Wattenberg and the authors of the Nameberry site have both been quoted as experts on naming trends in various articles in assorted publications. The books that were cited by them were published by independent publishers. Blogs and newspaper articles with commentary on individual names and commenting on the data from government databases does go to the general notability of all of these names. These are also no different than any number of already existing name articles on Wikipedia. This conversation has dragged out for over a month. I’ve improved the articles to try to address concerns but I have not changed my position. They are all notable. Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 13:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Their work consists of names in general. Their coverage of individual names will most likely be insufficient for GNG to be met for each of them, as it is here. Avilich ( talk) 14:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Each of these articles includes references to full length blog entries on the history and usage and meaning(s) of a particular name and references to its increase in popularity. Several of the blogs are by authors who have published works by independent publishers and/or have been quoted as experts in articles in prominent newspapers about names. In any event, this discussion has gone on for over a month and my position is simply not going to change. I have given good reasons why these articles are notable and should be kept. Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 21:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. While there are quite a few keep comments, they were all from SPAs and did not put forth how the article subject was notable. After they were given the appropriate weight, the consensus is to delete Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Nataraj S. Bhat

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

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

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:

{{subst:
spa|username}}

; suspected canvassed users:

{{subst:
canvassed|username}}

; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry:

{{subst:
csm|username}}

or

{{subst:
csp|username}}

.

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

Effectively bit-part actor. promo article. Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:SIGCOV. Refs are PR. scope_creep^Talk 08:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. the movies he acted are not quite notable. WP:NACTOR surely fails here. -- Morpho achilles ( talk) 11:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Nataraj S Bhat is notable actor and has acted in many films including Rama Rama Re which has received the Karnataka State film award which is one of the prestigious award given to any Kannada film Industry. Also the articles are cited with top selling newspaper in India. This article is published after the actor has acted in 4 films and 4 in production. Also the Actor page is also cited to other wikipedia articles in which the actor has acted. So i would not see any reason for this page for deletion. I am ready to discuss and provide further facts if required to keep this page as I beleive this page is prepared by me only for purpose of knowledge sharing. Sridharkamath ( talk) 13:37, 17 June 2022 ( Sridharkamath ( talk) 13:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment He is a bit-part actor with real role and has barely worked. scope_creep^Talk 08:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment He has worked as lead role in " Rama rama re " and aall the listed films and works are for notable in Kannada industry. As per my opinion the article should not be deleted -- Sudheerbs ( talk) 08:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Sudheerbs ( talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. reply

Comment This page should not be speedily deleted because,nataraj S Bhat is a well known actor who has acted in Kannada cinema and serials.His recent release "Man Of the Match" has made sound all over Karnataka and was Produced by PRK productions Owned by Punith Rajkumar. Hence I am very much supporting the page & opposing the deletion of this page . A simple Google search on Nataraj S Bhat would have solved the question. Page needs to stay.-- Sanjana Ninjoor ( talk) 12:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Sanjana Ninjoor ( talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. reply

The actor is so inconsequential that IMDB records 3 roles for this actor. He is entirely non-notable. Stating he is well-known without coverage is completely disengenious. scope_creep^Talk 12:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment: This page need to be present in Wikipedia. Nataraj S Bhat is quite notable actor. He has also worked as assistant director for many TV serials. He became famous by his role in the Kannada movie Rama Rama Re. The movie and he himself have won awards for that movie. A lot need to be written about Kannada movie industry in English media and Wikipedia. Since a lot is missing in English media about Kannada movie industry, people sitting at another corner of the world think that some person is not notable, some movie is not notable, some book is not notable, etc. This kind of unresearched opinionated action by some overenthusiastic persons is becoming detrimental to Kannada. Many people are quitting editing English Wikipedia because of these actions of established editors of English Wikipedia. 'I strongly object the deletion of the article on Nataraj S Bhat and vote to keep it'.- Pavanaja ( talk) 06:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Don't use non-standard wikimedia markup in a WP:THREAD/ WP:TALK context unless its specific to the environment like for example, WP:GA, anywhere on Wikipedia. I see your a drive-by virtual SPA. What policy exactly is it your quoting? scope_creep^Talk 06:13, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACTOR. With only one significant role, he does not meet the “multiple significant roles” requirement of our notability policy for actors. 4meter4 ( talk) 06:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment: I strongly oppose to delete this article. Nagaraja S Bhat is a notable person in Kannada Film industry and Television shows. Mahaveer Indra ( talk) 07:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Mahaveer Indra ( talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. reply
Comment I think there is off-site canvassing here. Another WP:SPA. scope_creep^Talk 08:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Creative Arts. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 23:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Ghana Tourism Development Company

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

Tourism bureau doesn't seem to meet WP:NORG- lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Ghana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Redirect to parent Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Creative Arts; not implausible search term. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 09:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Redirect to parent Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Creative Arts as per WP:ATD. Topic fails NORG. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was 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 13:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

BIST (title)

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

Neologism proposed by The Root (magazine) [33] but which has not gained any traction in the two years since. Fram ( talk) 08:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Awards, and United States of America. Fram ( talk) 08:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete as non-notable neologism. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 18:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 07:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Caroline Cherotich

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

No evidence found of any notability, nothing in GNews and very little in Google in general, and sources in article are one source not about her but about the company, one source that doesn't seem to work, and one not independent source. Fram ( talk) 08:01, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Finance, and Kenya. Fram ( talk) 08:01, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete no sources found, one mention of an AK-47 going off. Assume un-related. Oaktree b ( talk) 11:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete. As per the nom, this fails WP:GNG -- Rabbiweiner ( talk) 14:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to List of programs broadcast by UNTV. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 07:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

UNTV Hataw Balita Pilipinas

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

No indication found of any notability for this program Fram ( talk) 07:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Philippines. Fram ( talk) 07:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete Non-notable morning newscast of UNTV (Philippines), which is a mess all its own. Once again, there needs to be basic quality control on Filipino TV articles dealing with newscasts. Nate • ( chatter) 04:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Retarget to List of programs broadcast by UNTV where it is mentioned. -- Lenticel ^(
talk) 00:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Redirect to List of programs broadcast by UNTV as this page just created at exactly 43 minutes before this discussion open, definitely fails WP:TVSHOW. CruzRamiss2002 ( talk) 13:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 07:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Khalfan Musabbeh Al Kaabi

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

Only sources are the same press release repeated multiple times, and it doesn't confirm any of the facts in the article. Perhaps he is notable and the article is just poorly written, but it looks as if there is no notability yet, just some promotion. Fram ( talk) 07:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Journalism, and United Arab Emirates. Fram ( talk) 07:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete: Poorly written, and also per nom. Alpha Piscis Austrini ( talk) 14:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - no claim to notability nor evidence of it Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Fram thanks for your support kindly remove the message for article for deletion

thanks Khaledahmed1992 ( talk) 09:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Aiken, Illinois

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

All evidence I've found is that this was a point on a new-vanished C&NW line, not a town in any sense. Mangoe ( talk) 04:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep. You can just search for it in Google maps and see it. There's not much, but there's something. Nearby Properties include the Casper Bluff Land & Water Reserve and their website talks about "the nearby community of Aiken".

The Galena River trail has an Aiken Segment link

Other hiking blogs talk about the Aiken Trail

My understanding is that any populated place or historically populated place is presumed notable as per WP:GEOLAND and as I can see houses on google maps, for example 1461 S River Road, this appears to meet the criteria. CT55555 ( talk) 05:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - Unable to locate any sources to support this was a populated place. No mention at The History of Jo Daviess County, Illinois. Magnolia677 ( talk) 07:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep: I added some sources and content and a map I quickly found. "The History of Jo Daviess County, Illinois" was published in 1878, and Aiken wasn't established until about 1887. I see a number of articles about a baseball team playing there too, its name was Aiken something or other. Plainly amateur of course.-- Milowent • ^has
spoken 14:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Milowent: Could you link to some of the baseball articles? I'd really like to find a source to support that this place was populated. Thanks! Magnolia677 ( talk) 10:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Here is one (which I've added to the article) [34] -- you will find it amusing because it is written from the standpoint of people wondering where Aiken was, with Mark Twain like impishness. The baseball team probably played in Aiken as a central location for the surrounding local community -- this was not pro-baseball, just local teams of men playing. Alas there are probably no "Aiken Red Stockings" uniforms around anymore.-- Milowent • ^has
spoken 15:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment A search of Newspaperarchive.com came up with some stuff. A lot of it involves trains, a specific train wreck, and little stuff like people being from aiken or working in aiken. I don't know how useful it is.

bride from Aiken, Illinois

Employed in Aiken, Illinois

Mrs John Basten and daughters Myrtle and Marie were from Aiken, Illinois the basten's

here is an ad that lists a person as being from Aiken.

train wreck train wreck

train stuff train stuff

There's more, but it looks like it's all in the same vein. Jacona ( talk) 13:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk) 06:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep. Added references shows that it meets WP:GNG. Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 12:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 06:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Jared Hassin

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NCOLLATH. BD2412 T 06:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 06:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Wisconsin. Shellwood ( talk) 08:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

~~Delete~~. It also appears that most of the text of this article has been copied and pasted from his bio page on the Army sports website ( 1). How has this existed for 10+ years and not been caught yet? Ugh. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 10:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep. Switching to keep per the excellent rescue work performed by BeanieFan11. Meets WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 23:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

~~Delete~~ Keep - Although I think this player may be notable (see articles [35] [36] [37]), ~~the article as it exists currently is basically one big copyright violation, and it's probably best that it be deleted and started from scratch ( WP:TNT)~~. Hatman31 ( talk) 12:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Hatman31: TNT has been applied and article restarted. Cbl62 ( talk) 17:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Okay, guess I'll change my vote then. Hatman31 ( talk) 00:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

~~Delete~~Keep, ~~this is just a copy and paste for someone who only played for 2 years in college and isn't really notable.~~ Hey man im josh ( talk) 12:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Changing my vote to keep as the article has been improved. Hey man im josh ( talk) 13:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep but remove copyvio. Meets NBIO/GNG People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject, see here (NYT), here, here, and here. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 15:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep. Plainly passes WP:GNG with the coverage cited above by BeanieFan11 ... including an in-depth feature story in the freaking New York Times. Also, I see that the copyvio has now been removed, so that is no longer a basis for deletion. Cbl62 ( talk) 17:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
keep WP:GNG has been met.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 01:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

...And Give Us Our Daily Sex

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

Film appears to fail WP:NFILM with not enough reviews to pass the guidelines, with none found in a BEFORE. DonaldD23 talk to me 04:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Italy, and Spain. DonaldD23 talk to me 04:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 04:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete: None of the content is secondary source content, and none of the sources contain secondary source content. It is all directory information. On google I can find no reviews, excluding user reviews that can’t be used for sourcing. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted via PROD, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 04:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Weak keep. I found a review by Gilbert Adair in The Monthly Film Bulletin ( ProQuest 1305831871) and another by Marjorie Bilbow in Screen International ( ProQuest 963295923)—both are on the shorter side, but I think they probably qualify as significant coverage. (These magazines don't seem to be available in the Wikipedia Library, so if you'd like to check them out for yourself, feel free to email me and I'll send the PDFs.) The article also cites what appears to be a review in Film-Dienst, although I'm not sure if it's sigcov because I can't access the full text. Usually I'd prefer a bit more than this when making a GNG-based argument, but this is a case where WP:NEXIST encourages us to be flexible, in my view. This is a forty-year-old foreign-language film, so it was most likely reviewed in contemporaneous Spanish or Italian film magazines or newspapers that aren't available online. Although "but there might be offline sources!" isn't always a winning argument, !voters should "consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any", and here I think that possibility is fairly high since we've already uncovered several English-language sources that get us most of the way to a GNG pass. I'd consider changing my !vote if someone with access to Spanish/Italian-language periodical archives wasn't able to find satisfactory sourcing. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 23:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep based on WP:NEXIST and Extraordinary Writ's points. Searching the BNE's digital periodical archives for Perisopio and Laura Gemser mentions in 1979 and 1980, [38] there seem to be at least reviews of the film in El Correo de Zamora, La Nueva España, and El Periódico de Catalunya. The exact content isn't accessible by me, but the minimal preview text points to at least some of these being qualifying reviews. — Carter (Tcr25) ( talk) 16:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 04:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Nenad Radulovich

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:NACADEMIC or WP:NSPORT. No unaffiliated significant sources online. JSTOR checks bring up no publications. Iseult^Δx parlez moi 04:24, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Sportspeople. Iseult^Δx parlez moi 04:24, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete. Playing in the Canadian Football League previously gave rise to presumed notability, but no longer. Any my searches didn't turn up WP:SIGCOV. Willing to reconsider if others find such coverage qualifying under WP:GNG. Cbl62 ( talk) 04:48, 19 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete interesting he became a history professor, but he is not notable as a professor. He was drafted in the 5th round, doesn't seem to have made any impact in CFL, and significant coverage is lacking in my search.-- Mvqr ( talk) 11:28, 19 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete, not finding any SIGCOV, and didn't even play in the CFL ( [39]). BeanieFan11 ( talk) 14:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete, Lacking WP:SIGCOV and notability. Hey man im josh ( talk) 12:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Maharathi Karna

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

PROD removed with "Take it to AfD, Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema is no mean thing."

However, even if that is taken as a notable source (which it is), that leaves only 1 good source. The others are database sites, a newspaper ad, and a passing mention in another book.

Need more than just the Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema to be notable. DonaldD23 talk to me 04:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 04:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:GNG; goes on to fail WP:NFO. I feel it could be notable, but there is no evidence of notability here and English search doesn't (and wouldn't necessarily) throw anything up. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 10:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep - Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema, The Indian Express, another book by Ashok Raj, for a film from 1944 - definitely notable. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep as per reliable book sources added to the article for a pre-internet film so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk) 21:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 04:10, 10 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 03:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Jan Ernst (Politician)

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

The subject does not meet WP:NPOL. DanCherek ( talk) 03:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Germany. DanCherek ( talk) 03:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete party functionary who has never held public office. Mccapra ( talk) 03:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete As a 17-years old, he is not "eligible for election" for a public office in Germany. Volunteers for the local (county level) organization of his party. Way under WP:NPOL. -- Ben Ben ^(
talk) 10:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete. People do not get articles just for serving on the local boards of political parties' local organizing committees in individual cities — but there's no claim of overarching notability for other reasons (e.g. having already held an WP:NPOL-passing political office) here, and the sourcing is in no way sufficient to get him over WP:GNG in lieu of having to have a stronger notability claim than just existing as a political organizer. Bearcat ( talk) 14:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete WP:RESUME Nate • ( chatter) 04:15, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Eastern Illinois University. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Carman Hall (Eastern Illinois University)

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

NN college dorm building. Should redirect to the university article where there is a list pf about a dozen other dorms, none with articles. MB 02:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Education, and Illinois. MB 02:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Redirect per nom. Mccapra ( talk) 03:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
At the very least this should be a merge. NemesisAT ( talk) 07:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep Nominator has offered no rationale for deletion. The subject meets WP:GNG and having a separate article is beneficial as it allows readers to find the information easier when searching, and when using the "Nearby" feature on mobile. NemesisAT ( talk) 07:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I said it was NN; that means Non-Notable or does not meet WP:GNG. MB 14:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply
merge back to main university article. This is plainly a content fork where the real story is not the dorm; it's the decline in enrollment. Mangoe ( talk) 12:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
The content is not a fork, I wrote the article from scratch IIRC. NemesisAT ( talk) 14:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
The fact that you wrote it yourself if irrelevant to whether it is a content fork. MB 14:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment The nominator is incorrect, there is another dorm article ( Pemberton Hall (Eastern Illinois University)) linked in the university article. NemesisAT ( talk) 21:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
That is a notable exception because it is on the National Register of Historic Places. The other 10 dorms do not have articles. MB 23:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep or redirect - Keep or redirect to Eastern Illinois University, but do not delete history. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 17:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment: There needs to be an essay or other guidance on covering university buildings. There do exist numerous list-articles about buildings and structures at universities (see Category:Lists of university and college buildings in the United States) or about just residences/dormitories (see Category:Lists of university and college residences in the United States). It's often useful to split these out of overall university articles when details and photos would become undue coverage in the university article.

For this university there do exist at least 8 separate articles about individual buildings. How about making a list-article summarizing about those, and covering more that are not obviously individually notable. The standard for eligibility of list-items can be way lower than that required for separate articles. -- Doncram ( talk) 02:35, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply

A list could be beneficial for navigation but I don't see how deleting the individual articles would benefit the reader. Another benefit of individual pages is that they can be categorised much more specifically which again benefits the reader. NemesisAT ( talk) 17:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply

User:NemesisAT, i didn't mean to suggest all the separate articles should be eliminated. They could be summarized though, and coordinates provided, and seen in context together. This one article, which has relatively little content, could perhaps be eliminated though, leaving a redirect to its coverage in list-article.-- Doncram ( talk) 02:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply

There seems to be an objection from the nominator to letting the target page be aware that the merger is proposed, although it would be a requirement that those who might visit a target page be informed for any other form of merger. I won't editwar to replace the template there or here, but rest assured that they are at least notified on their talk page. Kevin McE ( talk) 19:21, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Redirect Appears to be of minor local interest, therefore non-notable. At most add a couple of sentences to the main article, anything more would distort its significance. Hzh ( talk) 20:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Being of minor local interest does not mean it isn't notable. Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, there is no size limit. NemesisAT ( talk) 12:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply

WP:NOTPAPER is irrelevant to this discussion. Some individual notability guidelines state that local entities need to have some significance to be notable (and the use of the word "minor" means that they are not significant). If you grandmother wins a prize in a local cake baking competition and gets mentioned in local newspapers and a student news site (which seem to be the extent of the sources in this article), that won't make her notable. Hzh ( talk) 21:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NBUILDING. The article is primarily sourced to The Daily Eastern News which is EIU’s student run paper, and to the EIU housing website which is a primary source. These sources do not count as significant coverage because they lack independence from the university. There are only two independent refs in the article, both from The Journal Gazette; however they are routine coverage and I would not consider them significant per NOTNEWS. Even if they were significant, we still do not have the minimum of three independent references to meet GNG. I also oppose a redirect because this is an unlikely search topic and the building is probably not even worth mentioning in the target article because of issues with WP:Undue weight. 4meter4 ( talk) 06:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 05:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Solo Darling

AfDs for this article:

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

Coverage consists of databases and event results and promotions. Pro wrestlers are entertainers and I don't see coverage that meets WP:GNG or any other notability standard. Sandals2 ( talk) 17:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sandals2 ( talk) 17:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Wrestling, and New York. Shellwood ( talk) 18:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete Reading the article, agree. The article just have results as sources, with no focus on her. I made a quick research and most of the sources are results. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 13:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted in an AFD so Soft Delete is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 23:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try to get sufficient input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk) 02:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete per HHH Pedrigree. BilledMammal ( talk) 06:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 02:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Yovi

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

Nigerian singer does not meet the notability guideline. This article was mistakenly re-draftified a few hours after the first draftification was reverted, and now the draftification has been reverted again. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 01:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 01:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete Sent this to AFC as it needed significant work on the references particularly. It moved back out immediatly. Fails WP:SINGER, WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 07:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete — fails WP:MIN. RB ^{Talk to the Beans?} 11:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete as others have said. Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 20:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Anathallo#Discography. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 02:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Luminous Luminescence in the Atlas Position

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

Does not appear to pass WP:NALBUM, article is unsourced and a search only brought up user-generated websites, no reliable reviews. Suggest a redirect to Anathallo. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 01:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Michigan. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 01:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Anathallo#Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP ( talk) 00:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 02:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Paul Okhrem

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, very self-promotional in the absence of WP:SIGCOV. Ari T. Benchaim ( talk) 01:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ari T. Benchaim ( talk) 01:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Mccapra ( talk) 03:50, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete I just nominated his company's article for speedy deletion as promotional, this article ties directly to that. The references here are not about the subject, they are about things about the subject, which is rather different. A loose necktie ( talk) 03:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete Agree, stuff about his companies. Looks like a long-winded Linked In post. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was 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!} 02:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Stevenson Casimir

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 01:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 01:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Weak delete Couldn't find substantive coverage in English; not sure about French-language coverage. Ref. 1 is about his brother Josué Casimir, not Stevenson; Ref. 2 is a score tally for a game; Ref. 3 does not mention Stevenson Casimir; and Ref. 4 is primary for the league he plays in and looks like an interview. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 02:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 03:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:50, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was 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!} 02:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Kévin Moeson

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Only relevant source appears to be [40] but even then that fails GNG and SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 01:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 01:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:50, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 02:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

The Replacement (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)

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

NN TV episode. Article is entirely plot summary. MB 00:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. MB 00:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep Buffy is ridiculously thoroughly discussed in academia. Consider Kreider & Winchell's Buffy in the Classroom: Essays on Teaching with the Vampire Slayer (ISBN 9780786462148), where a multiparagraph discussion of this episode as a metaphor for emerging adulthood ensues. The episode is mentioned multiple times in [41] in a discussion on Xander's evolution. See also [42], note 21 at [43], and that's enough for now. Obviously, this can be added to the article. Jclemens ( talk) 01:50, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep - added some refs. Artw ( talk) 02:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Artw ( talk) 02:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep per sources added. Another AfD submitted without a true BEFORE. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:15, 19 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep, as Jclemens' sources demonstrate notability. Pikavoom ^Talk 12:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 02:15, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Touched (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)

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

NN TV show episode. Article is almost entirely a plot summary, nothing indicates what is notable about this episode. The only ref is a dead link. MB 00:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. MB 00:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep, have added some refs. There is also this "In the first lesbian sex scene ever on American network TV, Willow and Kennedy have sex for the first time", which is a bit different from "almost entirely a plot summary". Artw ( talk) 02:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Artw ( talk) 02:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep This one is harder to source due to the short title yielding a lot of false positives, and the fact that as the antepenultimate episode of the series, much of the commentary on it is in the setup for End of Days and Chosen. Still [44], [45] p. 113, [46] are a start. Jclemens ( talk) 03:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep per sources added. Another AfD done without a true BEFORE. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep, this has the first lesbian sex scene on network TV. There are more sources available in a search. Pikavoom ^Talk 12:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 02:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Square root of 5

AfDs for this article:

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

As noted in WT:AFD#Square roots, having multiple articles for individual square roots is "more than enough". SQRT(2) is special, if for no other reason that it's the first one. The others, not so much. I'll be nominating Square root of 3, Square root of 5, Square root of 6, and Square root of 7. The same argument applies to them all, but I'll make them distinct AfDs because bundled AfDs so often become train wrecks. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: Previous deletion discussion from long ago is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Square root of 5. Dicklyon ( talk) 01:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep. We definitely shouldn't have articles on more than a very small number of these square roots (Maybe only ${\sqrt {2}}$ , ${\sqrt {3}}$ , and ${\sqrt {5}}$ ), but I think ${\sqrt {5}}$ has enough properties to be independently notable. If it were only its appearance in the formula for the golden ratio, we could redirect there, but its appearance in basic geometric shapes having nothing to do with the golden ratio, such as the diagonal length in a $1\times 2$ rectangle, and as the tight constant in Hurwitz's theorem (number theory), give it enough for independent notability. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep per David, especially given Hurwitz's theorem. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 04:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep. Perhaps not as clear-cut as square root of 3, but as explained above (and even in the 2007 AfD), its significance for the golden ratio, Fibonacci numbers, regular pentagon, and Hurwitz's theorem appear to give it enough coverage to pass GNG. [47] [48], for example, notwithstanding the references already present in the article. ComplexRational ( talk) 14:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep per others above as well as the prior AfD discussion. There is clearly a substantial literature concerning special properties of this number. I do not understand the basis for suggesting deletion. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep. For all the above reasons stated, and simply because it is intrinsically connected to the golden ratio. In fact, given a sequence of Fibonacci and Lucas numbers, we can discern that $\lim _{n\to \infty }{\frac {L_{n}}{F_{n}}}={\sqrt {5}}.$ It is such a profoundly powerful simple equation for ${\sqrt {5}}$ , which can be replicated within a rectangle with simple measurements, making it an essential construction. It's not as important as the ${\sqrt {2}}$ , but it is possibly the second most important square root of interest, alongside the square root of three given its universal trigonometric properties. This article is important, lets please keep it; thank you. Radlrb ( talk) 10:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note that in the first deletion nomination discussion, nobody was able to point out any reference that would support notability, of the 6 references at that time. Now, there are 14 references, and a somewhat better suggestion of notability of the square root of 5 as a special number. The arguments there that this number was "inherently notable" were weak, but now I think we're in a better place. Similarly, square roots of a few other small integers are pretty well sourced now. I'll admit that my satirical Square root of 4 article does not have quite the same support in sources, even though I found some good ones. For square roots of 2, 3, 6, and 7, there are pretty good sources. Higher than that, I don't think so. So this is where we draw the line. I don't think an article on the square root of 8 or 9 or 11 would fly; 10 maybe. Dicklyon ( talk) 05:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I don't imagine Square root of -1 would fly either, and I could be induced to make the identical argument for Square root of 0. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Square root of -1 is pretty important and notable, but it has other names. Square root of 1 and square root of 0 are too trivial, since they are just side effects of multiplicative and additive identities, which are well covered elsewhere. Dicklyon ( talk) 16:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply

@ RoySmith: Actually, the square root of minus-1 is one of the very most important numbers for us to have an article about, for both intrinsic and historical reasons, and of course we do have such an article; it is found under the title imaginary unit, to which "square root of -1" is a redirect. The square root of 0 is of course 0 itself, and we obviously have an important article about that number; there is no need for a separate "square root of" article where the "of" number is a perfect square and so the root itself is an integer. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Yes, I am fully aware of that. I was just having some pun. Hence my use of "imagine". I'll leave it to you folks to find the other puns I embedded. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep because of the connections with golden ratio and for other reasons. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep Relatively important in mathematics. 68.198.188.106 ( talk) 22:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ✗ plicit 13:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Square root of 6

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

As noted in WT:AFD#Square roots, having multiple articles for individual square roots is "more than enough". SQRT(2) is special, if for no other reason that it's the first one. The others, not so much. I'll be nominating Square root of 3, Square root of 5, Square root of 6, and Square root of 7. The same argument applies to them all, but I'll make them distinct AfDs because bundled AfDs so often become train wrecks. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep – As in the previous discussion about deleting Square root of 5 from long ago (at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Square root of 5), there is actually a lot of special stuff, and sources supporting independent notability of Square root of 6 here. Dicklyon ( talk) 01:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep per Dicklyon above and the discussions in the related AfDs for the square roots of 3 and 5. There is clearly a substantial literature concerning special properties of this number. I understand there can only be so many articles about square roots of integers, just like there can be only so many articles about integers themselves, but despite that fact, I don't see why this was nominated for deletion. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Weak Keep, not having taken the time to read the article in depth. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Weak Keep This is important, but not as important as Square root of 3 and Square root of 5. Unlike those, I wouldn’t shed a tear if this was deleted. This is because it doesn’t have that much notability above square roots that don’t have articles. 68.198.188.106 ( talk) 22:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Square root of 7

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

As noted in WT:AFD#Square roots, having multiple articles for individual square roots is "more than enough". SQRT(2) is special, if for no other reason that it's the first one. The others, not so much. I'll be nominating Square root of 3, Square root of 5, Square root of 6, and Square root of 7. The same argument applies to them all, but I'll make them distinct AfDs because bundled AfDs so often become train wrecks. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep – As in the previous discussion about deleting Square root of 5 from long ago (at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Square root of 5), there is actually a lot of special stuff, and sources supporting independent notability of Square root of 7 here. Dicklyon ( talk) 01:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep per Dicklyon above and the discussions in the related AfDs for the square roots of 3 and 5. There is clearly a substantial literature concerning special properties of this number. I understand there can only be so many articles about square roots of integers, just like there can be only so many articles about integers themselves, but despite that fact, I don't see why this was nominated for deletion. @ RoySmith: I respectfully suggest you consider withdrawing this group of AfDs. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I nominated it partly on behalf of an anonymous editor in WT:AFD#Square roots, and partly because I agreed with their logic. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep Article makes it clear that this square root is notable as a common guinea pig of manual square root computation methods for centuries. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 18:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep for various reasons including its use as a common textbook exercise. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete Unlike other square roots, this has little notability, perhaps the only one being the diagonal in a rectangle inscribed in an equilateral rule. This doesn’t appear to have too many properties. As such, this begins to be where it becomes too much, for the same reason we don’t have a Square root of 8, etc. I couldn’t find a reason why this is useful and can’t be covered elsewhere, as such, I agree with deletion. 68.198.188.106 ( talk) 22:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 02:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Square root of 3

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

As noted in WT:AFD#Square roots, having multiple articles for individual square roots is "more than enough". SQRT(2) is special, if for no other reason that it's the first one. The others, not so much. I'll be nominating Square root of 3, Square root of 5, Square root of 6, and Square root of 7. The same argument applies to them all, but I'll make them distinct AfDs because bundled AfDs so often become train wrecks. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep. Central in geometry in the measurement of equilateral triangles, hexagons, and cubes, and (unlike ${\sqrt {5}}$ and the golden ratio) with no closely-related number to redirect to. Because of its connection to triangles and cubes, frequently used in refinement of spatial subdivisions. Apparently this number even has significant applications in relativistic physics [49]. Meets GNG: multiple publications have this number as their main topic ( JSTOR 2305032, [50]). We definitely shouldn't have more than a handful of articles on these individual square roots, but I think this one is independently notable. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:50, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep per David Eppstein. Also see previous root 5 deletion discussion from long ago Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Square root of 5. Note that unbundled AfDs may also become train wrecks. Dicklyon ( talk) 03:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep per David's points. The number has clear importance and significant coverage. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 04:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep. Definitely notable, per Wikipedia:Notability (numbers)#Irrational numbers: (1) plenty of sources exist – anything in rudimentary geometry and trigonometry – in addition to special interest in several fields of physics (e.g., power engineering and statistical mechanics), (2) OEIS decimal expansion at A002194 and continued fraction at A040001, (3) the article references The Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers, (4) also known as Theodorus' constant. With this, GNG is satisfied as well. ComplexRational ( talk) 13:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep per others above. There is clearly a substantial literature concerning special properties of this number. I do not understand the basis for suggesting deletion. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep per others above as well. I’m not so versed, but I’d imagine that numerical concepts that have been around for centuries and millennia and studied for as long are bound to have enough intensive studies that them being declared not notable would be an arduous and monumental task. CreecregofLife ( talk) 20:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Strong keep per everything stated. Trigonometric values involving the square root of three are essential. Historically, it has been a number that has interested mathematicians deeply. It's also part of the essential geometries of the triangle and hexagon. It's an article that can definitely be positively expanded, instead of removed. Thank you. Radlrb ( talk) 10:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep because of its importance in trigonometry, and for other reasons. Check for snow in Antarctica or for the viability of snowballs in Riyadh. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep The 30-60-90 triangle is perhaps the second most famous following the 45-45-90, and is known for a side length of 1 opposite the 30, square root of 3 opposite the 60, and 2 opposite the 90. This helps for some of the core values of trigonometry, like tangent of 30° and 60°, sine of 60° and cosine of 30°. This square root is very important and notable, and should be kept. 68.198.188.106 ( talk) 22:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 02:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Xerosydryle

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

Xerosydryle is a non-notable topic. The article confuses many ideas and is misleading. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 00:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 00:15, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete Only one source mentions this term, and all search results are by the authors of that study. See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry#Request_for_advice_from_new_page_patroller. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 00:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Note I went for advice to WikiProject Chemistry on this and the resultant substantial discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry#Request for advice from new page patroller North8000 ( talk) 00:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Supramolecular chemistry (or maybe there is a better target) and add a mention of the term with the only ref that cites it. Certainly should not persist in its current form, given the above, but I think adding a sourced mention at a broader article is a good WP:ATD in this case. That said, I would not be opposed to deletion. Mdewman6 ( talk) 00:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:GNG, specifically "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability". (It's still not clear to me whether this is a hoax, prank, social experiment, or very bad science.) IpseCustos ( talk) 10:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
- - User:IpseCustos - It appears to be very bad science. It appears to be polywater, which was very bad science. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete as WP:FRINGE. There is superficial similarity with the concept of dry water, which is an emulsion of water (~95%) surrounded by silica (~5%). However, Germano et al. claim that their material is "predominantly water". In their recent DOI:10.14294/WATER.2021.2, methods of preparation include dipping cannabis in water and in a revealing discussion, apparently with a referee, that's included after the main text the authors say We were briefly treating the biological implications of the Xerosydryle existence and discovery in our other papers, suggesting that it may be the matrix of life itself. When the Xerosydryle is dissolved in water, in particular, it shows Circular Dichroism. Future research, not easy to perform, will be devoted to understanding if the right- or left-handed chirality is preferred under certain conditions; this may provide clues to understanding why almost all biologically produced chiral amino acids are left-handed, or about the dominance of the right-handed B-form of DNA. This is so bonkers as to defy comment. Mike Turnbull ( talk) 12:15, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete I'm going to follow the lead of the chemistry expert Wikipedians on this. North8000 ( talk) 13:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete per the "so bonkers as to defy comment" rationale. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - This is a different version of polywater, a form of water that is said to behave in a non-liquid way under ordinary conditions. It is almost certainly pathological science in which the experimenter is self-deceived. If it is studied enough in depth, it might merit a future article, but only as pathological science, not as a real material or class of materials. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply

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

[1] Partridge, Jennifer (4 February 2006). "Calgarian gets break as girl next door". Calgary Herald; Calgary, Alta. [Calgary, Alta]. pp. D5. Retrieved June 3, 2022.

[:1-2] Krishnamurthy, Chaitra (August 15, 2020). "'Beware of Mom': Meet Crystal Allen, Rene Ashton and rest of the cast of Lifetime's thriller movie". meaww.com. Retrieved 2022-06-03.

[3] ttps://www.judoinside.com/judoka/20411/Tammy_Hostetler/judo-career

[4] Wilson, Chris (10 May 2016). "Why There Are So Many More Names for Baby Girls". Time.com. Time. Retrieved 17 May 2022.

[5] Rosenkrantz, Linda; Satran, Pamela (2007). The Baby Name Bible: The Ultimate Guide by America's Baby-Naming Experts. St. Martin's Griffin. ISBN 978-0312352202.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[1]

[2]