Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin
< April 20 April 22 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to The Red Paintings#Discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 23:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feed the Wolf[edit]

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

Redirect to band's page. This particular album isn't very notable, not enough ample coverage. Citations consist of user-generated reviews and trivial mentions in articles about the band's touring, for the most part. Mooonswimmer 23:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Australia. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:30, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Red Paintings#Discography. You may have noticed that a lot has been happening lately with the articles for this band and its many independent album releases. Some of their albums qualify for their own articles, but I don't think this one does. As the nominator said, it is dependent on sources that are brief announcements of its existence, or user-generated bloggy reviews, or things describing the band's larger history. I can find nothing else useful. Articles for many of the band's other albums have recently been redirected to their main article, and there is little reason not to do the same here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Red Paintings#Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think there are sufficient independent reliable sources to pass WP:ALBUM and have this as a stand-alone article. I have recently supplied further reviews of the EP.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC) Redirect I have been convinced by the following arguments to change my position. Let this article lead to parent article's discography.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you point them out? Only two of the articles cited seems to help the album fulfill WP:ALBUM, and I can't really vouch for their reliability. Mooonswimmer 16:50, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are at least three reviews: Current ref [5] theDwarf.com.au, ref [6] FasterLouder.com.au and ref [11] The Program. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ref [5] leads to a seemingly user-generated review by "iain69", who has about 5 reviews on "TheDwarf". How exactly is that significant, reliable coverage? Same goes for the review on FasterLouder. Written by NiteShok, a teenage "contributor" to the site, which is a status easily attained after you create an account on the platform and demonstrate some interest by submitting an application. Not sure about Ref [11], but it might not be independent coverage, even if it did count as significant. Mooonswimmer 03:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See the user-generated content section within the guidelines for reliable sources. Reviews written by fans and consumers are not reliable, instead we need reviews written by professionals with editorial oversight. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Momposónica[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be notable. Couldn't spot any significant coverage. PepperBeast (talk) 23:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Colombia, and New Jersey. PepperBeast (talk) 23:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: according to their Facebook page, the band split up in December 2011. Their entire recorded output appears to be the 2006 self-titled debut album mentioned in the article, a second album Sistemas de Cambio in 2010, and an EP Juno in 2011. There doesn't appear to be any other reliable source apart from the AllMusic biography and album review. Note that the article is essentially a word-for-word cut-and paste from the band's biography on their website [1], so even if this is kept, it has WP:COPYVIO issues. Richard3120 (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Bio on website seems to be copy-pasted from Wikipedia, rather than the other way around, but this is a BLP with no inline citations and a borderline A7. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Earl and Dallas[edit]

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

Non-notable musical group. PepperBeast (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Sweden. PepperBeast (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I A7ed it right at the beginning. Another editor (not finding it to meet A7) PRODded it instead. The author rewrote the article, removing the PROD tag, and then I guess there was no follow-up on the deletion front. But even today a web search shows no signs of notability, only social media and, apart from those, obituaries for at least three people who all had brothers named Earl and Dallas. Largoplazo (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There's definitely more said/written about the band in third-party sources than mentioned in the discussion here. A news piece focused on the band in TV4 Jönköping, a short piece in Vetlanda-Posten ("Earl and Dallas till regionfinal") in 2013, another one in Smålands-Tidningen ("Tar ton i sångkamp") the same year, and then a number of mentions in Swedish newspapers articles which aren't focused on the band. But might still be difficult to build an article on that material. //Julle (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Delete as it has been PROD'd.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I just do not see any notability here. NBAND includes the note asserting that sources must be Independant. Passing mention does not advance notability. Also, it should be noted that this involves people so BLP related. A search of the record label returns "Earl and Dallas" so does not appear notable and could be self-published. -- Otr500 (talk) 10:10, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shaz (Rapper)[edit]

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

Non notable musician fails WP:NMUSIC Xclusivzik (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet.Xclusivzik (talk) 10:00, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see only editors with very low edit counts offering their opinion here. It would be nice to see some participation for editors with experience at AFD discussions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This Hindu article carries a passing mention. This one doesn't even mention his name, as does the Indian Express article. The remaining Hindu article carries a paragraph, most of which is a quote. No other WP:RS readily seen from internet searches; I invite the previous voters to please link to the more than a dozen good profile pieces in reliable sources. Hemantha (talk) 09:51, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Electronical Suicide[edit]

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

Couldn't find any coverage. Non-notable band. PepperBeast (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muzaic[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be notable. No significant coverage. PepperBeast (talk) 23:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:17, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Futsal positions[edit]

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

WP:NOTHOWTO, WP:IINFO. Tagged for sources and cleanup since 2010. Deprodded without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Lists. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and also WP:NOR. The only thing of any little value is that image of the positions which would suit the main article, all the rest is unencyclopedic and doesn't belong anywhere. Ajf773 (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:IINFO. Been more than a decade that nothing good has been done with the article. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:55, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not needed. GiantSnowman 19:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As er nom, it fails WP:IINFO. MickyShy (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - If this page should be deleted per the above arguments, why not Basketball positions, Baseball positions, and American football positions? I don't see how you could want to delete this one and not those. A used book search comes up with many how-to books on futsal, which discuss the positions. Now, I agree the article itself sucks! But AfD is not about whether the sources are in the article, but whether the sources exist, and just clicking on the book search above shows lots of potential sources. Jacona (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep futsal is an internationally renowned sport, not sure what value there is in deleting this.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The current article violates large portions of WP:NOT, so even if notability were marginal it should not be kept under the guidance of WP:N. — Mhawk10 (talk) 02:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Numerically, the "keep" opinions are clearly in the majority, but consensus is determined also by strength of argument, based on applicable policies and guidelines.

In this respect, there are two types of argument on the "keep" side: (a) the footballer has played many international matches (I assume that is what is meant by "caps"), and (b) there is substantial coverage about him in reliable sources. The "delete" side argues that (a) is irrelevant with respect to inclusion, and that (b) is not the case.

With respect to (a), the "delete" side has clearly the stronger case: lengthy community discussions have determined, and codified in inclusion guidelines, that playing matches is an indicator of notability, but not proof of it. I must therefore discount all opinions that make only argument (a).

With respect to (b), I cannot determine consensus, because people disagree (as one may in good faith) about whether what sources we have meet the requirements of WP:GNG. I don't think that I can or should decide this disagreement by "supervote".

As a result, we do not have consensus among those contributors who make arguments based on our community-agreed rules, and accordingly the article is kept by default. A new AfD, preferably one focused only on analyzing the existing sources, remains possible.

This closure overturns a previous non-administrator closure, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 April 24. Sandstein 16:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Campbell (footballer)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability; just database entries Ficaia (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • He still has to pass WP:GNG regardless of how many national team games he has played in. The stuff.co.nz article is a fairly routine transfer piece that does not count as a WP:SIGCOV. I have no idea how reliable The Ultimate New Zealand Soccer Website is but if it is then that article could count go towards GNG. But more is needed, at least couple of additional significant sources. I did a little search but couldn't really find anything substantial. Alvaldi (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ultimate NZ Soccer is a self published source; I have not been able to identify the author, as their are images of him but no name, suggesting that WP:SME is not met. I've also removed the source from the article, because even if he is a SME, we cannot use self published sources on a BLP. BilledMammal (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ultimate NZ Soccer is the ultimate source for NZ Football and is on the list for WP:FOOTY as the most reliable souce. It is looked after by Jeremy Ruane who is the go to person for NZ football, even by New Zealand Football itself. Published in books by NZF as well as on RSSSF.— NZFC(talk)(cont) 02:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed it from that list. Even if he is a SME, and I think we need further discussion on whether he meets that criteria as I don't believe the situation is as clear as you appear to, his website primarily covers BLP's and since as a SPS it cannot be used on BLP's we should not be encouraging its use. BilledMammal (talk) 03:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first source Lugnuts cites above is promising, as it actually provides commentary on his games. But the information doesn't seem verifiable. I don't think one source of dubious reliability is good enough. Ficaia (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject lacks enough WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG. WP:NSPORTS makes it very clear that all athletes must pass GNG and there is no automatic notability for playing for a national team. If other editors have better luck in finding significant coverage I am more than happy to change my !vote. Alvaldi (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are sources online, played international football. I agree this is a bad nomination. Govvy (talk) 10:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Govvy Could you kindly post some of those online sources here that show that he passes GNG? Alvaldi (talk) 10:44, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
reply @Alvaldi: Being selected to play for your national team will pass GNG on multiple sources, look the BBC noted him. So get off your high horse and you can perform WP:BEFORE also instead of posting silly asks like above. Govvy (talk) 11:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Govvy I did search for sources and did not find enough significant coverage for him to pass the general notability guideline, something that all athletes must pass. And despite lots of assertions of notability and claims of a bad nomination and that there WP:MUSTBESOURCES, nobody here has been able to establish any evidence that the subject has enough significant coverage to pass GNG (the BBC bit is a brief mention of him and does not go towards GNG). So it is not a silly question to ask editors to back upp their claims. Alvaldi (talk) 12:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While not all-encompassing by any means, the New Zealand Herald, a generally reliable source per WP:RSPSS, alone has 250+ results for "Jeff Campbell" on their website, search here. These include overwhelmingly soccer-related articles so we know they're regarding the subject in question. Additionally, a quick and basic Google search also finds various other sources such as this, this, this, this, etc. GauchoDude (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Which of those articles would you say are the three best? I clicked two of your links; the second one has the most passing of passing mentions, and the third doesn't even have prose concerning Cambell (he's just included in a list of players on the team). No number (not even 250+) of examples like that would not pass GNG. JBL (talk) 13:30, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as per above the title is passing notable criteria for a sports person who played in International. Jeni Wolf (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Surprising nomination of an All White who meets GNG. Schwede66 17:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - another poor nomination; international player with significant coverage, meets GNG, is notable. GiantSnowman 21:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sorry, what? A player with 16 international caps being AfD'd? If the other nominations are this bad, then perhaps an AfD topic ban is warranted. Number 57 10:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Most of the sources provided are just passing mentions in articles about games that he played in, even among the several hundred Google results that someone linked. The Ultimate New Zealand Soccer Website might give us one good source, but that's still not enough to meet GNG. I would remind folks that there is no presumed notability for football players, even at the international level. –dlthewave ☎ 15:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG as sufficient WP:SIGCOV is not available. I note this statement: A player with 16 international caps being AfD'd? If the other nominations are this bad, then perhaps an AfD topic ban is warranted. The first sentence is flawed, given the consensus to remove WP:NFOOTY, and the second sentence is inappropriate for this location - it should be discussed on the users talk page or at ANI. BilledMammal (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - with 16 international caps, this nomination is absurd, failing WP:BEFORE and completely ignores long-standing consensus. A quick Google search yields GNG coverage such as this. Article needs improving, not deleting. Nfitz (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is one example of significant coverage from a reliable source, but given that we require multiple to keep the article, and that eleven editors before you !voted without finding it, it isn't accurate to say that WP:BEFORE was failed. BilledMammal (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I stopped looking after the first - which took seconds. Common sense says that anyone with 16 caps (and 5 goals) for the All Whites is going to be notable. If before fails to find this, then it's pretty clear that the BEFORE was not done properly and that the person doing the nomination has little familiarity about the sport, and shouldn't be editing in this area. It's not like I had to hunt for long - I simply tossed Jeff Campbell "All Whites" into a search engine - and out the hits start coming - despite the very common name. As for multiple sources being required, User:BilledMammal - there's no rule about that - merely a guideline. Are you really suggesting that there won't be a second source? What about the ones that were added to the article after your comment (I haven't looked at them to be honest, or Googled any further since I found the first article in seconds). Nfitz (talk) 04:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • And yet the eleven editors before you didn't find it. If they couldn't, it's not unreasonable that the nominator did not. As for the other sources, see the source assessment table below.
        And while guidelines like WP:GNG are not policy, they are rules that we should follow outside of rare exceptions. BilledMammal (talk) 05:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can't for a second imagine that 11 editors actually bothered wasting their time looking after such a monumentally poor nomination. If you actually think they all did, I'm concerned about your competence to edit here.
        Guidelines are literally not rules; by definition they provide guidance. If Guidelines were rules, then the Crown would have successfully prosecuted those responsible for the Walkerton Tragedy for what they actually did, rather than for peripheral reasons. In this analogue, we must follow policies, not guidelines. Were there guidelines about football players (there aren't I note) they'd quickly tell us that those with a dozen international caps in a nation with significant reporting about national team activities, would be notable, and that people shouldn't be wasting time with such poor nominations! Nfitz (talk) 05:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Regardless of what you call them, we follow both policies and guidelines unless there is a strong reason not to - in this case, as there is no overriding policy, and no reason to apply WP:IAR, we follow them.
        And if editors are voting to keep without any reason other than an assumption that such players are notable - an assumption that was recently rejected in an RFC - then that is a larger issue than whether an editor properly followed WP:BEFORE. BilledMammal (talk) 05:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        We don't have to apply IAR for this nomination. GNG is met. My point is that we all know that an All Whites player with a dozen caps is going to end up meeting GNG if we dig long enough. All this process does is wastes everyone's precious time - time that could be better spent improving the project. Nfitz (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Though to be honest now I've looked, I don't find any of User:NealeWellington's new references particularly compelling after a quick browse. A simple mention in The Age might confirm a fact, but it doesn't count much to notability - or else anyone run over by a streetcar in Melbourne would have an article. What we need are articles about Campbell in particular. This one isn't the greatest, but it jumped out at me in Google without digging too deep. Nfitz (talk) 05:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • That source is better than all except the NZ Herald source, but I don't think it amounts to significant coverage by itself - although if we can find a few of that length, combined with the NZ Herald source, would be enough to switch my !vote to keep.
        I've looked into the search you mentioned, but unfortunately couldn't find any additional significant coverage - most are passing mentions, or references to people with a similar name. I did a similar search working through the rest of the teams he played for, but the result was the same. BilledMammal (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I disagree, and think it does count for significant coverage. There's certainly other similar shorter articles primarily about him over the decades, such as Gale A84518769, which I'll add to the article. Nfitz (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note enough talk - needs editing. Have started adding his international career - more than enough for notability. Might not complete tonight as many sources are not on line. NealeWellington (talk) 09:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Updated added references to two national newspaper articles, and two international ones - although I don't know if The Age Melbourne counts - might just be a small local rag. NealeWellington (talk) 09:53, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep international All White with 16 caps that is clearly sourced.— NZFC(talk)(cont) 02:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.worldfootball.net/player_summary/jeff-campbell/ Yes Yes No Statistics only database ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20160726223349/http://www.ultimatenzsoccer.com/Scoreboard/northern_league_first_divisi.htm Yes No Self published source (in BLP) No Not mentioned in source ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20150413041605/http://www.aff.org.nz/index.php?id=44&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=2622&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=1&cHash=2f60aa2fa7 ? ? No Mentioned in a list of players ✘ No
https://www.ultimatenzsoccer.com/Australia/03mar00.htm Yes No Self published source (in BLP) Yes ✘ No
"De Jong voted player of year" Yes Yes ? Offline source, assumedly not as is focuses on De Jong ? Unknown
https://web.archive.org/web/20081007054503/http://www.ultimatenzsoccer.com/NZRepSoccer/id1708.htm Yes No Self published source (in BLP) No Mentioned in a list of players ✘ No
http://web.archive.org/web/20060511120915/https://www.ultimatenzsoccer.com/NZRepSoccer/id1842.htm Yes No Self published source (in BLP) No Mentioned in a list of players ✘ No
https://www.theage.com.au/sport/soccer/for-new-zealand-its-all-white-on-the-night-20020710-gdudmh.html Yes Yes No Passing mention; "Jeff Campbell added a fourth in the 50th minute and grabbed a second in the 76th" ✘ No
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/soccer-all-whites-reprieve-for-campbell/7U7FTIYUAL53OLAUKOV4KULP6A/ Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
https://fijisun.com.fj/2008/11/10/all-whites-name-strong-squad/ Yes ? No Mentioned in a list of players ✘ No
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/19724/All-Whites-squad-named Yes Yes No Passing mention; "Waitakere's Jeff Campbell keeps his place in the squad that travelled to Wales and is one of three players" ✘ No
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/internationals/6653245.stm Yes Yes No Two sentence passing mention ✘ No
http://web.archive.org/web/20060511120915/https://www.ultimatenzsoccer.com/NZRepSoccer/id1842.htm Yes No Self published source (in BLP) No Mentioned in a list of players ✘ 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}}.
BilledMammal (talk) 05:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm puzzled what issue remains, if you agree that the NZ Herald article meets GNG. If you recall WP:SPORTCRIT was revised so that biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. As SPORTCRIT is met, then NSPORTS is met. What's the issue? Nfitz (talk) 05:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot to include the second sentence of that point, which states Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article. Given the existence of that source, it is worth looking for more, but as a single source does not indicate notability we must delete this article if we cannot find them. BilledMammal (talk) 05:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing how someone who wants to delete all sports articles managed to write a table to claim that a sportsperson isn't notable... Listed things at not reliable sources because they're offline/you don't know thinks about them is bullshit. Which is what this source evaluation is- an attempt to propaganda people into delete votes. It does not accurately depict the sources at all, and should be ignored by the closing admin as pointy. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nfitz found an online version of the offline source; it says while budding international Jeff Campbell pipped professional apprentices Chris Killen (Manchester City) and Allan Pearce (Barnsley) to take the young player award. It is not significant coverage. BilledMammal (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Don't just use All Whites but New Zealand Football and Soccer (was known as soccer back in the day). Found these sources that I'd try add later but I'm on mobile. Stuff, NZ Herald and this possible offline source with the National Library. — NZFC(talk)(cont) 05:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Stuff source is the one that Nfitz and I were discussing above, and the New Zealand Herald source is primarily focused on his father, not on him. Further, it is the same organization as the one significant source that we have, but WP:GNG requires that the significant coverage come from multiple organizations. The offline source could have something; is anyone able to access it? BilledMammal (talk) 05:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree about your conclusion that the Stuff source isn't significant coverage; it's far more than a trivial mention. It's reliable. It's a secondary source independent of it's subject. Nfitz (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as I consider he has sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG and I disagree with BilledMammal's assessment. There was easily enough to expand the article to outline a significant portion of his soccer career, without getting into various off-line publications. What was easy to find points towards there being considerably more information as I have not yet researched the various games he played in or his early soccer background. NealeWellington (talk) 08:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sources in the article show this person clearly passes WP:GNG, no matter how many time the anti-sports deletionists shout delete at it. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes GNG (already presented). Don't understand the nomination and the "need" to try and delete sports articles. Kante4 (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - on balance, the sources presented (excluding the usual squad lists and stats repositories) just about meet the GNG in my opinion. The point made above about him not being the main subject of one of the articles is neither here nor there since GNG states that a topic does not need to be the main topic of the source material. That being said, I'm genuinely surprised at the lack of general media coverage for a modern international footballer and I think it shows how lenient the now-defunct NFOOTY guidelines really were. I think this one just scrapes by though. BigDom (talk) 07:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment to BigDom - when I first saw this AfD, about a week ago, the article was pretty devoid of references. Those that are there now are from a very brief troll through items that are currently available on the internet. Much of Campbell's career sits in the cross over period when the internet was just taking off and will need research at a library level is needed to improve them. There will be a lot more information in the newspapers of the time and books. I'm leaving that up to people with more of an interest in soccar. NealeWellington (talk) 10:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I've found a couple more refs myself through the Wikipedia Library which are both more than passing mentions. Have struck the "weak" part of my !vote now, I'm satisfied that he meets the GNG. BigDom (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Absurd nomination. Clearly notable, played over a dozen international matches. Stifle (talk) 13:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you identify one source with in-depth coverage? (Even better would be WP:THREE.) --JBL (talk) 11:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See [2]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If this guy had played football for his local pub side I could understand. But he's an international footballer, easily meets WP:GNG. StickyWicket (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 22:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Honestly, some of these nominations are getting to the point that it is making me question editing wikipedia - just ridiculous. Full international with multiple caps in the pre-internet area. Clearly will be other coverage available in written press. Yet articles are created and stay with references to just Hugman. Zanoni (talk) 08:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you identify one source with in-depth coverage? (Even better would be WP:THREE.) --JBL (talk) 11:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See [3]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks— I agree this qualifies as one in-depth source. Is there a second? — JBL (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See 3 and 4 and 5 and 6 etc. If I lived in New Zealand i am sure I could pop into a local library and search for plenty of articles around both the club and international career of this player. I don't and the i cannot use Papers Past as it only goes up to 1971. The whole 'let's try and prove GNG via internet sources' is flawed Zanoni (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first link is clearly not in-depth coverage of Jeff, it’s in-depth coverage of his father with a few side comments about the son. It’s clear that this person is the subject of lots of passing mentions; please read WP:THREE to understand what a good answer to my question would look like. JBL (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it's astonishing how poor the keep votes, as a whole, are. I see a half-dozen content-free personal attacks, I see a large amount of pure WP:ILIKEIT garbage, and I see only a couple of attempts to answer the question that needs answering: are there sources that cover this person in-depth? The essay WP:THREE explains how to do this in a way that would be convincing to people who do not accept the premise that every international soccer player ever should have an article in Wikipedia. --JBL (talk) 11:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't have to reply and complain at everyone that votes a way you dislike- this is clear WP:HOUNDING. There are 32 sources, and seems to meet WP:GNG, no matter how much you shout at and harass people who say it passes GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing I have done is harassing or hounding anyone, let alone yelling — and I haven’t even !voted. So you can fuck right off, thanks. —JBL (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes GNG. I also think deleting quality articles on international footballers do not at all improve the encyclopedia, and so I base my position partly on IAR as well. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Sepúlveda[edit]

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

BEFORE does not show any secondary sources discussing subject significantly. Doesn't meet any notability guideline. AmirŞah 22:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 that sources exist and can be added Star Mississippi 03:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Opglabbeek Formation[edit]

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

De-prodded with a rationale of "sources may exist". Well, we don't build articles on sources "maybe" existing; we build them on ones that do, and I couldn't find jack shit. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The source in the article appears reliable and definitive. I don't know where you were searching but there are multiple mentions just in a Google search in English, for example [5],[6],[7],[8], and probably many more if one were to search in Belgian/Dutch and/or specialist sources. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How did I not find any of those? I got 28 hits on regular Google, and nothing but false positives on GBooks. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article as it stand is pretty stubby, but as Espresso Addict notes, this is not for lack of a wealth of reliable sources on the formation. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a bit hard to search for with Google Scholar because there is a Mesolithic site conplex with "Opglabbeek" in its name. However, numerous English language reliable sources can found by searching for "Opglabbeek" and "Paleocene" in Google Scholar. More sources can be found using "Opglabbeek" and "paleoceen" in Google Scholar. Paul H. (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you kindly add those sources please? Nothing bugs me more than people saying WP:SOURCESEXIST and then not adding them. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given that using Google Scholar and the search terms listed above, I found over 30 - 40 publications potentially related to the Opglabbeek Formation, refutes the idea that this article is a case of WP:SOURCESEXIST as numerous sources do exist if a person uses the correct search terms. I do not understand why I need to compile a list citations, when it is easy enough for a person to find and compile the citations for themselves using Google Scholar and the search terms that I provided. In addition, a person, typically can obtain an usable citation for a source by clicking “ or cite in the botttom line of each entry.
One example of a source is;
Deckers, J. and Matthijs, J., 2017. Middle Paleocene uplift of the Brabant Massif from central Belgium up to the southeast coast of England. Geological Magazine, 154(5), pp.1117-1126.
There are many other papers listed by Google Scholar. However, I have better things that I need to do and can do instead of compiling a list of readily searchable citations that interested parties can accomplish just as easily.
A sigificant source of information is:
Laga, P., Louwye, S., Geets, S. (2001) Paleogene and Neogene lithostratigraphic units (Belgium). Geologica Belgica, 4/1-2:135-152.
In it, a person will find a discussion of the Opglabbeek Formation and numerous sources cited for additional information about it. Paul H. (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also look at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Geology/Notability. Paul H. (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Otr500 is wrong in claiming that "...Laga, P., Louwye, S., Geets, S. (2001) does not allow that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. If a person looks at page 138 of the online PDF file of this Open Access peer-reviewed paper at the link provived, a person finds that multiple publications are cited as sources that provide information about the Opglabbeek Formation. The publications cited by Laga et al. (2001) as sources for the section about Opglabbeek Formation are De Geyter snd Laga (1988b), Felder (1975), Felder et al. (1985), Halet (1932a), Marechal (1993), Marliere (1968), Moorkens (1972a, 1972b, 1982), Schmitz and Stainier (1909), Stainier (1931), Steurbaut (1998) and Vincent (1930). Given that the full citations for these source publications are provided in the reference section of Laga et al. (2001), other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from reliable sources and determine if possible plagerism and copyrights violation occurred. The references cited by Laga et al. (2001) as sources for the section about Opglabbeek Formation refute the unnecessarily profane allegation about there being "jack----" available about this formation as being false. These sources refute the "might possibly be a source out there" notion because they demonstrate that there are indeed sources for an wikipedia article available. Unfortunately, I lack access to these publications.
I find it revealing that two of the three the editors, who vote keep have a history of editing Wikipedia pages about the Earth Sciences, while none of the the editors, who vote delete lack a history history of editing Wikipedia pages about the Earth Sciences. Paul H. (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added comments The criteria for nomination are found at Articles for deletion#Before nominating: checks and alternatives. "D #3" list the requirements. "IF" a search does not produce evidence then an article can be nominated. Those that wish to keep need to show evidence not "many other papers listed by Google Scholar". If we didn't find them then show them. Also, even at that, an examination of sources may still give evidence that they are lacking.
We have editors !voting keep because they like it. One editor has better things to do than to attempt to actually present evidence to keep the article. Another found "30 - 40 publications potentially related". There is constantly a battle that some believe that as long as there might possibly be a source out there (somewhere in the universe) that it is alright to ignore notability and sourcing policies and guidelines.
An editor created this article, Heers Formation, Hannut Formation, Dongen Formation, and Tienen Formation (maybe others) that is sourced from the same source and in some cases two sources that include one of the same authors, and very likely future "Member" articles (see: Hannut Formation#Lithologies and Dongen Formation#Lithology and stratigraphy and possibly others), and this is fantastic. It should be noted that when contested "Responsibility for providing citations" (Burden) should be followed. Why not include sources such as with Houthem Formation even if listed in the wrong section. At the very least sourcing will prevent possible future AFD's because others "may" be concerned with notability and original research issues. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Otr500 wrote “If we didn't find them then show them. They can be found if a person knows where, e.g. a regional geological lexicon, to look for them. Dismissed out of hand as “a general source”, the wealth of sources that “we did not find” in it were overlooked. The sources for the Opglabbeek Formation cited by Laga et al. (2001) include:
De Geyter, G. and Laga. P., I988b. Formatie van Opglabbeek. In Marechal. R. and Laga, P., Yoorstel Iithostratigrafische indeling van het Paleogeen. Belgische Geologische Dienst. Brussel, p. 39-47.
Felder, W.M., 1975. Lithostratigrafie van het Boven-Krijt en het Dano-Montien in Zuid-Limburg en het aangrenzende gebied. In Zagwijn, W.H. & Van Staalduinen, C.J., eds., Toelichting bij de geologische overzichtskaarten van Nederland. Rijksgeologische Dienst Haarlem, p. 63-65
Felder, P.J., Bless, M.J.M., De Myttenaere, R., Dusar, M., Meesen, J.P.M.T. and Robaszyski, F., 1985. Upper Cretaceous to Early Tertiary deposits (Santonian - Paleocene) in north-eastern Belgium and South Limburg (the Netherlands) with reference to the Campanian and Maastrichtian. Professional Papers – Geological Survey of Belgium, 1985/1 (214): 1-151.
Halet, F., 1932b. La geologie du flanc occidental de la vallee de la Meuse a l'ouest de d'enclave de Maestricht d'apres Jes sondages d'etude du Canal Albert. Bulletin de la Societe beige de Geologie, 42: 195-225.
Marechal, R., 1993. A new lithostratigraphic scale for the Palaeogene of Belgium. Buller in Belgische Vereniging voor Geologie, 102 ( 1-2): 215-229.
Marliene, R., 1968. Projet de legende stratigraphique du Cretace superieur. Professional Papers Belgische Geologische Diensr, 14: 1-4.
MOORKENS, Th., 1972b. Foraminiferen uit het stratotype van het Montiaan en uit de onderliggende lagen van de boring te Obourg. (Meteen overzicht van de stratigrafie van het Paleoceen van Belgie). Naruunverenschappe/ijk Tijdschrift, 54: 117-127.
MOORKENS, Th., 1982. Formanifera of the Montian stratotype and of subjacent strata in the "Mons well 1969" with a review of the Belgian Paleocene Stratigraphy. Toelichrende Verhandelingen voor de Geologische en Mijnkaarten van Belg ii!, 17 (2): 186 p.
Schmitz, G. and Stanier, X., 1909. La geologie de la Campine avant les puits des charbonnages. Deuxieme note preliminaire. Le Landenien, le Heersien et le Montien de la Campine. Bulletin de la Societe beige de Geologie, 23: P-V292-296.
Stainier, X., 1931. Le Montien et le Heersien du Hainaut, de la Campine et de la Hollande. Bulletin de la Societe beige de Geologie, 41: 10-35.
Steurbaut, E., 1998. High-resolution holostratigraphy of Middle Paleocene to Early Eocene strata in Belgium and adjacent areas. Palaeonrographica, Abt. A, 247 (5-6): 91-156.
Even more sources can be found in Google Scholar and other venues. Paul H. (talk) 04:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems pretty obvious to me. We've got sources, now the only thing left to do is add them. (I also have a bit of a pet peeve for people who search for sources and then don't use them.) casualdejekyll 17:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I went through and added some of the sources that have been quarreled about here, as well as adding some info, an infobox, and generally sprucing up the page. This article pretty much blows WP:NGEO out of the water. AviationFreak💬 21:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article needs a lot of work, but verifiable sources are available. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 01:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mamula (film)[edit]

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

Notability is not evident, does not meet WP:NF; rejected from publication from draft space at Draft:Mamula (film), but AFC process was inappropriately circumvented BOVINEBOY2008 21:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Does not meet verifiability standards. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 21:41, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Easily meets notability requirements. The movie has received a ton of coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

It had a mainstream cinema distribution in Serbia and Montenegro171523 and aired on Serbia's public broadcaster.14 Zvonko (talk) 04:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: I am glad this was added to the laundry list above. I thought the long list of sources might be a horrible attempt at refbombing by Zvonko. when I see this that only has Dragan Bjelogrlic for the film "Montevideo, see you" 10 million and Milan Todorovic for "Mamula" 4,800,000 dinars. When I assume on good faith that there is "a ton of coverage in reliable sources", I am not impressed with some very passing mention of a movie receiving financing on a site that gives more prominence to the lingerie ad and cost to buy. I had no desire to dig through more junk in hopes of finding something. Since IMDb is not a reliable source and Rotten Tomatoes only provides A carefree Mediterranean vacation turns into a fight for survival when two women discover a deadly mermaid's watery lair beneath an abandoned military fortress., that is in the "External links" section, maybe someone would like to add a HEY and provide some actual sourcing. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as has reviews in reliable sources for horror films here and here, select Nymph from the top menu among others so WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 00:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There is no source mentioned in the article, but after providing sources by User:Zvonko, the film passes WP:GNG. MickyShy (talk) 11:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 National Premier Soccer League. Fenix down (talk) 21:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Coral Hurricanes[edit]

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

Website is no longer extant and Facebook is dormant, no evidence this former team was notable during its short existence and no obvious merger target Star Mississippi 20:38, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 21:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lena Michaëlis[edit]

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

A non-notable Olympic competitor. She was not even close to medaling. We lack any sources providing significant coverage. A search for sources turns up more recent businesspeople with the same name, who though not notable are as likely or more likely to be searched for so there is no reason to have this person as the designated redirect for this name. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nlwiki has been used to expand the article. User:PamD, I recommend not to insert expand templates pointing at Nlwiki as the Dutch Wikipedia is the absolute worst larger Wikipedia and every "fact" there needs to be individually verified. It's a failed Wikipedia. Our article, Dutch Wikipedia, explains in detail why in the Quality and Culture sections. I'm in the process of verifying all the data. Others might not know how bad it is. When you glance at it, it does look like a Wikipedia.
Finally: User:CT55555, she ended 11th in the world, still within the top 12 but not quite 7th. gidonb (talk) 00:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NATH. She is a national record holder and a top 12 Olympic competitor, and enough reliable sources to meet GNG.Jacona (talk) 13:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As per above. Lena is a national record holder and passes WP:GNG. MickyShy (talk) 11:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Further discussion regarding the tone of the article can occur on the article's talk page, if desired. North America1000 19:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dzigbordi Dosoo[edit]

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

Promotional and lacks reliable third party sources Philafrenzy (talk) 06:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Philafrenzy (talk) 06:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Fashion, and Ghana. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 10:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems WP:PROMO and lacks secondary sources, failing to prove notability. CT55555 (talk) 12:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One of the most jargon-riddled promotional articles I have ever seen, and I have nominated 100s for deletion. Edwardx (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gets one mention in the NYT for a company show owns, rest isn't notable. High performance coach? no. Oaktree b (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this article just lack proper sourcing which can be found here. Deleting this article is not useful, we can all come together and properly source with the appropriate referencing. Thanks Siagoddess (talk) 22:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article should not be deleted. I crosschecked the article's edit history and realised its been vandalised several times which had left the article in that state. I restored it to the best possible state before the vandalism and edit warring started. The article must be kept and improved on Ampimd (talk) 04:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sufficient sources - this, this, and this. Lamona (talk) 02:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article must be kept and improved Robertjamal12 ~🔔 14:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - has won an international award [9]. This, along with the sources Lamona included meets WP:NBASIC.
  • Comment An "international award" means almost nothing. Awards and award ceremonies have proliferated in recent decades - see vanity award. Wikipedia does not have an article on these awards, or the awarding organisation. It is not a notable award. And that article is a promotional puff piece. Edwardx (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even if one doesn't like the beauty business or this particular award, her show is seen in 46 countries in Africa, it's also shown in the UK, and in Europe. She is a beautiful, successful Black business woman who has achieved a lot. There's enough here to meet WP:GNG. Jacona (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Most Delete opinions were before recent editing improvements. I'd like to relist just once more rather than closing this today as No Consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for the article to be retained. Nobody really addressed the WP:NOTRESUME assertion (the only aspect) of the nomination here. If such concerns remain, they can be discussed on the article talk page. North America1000 00:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elisa Palomino[edit]

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

Basically a resume. BD2412 T 19:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It's close-run, but ultimately, the keep side's arguments that there is coverage have been successfully refuted, primarily by The Gnome. I don't give material weight to the WP:VAGUEWAVE reference to WP:BASIC either. Stifle (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lib Peck[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an appointed city-level bureaucrat and former borough councillor, not reliably sourced as the subject of enough coverage to pass WP:NPOL #2.
The role she currently holds is not an "inherently" notable one that would automatically guarantee a Wikipedia article just because she exists, and neither is her prior role as a borough councillor -- at these levels of office, the rule is not "automatically notable because they exist", but "must be the subject of a significant volume of media coverage to establish that they have some nationalized significance".
But that's not what the sourcing here is: of the eleven footnotes, seven are primary sources (government or business databases, raw tables of election results, content self-published by her own employer, her own LinkedIn and Twitter, etc.) that are not support for notability at all; one is a blog; one is a community hyperlocal piece that isn't about her, but just glancingly namechecks her existence in an article whose primary subject is her predecessor; and one is a piece of her own bylined writing (and thus she isn't its subject.)
There's only one footnote (BBC) that counts as valid support for notability at all, and that's not enough. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have a lot more than just one WP:GNG-worthy source.
(Note: the first discussion was also about her, but this doesn't qualify for immediate speedy as a recreation of deleted content -- even though it isn't really a strong notability claim, "director of the violence reduction unit" is still new content that wasn't true at all yet at the time of the first discussion.) Bearcat (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article needs work, and I've done some of it since the nomination, added in reporting on her work as the first director of London, UK's anti violence unit. I've dropped the Twitter citation and replaced it with better ones. As it stands, it needs more work, but I think is good enough to remain up. I see this as a real example of us needing to improve rather than delete. CT55555 (talk) 14:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pass WP:BASIC. Spkabil (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nom. An actual pseudo biography and Political career resume (What Wikipedia is not). There are some NPOV issues as shown here. Although Wikipedia reportedly has unlimited space this does not mean a local politician or political appointee deserves an article. With that criteria, every local politician, city councilperson, or appointee worldwide would warrant an article. -- Otr500 (talk) 07:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    NPOV is usually used in the context of discussing the extent to which editors were neutral, not subjects of the article or their employer. That doesn't seem like like a NPOV. I don't think anyone said we should keep this simply because she is a politician or council person or appointee. I think it's clear people are arguing that she specifically is notable based on the sources that support that. CT55555 (talk) 09:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I only count one GNG-qualifying source and don't see any additional ones in a quick BEFORE search. Just not enough reliable SIGCOV. SportingFlyer T·C 12:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL, with the latter warning us that just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability. To check the sources invoked we have to wade beyond the subject's LinkedIn profile, some news items about crime in London, such as this, where Peck is mentioned or quoted, and trivial announcements about appointment changes, such as this or this. We are then left with very little that could support independent notability. -The Gnome (talk) 11:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are significant articles about her in The Guardian, the BBC, and other London sources. She is named in dozens of Guardian articles - many by virtue of her political position, but as London is a major city serving in a visible position there is notable. The position of Director of the Violence Reduction Unit for London is more than just a "local politician". Lamona (talk) 01:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Forensics: The BBC reference is a straight-forward and simple report about filling the position of Violence Reduction Unit chief and the article's focus is on the choice of the mayor (who also gets the photo), with details about how his choice was criticized. And the Guardian articles are not about our subject. The first is about Steve Reed resigning as Lambeth council leader, accompanied by Reed's photo, the second is a report on Peck describing the new "police stop-and-search" tactic (just barely but fairly about our subject), and the third one is actually a rather old report about the PM's suggestion that Clapham fire station should be closed - the Lambeth Council leader, i.e. Peck, expresses the council's objection. And these are the best ones. -The Gnome (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how an article that is entirely about her appointment (BBC) and that quotes her extensively is "only about the mayor". There are many guardian articles beyond those in this WP article, all about her work as a politician. None are "biographies" of her but the total adds up to a political person with accomplishments. As per NPOL: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." I definitely consider this significant press coverage, and that's just in the Guardian - I don't have easy access to other UK papers. Lamona (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you peruse in detail that "significant coverage" you'll see that it's about some other issue and not about our subject. We have been through this so many times. One thousand newspaper articles about company XYZ Ltd, all mentioning me as the financial manager of the company, do not add up to some sort of cumulative proof of my own, personal notability. -The Gnome (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: Why would we want non-biographical sources for a biography of a living person? I see; if you add them all together ("all about her work as a politician. None are "biographies" of her but the total adds up..."), they equal biographical coverage. If we omit the biographical information we absolutely have a resume. There is already a "LinkedIn Profile" in the sources so an encyclopedia resume along with LinkedIn is all that is needed for a future job application. NPOL gives the presumption of notability not a guarantee. Otr500 (talk) 18:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sailing at the 1928 Summer Olympics – 6 Metre. Liz Read! Talk! 06:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

José María, Count de Arteche[edit]

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

The Count de Arteche was a non-medaling participant in the Olympics. The article lacks any sources that constitute significant coverage, and my search for such sources turned up nothing. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect: Per Lugnuts. Guessing would sort of be on the same level as the interpretation that Proposal 3 (mere participation) guarantees notability. -- Otr500 (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okeanos Group[edit]

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

New company, from 2019, their LinkedIn says they have 64 employees. They aren't multinational, they just signed some cooperation deals. Lack significant indepth coverage. Mvqr (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Keep The company is notable to have its entry on Wikipedia. From a quick search you can find some references of notable resources like Arabnews and La Opinion. Cpmpany meets WP:NCORP. Source Wide (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC) — Source Wide (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Neither of those meet WP:ORGCRITE. Organizations require "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" "with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources" than just GNG. Mvqr (talk) 10:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless blatantly obvious, I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than just "RS" for establishing notability.
  • The topic is a company therefore we require references that discuss the *company* in detail. "Lots of product reviews" is not sufficient for establishing notability of a company.
  • As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two
  • WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
  • "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.
An analysis of references follows:
  • This from Arab News is an announcement by the Egyptian government with four sentences in total, one of which was provided by "the companies" and two by the Egyptian Prime Minister. There is no in-depth information about the company by a person not affiliated with the company, fails ORGIND.
  • This from the State Information Service reports on a discussion between the Egyptian PM and the CEO of the topic company, fails ORGIND for the same reasons
  • This from La Opinion is a regurgitated press release/announcement by Coagronorte, a customer/partner of the topic company and therefore not unaffiliated. Its effectively a promotional customer testimonial. Also, it provides no in-depth information on the *company*, fails both ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
  • This from Newport Orthopedic Institute is a profile for an orthopedic surgeon who helped found the company. It is a primary source with a mere mention-in-passing of the topic company, fails CORPDEPTH
  • This from Zawya is a Press Release. It is marked as such. Fails ORGIND.
  • This from Fast Company is a mere mention in a list of innovation-by-design companies. It is not a notable competition/prize and the topic company isn't even a finalist but an honorable mention (along with 6 other companies), fails CORPDEPTH.
  • This from dostor.org reports on a meeting between the CEO of the topic company and the Egyprian PM. It is a mention-in-passing and contains no in-depth info on the company. Fails CORPDEPTH.
None of the references meet our criteria for establishing notability. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 16:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: as per HighKing's source analysis. - Hatchens (talk) 04:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Added few other references from reliable websites which are also independent of topic and passes WP:RS. And thus passes WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Source Wide (talk) 12:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The four recently added sources ([14][15][16][17]) all fail WP:ORGCRITE and some, like the mention in a release in Arab News, were discussed already above in the source analysis.--Mvqr (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, the added sources pass RS but passing RS doesn't mean they pass GNG nor NCORP. Not sure if thats what Source Wide actually meant to say but its nonsense. HighKing++ 17:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not agree with Highking. Not all the sources analysis provided by Highking is correct. He claimed the Prime minister's statement and Government website not authentic. I agree the Government announced PR but that is not wholly dependent or in favor of the subject. That means it passes WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV. And still the subject passes WP:THREE and hence meets WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 06:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I didn't make any such claim. Also, thank as to your admission that you "agree the Government announced PR" - please see the definition of "Independent Content" in ORGIND. HighKing++ 21:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As per User:DMySon analysis this article meets WP:NCORP. MickyShy (talk) 11:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite repeated claims to the contrary (promotional meatpuppetry?), the article does not meet NCORP. casualdejekyll 17:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Land Gold Women. Star Mississippi 03:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avantika Hari[edit]

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

Non-notable filmmaker who does not meet the requirements of WP:NCREATIVE or WP:GNG. Directed only one notable film, and a bold redirect to it is reverted by an IP w/o explanation. The cited sources are about the above film, passing mentions or interviews which do not establish notability. Source assessment follows -- Ab207 (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Source assessment table: prepared by User:Ab207
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
BBC No Interview with the subject Yes Yes ✘ No
HT Times No Interview with the subject Yes Yes ✘ No
BBC ? AV media about the film Yes No Passing mention ✘ No
Redwire ~ Film's premiere announcement Yes No None except quote of the subject ✘ No
My News ~ Award announcement ? No No mention at all ✘ No
Bloomberg ~ Award announcement Yes No Passing mention ✘ No
canadafilmfestival ~ Film festival schedule Yes No No mention at all ✘ No
DNA No Interview with the subject Yes Yes ✘ 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}}.
-- Ab207 (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Not notable per above chart, would a redirect to the film make sense? Not sure how notable it is. Oaktree b (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Land Gold Women. If the person has only directed one film, a redirect to the only place on Wikipedia where that person is covered is sensible as an WP:ATD. — Mhawk10 (talk) 02:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Relists have not brought on enough engagement, and I don't see consensus emerging with a fourth Star Mississippi 03:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Retreat[edit]

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

Nonnotable future film. Article was created WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:NFF since production is not notable. Must be deleted or drafted until further notice. The Film Creator (talk) 00:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep I Disagree with WP:TOOSOON also the film has strong good coverage which passes WP:GNG but I can't found the exact production house name so it's WP:NFF keeping mind the distributor of the film which is Miramax who is probably the production and is notable it's a strong keep for me as the film has good coverage. @@@XyX talk 01:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. DanCherek (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: i think the search reveals that the title is passing WP:NFILM. Jeni Wolf (talk) 04:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify, lacking significant coverage, simply run-of-the-mill announcements. per WP:NFF. BOVINEBOY2008 08:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:38, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: It seems like some things are happening behind the scene. Looks like Miramax has stopped talking about it this year. Probably internal debate about what it is worth and/or a pandemic postponement of theatrical release. Some sites list "2020" for the movie's release year, but I haven't seen it showing anywhere. Undecided if Keep or Draftify. StrayBolt (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe it needs to be added to List of films impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Here is the director's post from 2020: That's a Wrap on SILENT RETREAT! Was a dream making this small movie with a team of clowns and buddhists and of course the great Isabella Rossellini. Coming soon to a… something… near you! [18] StrayBolt (talk) 18:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thakur Laxman Singh[edit]

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

There has been no discussion even after adding notability tag on the page. Only one only reference is provided and that too is very vague. Looks like a promotional case RS6784 (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Purpose[edit]

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

Reason Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any independent, reliable sources for this magazine to establish notability. Though it was created in the 90's and may have had some news mentions at that time, I cannot find them online. This publication should be held to the same standard of notability as any other publication, and have mentions somewhere in reliable sources. Otherwise, I believe it should be deleted.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 I will note upfront that the clear SPA's input has been disregarded as have been claims of article popularity, which is to be expected with the canvassing. What remains though is no consensus and policy-based arguments from established editors on both sides of the debate and I don't see a relist bringing on anything settled. While the current coverage has stemmed largely from his being potentially detained, with sourcing covering him as an author, we're out of BLP1E territory. This is not strong enough for a clear keep, although n/c defaults there. I highly suggest this be revisited when he's no longer in the news. Star Mississippi 20:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzalo Lira[edit]

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

This article has been deleted before. Lira doesn't seem notable at all. He's a dating coach and YouTuber who spent some time in Ukraine, and recently has been talked about in fringe circles because of his alleged disappearance. The sourcing is very weak. It seems to me that he doesn't even deserve a mention in any of the articles, let alone to have his own separate article. BeŻet (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Lira has a wide following and is definitely a notable person. He deserves a wikipedia page if people from 100 years ago who made a small impact in some city had one. The people who even suggested it be deleted are mad because he doesn't hold the same opinions as him. 83.233.193.18 (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC) ----<--- — 83.233.193.18 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. GizzyCatBella🍁 01:32, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep: Agree with the above. 71.163.99.14 (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2022 (UTC)— 71.163.99.14 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - ..quite a bit of coverage [19] or [20] (just following the links above) - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That isn't a lot of coverage. Not a single major outlet talks about him. BeŻet (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is CNN major enough for you? --> [21] - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • That article is dead. BeŻet (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • What do you mean dead?It’s right here [22] - CNN Chile MUNDOCRISIS EN UCRANIA 18.04.2022 / 14:46 - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • I get an error when I visit the page. I've just archived the page on Wayback Machine and it's the same thing. The article may have been deleted and you still see the cached version. BeŻet (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, its not deleted on Wayback Machine -->[23] Can you see India Today then? -->[24] is this major enough for you? - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                • Not really, we're looking for decent coverage to establish WP:NOTABILITY. Per WP:NRV, No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest. BeŻet (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                  Like this one for example? [25]. These sources are all in the article. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                  Not like this one. There is no significant independent coverage. Currently he's just mentioned in Spanish-language media because of his alleged disappearance, see WP:NOTNEWS. BeŻet (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                  That source talks exclusively about Lira and his life. What are you talking about? PS - I’m reminding you to remove your “delete” vote below. You nominated this article for deletion and a few hours later voted delete. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                  We are assessing WP:NOTABLITY here, and for that we need to show significant coverage, which Lira lacks. And I don't need to remove my "vote", decisions here are not made by vote count, I have merely explicitly stated my position. BeŻet (talk) 21:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                  No, that's not how it’s done. You don’t get to nominate the article for deletion, express your opinion and then do it again behind other people. It looks like these are comments of two different editors, might affect the opinion of other people and influence the outcome of the discussion. Anyway, I hope the closing person will notice that you marked your opinion in two separate places. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- He is a notable person due to the recent coverage he has presented on the Ukrainian/Russia conflict. His reach has been quite large particularly on his telegram and other channels. Even if we disagree with the perspective taken, we should be neutral and acknowledge his contribution to the media space. Degarmot155 (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)— Degarmot155 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Anyway, what matters here is across-the-board multinational coverage in a significant number of independent reliable sources including CNN [26] and Newsweek [27] There is enough here to pass GNG per WP:BASIC. Being covered by trustworthy independent newspapers is more than sufficient for notability. Also, I suspect it will be reported shortly what happened to him since his dissaperance - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
About CNN: you linked an archived URL. Where is the original article? Retracted articles can not be used to establish notability. About Newsweek: 1) see WP:NEWSWEEK. Post-2013 Newsweek articles are not generally reliable. So it also can not be used to establish notability. 2) The Newsweek article is a summary and translation of content from Russia's state TV Channel One. "Being covered by trustworthy independent newspapers is more than sufficient for notability." What newspapers? The deleted CNN article and WP:NEWSWEEK that translated the content from Russian state media? Renat 12:30, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Check all Spanish language newspapers included in the article then. RenatUK, look, after over 30.000 hits in just a few hours this article generated, arguments that this Lira person might not be notable because you don’t like linked Newsweek or CNN Chile articles have no grounds anymore. I suggest you focus on improving the article instead. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am interested only in reliable independent sources that are relevant to this deletion discussion. "... look, after over 30.000 hits in just a few hours this article generated, arguments that this Lira person might not be notable because you don’t like linked Newsweek or CNN Chile articles have no grounds anymore." 1) WP:POPULARPAGE. "Simply because a page is not of interest to Wikipedia readers does not mean it is not notable." 2) You used WP:NEWSWEEK and the deleted CNN article in your argument here, in this deletion discussion. I explained to you why these sources can not used to establish notability. It has nothing to do whether I like something or now. Please read my message above again. Just because you said "... have no grounds anymore" does not mean that my argument lost its strength. I suggest you focus on improving the article instead. And I suggest you not to tell me what to do. Renat 13:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quote from above - Simply because a page is not of interest to Wikipedia readers does not mean it is not notable. What of earth are you talking about? This page is of interests to Wikipiedia readers. 30.000 reader in a few hours. Okay, let’s end this exchange right here, please. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:18, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who still believe Lira is not notable might want to take a quick peek at the number of views this article generated in one day of its existence here. (33,000) Do you have an answer to this BeŻet? - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom BeŻet (talk) 16:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: BeŻet (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]
    • Well .. you nominated this page for deletion BeŻet, your position is already known. You should remove your Delete above. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Canvassing and bad arguments aren't an excuse for blatantly misleading double votes (i.e. "per nom" as though "nom" is someone else). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable person. I don't see a reason for deletion. Elserbio00 (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Daily Beast is the biggest outlet that mentioned him. Could you explain why do you think he's notable? BeŻet (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • You just did. Havradim leaf a message 17:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't understand. There is only the Daily Beast source, and per WP:DAILYBEAST we should apply caution to begin with. BeŻet (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        What about all other sources? - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:25, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        We also have El Pais[28] Even though El Pais mentions Sputnik, the fact that they relaunched the article means that they believe it is an important fact. Mhorg (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Thats El Pais from Costa Rica not Spain (still both reliable) - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, I didn't noticed... Mhorg (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        To be truthful, Lira is known for being a propagandist and spreading unfounded conspiracy theories. I don't see how having Lira's propaganda being reprinted in Russia-state-owned media, Sputnik, makes him notable for anything except being a pro-Putin shill. BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Which ones? Most of them are not RS as discussed here. BeŻet (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        The Daily Beast article says of Lira "How a Sleazy American Dating Coach Became a Pro-Putin Shill in Ukraine" So should we put in his article that Lira notable for being a "Sleazy American Dating Coach" or for being a "Pro-Putin Shill in Ukraine" or both, a "Sleazy American Dating Coach" and a "Pro-Putin Shill in Ukraine." BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and California. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For reference, the talk page also shows host most of the sources used are unreliable. BeŻet (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this person is very notable in circles which do not support the west's participation in the war taking place in Ukraine - User:BeŻet refers to that circle derisively as "fringe circles". The circle is certainly against the majority opinion in the west but that does not mean it should be ignored. Mr Lira is a notable political dissident and opinion former, along with outlets such as The Duran, Alex Christoforous, Alexander Mercouris, iEarlGrey, Patrick Lancaster, etc. all dissident voices, broadly advocating the surrender of Zelensky as the rational action for Ukraine to take, thereby saving the lives of innocent Ukrainian people. The circle - espousing political realism - views the victory of Russia (a nuclear power) as inevitable, and therefore resistance to the last Ukrainian life as irrational and inhumane. The mainstream media and mainstream press do not in general cover the viewpoints of western persons who do not support the west's participation in the war taking place in Ukraine, thus it would not be possible to quote sources from the mainstream press, which is generally acting as a cheerleader for the west's participation in the war, albeit ostensibly behind the scenes, in supplying weapons, funding, training, etc. The western press is in fact actively suppressing viewpoints such as expressed by Mr Lira, and deeming anyone who expresses support or sympathy for Putin's position as "Putin's puppets", "Pro-Putin shill", "propagandist", etc. and other derogatory appellations. (Note: the West is not at war with Russia/war has not been declared, so why should western citizens not be allowed to support Putin / Putin's position ? We should be free to argue for either side in a foreign war, as we deem fit, without suffering insults). There are few more notable voices in this political circle than Mr Lira. The article should thus be kept.212.104.155.43 (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A deletion discussion from 8 years ago has little to no bearing on the condition of the present article. This is not an article about a dating coach, the same way Rolando Santiz is not an article about a volunteer firefighter. While the books and films from the subject's past might not necessarily have established notability in and of themselves, we now have the Daily Beast as a reliable, independent source giving us significant in-depth coverage of this subject, to the point that almost no effort is required to write a comprehensive biography. The subject's disappearance from the location of a war he was reporting on, under the foggy conditions of a conflict with worldwide implications, only adds to the notoriety. Controversial is not equal to not notable. Havradim leaf a message 17:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notoriety is not notability, and the aforementioned CNN article actually provides nothing about the subject's life and works, because all that it says is things about the subject that are currently unknown. An encyclopaedia biography is for things about the subject that are known. Currently this discussion has 1 in-depth independent source. Uncle G (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Currently this discussion has 1 in-depth independent source - which one? - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • The one that Havradim just mentioned. Notice that I said "in-depth independent", not anything else. Uncle G (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Daily Beast you mean? What about all other sources. Check all for "in-depth independent" , DB is not the only one, come on. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • .. they are all in Spanish though - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • There were no other such sources when I wrote that. You had only cited CNN and India Today, both of which do not in fact document this person in depth, as I explained. Ironically, it was the nominator who pointed to an in-depth source, and not you at all. You've pointed to exactly 1 more source since, but that in fact is, yet again, all about how things about the person are currently unknown, and does not provide in-depth biographical information about this person, explicitly using the word "desconoce" indeed. Your vague handwaves at search engines are not actual source citations, note. If you want to bring in sources, cite them. Search engine pages are not source citations. Find a 2nd source that does not document not knowing things, but that documents this person's life and work in depth, and cite it. The nominator is doing a better job of finding and actually citing sources in this discussion than you are, and the irony is that xe's the one that wants the article deleted. Uncle G (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • ..You had only cited CNN and India Today... You based your opinion based on my comment without reading the article and examining the sources? - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:31, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                • When my comment says how many sources are in this discussion, I base it on the number of sources in this discussion. Do you have a 2nd in-depth independent source to cite? The logical thing to do at this point is to cite one. Avoiding doing so indicates that in fact you do not have more than just that 1 source. Uncle G (talk) 02:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see WP:DAILYBEAST. There is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Beast. Renat 12:51, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if this person is actually killed or kidnapped in Ukraine. If it turns out that he didn't have internet or something else, then I agree to remove it.--Mhorg (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying that all people killed or kidnapped in Ukraine are automatically notable? Renat 12:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Who said that? Don’t put words in my mouth okay? - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I replied to Mhorg. Renat 13:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:23, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but mixing the his previous notability and the kidnapping could prevent the article to be deleted. Mhorg (talk) 13:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mhorg: I just wanted to let you know that Lira is not dead and is safe. Yesterday, the Cyprus Mail reported that Lira would "did not provide not details" of where he's been. It seems he was not "kidnapped" or, at least no RS makes any such "kidnapped" claim. BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, yes, he said that he was detained, that could be also kidnapped. And I think he was released after only a week because of the growing international scandal. However, I suppose there will be a way to find out what really happened. For now I would keep the article. Mhorg (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mhorg: fair enough. BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I find a few articles he's written, and mostly press-releases saying he's gone missing. His career as a journalist has been pretty routine/non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He is possibly the only westerner who was blogging anti-Zelensky sentiment (a valid viewpoint available to a foreigner in a supposedly democratic country) from a basement in Kharkiv while being shelled by Russians and in fear of his life from the Ukrainian secret service, or Azov Brigade, one or other of which appears to have captured him, tortured him, and murdered him. But apart from that, un-notable, lol. Most western "journalists" are reporting from the safety of Lviv, hundreds of miles west of the warzone. Lira was in the warzone itself.212.104.155.43 (talk) 21:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem blissfully unaware that there are dozens of reporters who were/are in Kharkiv. And that's real reporters, not YouTubers. One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight etc. BeŻet (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    1. "A BBC reporter" 2. John Sparks 3. Roland Oliphant 4. Matt Bradley 5. Clarissa Ward 6. Jack Crosbie 7. "PBS reporters" 8. David Bouteiller and Clémence Dibout (You're welcome). Havradim leaf a message 04:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have articles for people far more obscure than Lira. I agree we need more WP:RS coverage on him, but at the end of the day he's article worthy imo due to the controversy. Should be noted that so far non-English news is covering him more at the moment. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see why a journalist / filmmaker / author who has potentially been kidnapped or murdered should be deleted off of Wikipedia. Even if he's not super famous, he previously wrote for outlets like Business Insider, not to mention that Wikipedia features a ton of articles on more or less obscure authors / filmmakers even when they haven't been potentially kidnapped. Hell, Wikipedia even has articles on persons whose only reason for being publicly known is having been kidnapped. Any journalist who is noteworthy enough to be kidnapped by a government is noteworthy enough to have an article about. Sarrotrkux (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that the sources being proffered here, ironically as evidence of notability, say that this is not a known fact, and that indeed that there aren't known facts, this is clearly a fallacious rationale. Notability involves the person's life and work being documented in depth by multiple sources with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy that are independent of the subject. Ironically, the only person offering anything like such a source so far is the person who wants the article deleted. Even the people challenged on this have not yet actually risen to the challenge of citing a 2nd in-depth independent good biographical source, and not just news reports from recent days not documenting things about this person's life and work, and in fact saying little more than that facts about this person are not known. A biography, from a place other than the Daily Beast, that is on point, in depth, properly fact checked, and not autobiography. This should be easy to provide if the world has in fact considered this person notable enough to document xyr life and work in depth. No amount of argument about other articles is going to cut the mustard, nor is argument about fame and importance (a criterion that was rejected back in 2004). Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 02:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whether we agree with his views or not, he is a known individual on the social media, especially on YouTube and other social media networks. If the article is not well sourced, the challenge is to find those "acceptable" sources, that focus on individuals who are prominent in the social media. That the Daily Beast reserves so much criticism for him, gives hint of his impact -- again, whatever one thinks of his views. Wikipedia needs to agnostic in terms of whom it covers. It's only that way that more in cyberspace would find it a useful source of information regardless of the ideological stance of who is being cover. Views critical of him can also be raised here. I myself reached here by searching for his name. Fredericknoronha (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep News media covers him, so he is Wikipedia notable. Dream Focus 23:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only 1 in-depth independent source proffered so far. Notability requires multiple. And even the 1 source proffered is not considered an ideal biographical source by some. Uncle G (talk) 02:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Gonzalo Lira was a critical source of information during the invasion of Ukraine. Currently many newspapers, and reporters in Ukraine have reported that he has been allegedly kidnapped, tortured, and killed in Ukraine. He was known well for his criticism of the Zelenskyy presidency, and Russian media using his videos as propaganda material to paint Ukraine in a bad light. 2409:4066:93:21FA:AC26:9E67:2F0:F5E6 (talk) 00:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)----<--- 2409:4066:93:21FA:AC26:9E67:2F0:F5E6|contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Search Gonzalo Lira in Google News gives 52,300 results. After reviewing the first 100, I found all articles referred to the same Gozalo Lira of this discussion. Most of media oulets cited in Google News about Gonzalo Lira, correspond to articles in (Eng.) Wikipedia. E.g. La Tercera, CNN Chile, El Mostrador, Business Insider, Prensa Latina, etc. Monika772 (talk) 03:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)----<--- — Monika772 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:55, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - i understand that the very its existence disturbs some people, but as i know, Wikipedia is still not considered a "safe place". 46.55.224.167 (talk) 09:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)----<--- — contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly meets GNG, regardless of his political viewpoints.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. His disappearance might have been even
    staged to promote his popularity (this is my pure speculation) but that's not the point. This article received over 30,000 views in one day, so he is undoubtedly notable. - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:21, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:POPULARPAGE. "Simply because a page is not of interest to Wikipedia readers does not mean it is not notable." Renat 12:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ..article popularity is likely to correspond with some form of notability which should then be straightforward to verify. WP:POPULARPAGE - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "... which should then be straightforward to verify." How can someone verify that this person is notable? Renat 12:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    30.000 readers who visited this page in just a few hours, who knew or heard about that Lira person and searched for more information about him on Wikipedia (the source for information) = notable = verification. Logic, no? - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We never use that to establish notability. This could have been traffic from the deletion page notice board, or from any other source. BeŻet (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the bigger issue is potentially WP:ONEEVENT. That is - 15 minutes of fame.
    I haven't made up my mind yet about this. Cononsense (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Lira is about more than one event. He was an author, filmmaker and economics pundit long before he was a Ukraine war commentator. Havradim leaf a message 04:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP there is no basis for deletion, it is politically motivated attempt to silence someone who holds different views; we need to stop the cancer of cancel culture! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.246.223.72 (talk) 11:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC) ----<--- — contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I had never heard of this guy, but it was seeing multiple recent references to him in the news that prompted me to come to Wikipedia to learn about him. I add that subjective consideration to the notability data presented above by others. It may be Snowtime. JamesMLane t c 13:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Gonzalo Lira is a well known filmaker, novelist, vlogger and now Zelenskyy critic, this is enough to have relevance for an article, as well as tons of articles on International Media.--Janitoalevic (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "tons of articles on International Media" - where? BeŻet (talk) 11:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Gonzalo Lira is a well-known Chilean American journalist. His YouTube channel has over 100,000 followers. He has also been covered a lot in the mainstream media recently.Myatrrcc (talk) 23:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)— Myatrrcc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - Note this one is possibly tagged incorrectly and disputed [29] editor made 200 edits since 2017 on at least 5 different topics.- GizzyCatBella🍁 18:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is WP:CANVASSING happening on Twitter. BeŻet (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He's a vlogger, and like millions of other vloggers, he's a non-notable vlogger.BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we delay on this? Usually, I'd stay out of this, but the fact that a lot of people are referencing "Coach Red Pill is alive/dead" (depending on his current apparent status) at the moment means that, for the moment, he's notable enough to be worth keeping. Once his temporary celebrity from Ukraine goes down, then maybe delete, but for now, the article is useful for explaining "who's Coach Red Pill, and why are so many people invested in if he lives or dies?". Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 15:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just wanted to let you know that yesterday the Cyprus Mail confirmed Lira is alive, he is not dead, and he is safe. According to the Daily Beast, Lira is only notable for "How a Sleazy American Dating Coach Became a Pro-Putin Shill in Ukraine." BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have requested at WP:BLPN that this article be reviewed for potential BLP violations. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 21:54, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. Thank you for that. Please also notice sources misrepresentation issue ( See talk page [30] ) - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sufficient media coverage, several publications in well-known publishing houses, writer and director of the movie Secuestro with e.g. the actors Katty Kowaleczko, Rodrigo Bastidas, Marcela del Valle. I suggest deciding notability to not be delayed -- many people voiced their opinion; to delay would mean to discard those voices. 93.224.99.202 (talk) 23:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)— 93.224.99.202 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep The spokesperson for the Russian Foreign Ministry Maria Zakharova publicly mentioned him, hoped he was reunited with his family, and wished him well. If THIS does not make him notable, what would? Dorfpert (talk) 12:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Dorfpert 12:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC) ----<--- — Dorfpert (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete Most of the coverage concerns his disappearance and reappearance - this looks like WP:BIO1E. Autarch (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No established notability. For the record, this is not a vote. Most of the keep votes are from IPs or new accounts, who seem to misunderstand WP:NOTABILITY. The whole story seems to be that a fascist fringe person who used Twitter to spread Russian propaganda temporarily lost his account, and his conspiracy circles made a conspiracy out of that. That's not even remotely notable. Jeppiz (talk) 09:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, I just noticed that ... you referred to Lira above as a fascist fringe person without any source to back it up. I’ll take this opportunity to remind everyone that WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well and that all editors are also subject to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions pursuant to WP:NEWBLPBAN
    • PS - @Jeppiz please strike that WP:BLP violation. Thanks. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair point. I had a quick look at what the individual publishes and that seems to provide ample support of what I wrote. Still, it hardly adds anything to the discussion so I've struck it as you requested. Jeppiz (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see how this satisfies WP:BIO. Other than the Ukraine section, which is about half the article, he doesn't seem notable in any way; and even that material is questionable and not really worthy of inclusion in its own right (WP:SINGLEEVENT). François Robere (talk) 10:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see how Lira is any more notable than any number of other vloggers on the Ukraine War, some of whom have equal or more viewers than he does. The fact that half the article appears to be some sort of strange conspiracy theory (in line with his "Zelensky is a fascist cokehead" comments), and relies on basically one source, the Daily Beast, to establish notability, makes me think that this article would be better off deleted. Almost all sources appear to be in Spanish and contain little actual information or else from small, English-language outlets that operate in countries where the main language is not English. Not coincidentally, these are places where Russian misinformation often thrives. If mainstream sources either debunk or confirm Lira's "detention" - or if the Ukrainian government chooses to comment on it, for instance - than we can revisit notability.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • 🙂 The article drew thousands and thousands of views within 5 days of it's existence. This page alone lured over two thousand views and a heated dispute. That's extremely strange for an article about "some" individual not worth noticing 😉. Don't you think? Come on folks, face the reality. GizzyCatBella🍁 17:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reality is that you are asserting fame and importance and repeatedly sidestepping doing the one simple thing that would actually and easily make your case, because they always do. Fame and importance were soundly rejected by Wikipedia, for very good reasons, at Wikipedia:fame and importance almost two decades ago. You've been challenged to provide a second in-depth good, independent, biographical source documenting this person's life and works, necessary for notability but even were that not the case necessary because some people are of the view that the Daily Beast is not an adequate source for biographical information on its own without another good source to back it up. You keep avoiding that challenge, which keeps telling people that actually you do not have such a source, and that the idea here is to base a Wikipedia biography solely on the Daily Beast as the primary source of biographical information. That's very poor editorial standards that you are demonstrating. As I said, even the nominator managed to cite more in-depth sources than you have. Take heed of how Jahaza makes a case, it is very different to the zero-effort way that you have been, and it works, where your "But xe's famous!" one does not. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 07:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the idea that page views make him notable somehow is laughable but the fact is that he has almost no meaningful coverage in mainstream sources - if we removed all of the self sourced content here, we'd be left with maybe 3 sentences, none of which are particularly compelling as a case of notability. He wrote some things, he's a conspiracy theorist and gets other conspiracy theorists interested in him. That's how the internet works, not notability. PRAXIDICAE💕 19:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient secondary independent coverage. While this may change in the future, we don't possess a crystal ball.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Praxidicae. Particularly important to highlight that page popularity *is not* an indicator of a subject's notability, though the two are often correlated; WP:POPULARPAGE has been mentioned several times already. Lkb335 (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 21:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable in home country, not notable anywhere. He did not even disappear. Yes, they received some coverage after he was presumably lost, but one event does not make one person notable, particularly this one isn't nota le for any other reason Bedivere (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC) I'm changing my vote to weak keep upon seeing the National Library of Chile's clippings, which suggest they may pass, although very weakly, WP:NAUTHOR. I say very weakly because I am not sure he made a significant body of work as an author, although he was, when published (many years ago), the subject of several independent periodical articles in Chile, and probably in the US but I cannot attest to that. If the only element to judge Lira's notability was their involvement in Ukraine, I would have surely stick to my delete vote. He certainly does not merit an article on that basis alone. --Bedivere (talk) 04:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - There are some decent sources, but for edge cases when it comes to notability when WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE are in play, it becomes tricky to decide when we should have a stand-alone article. It's admittedly on the line, with articles like DB (which, right, let's not bother citing RSP, since it provides no guidance on this subject) and El Mercurio, but I think I fall just on the delete side of things. As an aside, the articles provided above from India Today and CNN Chile are surprisingly thin/questionable. From a look at RSN archives, I see India Today is best divided between magazine content and television/web content. Not sure about the various CNN editions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this !vote has nothing to do with recent events in Ukraine, but rather that he's achieved sufficient attention as a writer in the 90's and early 2000's. The Chilean National Library has an extensive archive of about 40 Spanish clippings on his work[31]. In English, his novels also attracted some reviews in English in Kirkus[32][33], Publishers Weekly[34][35](as well as a short article about the aquistion of his first novel[36], something that was also picked up by the literary blog Grub Street and by Writer's Digest), Library Journal[37][38], Booklist[39][40], a short review in the Rocky Mountain News[41], and Magill's Book Reviews[42]. The acquisition deal also got a couple of paragraphs in this LA Times column[43]. The movie rights got the usual routine coverage in Variety and Hollywood Reporter. There's some Latin American UPI coverage of one of his films from 2005 (just an example)[44]. An entry in Guide to Literary Masters & Their Works[45].--Jahaza (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, his novels, originally published in English and Spanish, were translated into French, German, and Dutch at least as can be seen from copies still available for sale. There should be at least a few reviews in those languages, but you'd need access to the right databases.Jahaza (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It may or may not have clippings, but instead of citing them you've waved at a search engine result page, which comes up "No se entregaron términos de búsqueda" for other people. Uncle G (talk) 07:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      See my comment below directly linking to many of them. Jahaza (talk) 07:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jahaza. A million-dollar advance for a novel in an editor's slush pile seems like a pretty big claim to notability. The Ukraine and YouTube stuff is probably trivial (though maintaining balance on his bio is likely to be a challenge) but as a novelist he seems notable. Guettarda (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability needs to be shown by reliable sources, not just claimed. Actually, the references Jahaza shows rather prove the lack of notability. 30 years of claiming to be a writer, and these short references, mainly (but not exclusively) from rather unknown sources. All it shows is that in the 90s he may have had some potential to become a writer, but never made it to fame. It's the equivalent of some young football player getting to do a test for a big club in his tens but never making it as a footballer. Jeppiz (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please read WP:AUTHOR #3 and look at the clip file from Chile, which contains a number of substantial articles. Furthermore, Library Journal, Booklist, Publishers Weekly, and Kirkus are hardly unknown sources. These are major American publishing institutions.--Jahaza (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, of course, but it's a claim to notability that's supported by RSs. As Jahaza mentioned, there's an extensive archive of clippings from the Chilean National Library. I picked a few clippings - a profile from Las Últimas Noticias, another from La Tercera. These are national newspapers, the kind of thing we regularly accept as RSs. Similarly, Kirkus Reviews and Publishers Weekly are not just reliable, but fairly important sources. I can't find anything about Guide to Literary Masters & Their Works but the Rosemary M. Canfield Reisman seems like an expert on this kind of things, and the work is archived by Ebscohost. Guettarda (talk) 23:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry Jahaza, but #3 of WP:AUTHOR is a strong argument against this individual, not for him. The point you referred to says that "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." There is no indication of that. Your list of references shows he has written a bit, but nothing to suggest his writings are remotely close to "significant or well-known work or collective body of work". Quite the opposite; 25 years has passed since he tried to become an author, and these few notices are all that can be found. That is a very strong that it is not a "well-known" body of work. As per WP:AUTHOR, this person cannot count as a notable author. Jeppiz (talk) 00:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • When someone has made more than a million dollars as a novelist, published three novels, had them reviewed in national periodicals, and had them translated into several languages, it's kind of odd to write that they "tried to become an author". It seems that they did become an author for a time. "25 years has passed since he tried to become an author" he doesn't have to be the subject of ongoing coverage it's sufficient that he was at one time the subject of significant coverage WP:NTEMP. The Spanish language coverage in Chile is substantial. Is it odd that this is not what's drawn attention to him now? Sure, but that doesn't mean that what he did then wasn't notable. It's kind of the opposite of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boris_Maciejovsky, which is rightfully on its way to deletion, due to their being no coverage of the person's work. In both cases, the current news hook wouldn't justify an article. Your judgment about what is significant coverage is idiosyncratic when Chilean national newspaper profiles and eight national periodical reviews in English are a few mainly unknown sources. For your argument to be credible you at least need to realize that you erred about these sources being unreliable and unknown. --Jahaza (talk) 04:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Jeppiz those Chilean sources are as reputable as the others shown by Jahaza. That is not a claim, it is a fact that Lira was covered by multiple independent sources back in the day. I am still not sure how his work can be considered "significant", though. I think he passes WP:NAUTHOR #3 very weakly. It's obvious he didn't continue a career as an author but that doesn't mean we should forgo these details (and sources). Bedivere (talk) 04:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • People, this is easy if done right. Ignore the bloody NAUTHOR criteria. This is a biography. Do the sources document the person's life and work in depth? Are they independent of the subject, and not (say) recycled press releases? Are they from people from good reputations for fact checking and accuracy? If this is so, they can be used to write this biography in accordance with our Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research content policies and the biography is possible. If not, then the 1 source with biographical information is the Daily Beast and a biography is impossible, simply because our minimum safe level of sourcing is more than 1 in-depth biographical source. I pointed out that the right thing to do is cite sources, right at the start of this discussion. No-one has yet cited any of these Chilean sources. We have an external hyperlink to a search engine that says "No se entregaron términos de búsqueda", not source citations. Uncle G (talk) 07:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                • Well, the link worked for me and for Guettarda, sorry it didn't work for you. I'm not sure why you couldn't just enter the name into the catalogue yourself to find the articles? Here are direct links for 17 of them:
                • I'd also note that since these articles span 1997-2005, they should help allay some "one event" fears.-- Jahaza (talk) 07:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                  • You see? I told you that it's easy when done right. Always do it that way, from the get-go. It's not other people's responsibility to follow vague handwaves at search engines. It's the responsibility of the people using the search engines to read what they turn up, evaluate it, and cite it. This is how you make a case. Not with handwaves, not with (bogus) result counts (which Google and the like just make up), not with long-rejected fame and importance arguments, not with page views. It's all about sources. Find them, read them, evaluate them, cite them. These are fundamental things for Wikipedians everywhere in the encyclopaedia, and it shouldn't be like pulling teeth to get them done. The person who wanted to delete the article did this straightaway. The people who want to keep the article should do no less, but I've had to spend a week trying to get anyone to do so. Add up how long it takes you to do the search, read the sources, find a good one and cite it. In fact, read the sources that you've cited, tell us which documents this person's life as well as xyr book release, and time how long it took you. Think about how short a time that is compared to the week that this has gone without a good counterargument, that left unchecked would have led to a strong deletion argument based upon deletion policy that we do not base biographies on only 1 article in the Daily Beast. Uncle G (talk) 08:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                    • @Bedivere and @Jahaza, I really don't think that that shows what you say it shows. Yes, he has been the subject of a few articles and thanks for showing that. To take an easy example, myself, I've been the subject of more articles than that, and in somewhat more notable sources. There is not WP article on me, nor do I think there should be, because I am not notable, despite more media coverage than that. There must be thousands of people with at least that amount of media coverage who are not notable in any way. Jeppiz (talk) 09:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                      • You, in turn, are missing that this is after 1 in-depth source has already been given. By the nominator. These aren't the only sources. These are the further sources, covering aspects of the person that clearly the Daily Beast does not. We now have, after a week, reviews of the early works, some things about the later works, the Daily Beast documenting (well or not, a subject for discussion) the recent part of the subject's life, and other sources documenting the earlier parts of the subject's life. And the people who want to keep the article at last get to argue based in deletion policy that there's scope for expansion to an actual biography beyond what the 1 Daily Beast article would give. The challenge to that is not "I'm equally as un-famous as this person is!". That's the rejected fame and importance criteria in action, too. The challenge to that is the provenances, separateness, independence, and depths of the sources. How much of that Elle piece is actually autobiography, for example? It was Jahaza's burden to read and cite the sources, but it's now your burden to read them, too. Uncle G (talk) 10:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                        • We disagree there. I respect you think that these sources show notability, but my point is that that seems to be quite a stretch of WP's definition of notability. I did look at the sources. If we decide to keep the article, it would then need to reflect the sources. The Daily Beast, if you read, describes the subject as a "sleazy dating coach" and Putin-shill". Surely that needs to go into the article, if we think that the same article is what provides notability. Similarly, lots seem to be made here of his authorship (un-notable though I think it is), but almost the entire article is about his alleged adventures in Ukraine. So I still don't think notability is established (but of course respect you and others disagreeing), but at least we cannot argue for notability based on some sources, but then pass over those sources in the article. Jeppiz (talk) 10:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article's subject does not meet the GNG, regardless of this discussion's heat/light ratio. Miniapolis 00:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sourcing is all from low-quality sources, WP:PRIMARY or non-WP:INDEPENDENT sources for stuff that he wrote, WP:BIASED sources, or other sources that are similarly inappropriate to write an entire article around. Clearly fails WP:AUTHOR due to the limited secondary coverage of his output, and WP:GNG due to the weak sourcing. The best source here is probably the Daily Beast article, but we can't write a BLP article using just that. --Aquillion (talk) 03:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The sourcing is all from low-quality sources, WP:PRIMARY or non-WP:INDEPENDENT sources for stuff that he wrote, WP:BIASED sources, or other sources that are similarly inappropriate to write an entire article around." @Aquillion this isn't true though. We have newspaper profiles and reference book entries that are secondary, independent, and unbiased. We don't have to base the article on the Daily Beast article.--Jahaza (talk) 04:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a YouTuber who courts controversial subjects, not a war journalist. There are dozens of vloggers who have more notoriety and subscribers. He doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Liz Read! Talk! 03:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • We shouldn't even be looking at subscribers though. Candice Hutchings was kept with 448 thousand subscribers, while Camila Loures was deleted even with 14 million. And how many of those vloggers went missing in a war zone? If we take Lira at his word, his computer was confiscated, so how would he be expected to amass more views and subscribers now? Havradim leaf a message 04:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It burns my mind when I think about the fact that one so not notable someone generates so much attention here... 😉 - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @GizzyCatBella, you have made that point around ten times in this same discussion now. You're free to hold that voew, but to repeat it time and time again starts to come off as disruptive or trying to make a WP:POINT and it's time to stop it now. We get it, you think that page views are a sign of notability (even when a minor influencer can use social media to direct views). Lots of us disagree. Nothing wrong with your opinion, but you've stated it over and over again by now, we know what you think and you don't need to keep repeat the same point. Jeppiz (talk) 09:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Got it. I don’t have much experience with bloggers but that’s what strikes me the most. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, FYI the article has been created in 8 languages on Wikipedia: arabic, german, spanish, italian, japanese, russian, serbian, english.--Mhorg (talk) 08:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Mhorg - how many views has the article generated in 7 days as of today? 58,000 and counting 🙂 ? I seriously do not understand editors disputing the notability of that fella. But well, I might be mistaken. Maybe Lira is going to be shortly forgotten after all dust settles - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Mhorg and @GizzyCatBella, the fact there appears to be off-wiki canvassing, with the subject himself referring his followers to his Wikipedia article, of course meands that there will be some interest. That doesn't mean there's notability. Any vlogger with even a very modest following (for vloggers) can of course temporarily direct his followers to a WP article. Jeppiz (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The ANI thread seems to be having a similar effect (though that was presumably not the intention) as well, with regular editors coming in and making comments without reading through the entire debate.--Jahaza (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wade through all the canvassing and fringe hits, and this is a WP:ONEEVENT issue, nothing more ... and frankly, a spurious event, if the subject himself is whipping up a self-promotional frenzy on his behalf off-Wiki. I'm unimpressed with that his books turn up as Google hits, or that it has been found that some of them are part of a national library's collection. The same can be said of MY published works, some of which are in the collection of the Library of Congress, and I sure as hell don't qualify for a Wikipedia article. Ravenswing 10:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid you've misunderstood the part about the Chilean National Library. It's not that his books are there (I don't even know if they are), but that they had a file of press clippings from Chilean newspapers about his work (now extensively described above).--Jahaza (talk) 18:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources in the article already cited seem sufficient to me to pass WP:GNG. --Jayron32 12:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete low-quality sources, press releases, etc... At best, there's a barely-there Daily Beast cite, but then we're still at WP:ONEEVENT. ValarianB (talk) 12:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not the sources that are in the article that are the concern, but the sources that have been demonstrated to be available. That includes extensive coverage of him as a novelist in high quality Chilean newspapers as well as in reputable American periodicals.--Jahaza (talk) 18:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. It's a bit disrespectful to others to keep repeating this as if we hadn't seen the sources. We have. I think you did a good job finding them, and I respect that. I have read them. They do not show sufficient support for notability. They are mainly very old articles from a time when it was thought the subject might make it as an author. With hindsight, we can say categorigaclly that he didn't. The story seems to be that he got paid handsomely for a book contract in the 90s, and that's what much of the press articles are about, but the book flopped and he never had his breakthrough as an author. He certainly didn't produce the "significant body of work" that WP:AUTHOR requires. Let's put it this way: If he really had been a notable person, would it be necessary to rely on some media articles from the 90s? Jeppiz (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That you have seen the sources doesn't mean that other people have, especially when they make comments like saying that this is WP:ONEEVENT based on the Daily Beast article about his alleged kidnaping when there are clearly articles that have nothing to do with the kidnapping. He might still not be notable, but not because there's only one article about one event. Meanwhile, it's a discussion and we get to discuss. You've made plenty of posts of your own to the page.--Jahaza (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I echo Jeppiz; you have made your statement, and it's poor practice to seek to rebut every single Delete proponent. Like Jeppiz, I read the sources. Like Jeppiz, I find them to be casual, ephemeral mentions without any there there. Kindly accept that we, and many other editors who've made their opinions known above, do not agree with you. Ravenswing 19:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      It's fine if you disagree and think that the sources don't show notability. It's confusing if someone says the only source is a Daily Beast article or when you claim that someone's argument was that his books are in the Chilean National Library, when they didn't. We write articles all the time about people who are long dead based on old articles about their work.--Jahaza (talk) 20:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Jahaza, sorry if I was unclear, you're of course more than welcome to post (not that you need my permission). More than that, you've contributed nicely to the discussion. I merely meant that the argument of us not being aware of the sources isn't accurate. If I can correct one point above, though: we do write articles about people who are long dead, but not based on only a few very old articles. While Napoleon, Caesar, Shakespeare or Ramses are all long dead, it's no problem finding plenty of modern sources for them. The issue here is exactly that we don't find such sources for the subject. Had he been notable, there would have been at least some sources from the last five or ten years. It's exactly that absence of sources that makes me conclude he is not notable (outside his circle of followers). Jeppiz (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was leaning delete due to WP:1E, but there are two Spanish language sources "Gonzalo Lira: "Escribir no es ningún misterio"" and "El Hombre del Millon de Dolares" that appear to meet WP:GNG and mean that WP:1E does not apply. I couldn't read them, so I asked Ixtal to do so and they were kind enough to help out:
The first link is most definitely significant and would indicate notability by itself in my opinion. The pdf is from an article in El Mercurio, Chile's top newspaper (see digital reference backing this up in the Chilean national digital archive of the article). Both are interviews of the ones you'd expect of major literary figures, so while the biographical information may not be entirely independent, they to me indicate notability. The Chilean national digital library has 24 articles on him which altogether confirms that. Hope this helps, BilledMammal! — Ixtal ⁂ (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
BilledMammal (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but those articles are almost all from 1998 and are about the fact that he was paid a million dollars for a book (that since flopped). I agree, an unknown writer being paid that much is unusual, not surprising it made the news. But doesn't that mean we are basically with the situation that 24 years ago there were a few articles about him as a "the million dollar man" as he tried to make it as author. He never made it, and for 24 years there was nothing about him. This month there was some very minor coverage of him as a "sleazy dating coach" as he claimed to have been detained (not verified, btw). Am I missing something, or is that all there is? Jeppiz (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are correct regarding sources, but I would disagree with your conclusions. I believe that the argument being made here is that the subject satisfies WP:NBASIC, nothing more. Pointing to a book that might have flopped seems to be missing the forest for the trees. ... an unknown writer being paid that much is unusual, not surprising it made the news. Per WP:NOTCENSORED, that is exactly what we deal in here: The unusual, the outlandish and yes, even the controversial. Havradim leaf a message 23:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • With due respect, I think you misunderstand WP:NOTCENSORED. Nobody had objected to the article as offensive or controversial, but many have objected due to the subject not being notable. That has nothing to do with censorship. Jeppiz (talk) 09:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I figured earlier last week there might be some sort of international incident due to his alleged disappearance (which really is why a large amount of random media started paying him much attention), but it did not appear to materialise in major reliable sources of note - perhaps the most notable are coverage in media like RT, Sputnik (or affiliates) and other Russian state media etc that are WP:Depreciated. He's been doing the Youtube circuit since then, appearing on random Youtuber's shows, but the coverage seems to have dried up from RS. Sources, like the Chilean interferencia, when talking about his earlier literary and film works noted that despite the high dollar amount from his book deal, sales did not materialise, and his film had received bad reviews from critics. Probably why these works did not have lasting notability - coverage of these works did not last outside of the PR articles written before they came out. His economics punditry did not seem to have much written about it in RS. So then, his incel/dating coach and war coverage vlog seem to be what is left, which is covered in the dailybeast article. Cononsense (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the disclaimer, this discussion is acquiring a vote character. I would wish to make the argument that 1) notoriety does constitute notability in the sense that a user may want to seek encyclopedic knowledge on a topic, 2) keeping a page does not close the door to adequate expression of doubt or criticism, while deleting it, removes all options for expression wrt a specific topic. In consequence, I am perceiving the benefit of the doubt as pointing towards keeping, regardless of the notion of worthiness or unworthiness I might have of the subject. 79.116.93.221 (talk) 02:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC) — 79.116.93.221 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good comment IP 79.116.93.221 🙂 - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "removes all options for expression wrt a specific topic". Deletion doesn't mean we don't cover a topic, it means we don't have a dedicated, stand-alone article under this title. Any information from the article can be expressed elsewhere at Wikipedia, in other relevant articles as necessary. Deletion of the article doesn't mean banning of the content; just that this would not be a topic that merits its own article. (disclosure: I voted keep above). --Jayron32 12:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"removes all options for expression wrt a specific topic" - that's not true. If Lira does something noteworthy, it can still be mentioned in other, appropriate articles. BeŻet (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...and someone will remove that mention arguing that the person isn't notable and pointing to the absence of dedicated article on Wikipedia. 🙂 - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Existence of dedicated articles on Wikipedia is never used to justify inclusion of content, so this argument is moot. BeŻet (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So he was only detained by security forces. Non-event. We should close this discussion, it's gotten silly, WP:SNOW Oaktree b (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So many people are voting to delete because they don't like him as a person. They are framing this as "notability". He is incredibly notable. He is a published author in two languages, a film director, a notable blogger as well as YouTuber. His disappearance made international news. If that alone does not make him notable, what does? But the people who want him deleted don't like what he has said. That's the truth. That's pathetic.--Dorfpert (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2022 (UTC) — Dorfpert (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC) [reply]
  • WP:Assume good faith. Havradim leaf a message 17:05, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yes, I'm sure you're astonished that anyone could possibly uphold a standard with which you disagree, however much embedded in policies and guidelines, without there being some sinister motive. Ravenswing 16:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He appears to be notable only due to him being only detained by Ukrainian forces. WP:ONEEVENT. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it makes much sense to do so, coverage is good and the disappearance has plenty of publicity and he has a good career as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.183.250 (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Coverage seems ephemeral and it all boils down to WP:ONEEVENT. Stifle (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Press coverage of his million dollar book advance and recent activities in the Ukraine justify his inclusion.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 20:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:49, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantin Ivanovich Olmezov[edit]

Konstantin Ivanovich Olmezov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is no notability for this person. He is just a student who committed suicide. WP:NOTNEWS is violated by this article. --ZemanZorg (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 21:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Johnson (Alaska politician)[edit]

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

A politician filling an appointed position not subject to WP:NPOL, the biography fails WP:GNG, and a BEFORE search brought up only primary mentions or mere mentions (though the common name doesn't help.) SportingFlyer T·C 15:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Alaska. SportingFlyer T·C 15:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The head of a major state agency is obviously notable. And plenty of sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Heads of state-level agencies are not automatically notable. KidAd • SPEAK 18:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is it a ministerial/cabinet level position or just a civil servant? If he was minister/secretary of education, he'd be notable, otherwise, I don't see it. Oaktree b (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. and KidAd. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 21:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The governor considers this to be a cabinet-level position, aka the state Secretary of Education, to answer User:Oaktree b's question. See pages 5-6 of this handbook which names the 14 cabinet positions in Alaksa. News stations also name Michael Johnson as a cabinet member. The Commissioner of Education is independently appointed by a board of education and confirmed by the Governor. Per page 31 referring to powers, the commissioner has regulatory/rule-making authority. In addition to other duties/powers, if the commissioner issues a rule designated as an emergency, then it's unilaterally binding. A politician need not be elected; they may be only active in party politics and seek political power. Another source specifically names Johnson as a member of the cabinet and implies a relationship between him being appointed and him helping the governor's campaign. Clearly, he is a politician with independent state-wide political authority, named by the handbook as a state executive officer.
As a holder of state-wide office, he must meet WP:NPOL. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 00:47, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further Question/Comment: Does nom's "BEFORE search" refer to a search for sources exclusively prior to Johnson being appointed and confirmed as Commissioner? I don't believe this is an appropriate way to assess WP:GNG if so. Subject seems to be well-covered. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 20:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A state-level head of education is certainly notable. I don't see how readers would be served by removing this article. Station1 (talk) 07:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is considered to be part of the cadinet of Alaska. Those who hold cabinet level in a first level subdivision in a federal government (that is states in the US, Germany, Mexico, Brazil, India, and a few other countries) are default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The position is cabinet level in the Government of Alaska, presumed notability for a subnational politician in a federal system under WP:NPOL. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This politician passes WP:NPOL. MickyShy (talk) 11:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Switching from my previous "delete" !vote. Arguments made by Ramaksoud2000, John Pack Lambert and others in favor of keeping the article have convinced me that the subject passes WP:NPOL. Sal2100 (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 generation II Pokémon. ✗plicit 23:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Togepi[edit]

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

Not WP:NOTABLE enough for its own article, Jumps in and out of WP:GAMECRUFT and MOS Fiction. And in general, not an article for Wikipedia, Perhaps bulbapedia would be a better place. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 15:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Anime and manga. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 15:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of generation II Pokémon. I agree that it miserably fails WP:GNG with no WP:SIGCOV in terms of reception worth noting. The reception that is there is a bit ridiculous and shows that pretty much anything was searched for even a minor mention of the character with no regard for how much sense it makes in context. The character's importance is still not established. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:31, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Zxcvbnm. Looks a lot like WP:REFBOMB has happened here. The problem is that while significant effort has clearly been taken to make Togepi look notable on its own, a skim of the references reveals the opposite. Sources are not focused on the article subject itself. Much of the content is in-universe. The reception is effectively stitched together from passing mentions. Certainly no harm in a redirect, though. Red Phoenix talk 16:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to said list, and I want to stress, merge, not redirect. Half if not more of the reception, while cobbled from passing mentions, all failing WP:SIGCOV, can be preserved in that list. It's a bit disappointing that most of my similar suggestions to merge and not just redirect such Pokemon content have often been ignored. I do wonder if User:BOZ would like to make a list of such articles to merge from redirect... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is an issue with large amounts of irrelevant information cropping up in the Notes section of these lists. A List of Pokemon is meant to serve as a casual reference, if people wish to know indepth reception that is why Bulbapedia is there. Given that Bulbapedia will always be superior to any coverage in Wikipedia under the rules, don't really see the point. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of generation II Pokémon per Zxcvbmn. Judging by the article, nothing seems to suggest that this pokemon is notable. Heck even in the franchise, Togepi is only notable for the anime. The sources aren't even talking about Togepi directly, secondary sources that is. Also as Zxcvbmn said, Bulbapedia is a better place to search for this pokemon. CaptainGalaxy 16:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the Gen 2 list. I'll be sad to see this one go, though. I love the "pleasantly plump and fatty" part. ArdynOfTheAncients (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above sentiments. Don't be fooled by the massive reference list, it's a WP:REFBOMB situation, and the reception is filled with inane and useless passing mentions. Source called Togepi "a fatty", another source ranked in 93rd place in a listicle, etc. Nothing of substance. Sergecross73 msg me 12:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as an alternative to deletion. Some of the contents are viable for preservation, as noted by Piotrus. Haleth (talk) 04:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Haleth Can you please specify what parts specifically are viable for preservation? :) PerryPerryD Talk To Me 14:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of the promotional stuff like Eggo, Burger King and the airplane which are backed up by RS? Why are you directing that question at me and not Piotrus since he was the one who stressed on the merge? Haleth (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Because you !vote'd to merge, and niether of you were too specific on what should remain. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 14:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The specifics are a matter for editorial discretion and is irrelevant to an AfD discussion. It is quite common, and in fact encouraged by Wikipedia deletion guidelines, to suggest an alternative if there appears to be some content worth preserving. It's all according to individual judgment so your mileage may vary. Haleth (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, thanks for informing me. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 16:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the Gen 2 list due to lack of significant and reliable coverage. Bulbapedia's a thing, after all. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 20:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of generation II Pokémon. I would normally say keep, based on the fact there's been coverage in IGN, Comicbook.com, Game Rant, Screen Rant, etc, but we had a giant mess before where every single Pokémon species had their own individual articles, before most of them got merged. There are about a thousand or so Pokemon species now and having an article on every single of them is just going to be a case of WP:NOTBULBAPEDIA. If we don't keep the list of articles on fictional elements under control, we're just going to turn into Fandom, and that's an issue that goes beyond just sourcing and notability.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kennett, Missouri. Liz Read! Talk! 05:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Kennett, Missouri[edit]

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

List of not notable local politicians. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, and Missouri. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Kennett, Missouri. I don't see any reason to purge the info from the wiki, but this would be better served by cleaning the list into a more elegant table than by just breaking it out into its own page. --fuzzy510 (talk) 13:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most of this information is unsourced. For most cities a list of the individuals who were mayor is more detail than is justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Kennett, Missouri. Merge just a few details. So this list has a member with an article and the city has more than 10k residents. It is something but not enough. I think we need two members with an article (no redirect) at the very least. Better three or more. gidonb (talk) 15:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Biased Keep Yeah, I created this. I'll vote keep -- if a biased vote is even allowed. It's history. Most big city mayors, except a few very big city mayors, are rather non-notable. A few American mayors have been state representatives are something like that or perhaps the relative of a more famous person, but that's about it usually. Durindaljb (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional I am not sure why there is a sudden fury to delete several articles that I created and have been around in wikipedia for the past 7 1/2 years! I guess I really wasted countless hours of time with this project. Over 17 references are not enough? Durindaljb (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge simple list into Kennett, Missouri, per above comments. The information could be useful, but I don't think it warrants its own article. --Noahfgodard (talk) 21:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:LISTN. Not one notable politician on this list. KidAd • SPEAK 20:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pop. 10,000 is modestly better than most of these lists, but still a list of not notable people in a small town. Wikipedia isn’t an indiscriminate collection of local data and statistics. Dronebogus (talk) 11:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per sources. Seriously, why did none of that come up when I googled? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maria V. Snyder[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:NAUTHOR. None of the awards won is from a major award organization. I couldn't find any sources about the author herself, nor anything about her books. Prod declined with "notable works" but I don't see it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Pennsylvania. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the creator of a significant and well-known work or collective body of work for young adults and children (WP:NAUTHOR#2). Nine of her books were reviewed by Publishers Weekly[66], two more by Kirkus[67], and five by Locus[68]. pburka (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, see e.g. this The Guardian children's books podcast interview about her work[69] and recommended reading "after Harry Potter" review; also in the Guardian[70], and a review for one specific book in the Guardian as well[71], which also has a full article on her[72]. Recommended by the Times of India[73]. Plus the sources already in the article, given above, inaccessible to me (LancasterOnline), or of unclear reliability[74]. Fram (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How did literally none of that come up when I searched? I just got a bunch of false positives. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pburka@Fram please add those to the article! Those are great finds Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I added reviews to the article when I deprodded it ;) I'm not sure if the Guardian reviews are reliable, as they appear to be written by someone named "Wanderer378", but the PW, Kirkus, Locus ones are sufficient, anyway, IMO. pburka (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 15:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Durgamasur[edit]

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

completely unsourced and not notable. google doesnt even find anything other than this wiki page FMSky (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, this is a candidate for Speed Deletion as a hoax. Tisnec (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment More than enough hits in GScholar mentioning this entity, not sure how notable they are. The page as it stands is a long rant, likely a copyvio copied from somewhere. Badly needs a rewrite if kept. Oaktree b (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have removed the massive chunk of completely unreferenced verbiage which was added recently. I have no idea where that came from. It probably wasn't a hoax but... who knows? Without references it could be anything. The article is back to being a stub. I propose that the AfD proceed on the basis of evaluating the stub. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete So what have we got here? The lack of an article in Hindi makes me wonder how legit this is but the article is not an orphan so you might hope that somebody would have spotted those articles linking to a bogus topic if this is bogus. That said, the subject is mentioned in Durga#Pancharatra_texts with unconvincing references so... Is it bogus? It doesn't seem to be a complete hoax because we have a passing mention in a book from 1997 here which has Durgamasur being killed by Durga, as recounted in the article. The snippet suggests that there are details in the Devi Mahatmya but I can't find the name Durgamasur in this translation. There is a brief mention of slaying an asura called Durgama though. (Speculation: Durgama + asura = Durgamasur?) There a few hits in Google Scholar but they all trace back to Wikipedia so that's no use. I'm going to say that the topic here is probably real but definitely not notable. At best, this is a very minor character in Hindu mythology who exists solely to get killed by a character that people actually care about. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:DanielRigal. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 22:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Bikini Philippines 2022[edit]

Miss Bikini Philippines 2022 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unfinished article, no sources, does not fit notability guidelines Milesq (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shiranthi Rajapaksa[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources - noting that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. The individual is not automatically notable simply because she is married to a significant politician. Nor does wining a national beauty pageant make her notable. Should be redirected to Mahinda Rajapaksa. Dan arndt (talk) 07:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question She is the spouse of the president of Sri Lanka (Mahinda Rajapaksa), doesn't that make her notable? From the page on WP:NOTINHERITED I see this statement: Note, however, that this does not apply to situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right, such as a national First Lady. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • DaffodilOcean it also states can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What about the article about common outcomes of WP:Afd discussions [75] which says "The spouse of the head of state or government is usually regarded as notable? I realize that 'usually' is subjective, but the quote above is from the previous paragraph at WP:NOTINHERITED which is talking more generally about famous relatives, not a national first lady. DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep - based on the places in Wikipedia that I cited above, she's spouse of a head of state and therefore usually notable. DaffodilOcean (talk) 11:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beccaynr having changed their view, the "keep" opinions based solely on their views must be given less weight. Sandstein 12:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Harris Seeley[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a film and television director, not properly referenced as passing WP:CREATIVE. As always, our inclusion standards are not automatically passed by every person whose article says they did stuff -- the notability test isn't in what they did, it's in how much media coverage they did or didn't get for doing what they did.
But this is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all -- IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, her "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of organizations or companies that she's been directly affiliated with, and an alumni profile in the alumni magazine of her own alma mater -- without showing even one piece of reliable or notability-supporting coverage in a real media outlet at all, and even on a ProQuest search I can't find anything better (all I get is nine glancing namechecks of her existence in pieces that aren't about her, which isn't enough.)
Even the one potentially valid notability claim here (a Gemini Award nomination in an obscure category) isn't an instant notability freebie if you have to rely on her own self-published web presence to support it because it's completely unverifiable in real media coverage -- we have seen articles created that falsely claimed award nominations the subject didn't really have, so even when it comes to award nominations the notability test still vests not in the words "Gemini Award" but in the media coverage that can or can't be shown to independently verify that the award nomination actually happened.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have any real WP:GNG-worthy sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 11:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 11:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 11:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 11:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the well reasoned argument of the nominator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found reviews for The Legend of La Llorona, e.g. Guardian (Jan. 11, 2022), Austin Chronicle (Jan. 7, 2022), and Screenrant (Jan. 9, 2022), Bloody Disgusting (Jan. 12, 2022), etc. For Superhero Wannabe, I found a listing in a 2004 Variety article for the Toronto Film Festival. Award nominations for Caution: May Contain Nuts are listed at 7th Canadian Screen Awards, with a source in the television series article. Beccaynr (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Seeley didn't get any CSA nominations for Caution: May Contain Nuts. The show was nominated in other categories at the 7th CSAs, yes, but Seeley wasn't one of the nominees, and thus can't inherit notability just because she worked with other people who were nominated in other categories where she herself wasn't. She was a Rosie nominee for that show, but the Rosies are a regional award that isn't an instant notability-clincher, not a national one. Her purported Gemini nomination was for something called X-Weighted, which I've been entirely unable to verify in any sources whatsoever. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:CREATIVE, there appears to be insufficient support from sources for #3, 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 #4 won significant critical attention. It appears WP:TOOSOON for more than a Weak delete. Beccaynr (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources that User:Beccaynr lists demonstrate notability as defined by WP:CREATIVE which calls for more than one review of their work in a good source CT55555 (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Seeing the update of the person who's comments informed mine, makes me change my perspective. I'm withdrawing my !vote. Consider me as abstaining, please. CT55555 (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are very many reliable, independant revews of The Legend of La Llorona. Therefore, subject meets WP:CREATIVE 3 (played a major role — directed and wrote — in creating a significant work which has recieved multiple reviews). Samsmachado (talk) 10:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Beccaynr the topic satisfy WP:GNG. JoyStick101 (talk) 06:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Beccaynr does not, in fact, make the supportive arguments that this !vote seems to suggest. In fact, this completely misunderstands what Beccanyr has written, twice. SN54129 14:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was pinged twice, so to follow up on my !vote to delete: my interpretation of WP:CREATIVE#3 is that we need more than reviews to support notability - the reviews are in addition to the work being significant or well-known, which I think can sometimes be supported by the volume and content of the secondary coverage. For this article, the reviews are largely negative and do not seem to indicate significance or notoriety, and there is little other verifiable evidence of critical recognition for her other work. WP:GNG/WP:BASIC does not appear sufficiently supported by the reviews, and significant independent and reliable coverage about her and her career has not been found. Beccaynr (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Beccayner; a careful WP:BEFORE supports the nom's orignal argument that there is insufficient SIGCOV to warrant a standalone article. Likewise, this is a BLP, so even more care should be taken, and reviews on their own are not sufficiently independent or third-party. Per WP:BLPSOURCES, contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable. SN54129 14:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Krista Kim[edit]

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

Promotional article that was cited to a flurry of promotional links and uncheckable dead links. 2017 PROD was declined. There was one actual RS actually about the artist. A WP:BEFORE shows passing mentions, mostly in publicity materials for an NFT put out by Lamborghini. I can't find any other solid biographical sources in actual solid RSes on the artist herself. I'd be delighted to be shown wrong, with said solid biographical sources in actual solid RSes, and not promotional venues, non-RSes etc. David Gerard (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, United Kingdom, and United States of America. David Gerard (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure if it's the same person, but an artist with the same name sold an NFT house in March 2021 and got several hits about it in CNN, USA Today etc. I think those might make the individual notable, if this is the same person. Oaktree b (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there seems to be a fair bit to work with. Bylined Forbes profile has quite a lot of bio information. This installation appears to have been covered quite a lot. Her virtual house NFT project got a lot of play - here's a CNN piece - and the resulting claims of fraud (NFTs, amirite) got some too. This is not my area, but I can try to build some of these into the article later and see where I can get. I suspect there's more to work with as well. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Forbes piece is a contributor blog, they aren't RSes. The CNN piece and Blogto (an RS?) is passing mentions at best. Surface piece might be usable though. I think the big problem is that the article is presently so obviously a press release that it'd need a rewrite from scratch. But if we have the sources, that's doable - David Gerard (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Has there been a discussion of the Forbes Contributor Program as an RS someplace? If so, I'd like to review it, because looking at the program it is an editor-reviewed offering that Forbes pays contributors for and tags with its editorial standards. If this was a marketing attempt by the artist, I'd expect to find this piece elsewhere, but there doesn't seem to be anything of the sort.
      Re the others, I think I'd argue with 'passing mentions' - they directly revolve around her project. The BlogTO article was the one I was looking at at the time, there are other options out there. I will try to do a quick rewrite this evening and see what I can manage. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, WP:FORBESCON is the WP:RSP entry specifically distinguishing Forbes RS content (staff bylines, from the print edition) from contributor blogs (not RSes and shouldn't be used, especially on a BLP - Forbes.com contributor articles should never be used for third-party claims about living persons.), and linking the discussions to this effect. Forbes contributor blogs are blog posts, not RSes, and shouldn't be used except in limited circumstances, and not as general references on a BLP as here - David Gerard (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I normally am perfectly fine with consensus here, but that one I would have argued hard about. I'm sorry to have missed that discussion, because it really discounts the work of freelance writers. I used the Forbes pieces for basic background information in the rewrite, but will attempt to find replacements if possible. 15:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC) Tony Fox (arf!) 15:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've just given this a rewrite to get rid of the promotional tones, add inline citations, include multiple new sources, etc. in the process, I think I've affirmed notability - I've added sources from the NYT, USA Today, and Motor Trend (of all things). (Honestly, I feel like I need to wash my hands after working to bail out a flogger of NFTs but here we are.) Tony Fox (arf!) 04:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Stripped out a little more material based on the concerns with Forbes contributor articles. There's still plenty here to go on. I can also add mentions of her as part of the Louis Vuitton Louis 200 project currently underway, as well as a listing on a Fortune magazine 50 NFT innovators list. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I did some general cleanup of this article to further neturalize the tone and highlight the relative importance of the notability centered around the NFTs. I did see several articles in Google News on this artist, and as a women artist and part of the WikiProjects: Women Artists, I think there's enough reason to include the brief article in wikipedia. I agree with other editors that some more robust biographical data would be a benefit, but just because the notability established is relatively new and therefore not a lot of substantial biographical data is available, doesn't mean the topic isn't notable. It's just in its infancy and will likely grow. Anyone who can create an NFT and sell it for >$500K USD, and get written up in the NY Times, Newsweek, and other major media sources is likely to continue this lucrative work..... and more information will become available for article expansion. Just my editorial two-cents. The Real Serena JoyTalk 23:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd be wary, most NFT purchases are wash trading in cryptos, often in order to write a press release. Also, Newsweek post-2013 is also specifically marked as a bad source on RSP - WP:NEWSWEEK. That's a bit of a tell - they promoted it in questionable sources like Newsweek. This is why writing about anything even slightly crypto, one has to be super strict on sourcing, NYT should be good though - David Gerard (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The keep !votes based on WP:ARTIST part 4 and WP:ANYBIO have been adequately refuted. Stifle (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeannie Pwerle[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Edwardx (talk) 09:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep On the basis of criterion 4 of WP:ARTIST. Explanation follows
  1. Criterion calls for artists work being "a substantial part of a significant exhibition"
  2. So was the "Know my Name" exhibition by the National Gallery of Australia significant? I think yes. My sources to back that up 1 2 3 I could go on, there is a ton of coverage if you search "Know My Name" in google news.
  3. And so was her work a substantial part of the exhibition? This is the weakest link in my logic chain, there are between over 250 artists in the exhibition So I think this could be argued either way, but also it was a country's national galleries most expensive exhibition ever (see above). Pwerle is mentioned and got her own page https://knowmyname.nga.gov.au/artists/jeanie-pwerle/
  4. So in summary, the national gallery of a country is specifically telling us there are the 250 artists we should know about, it's quite directly telling us there are the notable artists, and she's one of them. I think she passes WP:ARTIST CT55555 (talk) 10:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If there are over 250 artists in the show, then one painting by Pwerle cannot be deemed "a substantial part". And every artist gets their own page at the exhibtion website, so that means nothing. Edwardx (talk) 10:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    When the national gallery of a country puts on an exhibition that is explicitly telling us that women have been underrepresented and this is an attempt to showcase the ones we should know, they are really doing exactly what I think the people who wrote WP:ARTIST intended. All 250 are notable, as I see it. I don't see any sources for your statement that this is "one painting" so if you have more sources about her work, please share them.
    I think we need to consider scale here. If a local gallery said "here's the 250" best artists from our town, I'd accept the counter argument more easily. When the national gallery of a nation with 25 million people says "there are the 250" I think we need to accept that all 250 are probably notable.
    I also don't think that just because they created pages for the artists in the series it should diminish my point. What the gallery did or did not do for others, I think, are arguments to avoid in AfD. CT55555 (talk) 11:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took a look at how we represent the artists in Know my Name. We have articles on approximately 75 % of the participants. It would be interesting to look at it a bit more closely and see if there is bias in our coverage. Vexations (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My preference would be to keep the article, but the it has some serious issues. I didn't see any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Galleries who sell Pwerle's work have written about it, but that does not establish notability because it is not independent coverage. The collections listed appear to fail verification. A commercial art gallery that has some works by an artist in stock is not a collection. The NGA would be significant, but fails verification. I cannot confirm that they bought any work by Pwerle. Notability here hinges on whether qualified professionals (not us) find the work somehow important ot significant. I am very sympathetic to CT55555's argument that recognition by the NGA ought to suffice. I'd like to see better sources. Are there no reviews? That would really help.
Motivated by your comment, I looked into her exhibiting in the places she mentioned. I got here http://holmesacourtgallery.com.au/article/angelina-pwerle Now is "Angelina Pwerle" and "Jeannie Pwerle" both of Utopia the same person? I see she goes by at least four names and Jeanie does sound like a contraction of Angelina, so I'm saying yes. i.e. I think the claim is verifiable. But also is it a commercial gallery? I think it is, but seems like it also houses a collection, but seems maybe her art was not in it permanently. This is obviously frustrating the way we live in a world where Aboriginal women in Australia have been documented to be excluded from media, and we're applying the exact same standard to her as everyone else. This is a bigger conversation than this AfD, but I think Wikipedia also does encourage common sense and there is literally an agreed philosophy that we can "ignore all rules" if they have negative consequences. What is a worse consequence that upholding systemic bias, systems of oppression. Should we ignore that because it's a bigger, longer term problem? I hope not. I plea to anyone reading this to vote, as Wikipedia encourages, using common sense, the spirit of the rules and the spirit of "we are here to build an encyclopedia" CT55555 (talk) 12:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC) My comment was framed with a mistaken starting assumption, as corrected below, now striking out. CT55555 (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CT55555, Angelina Pwerle is a different artist. She was born in 1946 in Utopia. We have an article on her. Netherzone (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Here is confirmation that the National Gallery of Australia bought one of Pwerle's works (an untitled woodcut) in 1990. I'll try and confirm this at the library tomorrow, but I believe she has a biographical entry in the book Aboriginal Artists Dictionary of Biographies by Margo Birnberg and Janusz Kreczmanski. --Canley (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:ARTIST states: "The person's work (or works) has: ... (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." Several means three or more, and this being a print does not help. Edwardx (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Switching vote to Delete based on comments by Edwardx and Netherzone. One collection is not enough to satisfty WP:NARTIST 4(d), even if it is the national gallery. Furthermore, there is no current basis for passing WP:GNG as the references are nearly all gallery sources. Curiocurio (talk)
@Curiocurio I wonder if you noted that, Netherzone, just voted to keep? CT55555 (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment NARTIST 4(d) states that these need to be "notable galleries or museums". Mbantua Gallery is a commerical gallery that sells her work. As for the Holmes à Court Collection (which in itself is at best marginally notable), all we have is a claim on a CV page from japingkaaboriginalart.com, another commercial gallery that sells her work. Sorry, but this is a clear 4d fail. Edwardx (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NARTIST 4(d) Theredproject (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment See my comment for the Keep vote above. Edwardx (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Aboriginal Artists Dictionary of Biographies meets ANYBIO Theredproject (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment regarding the "collections" - Two of the "collections" are definitely not notable permanent museum collections, the article is in error (I'll correct that after this post). The Mbantua Gallery is not a museum it is a commercial sales gallery, and the item supposedly in their collection has been sold by the gallery. See: [76]. The Holmes a Court Gallery is also a commercial sales gallery, not a museum, the citation in the article goes to a "Add to Cart, How to Buy" page.[77]. So it appears that these galleries show her work, but that fact does not contribute to notability. The National Gallery of Australia collection can be verified, but one collection is not enough to put her over the bar of WP:NARTIST. Courtesy pings to Curiocurio, CT55555, Theredproject about the collections. I'm holding off on !voting to see if Canley was able to find her in the Aboriginal Artists Dictionary of Biographies, if so she would pass WP:ANYBIO Netherzone (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment She does have an entry in Aboriginal Artists Dictionary of Biographies, but the bio is pretty short (about 32 words). The entry does mention that Pwerle was one of 46 featured artists in the Meeting Place five-year travelling exhibition (confirmed on the back of the poster) which seems pretty significant (it was a major exhibition featured during the International Council of Museums (ICOM) conference in Melbourne). --Canley (talk) 03:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I remain keep for the reasons I made in my first comment (i.e. the national gallery saying she is one of their top 250). CT55555 (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - based on the short entry in Aboriginal Artists Dictionary of Biographies, she meets WP:ANYBIO criterion #3. That combined with the fact she is in the National Gallery collection, I think the article should be retained. Netherzone (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Funny how people clutch at straws to try keep worthy pursuits like art and academia went there is no hint of passing GNG and rabidly attack less highbrow activities like sport even when there is a clear verified passing of a SNG. No that dictionary is not the "country's standard national biographical dictionary", no pass of ANYBIO #2. 32 words is not a GNG pass. ARTIST 4d is not passed by being sold in shops. duffbeerforme (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon (talk) 13:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gautam Kitchlu[edit]

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

The person is only known from his relationship (husband) with a notable person (actress Kajal Aggarwal). He is not independently notable as can be seen in the reliable sources used in the article [78] [79] [80] as well as in simple Google searches [81]. Other sources are unreliable, Wiki-like or commercial sites. Fails WP:GNG in my opinion. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He is independent businessman tho...
networth stands at 8 crore and is credited with being a successful entrepreuner adding to reliability right? Forevereditor9 (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No input appears forthcoming Star Mississippi 13:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Briskin[edit]

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

Cannot find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. Run-of-the-mill person. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 11:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alan's Briskins books, especially "Collective Wisdom," have made a worthy contribution to our current understanding of collective wisdom and the place of "soul" in the contemporary psychology of human experience. If one of the criteria for inclusion is the importance and influence of an authors' body of work, Alan Briskin certainly meets that criterion. 73.189.22.95 (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There's no consensus whether and where to redirect to, but editors can create and if need be contest such a redirect. Sandstein 12:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Víctor Velasco[edit]

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

No evidence of notability Ficaia (talk) 12:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope others will recognise that those are all database entries with no sigcov. He is only mentioned once in the pdf. Ficaia (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Per WP:NSPORT, all athletes must pass GNG. No significant coverage in the article itself and the above links do not feature any significant coverage. Was unable to find any myself. More than happy to change my !vote if any significant coverage is found. Alvaldi (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Alvaldi. BilledMammal (talk) 09:31, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose redirect, as it would be ambiguous - there is also a Commander Víctor Velasco, who was executed during the Solís Uprising - this Velasco might be notable, which means a redirect should not be had per WP:REDLINK. I consider it unlikely that someone will type "Víctor Velasco" when they are looking for "Victor Velasco" the Barefoot in the Park character. BilledMammal (talk) 01:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon (talk) 12:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. If it is deleted, Victor Velasco should be redirected to Barefoot in the Park instead. (CC) Tbhotch™ 17:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we have decided that just conpeting in the Olympics is not enough to show notability, and the one refernece to a sports stats page is not enough to show notability and no one has even suggested other references that could be used. The four linked sources above are all more sports databases which are sources that cannot be used to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

青島 (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Disambiguation page not required. Primary topic article has a hatnote to Aoshima (disambiguation). Leschnei (talk) 12:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations, China, and Japan. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete On English language Wikipedia, the titles of articles, even DAB pages, must be Romanized per WP:UE. Since the Latin alphabet spellings of this term have primary topics (Qingdao and Aoshima, Miyazaki), a DAB page is not necessary. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete – I don't think disambiguation page titles must always be romanized (for instance 南山 and 九龍 (disambiguation) are appropriate DAB pages), but in this case we don't need the disambiguation page because it only disambiguates two titles. The hatnote at Qingdao is sufficient. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Flying Disc Federation[edit]

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

This article is about a sports organisation with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. A search for sources turns up a lot directory listings but nothing useful for establishing notability. The article creator likely has an undisclosed conflict of interest based on the signature from this comment as the individual appears to be the founder of the organisatio. Whpq (talk) 12:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't look to pass WP:GNG- the sources linked above demonstrate the association exists, but not that it's notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No significant coverage or indication of notability for Wikipedia. Creator has also been blocked for undisclosed paid editing. Kpddg (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After a rewrite, the reason for deletion nomination no longer applies. Sandstein 21:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Thermopylae in popular culture[edit]

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

As written, this is a terrible mess that fails multiple policies and guidelines (WP:IPC, WP:GNG, WP:NLIST, WP:INDISCRIMINATE,WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR, WP:V). It's pretty much a list of mostly random media that mention the battle, with no analysis (the twist this time is that lenghty quotations are provided for many classicsl mentions). What little there is, analysis-wise, is limited to a single poorly referenced sentence in the lead (" The sacrifice of the Spartans and the Thespians has captured the minds of many throughout the ages and has led to the creation of many cultural references as a result.", the ref is a reliable book but the page number is missing). My WP:BEFORE, however, does suggest this topic is potentially notable (sample sources: [86], [87], [88]) but given the state of the article, I think WP:TNT applies - if I was to rewrite this, I don't think I would use a single sentence or reference from the current mess, and as usual, keeping such a mess is likely only going to scare away any potential, serious contributors, who are not going to want to waste their time trying to rewrite this hopeless 95% ORish piece (which, btw, liberally treats its subject and contains unreferenced, of course, trivial claims such as "Asteroid 2782 Leonidas is named for the Spartan king." and "The name "Leonidas" passed into Russian as well as Ukrainian (shortened to "Leonid"), and remains a fairly common male name among the speakers of these languages. Among the prominent persons of that name are Soviet Union general secretary Leonid Brezhnev and Leonid Kuchma, president of the post-Soviet Ukraine."). So yeah, it even mixes its scope with topics such as the cultural reception of the name of the famous king who fought there, and others... Did I say this was a major mess? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update. I've done some weed whacking. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Clarityfiend Thanks, but I think all that remains is still trivial (a level in game x is based on the battle, etc.) and mostly unreferenced. Once we are done pruning the weed we will have just a sentence in the lead or so... (unless someone starts a rewrite using sources I found). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:30, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shilpi Raj[edit]

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

This is my first time nominating an article for deletion, so apologies if I have gotten something wrong. The subject does not appear to be notable, as a quick search shows multiple news articles on her, but they all seem to be about the same event. Out of the three sources currently cited, the first is a primary source, while the third I'm pretty sure is not reliable. The article was originally moved to draftspace, but the creator moved it back. I think that it is possible that sources exist in other languages which I don't speak. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 11:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources for the article, which is little more than an infobox. Few if any reliable sources, most appear to be tabloids. Oaktree b (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sadly she has some exploitative coverage in India's tabloid rags about an unfortunate incident in her personal life, but those are all minor mentions of an unreliable nature. Her singing career has received no reliable coverage. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No evidence of meeting WP:NSINGER or GNG -- Ab207 (talk) 20:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I personally draftified this article and it was moved back to main space . There's nothing to write home about here. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 21:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Elhenidy[edit]

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

No evidence of notability found, sources (external links) are not independent but organisations he works for or with. Perhaps better sources are available in Egyptian publications, but internationally, or in Germany where he now works, he seems to be hardly known. I can't find evidence of any "Dance de Lagos" in Portugal. Fram (talk) 10:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff in the article is unverifiable as well, e.g. I can't find no evidence of a diploma called "Royal Danish Ballet School technique". The membership of the Unesco CID is a paid, open to all membership, not some distinction. His school in Berlin is extremely minor[89]. Fram (talk) 11:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Despite a good deal of searching, I wasn't able to find any significant coverage either. Unless there are large numbers of sources that I'm missing due to the language barrier (and I think that's quite unlikely), he does not appear to meet either WP:NARTIST or the GNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In terms of policy-backed !votes, there's a clear consensus for deletion Nosebagbear (talk) 10:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mauro Alfonso[edit]

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

Businessman doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO- coverage is largely WP:PASSING mentions or of routine events. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Italy. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable business person. Passing mention in sources/press releases. Oaktree b (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in the last 20 years he covered primary roles in different companies. --Genera123 (talk) 08:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As the author of this article, could you please clarify which sources you believe shows that WP:NBIO is met? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While it's true that Alfonso has held several positions at various companies, that doesn't show that he's notable for Wikipedia purposes. My search didn't find much more than quotes and passing mentions in the press, which aren't enough to satisfy the GNG's requirement of significant coverage. The Financial Times article (ProQuest 1503352513) is a decent source, but it's mostly just an interview and isn't enough to demonstrate notability on its own. Since no logical ATDs come to mind, deletion is appropriate. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:05, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G11) by Jimfbleak. Non-admin closure. --MuZemike 11:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Rian Rehan[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. Sources check only comes up with what appears to be a self written blog. NonsensicalSystem(error?)(.log) 08:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America1000 08:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Kinder[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:N and WP:BIO and insufficient sources to establish notability. Coldupnorth (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Politicians, United Kingdom, and Scotland. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unsourced BLP. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG, as no sources appear to exist. Curbon7 (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a BLP with no sources at all. BLPs must support everything that they say with reliable sources. Since we have no sources, we must have a blank page, which is the same as deleting the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is written like somebody tried to convert the guy's résumé into prose, was created by a virtual WP:SPA whose edit history centred almost exclusively on the football club that this guy was a "director and briefly chairman" of (hence probable WP:COI), cites absolutely no reliable sourcing to get him over WP:GNG, and says absolutely nothing about him that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to get over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 13:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Procedural close. Any editor in good standing is welcome to bring in AfD if needed. We're not going to waste a week on this given the editor's other nominations. Star Mississippi 02:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of presidents of Sri Lanka[edit]

List of presidents of Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I redirected this article to List of heads of state of Sri Lanka as I believe that as it stands it is a duplicate of that article. Everything is there already. Is there enough of a rationale to have this article as well? Acting Presidents unsourced. Really doesn't merit a stand-alone article, where majority of them have a tenure of one or two days. Could be merged to president of Sri Lanka and List of heads of state of Sri Lanka. Uggdf (talk) 07:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 20:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Top Class (Philippine TV program)[edit]

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

This TV program is not satisfying WP:NFF. Jeni Wolf (talk) 06:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an upcoming television show, so we do not know all the details because it has not aired yet. Once it has aired, we can add more information. ArdynOfTheAncients (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America1000 08:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kaio Philipe[edit]

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

No indication of Notability according to the references which lacks WP:SIGCOV. fails WP:GNG. Jeni Wolf (talk) 05:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Brazil. Jeni Wolf (talk) 05:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Probable UPE, not seeing any SIGCOV from independent sources.-KH-1 (talk) 09:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a business personality in Brazil and Latin America 75.104.94.113 (talk) 13:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/pr/2021/06/01/arc-xp-power-digital-publishing-forthcoming-business-news-brand-bloomberg-lnea/ 75.104.94.113 (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The WaPo piece was published via the PR arm, so it doesn't count as independent coverage.-KH-1 (talk) 03:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. This is a business personality with several references 75.104.94.113 (talk) 13:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)striking sock per SPI CUPIDICAE💕 13:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. Further references added for notability. The person is notable as he has some credible references Sarah Freedmen (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Significant coverage BBC, Washington post, Bloomberg, from reliable sources 75.104.94.113 (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)striking sock per SPI CUPIDICAE💕 13:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Please provide links to the sources so we can judge why they are or are not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The obvious socks above (really, do better, guys!) don't sway me and the lack of RS covering him indicate he is no more than a guy with a job who can get PR style write ups. This is nothing more than vanity spam. CUPIDICAE💕 18:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing notable found. He's featured on a web page for TV5 Monde discussing an NFT he created, but it's only in passing he's mentioned. Most are mentions of his name in an article, nothing featuring him alone. Vanity spam. Oaktree b (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep it, independent sources and notable. User above mentioned TV5 Monde, this reference is not on the source. 24.234.111.66 (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)striking sock per SPI CUPIDICAE💕 13:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the references are there, unsure why the disputes if they are credible sources it seems tied up with the person role. Maria sharpov je (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)striking sock per SPI CUPIDICAE💕 13:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment TV5 Monde as described [90], entirely not notable as source. The same info can be found in a WGN radio article, [91]. Only mentioned in passing, the reliable sources as listed are token mentions, ehnce the non-notability. Not sure how "tying up the person role" helps to explain why this is notable. Zero mentions in the NYT, Jstor or GScholar, 3 "hits" in Gbooks but nothing mentioned about him. Nothing notable found. The BBC Brazil article is him being interviewed for the Olympics, nothing about him as a person. We need better sources about the subject, not just mentioning him. Other sources seem about as useless as that one. Oaktree b (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree, The Washigton Post and Bloomberg are credible sources for business, which seems to be the person background. 24.234.111.66 (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, the WaPo is a PR blog, so non-notable. The forbes article is about an awards ceremony that mentions him in passing. Did you read that article? It has little to nothing to do with the subject. Oaktree b (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We've dissected all the sources, none left that are notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The first !vote following the nomination essentially only provides a "per nom" rationale, and the second !vote provides no guideline- or policy-based rationale for deletion, with the user only stating that they "don't see" how the topic is notable, providing no other input. Sources were provided later in the discussion, along with a rationale that the trademark being non-notable is a non-issue relative to the article's content. However, nobody else who contributed earlier came back later to opine about these matters, and no other users came along afterward either, after three relistings. In light of all of this, closing with the caveat of No prejudice against speedy renomination, as this is essentially an incomplete discussion that gained no further input, when such input would have been vital. North America1000 06:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geoweb[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, despite A865 thinking that it passes GNG in Special:Diff/1079432645. Also, I agree with Brunnock's reason for proposed deletion, which was GEOWEB is a registered trademark which has nothing to do with the subject of this article.. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For reasons that GeoffreyT2000 stated. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is coverage of this in books, and as I mentioned the trademark is for an unrelated product in the construction industry and was filed after this article was created. A865 (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see how this is notable. Dr. Vogel (talk) 01:26, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, plenty of coverage of this term as described in the article. The fact that it is also a non-notable trademark, and that is not addressed in the article, is not a reason for deletion.[1][2][3][4][5][6]

References

  1. ^ Elwood, S.; Leszczynski, A. (2011). "Privacy, reconsidered: New representations, data practices, and the geoweb" (PDF). Geoforum. 42 (1). Elsevier: 6–15.
  2. ^ Crampton, Jeremy W.; Graham, Mark; Poorthuis, Ate; Shelton, Taylor; Stephens, Monica; Wilson, Matthew W.; Zook, Matthew (2013). "Beyond the geotag: situating 'big data'and leveraging the potential of the geoweb" (PDF). Cartography and geographic information science. 40 (2). Taylor & Francis: 130–139.
  3. ^ Roche, Stephane; Propeck-Zimmermann, Eliane; Mericskay, Boris (2013). "GeoWeb and crisis management: issues and perspectives of volunteered geographic information". GeoJournal. 78. Springer: 21–40.
  4. ^ Haklay, Muki; Singleton, Alex; Parker, Chris (2008). "Web mapping 2.0: The neogeography of the GeoWeb". Geography compass. 2 (6). Wiley: 2011–2039.
  5. ^ Elwood, Sarah (2011). "Geographic information science: Visualization, visual methods, and the geoweb". Progress in Human Geography. 35 (3): 401–408.
  6. ^ Johnson, Peter A.; Corbett, J. M.; Gore, C.; Robinson, Pamela; Allen, Peter; Sieber, Renee (2015). "A web of expectations: Evolving relationships in community participatory Geoweb projects". ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies. 14 (3): 827–848.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider sources found by SailingInABathTub.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There appears to be consensus that although this obviously could be a notable topic, it's currently an indiscriminate listing without any binding sources. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:02, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Technology in science fiction[edit]

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

Random, completely arbitrary grab-bag of unrelated technologies in science fiction. The sub-sections "Visitors from other planets" and "parallel worlds" have nothing whatsoever to do with technology. There is no clear coherent topic to be found anywhere; it's just an unvetted list that fails WP:IINFO. Each source is just about a random piece of technology and not about the wider-reaching subject of "technology in science fiction". If there is a central topic, then WP:TNT is desperately needed. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Technology, and Lists. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm sure many reliable sources discuss this topic. The article itself includes things not related to technology at all, such as the section Technology_in_science_fiction#ESP/Psychic_powers/Psi_phenomena. The article was originally created an editor who did nothing on Wikipedia outside that one article Special:Contributions/Jaas2. Science_fiction#Elements shows some elements of science fiction and we have List of science fiction themes. Dream Focus 05:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT is certainly a fine option. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 05:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems to be about tropes and not technology. “You had one job” is the optimal phrase here. Dronebogus (talk) 05:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:TNT. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete PROD was attempted by Siuk yuredn (talk · contribs) in November 2019 with similar concerns to the nominator: article is just a list of supposed "predictions" and random hodgepodge of SF elements. Deprodded by Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs), who also removed all the maintenance tags, as "stale and unproductive". –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn’t that guy topic banned for this exact reason i.e. disrupting deletion/maintenance process in order to make a WP:POINT? Dronebogus (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I enjoyed how the article started out badly in 2007 with a question as its subject, "How has the evolution of science and new technology helped shape common topics in the genre of Science Fiction?", and then its creator blanked the "Invisibility" section at Special:Diff/110713271. Irony and a (remedied) bad start aside, cutting out the sections that aren't technology, mentioned in the nomination, was easily achieved. Cleaning this up using sources such as ISBN 9783319409146 and ISBN 9783319517599 (to pick just two examples of works that relate and compare science fiction technology to the development of real world technology) is possible, and the latter actually divides up into chapters on invisibility, antigravity, robots, transportation, and suchlike much like this article does with the very same topics addressed in sections; so it is not as it already stands actually far from what sources do in terms of structure and analysis. It's nowhere near being a good quality article, but once the erroneous inclusion of non-technology is removed, as it has been with one easy stroke of the editing tool, it is not so far gone from what an article based upon sources could be that deletion is the answer. Uncle G (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:TNT. SignificantPBD (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The article lacks coherence and the lead is unsourced, so I can sympathise with the TNT votes. However, it looks to me that parts of the article are close to salvageable; for example, the section 'Fictional technologies that have since been realized' looks like it could easily be converted to a list and I'd be surprised if we could not find sources attesting to the topic's notability. I agree with Uncle G that deletion is probably not the best outcome here. Would this be a good case for incubating the content in draftspace? — Charles Stewart (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete purely per WP:TNT. A redirect would be fine if there is a target. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and per nom. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 04:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rowena Kennett[edit]

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

Created by a single purpose editor, so potential WP:AUTOBIO. Fails WP:BIO, could not find significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 04:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can’t find any RIS. Mccapra (talk) 07:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, Fashion, Singapore, and Thailand. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I also can't find evidence of notability in English language sources, perhaps there are Thai sources but then someone would need to provide them or else deletion will be the best route to take. There's no Thai-wiki article for her it seems. Mujinga (talk) 10:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Only thing I found is a lifestyle interview in a car magazine from 2004.[92] She was evidently well known enough to be featured, but nothing else seems to exist online. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no sources found as described. I went back 10 pages in Gsearch, hits on "Rowena", noting about her. Oaktree b (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete when the only source on an article is a school newsletter, it is very rare for the subject to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack of independent and reliable references. AmirŞah 09:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 04:03, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aldn[edit]

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

Not convinced that there's enough here to meet WP:MUSICBIO. KH-1 (talk) 03:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I found some sources online (afm, guitarhouse) but none that would provide the coverage needed to establish notability. Guitarhouse covers subject in sufficient depth but I am not convinced it is credible as a sole source. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. NiklausGerard (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
no 84.67.123.87 (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Minute to Win It (Philippine game show). (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 02:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Minute to Win It: Last Man Standing episodes and contestants[edit]

List of Minute to Win It: Last Man Standing episodes and contestants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST. Text that was left uncited for several years. WP:BEFORE turned refs for the champions like Meg Imperial and Jodi Sta. Maria which can be incorporated to the main article at Minute to Win It (Philippine game show) as a short list of winners. The rest of the info in the list has no RS to support them. Lenticel (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 02:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of bicycle routes in Tennessee[edit]

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

It looks like the only officially designated route in Tennessee is U.S. Bicycle Route 23. Not sure we need a stand-alone list here. Users reaching such a list expect more content than is currently here or likely to be added in the foreseeable future. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agree with nom, no need for a list of a single item. GoldMiner24 Talk 02:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Tennessee. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's a bit pointless to have a list for one item. LibStar (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment when I created the list, the the one listed did not have its own article and the list created a location for it and for future. Obviously that has changed and still remained the only bike route in Tennessee. I don't see the harm it still existing, as it could expand; but I'm not going to miss it either if others find it unnecessary. If it is deleted and new routes are added in Tennessee, it will eventually come back. --WashuOtaku (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Almost reads like a directory. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 06:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No purpose having a list of only one item in it. --MuZemike 11:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 02:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Santana[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC Slywriter (talk) 02:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Ecker[edit]

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

American county-level politician who fails WP:NPOL and has no other claim to notability. Previous AfD four years ago closed as no consensus and featured numerous flawed arguments. AusLondonder (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Maryland. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:38, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Link to the previous AfD, which was under a different article title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles I. Ecker -Ljleppan (talk) 08:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NPOL and still in my mind fails WP:GNG due to the very local element of the coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 15:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete As someone from the area, he was someone who was CE when things just went along without notable events. Pretty much just a name on a list. Mangoe (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral: Parsing through newspapers.com, there are quite a lot of mentions of Ecker (around 6,000); now of course most appear to be passing mentions, but there are a few that do provide WP:SIGCOV ([93] [94]; in addition to [95] [96]) that get this article just over the nominal threshold for WP:GNG, with smaller mentions (like [97] [98] [99]) able to fill in the gaps of content. However, all of the sources seem to be WP:LOCAL, and I'm not sure they are necessarily strong enough to assuage that concern. Curbon7 (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Funny little tidbit: there is an entire article dedicated solely to his muscle car [100]. Curbon7 (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Regional/local politician fails WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 17:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to Gotabaya Rajapaksa. As noted by the relisters, none of the "keep" opinions are of any substance: they assert that the person is notable, but do not attempt to address the "delete" side's argument that there is no substantial mcoverage in reliable sources. Sandstein 20:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ioma Rajapaksa[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources - noting that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. The individual is not automatically notable simply because she is married to a significant politician. Should be redirected to Gotabaya Rajapaksa. Dan arndt (talk) 07:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @DaffodilOcean:, it also states: can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What about the article about common outcomes of WP:Afd discussions [101] which says "The spouse of the head of state or government is usually regarded as notable? I realize that 'usually' is subjective, but the quote from Dan arndt is from the previous paragraph at WP:NOTINHERITED which is talking more generally about famous relatives, not a national first lady. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep - based on the guidelines from Wikipedia that I cited above, she's spouse of a head of state and therefore usually notable. DaffodilOcean (talk) 11:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on comments above, seeing lots about her in Google news. I'm opening minded to changing my mind if you think I've misinterpreted the comments above, so tag me if you think you can convince me otherwise and I'll revisit this decision. CT55555 (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per news hits and WP:POLOUTCOMES. It's the nominator's burden to explain why this article should be an exception. pburka (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - as per WP:ANYBIO the key issue is there is no significant coverage about the individual in the sources supplied, just a mention is passing. She is not notable in her own right I disagree that just becuase she is married to a notable individual does not make her notable. Dan arndt (talk) 02:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There appears to be enough coverage of the subject to merit an article. As an example, article mentions that the subject holds dual citizenship. --Enos733 (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ioma Rajapaksa is the first lady of sri lanka. Sri lanka uses the title first lady frequently to describe Ioma. I would understand not creating a wikipedia page for the former president of sri lanka's wife as the president said that he did not want his wife to hold the title first lady.
    Ioma Rajapaksa is mentioned as mahinda rajapaksa wife in this talk. She is the spouse of gotabaya rajapaksa, the current president of sri lanka. Gotabaya uss the title first lady for his wife foundly. This means that the international community should also label her as first lady of sri lanka, thus meaning a wikipedia page for ioma and future first ladies of sri lanka should have a wikipedia page, unless, they are not labelled as one Theeveralst (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment as previously stated it clearly fails WP:ANYBIO all that has been provided as references are merely mentions in passing there has not been any evidence of 'significant coverage' about the individual. Dan arndt (talk) 03:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: On the face of it, most of the keep arguments are not very persuasive. Notability is not inherited or inherent. It requires verifiable evidence, evidence which is pretty much lacking here. Google hits do not equate with meeting GNG. This needs more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: per above from my northern neighbor
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Passes WP:BIO and referenced articles show WP:SIGCOV. GoldMiner24 Talk 02:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you identify where the sources are that demonstrate significant coverage - all the references are mentions in passing merely demonstrating she is the wife of the president, nothing more. Dan arndt (talk) 03:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP as per DaffodilOcean. Though the article might not be great, it passes GNG as the spouse of any country's president, the first lady, is notable as per WP:COMMONSENSE. --- Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 04:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Common outcomes" is a non-binding essay that sums up past outcomes, and the "common sense" special pleading is no substitute for actual sources, especially in a BLP. The actual rules (WP:INVALIDBIO) are clear that a notable person's spouse isn't automatically notable. Looking at the article, source 1 doesn't mention the subject; source 2 has no prose and is just an image caption; and 3, 4 and 5 are not secondary or independent. The Subday Observer piece posted above is a passing mention. Whoever said above that the sourcing meets BIO and GNG (both of which require sigcov in 2+ sources) hasn't seriously looked at it. On top of this one can add WP:BLP1E, or rather BLP0E since no notable events are associated with the topic. Avilich (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 02:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chitrankan[edit]

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

BEFORE shows nothing other than a marketingpage. fails WP:GNG Slywriter (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 03:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Boivin[edit]

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

BEFORE does not show any secondary sources discussing subject. Nothing in article shows meeting WP:GNG or WP:NPERSON Slywriter (talk) 02:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Comics and animation, and Canada. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Better sourcing in the French article, it says he won a Prix Gemeaux (the French version of the Gemini Awards) as a director (?), based on my quick translation. [102] So their website has no listing for 2003 (A venir, basically a work in progress). We'd likely have to look into off-line paper sources. I think he won as part of the creative team for the TV show, not sure he's notable by himself. Oaktree b (talk) 20:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found some newspaper material that could be SIGCOV but nothing on the Gémeaux:[1][2] Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Free to film their story, free to upload to YouTube: Montrealers' movie gets a worldwide platform". The Gazette. Montreal, Quebec, Canada. September 28, 2011. p. C6. Retrieved April 22, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.
  2. ^ "Iron Baby video goes viral". Red Deer Advocate. Red Deer, Alberta, Canada. Canadian Press. June 4, 2010. p. D5. Retrieved April 22, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.
Newspapers.com doesn't do well for non-English sources, User:Sammi Brie. Need something else for Quebec subjects. Every regular editor has Proquest (and more) access through Wikipedia Library. Nfitz (talk) 15:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ProQuest isn't always great for non-English sources either, to be honest. It does sometimes have some fairly random hits from L'actualité, but doesn't officially list that as a publication contained in its database if I check the list of publications, and I can sometimes (but not reliably) find French wire service articles from Canadian Press and transcripts of the anchor portion (but not the individual hits of reportage) from Le Téléjournal, but I have never once found a bylined staff report from any francophone Quebec newspaper in Canadian Newsstream. When I need francophone sourcing for a Quebec topic, rather, I do check ProQuest just in case, but rely much more on Érudit and/or the search function on the Le Devoir website (which is where I was actually able to retrieve the source for Boivin's Jutra nomination.) Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article does certainly need referencing improvement, but in addition to the Gémeaux he also has a Jutra Award nomination for Best Live Action Short Film (2006) under his belt for his short film Radio, and as noted by other commenters better sources do exist to fix the article with. The problem finding sourcing for his Gémeaux win may come down to the fact that he directed Phylactère Cola under the pseudonym "Psychopat" rather than as "Patrick Boivin", so try searching under "Psychopat" as well. Bearcat (talk) 21:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've added several footnotes to the article, and cleaned up any remaining advertorialism (which was actually quite limited). Bearcat (talk) 00:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 02:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bar Mock Trial[edit]

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

BEFORE confirms existence but unable to locate secondary sources to establish clear notability. Slywriter (talk) 01:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 02:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Naughty Show[edit]

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

Non-notable podcast. Sources are mostly primary or passing. Host of podcast is currently at prod. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow for consensus to form on All Things Comedy as, if that's deleted, a merger is an impossible solution.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tawker (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ptributor Digital Service[edit]

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

Non notable company. Zero WP:SIGCOV. Article creator copied DistroKid and replace all DistroKid mentions with "Ptributor Digital Service". আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 02:50, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of snowboard tricks[edit]

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

WP:IINFO, WP:NOTHOWTO, WP:MADEUP. Most of the sources do not verify that these names exist for these tricks; the main source has gone 404 and I could not find a backup for it. This article has been tagged for maintenance since 2009 and has gained nothing but more and more cruft. If there is a valid list here, then it needs WP:TNT. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:31, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_April_21

Leave a Reply