THC Science

< April 08	April 10 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Submachine gun competition[edit]

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

Just a WP:DICDEF with a horribly outdated list of states that hold them. The links at the bottom are just primary sources that do not confer notability. Was prodded in 2013 but removed without comment. Suggest deletion or redirection to Shooting sports Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but I could support the redirect as above. Oaktree b (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources on Google/Google News to establish notability. Almost all of the sources (external links) that are currently in the article say "page not found". The content of this article is very likely original research or comes from sources that do not themselves establish notability. Just because anyone holds a competition of any sort does not in itself mean that competition is notable.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:44, 10 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 all to Gryphon (band). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raindance (Gryphon album)[edit]

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

Same goes with all albums of the band:

Gryphon (1973)
Midnight Mushrumps (1974)
Red Queen to Gryphon Three (1974)
Raindance (1975)
Treason (1977)

nonnotable albums Loew Galitz (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 April 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Gryphon had absolutely zero commercial success, but they were by no means the most obscure band of the UK's early 70s progressive rock era. It's true that I'm not finding much detailed coverage of the individual albums, but there's plenty of contemporary coverage of the band, and that could well have translated into reviews of the albums in Melody Maker and NME, but we don't have access to copies of the magazines from the time. At the very worst, these could all be redirected to the band article for now because they are all valid search terms, and then possibly restored in the future if more coverage is found. Richard3120 (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, c'mon, Red Queen went to No. 201 on the Billboard 200... ;) Caro7200 (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who is trolling? These are popular albums in many circles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100F:B07B:35E2:E500:70A8:8E43:59CB (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the band page; these are unnecessary. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:31, 10 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. WP:NOQUORUM applies. ✗plicit 11:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rooftop Film Festival[edit]

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

Fifteen years without a reliable source is long enough. No indication of encyclopedic notability. The phrase "Rooftop Film Festival" appears to refer to several unrelated (and equally unnotable) events. BD2412 T 18:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Events, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you google "Mark Elijah Rosenberg" AND "Rooftop" and press "news" you'll see lots of coverage, I've added three in. I think this is notable, notwithstanding some of what I quickly added is primary sourced. CT55555 (talk) 19:28, 26 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!} 19:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 9 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 03:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

M. Khalil Bahri[edit]

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

Director of non-notable films and references just passing a mention of subject. Fails WP:BIO, WP:GNG. Lacks WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS/WP:RSP. Brian O'Conner 21:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Brian O'Conner 21:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tunisia-related deletion discussions. Brian O'Conner 21:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of significant coverage from reliable resources which are independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 04:13, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. LibStar (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete character does not meet the criteria for Wikipedia Mila vecto (talk) 02:33, 12 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. Black Kite (talk) 09:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Twists of curves[edit]

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

The article does not use the term "Twists of curves" of any point, and neither do the sources. This seems to be an unrelated synthesis of random ideas. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an extremely standard concept in advanced algebraic geometry most often seen for elliptic curves, but not always (recent non-elliptic examples with both "twists" and "curves" in the title include MR 4053064, MR4039488, MR4028119, MR3906177). You don't see "twists of curves" because most often they talk about twists of a specific curve or of a specific type of curve; for instance, Google Scholar has over 200 hits for the exact phrase "twists of an elliptic curve". However, the phrase "the twists of a curve" does occur in the literature, for instance in MR2678623, MR3856841, etc. And a trout to the nominator for taking their own lack of understanding of advanced material as a reason for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: Then why is literally none of that in the article? You flat out admitted most of the sources don't even call it "twists of curves" at all. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't take understanding the topic to know that the phrase "twists of curves" occurs nowhere in the article nor in the sources cited. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I explained that already. Somehow you failed to understand it. So let me say it again: Because most research articles discuss twists of particular curves, or particular types of curves, and call it "twists of elliptic curves" or "twists of the curve [EQUATION]" or whatever. You cannot do this sort of judgement based on exact string-matching. That is a stupid way of trying to read the mathematics literature. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, there's a clear textbook statement of the same definition as in the lead (two curves are twists if they are isomorphic over an algebraic closure of the field in which they are defined) at https://books.google.com/books?id=J2LMBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA59 (in the context of elliptic curves again). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And of course, these sources being here in the AFD means they're now automatically in the article too, right? Funny how that works Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm extremely surprised that an editor with your experience is unaware that notability is only about the existence of sources, not about whether they have actually been added to the article. WP:DINC. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Because every time I see an article that's "Keep, it just needs more sources, here they are", literally no one ever bothers to add them to the article. And then fourteen years later, the article is still two sentences long without a source in sight. It gets nominated again, people say "keep, it just needs more sources, here they are", and then more years pass without anyone adding them to the article. There's WP:DEADLINE, and then there's just wishing that the sources will somehow magic themselves into the article overnight because no one wants to actually put the legwork in. And this is dancing dangerously close to the latter. So are you going to add them, or are you going to just let the article sit and rot? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article covers the three types of twists of curves. Quadratic twist, Quartic twist, and Cubic twist. If you have a better name for the article, then suggest it. Dream Focus 00:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What part of your !vote gave a reason to keep? Answer: none of it. You want it to keep because... why? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedia. This is clearly encyclopedic content. So far three people say keep, you the only one arguing to delete it. I don't know what confusion you have about this, but I don't see any reason to argue with you over it. Dream Focus 01:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a juxtaposition of unrelated ideas or a novel synthesis, but a reasonable mathematical topic. It could perhaps be renamed to "twists of curves in algebraic geometry" or something like that; however, that does not seem strictly necessary. I'm not sure the {{technical}} template is warranted, either, since some topics are just intrinsically technical and there's no point in fussing over it. XOR'easter (talk) 01:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it's "not a juxtaposition of unrelated ideas", then why do NONE of the sources use the term "twists of curves" at all? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This was already explained above. Exact, automaton-like string matching is not informative for technical topics. The very first reference in the article talks about quadratic, cubic, and quartic twists on its first page; there is literally zero synthesis happening here. XOR'easter (talk) 01:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant coverage can be found in multiple reliable, secondary sources.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]

References

^ Elisa Lorenzo Garcia (2017). "Twists of non-hyperelliptic curves". Revista matemática iberoamericana. 33 (1): 169–182.
^ Rubin, K.; Silverberg, A. (2007). "Twists of elliptic curves of rank at least four" (PDF). LONDON MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY LECTURE NOTE SERIES. 341: 177.
^ Jędrzejak, Tomasz; Ulas, Maciej (2014). "Variations on twists of tuples of hyperelliptic curves and related results". Journal of Number Theory. 137: 222–240.
^ Davis, Christopher (2004). "RANKS OF QUADRATIC TWISTS OF ELLIPTIC CURVES WITH NO ISOGENIES". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

SailingInABathTub (talk) 01:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per David Eppstein, Dream Focus and SailingInABathTub. Nomination seems to be more of a WP:NAMING issue. If there's a problem with the name, that can and should be fixed outside of AFD.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, those sources that everyone's throwing around... they're just gonna add themselves to the article, right? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:34, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLUDGEON —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes bludgeoning is the only way to get anything done around here. Would you rather the article continue to gather dust, or would you rather I whack all the dust off with my username? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:47, 10 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 Bobsleigh at the 1936 Winter Olympics – Four-man. Seems like a worthwhile ATD. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 06:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aurel Mărăcescu[edit]

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

Not onlu was Maracescu not a medalist, he did not even complete the competition in the Olympics he was in. We also lack any significant source coverage of him. John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Romania. Shellwood (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Ingratis (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bobsleigh at the 1936 Winter Olympics – Four-man per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable; while redirects are cheap, some are not worth having. BilledMammal (talk) 08:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bobsleigh at the 1936 Winter Olympics – Four-man as a valid WP:ATD. People could search for the name after e.g. seeing it in an Olympics database/book that records all Olympic competitors, so the redirect is worth it in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:17, 12 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 Holiday Inn (film)#Soundtrack. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 06:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday Inn (soundtrack)[edit]

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

Appears not to meet WP:NALBUMS. Barring the references to Discogs and Allmusic (which given their scope, i think does not automatically guarantee notability), i found no independent coverage of this release. The helper5667 (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Holiday Inn (film)#Soundtrack. The film article isn't all that long. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Holiday Inn (film)#Soundtrack. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:18, 16 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!} 22:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Linsman Prize[edit]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails General Notability guideline. Originally created in 2009, I spent some time editing as it had last been picked up in Jan 2021. I was able to expand on the biography of the prize's namesake, but really could not track down substantive coverage which would even partially support the opening passage statement "The reputation achieved by this prize is ubiquitously recognized amongst academics in Europe." Now, it's possible that this is due to my English bias, certainly, but the only other language wiki which is presently linked from the page is Arabic - not what I would call a European language. Thanks for taking the time to discuss toward the end of a consensus outcome. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:27, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Medicine, and Belgium. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any significant sources. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable - no independent sources for core claims. Sorry about the effort wasted expanding the bio of Marcel Linsman, but I don't think even that material can be salvaged. Clearly nowhere near SIGCOV. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:46, 16 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 Wallows. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cole Preston[edit]

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

ip/sock keeps edit warring to restore what is essentially poorly sourced duplicated content, Preston is not notable outside of Wallows and thus shouldn't exist as a standalone article and should be redirected. CUPIDICAE💕 18:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Cupidicae. It appears there has been very bad block evasion pertaining to this person, and even the pre-spam version (Special:Diff/1030042683) has many sources that address Wallows instead of Cole Preston. Outside of this !vote, this AfD may also need to be PC or semi protected in case the IPs come back to disrupt the nomination. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wallows, make it stick, and investigate the IP addresses who keep un-redirecting this unworthy article. I got mixed up with Preston's article back in June 2021, when someone insisted that he should have one, and it ended up at Wikipedia:Cleanup when someone else (at least under a different ID) told that project to prove that Preston is famous. One problem is that Preston's two bandmates in Wallows have solo articles because they are also noted actors, and someone can't stand that he doesn't get one too. But except for one brief appearance in an unknown film, Preston has done absolutely nothing outside the band, which even this worshipful article can't cover up. Admins, investigate because as soon as we redirect it will be back, perhaps months later or perhaps immediately. See also the taunting edit summaries in the article's history for April 9. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 00:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wallows and protect as above. Apart from a bit part in a non-notable short film, everything Preston has done is related to his work in Wallows. Richard3120 (talk) 13:47, 11 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!} 22:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Popexpert[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. I think this business failed. Probably never gained enough traction. 100 subscribers on YouTube, and the most recent video is 6 years ago. The last tweet on Twitter was in 2016. No website as far as I can see. Edwardx (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Websites. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Decent sources, but the sources are more about the notable folks involved in launching this startup rather than anything this startup accomplished. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 21:24, 9 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!} 22:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ingrid Sanders[edit]

(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. Run-of-the-mill businessperson. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA , who also started Popexpert, as a "walled garden". Edwardx (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject lacks the in-depth coverage needed to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, insufficient coverage indicates lack of notability. Brian O'Conner 23:40, 13 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!} 22:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tarus Balog[edit]

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

Nothing cited in the article counts towards WP:GNG, and I can find nothing better online. Run-of-the-mill person. Edwardx (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to have a lot of posts on a bunch of sites, but there's no real coverage of him beyond that. If anyone can find more material beyond that, I'd reconsider this, but for now Delete as failing WP:GNG. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As written, fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV required for a standalone article. NiklausGerard (talk) 23:44, 15 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!} 22:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

D Block Bangali[edit]

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

All of this band's coverage seems to be from its own social media accounts. I can't find any independent coverage at all. Even if this is somehow kept, most of the content should be trimmed as it's copied and pasted from D-Block Europe without attribution. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The entire contents of this page are quite literally just the D-Block Europe Wiki page copied and pasted directly, but with the infobox changed. No indication of notability and no references at all - the one singular reference which says "Bangali" in it just takes you to the D-Block Europe page. At worst a hoax, at best completely un-notable. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 12:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Ser.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 12:27, 13 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 11:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Donaldson[edit]

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

Not a notable (deceased) person. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 16:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 16:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Astrology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject wrote at least 8 books that were published by traditional publishing houses, including HarperCollins. I fleshed out the article some. Sources out of the country were difficult to find, but wayback searching should find more. The subject was a well-known tarot card reader and author with a TV show and televised appearances. Subject meets WP:GNG and passes WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Note: The most complete list of books I can find is at the Open Library). I found only one review, on JSTOR, and it is for a Tarot deck with a short pamphlet. Unfortunately his main publisher, Thorsons, a subsidiary of Harper Collins, is defunct so that is out as a source of links to reviews. Looking at library holdings to try to get an idea of distribution of his works, his books tend to be in the mid-two-digits on Worldcat, which is low. Conclusion: This doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR. In terms of his TV career, the only evidence I find is a short article saying that he was suspended from TV "due to allegations of an assault on a woman". ("TV tarot expert suspended over sex assault claim." Sunday Mirror [London, England], 2 June 1996, p. 9. Gale OneFile: News, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A61161566/STND?u=sfpl_main&sid=ebsco&xid=90b1419b.) I don't find anything else about what he was doing on TV before that. There is only one independent source in the article, which is listed here (identically) twice (cites 2 & 3) - note that the Islington Tribune and the Camden New Journal are published together and obviously share some content. Searching on his name didn't turn anything up, although it is difficult because there are people better known who have the same name. I admit I gave up after 4 or 5 pages of results. Then again, if he were notable, he should have shown up by then. Lamona (talk) 04:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:51, 2 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!} 16:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per Lamona. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:56, 10 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!} 22:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maternal (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFF; article was created WP:TOOSOON; must be deleted or draftified until further notice. The Film Creator (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when the film actually sees release. It's not our role to indiscriminately maintain an article about every single film that merely enters the production pipeline — with rare exceptions for highly meganotable films (e.g. Marvel, Star Wars) that generate a lot of coverage during the production phase, we normally don't want an article at all until the film is released and starting to get reviewed by real film critics. The existence of a couple of casting announcements is not enough coverage to exempt a film from having to clear the primary notability bar for films, especially when those are dated late 2019 or early 2020 — something has gone very wrong, in a way that definitely violates our inclusion criteria for films, if a film whose sources were all published two full years ago still hasn't actually seen light of day. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 10 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) Captain Galaxy 23:06, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned[edit]

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

Yes, I see the green X in the upper right hand corner. But this is one of many webcomic articles that got promoted to Good Article way the hell back in 2008 and has not been touched since.

The sources are completely atrocious. To wit:

1. Paragraph-long mention in an article on gaming webcomics

2. Reference to a print article, but this ref so incomplete that I can't verify the article even exists

3-8. Interviews, which fall under WP:PRIMARY

9. Translation of the comic into another language

10. The comic itself

Every other source is just the comic itself.

The only sources I found on GNews were random grab-bag listicles from The Verge and Kotaku Australia, neither of which is a harbinger of notability.

In short, I think the comic is so far below notability guidelines, never mind GA guidelines, that there is no reason to drag it through good article reassessment first (especially given how slowly the wheels tend to turn there). I'm fully aware that this is an "ignore all rules" scenario, but the lack of notability is so obvious here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Previous AFDs were in 2006 and 2008. This is actually the comic's third nomination, and I don't know how to unfuck the sidebar. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The links work if you click the archive that shows them. [1] is ample coverage in a reliable source. Computer Gaming World Issue 258 gives them a full page of coverage [2]. And the interviews count towards notability. The reliable sources thought them notable enough to interview them, same as writing about them. Primary is only a concern for information that may be in doubt in an article, it has nothing to do with notability. Dream Focus 17:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: Interviews don't count if they're all that's there. And the Globe and Mail source only dedicates a paragraph to the comic, which is hardly significant coverage. The CGM coverage is hardly a "full page", as 2/3 of said page is taken up by graphics. And most of what exists is just the comic's creator talking about it; i.e., a primary source. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They count just fine, no matter how much you want to pretend they don't. Notice how once again you started an AFD where everyone else says to Keep the article? Kindly stop making the same arguments when everyone else points out you are wrong. The coverage is sufficient. Dream Focus 03:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely notable. There a lot of interviews to be sure, which "don't count" towards notability, but the Computer Gaming World mention is absolutely SIGCOV and also commentary. In the Globe and Mail article there is an example of commentary towards the webcomic from the author, saying "'Concerned' stands out from most other gamics by virtue of the quality of its writing and presentation." This article calls it a "hilarious comic". The Romanian magazine Level said the comic is "a recommendation to every fan of the game and anyone looking for a good daily laugh". So yeah, absolutely notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: I didn't know a one paragraph entry in a listicle was considered "significant coverage" Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, it's not a listicle whatsoever. That said, upon checking it further the CGW mention is also an interview so I will admit it does not support my argument. I still believe the scattered opinions can indicate notability as they are part of larger non-trivial interviews of the author about the comic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:14, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:INTERVIEW:
anything interviewees say about themselves or their own work is both primary and non-independent. If it is primary or non-independent, it does not contribute to notability.
Therefore, the interviews themselves are not reliable third party sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, but opinions of the intervewers stated in them do count as secondary. That is what I am noting contributes to notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read the sentence after the one you are quoting for when it says interviews do count towards notability. Also that's an essay, not a guideline or policy, so no bearing here. Dream Focus 00:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I consider that the Globe and Mail article and the Computer Gaming World article set out enough coverage to each be considered independent, substantial coverage and so this article meets the notability criteria. (Yes, it needs serious improvement and shouldn't be rated as a Good Article, but that's another matter.) HenryCrun15 (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, a third of a page in a magazine article is enough these days, huh? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure a few paragraphs was always enough? WP:N's definition of trivial coverage is one sentence. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage still seems incredibly trivial to me. It barely saays anything other than "this comic exists". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Concerned: The Half-Life and Death of Gordon Frohman per WP:NATDAB but otherwise leave it alone. casualdejekyll 22:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It does not require disambiguation however. There is nothing else called "Concerned" and no obvious primary topic for the word. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Primary topic is concern. Aircorn (talk) 06:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While "concern" can have multiple meanings, "concerned" does not. There is a difference. Unless you mean the definition of "concerned", in which case please see WP:NOTDICT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean if a reader or even editor types "concerned" into the search bar they are probably not looking for a gamic article. Aircorn (talk) 10:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If they want the definition of "concerned" they should be going to Wiktionary instead, so we have to ignore that and choose the next best thing they might want. And someone who typed "Concerned" and is not looking for the definition probably wants the comic strip. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who says they want the definition? Being concerned is a pretty common emotion and we cover these emotions in an encyclopaedic way, not just as dictionary definitions. Anyway this is sort of tangential to the AFD, but there obviously is a more primary and enclopaedic topic that "concerned" can point to other than a barely notable comic strip. Aircorn (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This is one of the Webcomics articles I am less proud of, and I don't think it's a good GA. I think this is a good-faith nominaiton, but I have to agree that there's just enough reliable sources (in which I include interviews) for the subject to meet GNG. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:08, 14 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 14:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From This Fire[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. Couldn't find significant coverage. PepperBeast (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only reasonable coverage found is the archive.org page of the The Tampa Bay Times article. WP:BEFORE web brings links for where to purchase tracks; no WP:SIGCOV noted --Whiteguru (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. The band are still going (Brian Bell has since rejoined, replacing Drew MacArthur), but I can't find any real evidence of notability – they appear to be very much a local band, playing almost exclusively in the Tampa Bay area, and their only real coverage has come in their local newspaper... even then I'm struggling to find any local coverage apart from that one article. The description of the band's sound is a band member re-quoting the description from somewhere else, possibly the Alternative Revolt! magazine, but this is a dead link so it's impossible to check. The Rock Solid Pressure show is a podcast, so it wouldn't be acceptable as an RS. Judging by the shop on their website, they haven't released any other music in 12 years since the EP and album mentioned in the article, so there's unlikely to be any major coverage since the article was last updated. Richard3120 (talk) 13:35, 11 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, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vinod Kumar Chaudhary[edit]

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

Overtly promotional. WP:BLP1E case. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear 1E failure and suspect UPE with shared account removing AfD template despite prior warnings. Star Mississippi 15:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Star Mississippi. --Vaco98 (talk) 14:46, 9 April 202|2 (UTC)
Delete per above. Cheers! Fake scientist8000 14:47, 9 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 14:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Photiou[edit]

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

According to Soccerway and Football Database, he narrowly meets the former guideline WP:NFOOTBALL. A Google News search failed to return significant coverage for Photiou and nor did a Greek language search. The best I could find was a trivial mention in Kerkida and a contract renewal announcement in Balla. Contract renewal announcements are rarely counted as WP:SIGCOV and I see no reason to make an exception here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cyprus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom, and above, fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV.--Whiteguru (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on (the old) NFOOTBALL with a handful of appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks significant coverage and only very minor professional play.--Mvqr (talk) 11:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject lacks significant coverage Kpddg ^(talk) 12:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. This is a nothing of an article. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject appears to lack WP:SIGCOV required for a standalone article. GauchoDude (talk) 13:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The topic does not meet WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 01:38, 13 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!} 22:20, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Akshay Sharma[edit]

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

I'm not seeing enough for WP:NACTOR here. I found one passing mention of Sharma here but nothing more in my searches so WP:GNG doesn't look to be met either. The main claim to notability seems to be his association with the film Checkovid but this search comes up with next to nothing. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:29, 9 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 India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. No significant coverage to meet NACTOR / GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I see this editor has come back and recreated a page deleted 4 years ago. All references are in the The Internet Movie Database. No significant coverage. --Whiteguru (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Fails notability guidelines and lacks significant coverage. Kpddg ^(talk) 12:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's wrongly mentioned that the editor has recreated a page. This was the first time a page was created on this individual. The previous Akshay Sharma is a different individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve1984stallone (talk • contribs) 16:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Steve1984stallone (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Keep There is a sound following of Sharma in India and there are a number of articles present on google search and IMdB and decent coverage.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanscandre (talk • contribs) 06:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC) (Blocked sock, see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Steve1984stallone). Spicy (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve1984stallone (talk • contribs) 18:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC) More references have been added to the article apart from the IMdB ones in order to avoid deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve1984stallone (talk • contribs) 18:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello, Steve1984stallone. I've struck off duplicate !votes as you already !voted once. -- Ab207 (talk) 05:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:I can see Sharma has a decent coverage and mentions as supporting actor and animator, we can keep this article and there is a scope of additions to the information in future as and when the actor does more projects — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldiegold (talk • contribs) 08:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC) (Blocked sock, see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Steve1984stallone). Spicy (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Looks good to keep. Sharma is making waves among youngsters in India and has some good documentary projects. Can see numerous references and did a google search. Looks good to keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willyjoe9 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 16 April 2022 (UTC) (Blocked sock, see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Steve1984stallone). Spicy (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems OK to keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subymut (talk • contribs) 09:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC) (Blocked sock, see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Steve1984stallone). Spicy (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The website currently linked in the infobox is dead, and the references are all user-generated. Well done to Spiderone for finding a passing mention of him, because that's more than I could find, for his work as a filmmaker or actor. Storchy (talk) 11:42, 16 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 13:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ádám Fenyvesi[edit]

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

Meets the old WP:NFOOTBALL by the skin of its teeth with only 22 mins of professional play. At best, this is a weak presumption of notability. A Google News search yielded only one trivial mention in Nemzeti Sport. I found nothing other than football databases in a Hungarian source search and ProQuest had 2 hits neither of which are relevant. Fenyvesi does not appear to meet WP:GNG and so does not appear to warrant an article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:09, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Hungary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:10, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above, does not meet WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. --Whiteguru (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on (the old) NFOOTBALL with a handful of appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks significant coverage and only very minor professional play.--Mvqr (talk) 11:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. I was unable to find WP:SIGCOV required of a standalone article. The subject appears to have played NAIA soccer in the United States, then decided to quit soccer altogether, neither of which in addition to the above demonstrate any level of notability, in my opinion. GauchoDude (talk) 13:39, 12 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 13:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Jubermann[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to be notable. PepperBeast (talk) 12:54, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk) 12:54, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk) 12:54, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article fails WP:GNG. --Vaco98 (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and maybe WP:TOOSOON as the only publications about the author I can find are either booksellers or libraries. Nothing in literary publications or from media outlets None of the refs appear to be substantial enough. NealeWellington (talk) 08:30, 10 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 13:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meat Magazine[edit]

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

I don't think it is notable. It doesn't have good sources, and I am unable to find good sources for it Ascendingrisingharmonising (talk) 12:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Ascendingrisingharmonising (talk) 12:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Ascendingrisingharmonising (talk) 12:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: please note this is different from the LGBT magazine Meat Magazine (aka Meatzine) which has a bit more coverage that I came across looking for sources on this one. Also, the article was started by a user who never edited any other articles, and since 2011 has been marked as looking like an advert. So I feel it was probably a never-notable project which someone made an article to promote and which never gained enough coverage for notability in the years since. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ascendingrisingharmonising (talk • contribs) 13:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is just not there to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor sourcing and little indication of notability. The claim "It won the Guardian Student Media Awards for best new small budget publication and runner up for best publication design in 2004", itself unreferenced, doesn't seem like sufficient for GNG anyway. -_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:58, 15 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 13:14, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Tarrant[edit]

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

Résumé-like WP:BLP (likely WP:AUTOBIO, as it was created by a WP:SPA named "Arts&Entertainment") of a radio producer and musician with no properly sourced indication of notability per WP:CREATIVE or WP:NMUSIC. The notability claim here amounts to "person who has had jobs", and the referencing is entirely to his own employers rather than independent third-party coverage about his work.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the subject of analytical content by other people in sources independent of himself; even the list of awards isn't a notability freebie, as none of them are sourced to any media coverage about the awards to establish that they're notable enough to make their winners notable for winning them either. Bearcat (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message, but all this information is accurate and should not be deleted. This page has been viewed many times, and follows all professional standards of providing public info on the subject. I disagree entirely with the possible deletion of this page. 184.64.5.13 (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The bar for inclusion in Wikipedia is not whether the information is asserted as accurate by an anonymous IP or not; the bar for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether the article is supported by reliable source coverage about the subject (i.e. newspaper or magazine articles and/or books that discuss him as a subject of third party coverage and analysis) or not. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the well reasoned statement of the nominator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CREATIVE per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:34, 16 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 B41 nuclear bomb. In a sparse discussion after two relists, the arguments for combining the W41 and B41 nuclear bomb articles seem persuasive. MelanieN (talk) 01:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I originally listed B46 as the article to be merged. That was my error. Of course, I meant to say W41 which is the subject of this discussion. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

W41[edit]

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

This article and W46 are unique in that they provide a separate article for the weapon configured as a warhead (i.e. not as a bomb). Many US weapons were used as both bombs and warheads, but in every other case the bomb and warhead variants are consolidated into one page. Some examples include the B28 nuclear bomb, Mark 39 nuclear bomb and B61 nuclear bomb. Further, these two articles are for weapons that never entered production. Kylesenior (talk) 09:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seem to be enough sources, even though offline, to support notability Rlink2 (talk) 00:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment why do you believe this page should defy convention and have a separate page for the warhead version of the weapon? This and W46 are unique in that regard.Kylesenior (talk) 00:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:17, 2 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)} 12:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with B46 nuclear bomb. See no reason for a separate article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 15 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 B46 nuclear bomb. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

W46[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/W46

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

This article and W41 are unique in that they provide a separate article for the weapon configured as a warhead (i.e. not as a bomb). Many US weapons were used as both bombs and warheads, but in every other case the bomb and warhead variants are consolidated into one page. Some examples include the B28 nuclear bomb, Mark 39 nuclear bomb and B61 nuclear bomb. Further, these two articles are for weapons that never entered production. Kylesenior (talk) 09:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I believe this article should be merged with B46 nuclear bomb.Kylesenior (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with W41. Rlink2 (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:16, 2 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)} 12:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with B46 nuclear bomb. See no reason for a separate article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 15 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 11:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Klajdo Arkaxhiu[edit]

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

Technically passes the old WP:NFOOTBALL with his second tier Albanian appearances, so would survive a PROD, but appears to fail WP:GNG, hence this AfD. Searches in Google News, DDG and ProQuest either yielded nothing at all or a small selection of database profile pages. I was unable to locate the multiple reliable sources showing detailed coverage of Arkaxhiu that would be required. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:16, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:17, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 12:17, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on (the old) NFOOTBALL with a handful of appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks significant coverage and only very minor professional play.--Mvqr (talk) 11:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Subject lacks the WP:SIGCOV required for standalone articles, in my opinion. GauchoDude (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. The article existing adds absolutely nothing to Wikipedia and fails WP:GNG. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable soccer player. desmay (talk) 23:07, 11 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 11:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redmi 8A[edit]

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

This article is very short. Also, this article does not cite any sources. Hajoon0102 💬 09:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. --Hajoon0102 💬 09:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:44, 9 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. Upon further consideration, closing as no consensus at this time. Those opining for potential retention of the article have advanced rationales for restructuring, while others have opined for other outcomes, such as keeping if it's structured one way and deleting if it's structured another way. In all of this, not a single direct !vote stating the preferred outcome in bold has been provided, although the nomination hints toward deletion per not meeting WP:NLIST standards, while also stating, "perhaps the content could be redirected or merged". Indeed, this has essentially become a content matter after the two relistings. Additional discussion can occur on the article talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:43, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

National Basketball Association Martin Luther King Jr. Day games[edit]

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

On the surface, this seems to go against WP:NLIST. Unlike National Basketball Association Christmas games, which discusses the tradition more broadly, this article seems to be more of an indiscriminate list of routine games. Perhaps the content could be redirected or merged, but this doesn't feel like it deserves it's own article space per NLIST. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 15:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 March 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the topic and NBA promotions around MLK Day is potentially notable, but the current format of being a list of game results misses the point. Some sources are 1) "How the NBA relaxes its sneaker rules for MLK Day". ESPN.com, 2) "Would Martin Luther King Jr. Love the NBA?". New York, 3) "As NBA prepares to celebrate Martin Luther King, Robertson also remembers". KRON4.com, 4) "Legendary Oscar Robertson Pioneered What Has Become an NBA Tradition of Honoring Martin Luther King Jr." Sportscasting.com, 5) NBA commemorates "MLK Day with games and celebrations". Fox9.com, 6) "The most memorable NBA moments on Martin Luther King Jr. Day". Sporting News. The problem is I see little written from a historical perspective, more about a given year's goings-on.—Bagumba (talk) 09:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to Bagumba. I agree with your assessment on this. It may be better suited to expand the historical part of the article and perhaps make navboxes for the decades? Just a thought, but in principle I do agree it's potentially notable as a topic, the article just looks like a classic case of WP:NLIST. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 16:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Spf121188: What did you have in mind regarding "navboxes for the decades"?—Bagumba (talk) 09:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - In the event you were thinking of just collapsing the game list, a relevant guideline is MOS:COLLAPSE:
    If information in a list, infobox, or other non-navigational content seems extraneous or trivial enough to inspire pre-collapsing it, consider raising a discussion on the article (or template) talk page about whether it should be included at all.
    I'd say the embedded list should just be removed. The (unsourced) individual games are not that encyclopedic.—Bagumba (talk) 05:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Bagumba, yeah, I think I misrepresented what I was thinking there; collapsing the table would make more sense... but even so, like you said, many individual games are not noteworthy. Mannysoloway below reflects my view on the article as a whole. Borderline WP:TNT, in my opinion. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 12:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm ambivalent on this and deferring to anyone with stronger feelings on keeping, deleting or merging this.—Bagumba (talk) 05:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, in its current form it should be deleted. If the article could be rewritten to include more actual information about the history of games on this day. Then it should be kept. Mannysoloway (talk) 12:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this article is going to be kept, it ought to be rewritten to focus on the ceremonies and traditions associated with the NBA playing on Martin Luther King Day, to the extent that is possible to do. The actual games themselves appear to be largely run-of-the-mill regular season games and should probably not all be listed here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:02, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A few various ideas have been presented herein. This discussion is worthy of a third relist in hopes of a consensus potentially being formed about how the article should be structured.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...a third relist in hopes of a consensus potentially being formed about how the article should be structured: Seems more like a content issue for the article talk page.—Bagumba (talk) 12:06, 9 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 11:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nainaa[edit]

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

Lack of significant coverage to passes WP:GNG. And thus the film does not passes WP:NFILM. DMySon (talk) 10:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 10:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 10:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 10:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 10:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This was already draftified under the title "Nainaa (film)" on 1 April as "not ready yet for mainspace yet, unencyclopedic and no adherence to MoS". That article still exists as Draft:Nainaa (film) and this article being considered here is a dramatically cut-down version of the draft, so there is no point in draftifying it again or trying to merge them.--Gronk Oz (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No independent reliable sources to meet NFILM / GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 20:33, 9 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. ✗plicit 11:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

False Memory (novel)[edit]

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

Unsourced article about obscure novel by famous writer, with information from the limited-edition publisher and a long plot summary, but that's it! Their is neither evidence nor assertion of notability in any way. Orange Mike | Talk 09:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:57, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added a Reception section with citations to reviews of the novel, published in the Los Angeles Times, Publishers Weekly, The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, Library Journal, Booklist, and Kirkus Reviews. Meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. DanCherek (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:19, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Appears to comfortably meet WP:BOOKCRIT, with reviews in Publisher's Weekly, Kirkus Reviews, Library Journal, Booklist and The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction. Some of the sources added to the article do not have links to them, so AGF regarding these sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:23, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - More than enough reviews, as shown above, to pass WP:NBOOK. Rorshacma (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, another WP:NBOOK slamdunk with multiple reviews, can nominators please at least do a perfunctory WP:BEFORE?, looking at the ISFDB entry, which we all go to for novels of this genre, (here) shows a listing of reviews by Fangoria, Locus, The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, and Talebones , let alone going to any of the US library system sites like WCCLS (here) that shows even more reviews (most brought out above and incorporated into article, a thankyou to DanCherek for that), whats even worse about this afd is the experience of the nominator! (rant over, coola will now go back to slumberland:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 03:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:NBOOK is met and has received enough reviews to make it hard to argue for a deletion. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:47, 11 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!} 22:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battersea Power Station in popular culture[edit]

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

Another article that violates WP:IPC, WP:GNG, WP:NLIST, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:TRIVIA. It has a bit of a prose, suggesting there is something to be said about this topic, but that little can be merged back to Battersea_Power_Station#In_popular_culture, which could use cleanup. But the list of trivial mentions like "The power station was the location for a weather changing machine in the children's sci-fi series "The Tomorrow People" in 1994 in the episode "Monsoon Man", sourced to a song's lyrics (c'mon...), or unreferenced claims that "Chimneys are observed in the music One Thing by One Direction.", is simply not encyclopedic material (Wikipedia =/= TVTropes). If the IPC section in the main article is properly rewritten and judged it needs to be split out, per WP:SUMMARY, so be it, but the current subarticle became a repository of trivia and needs to go. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Poorly referenced trivia that does not actually have any sources covering the topic as a whole, or explaining why this should be a distinct article from the main Battersea Power Station that already has a sufficiently detailed section on the subject. The many sources listed are very misleading, as many of them are not from reliable sources, and most of them are just the piece of media themselves to confirm such factoids like the powerplant appearing in the background of something. The only actual piece of decent, non-trivia information present, the prose bit describing the idea that its appearance on the Pink Floyd album contributed to its widespread recognition, is already present in the main article, making a merger unnecessary. Rorshacma (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons already stated. MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is another repository of trivia, original research and indiscriminate content. It is possible that something could be written about this topic. However, this list is not it. Destroy it and start over. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I suggest the closer/and other editors, looking at this one check out the ones on the Tower of London and Blenheim Palace below. The arguments for and against are essentially the same in each case. KJP1 (talk) 10:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The articles represent the same low level of quality and share the same problems, so there's no surprise reviews are similar too. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:23, 16 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 11:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbers 7[edit]

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

Unreferenced article. No evidence of notability in over ten years since it was created. - Xexerss (talk) 07:07, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to Sukune Inugami~~ Delete per nom. I couldn't find any sources and the series wasn't licensed outside of Asia so sources are unlikely to exist. Link20XX (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: changed vote to delete per recent developments. Link20XX (talk) 03:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While a lack of sources in English is not a reason to delete an article, it does not appear that any sources exist in Japanese either. The jawiki article is completely unsourced and Japanese language searches did not give me any results with sigcov. I would also oppose redirecting to the author because I believe that she is also not notable and I will be nominating her article for deletion as well. Mlb96 (talk) 03:20, 11 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 11:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Tyson (kitesurfer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS AN WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, New Zealand, Caribbean, and Peru. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:CAPTAIN RAJU, why New Zealand? Schwede 66 15:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found these sources:

https://www.antiguanice.com/v2/client.php?id=920&news=10111https://www.epickiteskiteboarding.com/news/pack-reshuffled-topsy-turvy-twin-tip-racing/

Maybe not enough for WP:NSPORTS, but maybe enough for GNG? Rlink2 (talk) 12:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Tyson has a page on Olympedia. His place as a competitor and flagbearer for ANT at the 2018 Youth Olympics and this source should be enough for GNG.

https://www.olympedia.org/athletes/2502369 WorldlyVoice (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As Olympedia attempts to cover every Olympian, coverage within it for Olympians is WP:ROUTINE and does not count towards notability. It is also not WP:SIGCOV in this case, being limited to stats. As no other WP:SIGCOV has been provided, GNG is not met and the article should be deleted. BilledMammal (talk) 04:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @BilledMammal. After looking for additional sources, I found more that I have listed below. Would you mind reviewing and seeing if that influences your !vote in any way? (Also - I am not the article creator and have never edited it. Just an AfD watcher). Thank you! --Kbabej (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough for WP:SIGCOV or WP:GNG.— NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 22:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @NZFC. After looking for additional sources, I found more that I have listed below. Would you mind reviewing and seeing if that influences your !vote in any way? (Also - I am not the article creator and have never edited it. Just an AfD watcher). Thank you! --Kbabej (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Kbabej: but I see nothing in the extra sources provided that prove significant coverage enough for this person to pass WP:SIGCOV or WP:GNG. The Sail World reference is a passing mention, the Caribbean sailing reference just talks about him winning a race and qualifying for the Youth Olympics isn't up there with qualifying for the actual Olympics. There is no WP:NSPORT category for Kite surfing and WP:NOLYMPICS talks about being a medal winner. I'll still vote for delete.— NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 16:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough @NZFC! I appreciate you taking the time. Be well! --Kbabej (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are actually a lot more sources out there. The Antigua Observer reported on an accident he had in 2021 here and then his return to the sport here; Antiguanice Yachting Insider reported on the then-15-year-old subject and his bid for the Olympics in 2017 here; Sail World and Caribbean Sailing covered when he won the 2020 Caribbean Foiling Championships and was called a "rising star in the Caribbean kitefoiling world" here and here; Antigua Newsroom covered him at 15 years old when he made history in qualifying for the Youth Olympics here; and the coverage continues. I'm wondering if a WP:BEFORE was done on this? --Kbabej (talk) 15:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 06:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not see how the above mentions overcome now news and other issues. It is not really enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:02, 11 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 11:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yilgarn Iron Producers Association[edit]

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

more appropriate to be merged into the history section of the Railways in the Pilbara article as it was a loose association relative to planning rail access - and had neglible success in changing the way the mining companies developed their own networks JarrahTree 08:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. JarrahTree 08:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Transportation. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Railways in the Pilbara. Insufficient coverage for a stand-alone article but definitely worth a mention in the context of the long-running iron ore railway usage dispute. Calistemon (talk) 09:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:SKCRIT#1 Absence of delete rationale. Thincat (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:SKCRIT#1 requires that no new delete rationale appears in the deletion discussion - in this case (and subsequent to Thincat’s edit) new rationales have appeared. Springnuts (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG. Could not find significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:42, 30 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!} 05:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not seeing anything like significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Springnuts (talk) 12:01, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Topic fails our NCORP criteria for establishing notability. I can understand why someone might mention the topic in Railways in the Pilbara but that wouldn't be a "merge". HighKing⁺⁺ 11:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, insufficient WP:SIGCOV that would satisfy notability criteria. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:40, 16 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. Barely any discussion since initiated and none after either relist. Ineligible for soft deletion (was PRODed). No prejudice against renomination. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perseverance Records[edit]

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

Not sure if this passes WP:GNG/WP:ORG; no citations. Article only seems to serve as a list of prior releases. BriefEdits (talk) 04:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 04:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 04:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 04:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : I am unable to find any news about the label, but many of the albums and artist have Wiki pages, which would imply some significance. Perhaps we should keep it.Zeddedm (talk) 02:11, 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!} 04:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:50, 9 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 11:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Hull[edit]

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

Has a handful of credits, but sourcing is thin. Every source in the article is either WP:PRIMARY or about Hotel Transylvania and not Hull himself. His YouTube "career" isn't even mentioned in the body of the article, and most of the works in which he is credited are not notable in their own right. His only claim to fame is being a replacement voice actor for Adam Sandler in a franchise. Searches found no sources whatsoever, just passing mentions in articles about Hotel Transylvania. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found this article. It is an interview with Hull, which goes in depth with his YouTube career and other facets of his life. https://www.creatorhandbook.net/rising-above-the-noise-an-interview-with-brian-hull/ Cardei012597 (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cardei012597: Interviews are not sufficient for notability, as they are not independent third-party sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Then, what would qualify to be "sufficient for notability". What do you want to see on Brian Hull specifically to fix the page and to terminate this deletion process? Any specific examples? Cardei012597 (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend reading Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Anything that's completely independent of him and is mainly about him specifically would be sufficient. As I said, the current sources are either a.) not independent of him by merit of being interviews or content he made himself, or b.) not about him personally and are just about Hotel Transylvania. I have not been able to find any sourcing that is explicitly about him, just a bunch of random name-drops of him in relation to the Hotel Transylvania franchise. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, is the Creator Handbook source in the realm of sufficient? Because, if that is the case, I can find many others similar to that. I found an indepth article by a popular news channel, https://wibx950.com/brian-hulls-verson-of-disneys-let-it-go-has-garnered-almost-9-million-youtube-hits/ Cardei012597 (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also found an indepth interview on ABC's Windy City Live with Hull discussing his YouTube career and HT4. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw9ARgUqKQM Cardei012597 (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cardei012597: Interviews do not count as independent, since the subject is still involved in the creation. It needs to be something completely independent. Also a YouTube video is not a reliable source anyway. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am still unsure of what kind of source you need. Wikipedia:Reliable sources did not offer any good examples of completely independent sources specific to biographies. Is this one, https://biographymask.com/brian-hull/ I am really unsure of what kind of sources are required for this situation to be resolved. I would like to wait for other editors opinions on this subject before any rash actions take place. Cardei012597 (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be a directory listing that just culls stuff from other sites. What needs to be used is something from a newspaper, journal, magazine, or a reputable website (i.e., one with credited writers and editors). Sources like People, Hollywood Reporter, Variety, Entertainment Weekly, or Deadline are usually good for pop culture. For someone whose work is in animation, sources like Animation World Network or Cartoon Brew would work too. This is an acceptable source for the movie, as it is from a reputable news website (Deadline) and is specifically about the movie. It is not an acceptable source for Brian Hull, since it dedicates less than a sentence to him specifically. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this ok? https://www.awn.com/animationworld/checking-creative-team-behind-hotel-transylvania-transformania Cardei012597 (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Same problem as before. It's about the movie, and doesn't even dedicate a full sentence to Brian Hull. It has to be mainly about him. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we wait a couple of weeks or so for more editors to comment on this situation, before we make any decisions. It does not seem too in-depth with just us two discussing this. Cardei012597 (talk) 23:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Hotel Transylvania: Transformania may count as a significant credit, but NACTOR requires more than one. Interviews are worthless for verifiability. I could tell you I'm the ruler of the Empire of the Petal Throne and I'm Too Sexy for Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean it's true. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we lack the multiple significant roles required to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:47, 15 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. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redding News Review[edit]

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

Recreated by an SPA after the last AFD for the sites creator Rob Redding had a consensus to delete. wizzito | say hello! 15:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 15:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 15:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (no matter the outcome of other related AfD), not notable enough on its own and contains content copied from the main Redding article. Rlink2 (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to the other article, this is different from the old "Redding News Review" article that was deleted. A copy of the old article is also here: https://ghostarchive.org/archive/NOQmu Rlink2 (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Georgia (U.S. state). CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep Having just found reference to it in a PhD dissertation and seeing it mentioned in mainstream press as well as Snopes, I consider that adds up to enough to just scrape through. I think it needs work, I think it's a bit promotional and bloated, but I emphasize the need for work over deletion. CT55555 (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC) (Edit today, after my rewrite changing to keep CT55555 (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Well, its true that there are some good sources, but it really isn't suitable for an article on its own I would say - it should be merged with the main article provided that is kept. Regarding the Content section: Not every minute detail needs to be written on WP just because RSes cover it - for example, the section Leonard Pitts threats doesn't cover why or how RNR's coverage was notable or signifcant - just that it was the first to get there, which is nice but doesn't deserve its whole section.

If you remove the quotes (which basically add no new information) those sections are really just a sentence or two long. And if we are going to keep these little "mini sections", the false reporting about Troy Davis should be restored to make sure the article is not biased towards anyone. The section Radio Show in its current state is not needed.
If the article on the Redding News Review in particular is kept, some parts shuld be removed and some portions of the archived old version should be restored. Major cleanup to avoid WP:PROMO, among other things, would be needed. Rlink2 (talk) 04:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are mostly agreeing. Especially on the need to major clean up, cut down massively on the PROMO. Clearly not agreeing on keep or not, but I think media sources are important to have, even if as a stub, as it's really helpful to the wider Wikipedia for us to know what sources are. But I respect your point. To go back to where we do agree, the majority of this article should be edited out. CT55555 (talk) 09:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are important, but some of the sections are not. Removing all the useless sections would result in a stub of a few setences, at which point a merge with the existing article would make sense.

Compare this to the way more notable The Joe Rogan Experience, where not just the podcast is covered, but its history, sales, etc.... If their coverage is covered in the article, then its because it was widely reported upon and critqued by others. THe article doesn't describe every little thing Joe Rogan has said.

The only sections in "content" that should be kept is Stromae and maybe Brian Williams. Rlink2 (talk) 12:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Everything you say is reasonable, but I still disagree for the following reasons:
The comment below about racial bias on Wikipedia is relevant here

I give extra value to articles about media, as in the context of the wider wikipedia project, it's important for us all to know about media, as it becomes detail relevant to AfD

I think editing it down to stub and keeping it is a acceptable outcome and it will grow and I'm happy to set up alerts and work on that and grow it, as I do with many other articles that are borderline.

(Noting the above is opinion driven) the primary point I want to emphasise is that I think it just scrapes through on GNG.

I don't like it when people here just restate their case without being persuaded, so I hope it doesn't seem like I'm not open minded here, I am, but I remain with my "weak keep" having genuinely considered your vey reasonable counter arguments. CT55555 (talk) 14:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Redirect to his article, if that is kept. Mere mentions have been turned into entire paragraphs here, same as in the Rob Redding article. Cite for Adweek was listed as from NPR, which makes me wonder. The claim that he has written "best-selling" books is false - he has self-published Kindle books that are way down Amazon's lists. (See my analysis on the AFD for Redding.) None of the sources here are substantially about the radio show. Purely promotional. Lamona (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been greatly improved, but I still don't see it meeting GNG. There are many mentions in articles about other topics, one citation in a doctoral dissertation. The most extensive source, the Washington Post, is about Redding himself. I still believe this should be a section in the article about him, not a separate article. A redirect would be possible although perhaps not necessary. Lamona (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LamonaI have added a section called Reception and influence of the web site. Please review. Thanks! Gregpolk (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In short, deleting parts of black history is not what we should be in the business of doing period. Gregpolk (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I went a bit WP:TNT on this, deleted most of it and started over. I hope people will see it as an improvement. CT55555 (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for improving this article! Gregpolk (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I saw that you created it and was worried that you would not appreciate me over writing your work, but I think it is better this way and more aligned with Wikipedia style. Your comments about racial bias on Wikipedia on the other AfD discussion are important and I'm trying to spend my time here creating and improving articles that address the many biases here. Feel free to tag me if there are any other pages where you think I could be helpful. CT55555 (talk) 16:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CT55555Thanks. No worries on the corrections. I am still learning after all these years. We have the same goals and have no problem working with you in the future. Gregpolk (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CT55555 I added this on rob redding: Redding has written twelve self-published bestselling books on Amazon's hourly list, including Target, Dark Soul and The Professor: Witnessing White Power (2019) ISBN 978-1692336233

Redding has two academic articles. He wrote "Black voices, White power: Members of the Black press make meaning of media hegemony" in the Journal of Black Studies He wrote the "Resolution of Risk" in “The Journal of the International Public Debate Association.” Gregpolk (talk) 16:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CT55555I added a reception and influence section which I think helps balance out the article. Gregpolk (talk) 17:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reevaluate article after recent changes that have been made to it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rob Redding (and trim judiciously). Passing mentions don't satisfy WP:GNG, and content about notable guests (e.g. Tommy J. Curry) is better left to articles about those people. Keep in mind, Not everything true or existing must be pasted into Wikipedia, and verifiabillity doesn't guarantee inclusion. --Animalparty! (talk) 07:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added an entire section that is not duplicated on Rob Redding that deals directly with the sites influence. We did have many of the things from the Rob Redding page but that stuff got deleted. What I am at a loss for here is how some want a redirect for Redding but Matt Drudge and his Drudge Report are also repetitive. We really need to stop saying that black people are not worth such repetition. Said differently, there will always be overlap here but that does not mean Redding's site informaton should be marginalized to his wiki???

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:21, 9 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 12:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

South Khyber Pakhtunkhwa[edit]

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

Invalid dab. Does not disambiguation any article with this title, all entries piped to articles that don't mention this title. MB 05:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. MB 05:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:20, 2 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!} 05:51, 9 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 is no such thing as merge and delete - such a move runs into issues with our license. However there was a clear consensus that references should not be lost so those have been copied over to the draft. The mainspace page will also be protected against recreation. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IShowSpeed[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

IShowSpeed

This article is on a YouTube personality of questionable notability who obviously has a fan club in Wikipedia, but having a fan club does not establish notability. The article as written does not speak for itself and does not establish notability. A review of the sources shows that they are of uncertain reliability. The subject is using digital media and social media effectively for promotion, but that does not mean that Wikipedia should facilitate the promotion. There does not appear to be significant independent coverage.

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	Dexerto	Reads like a trade rag for streaming	Yes	Yes	?	No
2	Iheart.com	A blurb for a podcast	No	No	?	No
3	Newsbreak.com	Reads like another blurb	No	No	Yes?	No
4	Insider.com	Reads like a news story, but is quoting from source 1	Yes	Yes	Sometimes	No
5	Dexerto	Reads like a news feed story	Yes	Yes	?	No

An article on the subject has already been taken to AFD once and was draftified, and the comment was made that it should go through AFC. Instead this article was created again in article space. This version and the previous version are not the same, but there is still an attempt to bypass review and to push an article that is not ready for article space. This is the second AFD.

Extended-Confirmed Protection may be needed to channel these submissions through AFC review. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We had just draftified this recently. I’ve rewritten the draft too and it’s in a much better condition than the current article which is full of BLP violations, unreliable sources (Newsbreak especially is a deprecated source) and unsourced info. Endorse ECP protections for this. SK2242 (talk) 05:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my previous rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IShowSpeed. Nothing much has changed since the article was drafted, however this page is for some reason separete form the draft. There are somewhat reliable sources such as Kotaku in the article but they cover trivial topics and controversies that didn't last very long. Not much WP:GNG established here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparkl (talk • contribs) 15:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with current draft per last AfD discussion. Jurta talk 19:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with current draft. There are multiple reliable sources from Kotaku, Dot Esports and NME which cover the recent Valorant controversy, and an Inven Global source from December 2021 present in the current draft, all of which are reliable per WP:VG/RS and significantly cover him alongside the controversies. However, these incidents do straddle the line between WP:BLP1E and WP:RECENTISM, and while he may become more notable beyond these incidents as time passes, it's clearly too soon for him to have an article now. I suggest editors wait a couple months to see if any new sources arise for the draft as well. 2601:204:D981:8130:60E3:1A55:FC6F:8975 (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to User:Sparksl - The reason why there are both a draft and an article is that the ultras in the fan club were trying to game the system by creating two copies. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per 2601:204:D981:8130:60E3:1A55:FC6F:8975 and Jurta - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 17:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Draft includes six citations, and 1 reference is kotaku.com about the valorant situation several times throughout the article. The original page includes around 13 citations and appears to be in better form, and one reference isn't utilized frequently throughout the article. The Draft has been turned down several times. It's still bizarre how you guys think it should be merged, but preach. Gameforall (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gameforall I didn't want to have to comment on this discussion again but after seeing this response I have to give my final two cents. First off, the mainspace version shouldn't have been recreated in the first place. The previous AfD already established that it should be draftified due to a lack of notability-granting sources, which was honestly the best-case scenario for e-celebs whose notability is challenged on Wikipedia. The idea was to encourage users to continue editing the draft while waiting a little while for sources that cover the individual's rise to fame in-depth beyond isolated incidents. As aforementioned, IShowSpeed is a clear example of recentism because of how quickly he rose to popularity faster than most news outlets could take note of him. However, popularity ≠ notability and isn't automatically grounds for keeping an article, regardless of how unusually fast someone garnered fame.

Second of all, the draft was declined because of most of the coverage focusing solely on the incident... which is exactly the same problem this mainspace version has. The new sources added to the article are of dubious reliability like Dexerto and The Focus, and besides the Lifehacker source which discusses some meme he was involved in, there isn't much to write a balanced article about him nor is there anything new this article offered that couldn't have been merged into the draft. The Inven Global source from December covered his Twitch ban which at best may be enough to surpass WP:BLP1E, but at worst may be another BLP violation entirely. I suggest merging the new RS from the article into the draft and reworking it in a more neutral view, which may be hard to do seeing as how these events are quite controversial anyways.

And finally, I cannot emphasize this enough. Please do not recreate articles which have already been discussed thoroughly in an AfD without offering a new and strong case as to its notability. You should have worked on improving the pre-existing draft and actively seeking out usable sources rather than deliberately rushing to get this article out into mainspace. There is no deadline on Wikipedia anyways, so there was no reason to do anything but take your time to work on the draft. If you and other editors work as hard as you can to finally get the draft accepted in the future, then that's great! If the draft never gets accepted, then perhaps it wasn't meant to be.

Also to clarify, I was the IP who voted Merge outside of my account. PantheonRadiance (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A user, probably an ultra, came on to the IRC Help channel to try and canvas !votes - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 17:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whether this article is deleted or merged, I think this page title needs extended-confirmed protection or a new version of this article will just appear before the end of the month and we'll be back here for AfD 3. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the version in draft space, then salt the mainspace title until such time as the draft is accepted. Notability is a close question on this one - is he notable as a content creator, or just as a jerk who made some derogatory comments about women? Only time (to produce further sources) will tell. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and salt per ONUnicorn. I'll add that the current article's quality is problematic enough in tone and unsourced statements that it might need some WP:TNT even if enough sources are collected to demonstrate notability. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Six sources, all of which appear unreliable and only cover him for minor occurrences in which he was engaged.--The Tips of Apmh 01:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient and low-quality sourcing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @OhNoitsJamie and The Tips of Apmh: As aforementioned, Kotaku, Dot Esports, NME, Inven Global and Insider are all considered reliable sources per community consensus, so the quality of sourcing isn't exactly the point. This is more along the lines of whether this is a case of BLP1E or not. PantheonRadiance (talk) 08:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article was just introduced very, very recently. I recommend we give it time to be developed further before considering any deletion. Amerail (talk) 06:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Amerail: We had just draftified this at AfD weeks ago. It should be developed in draftspace instead of the article being recreated, going against the 1st AfD entirely. SK2242 (talk) 09:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't see significant sourcing except Insider. Sachin.cba (talk) 06:27, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The mentioned individual is worthy enough to have a wikipedia pageArsenalfanguy (User talk:Arsenalfanguy|Arsenalfanguy|talk]] — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Speed is is worthy enough to have a wikipedia page. --JOestby (talk) 09:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Howso, if I may ask? Cheers! Fake scientist8000 16:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge and salt per above. Six unreliable sources that are for a non notable Youtuber and amateur rapper. Cheers! Fake scientist8000 16:53, 19 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 02:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Military ranks in the Bible[edit]

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

I really don't think this is a subject that needs its own page. ★Trekker (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★Trekker (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. ★Trekker (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★Trekker (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I do not really think it is an encyclopedic topic. If it can be shown that it is, please ping me. Veverve (talk) 01:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As per @Uncle G:'s very justified remark below: the subject does not appear to be notable (WP:GNG), from what I found using a Google and Google Scholar search, i.e. there is no result that mention the topic. I have also never come across this topic being discussed or mentioned in my readings of theology books. Veverve (talk) 03:53, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think this is a notable topic and I plan to demonstrate this by expanding the article in the next few days. StAnselm (talk) 02:00, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is "I don't think" in any way an application of our deletion policy? Please put policy into practice. If there are actual grounds for deletion, explain them, and show what you did to make the determination. We must not organize the encyclopaedia on random personal whims. Uncle G (talk) 02:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retitle and rescope. It is problematic to have a list of generic "Foo in the Bible" things, which could just as readily be said of something like Emotions in the Bible or Hygiene in the Bible or Feet in the Bible, because this would really end up being about the mere fact that normal human activities and contrivances appear in the Bible. To say that one military rank or another appears in the Bible is merely to say that these are as much of a function of human cultures as emotions and hygiene and feet. What probably would be useful is a broader article on Military activity in the Bible, which could then include identification of Bible-specific armies and battles. A section on military ranks would be right at home in such an article. BD2412 T 05:12, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing notable. It's plain trivia. The only source is a quote from the Bible itself. Ajf773 (talk) 10:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If someone wants to make a substantive article about military activity in the Bible that would be fine, but I see no reason this page needs to be a vehicle for that. It's not notable to say that certain ranks were mentioned. Reywas92^Talk 15:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this does seem to be a clear case meriting immediate deletion, combining triviality with non-notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of importance. Agletarang (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List of military people in the bible is one thing, just a trivial list of ranks is not.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When your only source is from the Bible, it is not notable. Gabe114 (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivia and lacks any real notability. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:54, 11 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.

[1] Elisa Lorenzo Garcia (2017). "Twists of non-hyperelliptic curves". Revista matemática iberoamericana. 33 (1): 169–182.

[2] Rubin, K.; Silverberg, A. (2007). "Twists of elliptic curves of rank at least four" (PDF). LONDON MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY LECTURE NOTE SERIES. 341: 177.

[3] Jędrzejak, Tomasz; Ulas, Maciej (2014). "Variations on twists of tuples of hyperelliptic curves and related results". Journal of Number Theory. 137: 222–240.

[4] Davis, Christopher (2004). "RANKS OF QUADRATIC TWISTS OF ELLIPTIC CURVES WITH NO ISOGENIES". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

Submachine gun competition[edit]

Raindance (Gryphon album)[edit]

Rooftop Film Festival[edit]

M. Khalil Bahri[edit]

Twists of curves[edit]

Aurel Mărăcescu[edit]

Holiday Inn (soundtrack)[edit]

Marcel Linsman Prize[edit]

Cole Preston[edit]

Popexpert[edit]

Ingrid Sanders[edit]

Tarus Balog[edit]

D Block Bangali[edit]

Terry Donaldson[edit]

Maternal (film)[edit]

Concerned[edit]

From This Fire[edit]

Vinod Kumar Chaudhary[edit]

Andreas Photiou[edit]

Akshay Sharma[edit]

Ádám Fenyvesi[edit]

David Jubermann[edit]

Meat Magazine[edit]

Ron Tarrant[edit]

W41[edit]

W46[edit]

Klajdo Arkaxhiu[edit]

Redmi 8A[edit]

National Basketball Association Martin Luther King Jr. Day games[edit]

Nainaa[edit]

False Memory (novel)[edit]

Battersea Power Station in popular culture[edit]

Rubbers 7[edit]

Tiger Tyson (kitesurfer)[edit]

Yilgarn Iron Producers Association[edit]

Perseverance Records[edit]

Brian Hull[edit]

Redding News Review[edit]

South Khyber Pakhtunkhwa[edit]

IShowSpeed[edit]

Military ranks in the Bible[edit]

Leave a Reply