THC Science

< June 14	June 16 >

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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eswatini-Venezuela relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. There really isn't much to these relations. No embassies, agreements, significant trade. The visa information hardly adds to notability LibStar (talk) 23:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --NoonIcarus (talk) 06:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn’t find anything to make me think this is a notable subject.Jacona (talk) 10:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seychelles-Venezuela relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. There really isn't much to these relations. No embassies, agreements, significant trade. The visa information hardly adds to notability. LibStar (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just how many of these "X-Y relations" articles are still gathering dust? I thought we got rid of them ages ago. Either way, there is no evidence that enough relations exist for the subject to be notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought so too, but it seems like people keep uncovering new ones to bring to AfD. I guess considering just the 195 UN Member States/Observers alone (which is likely an undercount for number of countries) there are 18915 possible X-Y combinations using ${\tbinom {195}{2}}$ , so it might take a while to find all of them. TartarTorte 17:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --NoonIcarus (talk) 06:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn’t find anything to make me think this is a notable subject.Jacona (talk) 10:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is nothing notable to the relations between these countries. They're very trivial. TartarTorte 17:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is as non-notable as these articles get. Jacona (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete As it is now, I have to agree with the commenters above, although I'd like to userfy the article and see if I can salvage it outside of article space. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Star Mississippi 01:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Access Granted[edit]

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

The title was very hard to search for but apparently comedian Shang was involved. Even then, I got a ton of false positives that used the phrase "access granted" and the name "Shang" in unrelated contexts. Narrowing those down even further, all I could find on ProQuest was variants of "Shang, the host of BET's Access Granted, to do blah blah blah" or "[name of singer] also appeared on an episode of Access Granted". I tried, but I'm still utterly convinced this one fails the WP:RS test. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is BET's Making the Video equivalent as one of their past highlight series; the host really didn't do anything outside softball interviews or canned intros, so searching for their involvement is utterly pointless (also they're a redlink so this is a 'why bother' case), but this definitely meets N despite these series basically being just label-paid infomercials about the videos BTS. It's a proper and serviceable stub. Nate • (chatter) 19:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So per your logic, why are we allowed to circumvent WP:RS? Literally all you said was "it's notable because it's notable". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I said, it's a perfectly serviceable stub, and I'm loathe to delete articles when WP:ATD exists, especially for a show on a network that is incredibly nigh-uncovered to begin with here, when anything over 31 seconds on Nickelodeon and Cartoon Network is over-covered. Nate • (chatter) 02:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Perfectly serviceable" yet it's still completely unsourced. Why is it allowed exemption from WP:RS and WP:V? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's what AfD is for; to find sources which can establish N. I just remembered one of its episodes involved Aaliyah's shoot for "Rock the Boat" before her death and added an appropriate source because I do remember that was a very important episode. Nate • (chatter) 02:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. ✗plicit 00:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wildgirl[edit]

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

The article has one solid source (the NYT piece) that contributes towards WP:GNG. The other three sources do not contribute to notability, by virtue of being unsubstantial and/or unreliable. It has been surprisingly hard to find useful sources about her and it seems that the decision taken at the last AfD should be upheld. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and New York. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's not mentioned in the article, but from my cursory Google search it appears she uses (used?) the name "Ericka Dana" in addition to "Ericka Peterson" and "Wildgirl". pburka (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with Dana last name(after marriage) found this coverage in Iowa The Gazette(The Muscatine Journal also ran nearly identical article). Second confirmation of name and same radio station/nickname in passing mention in Daily News. A lot of stuff from 90s probably hard to find, but we have some, and the NYT coverage particularly gives me impression more exists. WikiVirusC^(talk) 11:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Days of Our Lives characters (2010s). Star Mississippi 01:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paige Larson[edit]

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

All of the sources are either a.) the show itself, b.) soap opera gossip sites that don't look to be reliable sources, or c.) about the actress and not the character. None of this asserts any real-world notability for the character herself. I don't feel there is any valid content worth merging, and the name is generic enough that other uses of the name might exist. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Days of Our Lives characters (2010s). Not a substantial enough character to support a separate article. BD2412 T 01:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree… Merge as recommended above. Bgsu98 (talk) 05:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Days of Our Lives characters (2010s): The provided sources are not sufficient to prove Paige Larson's notability. However, there is a clear merge target. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 03:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion has been proposed for merger to List of Days of Our Lives characters (2010s), and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to that page on June 22. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from that page.

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Haasnoot[edit]

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

Non-notable chef. valereee (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Netherlands. valereee (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Haasnoot won the World Chocolate Master in 2011, which is one of the biggest competition in the world of pastry. Currently, chef is actively continuing his career as a pastry chef and instructor, educating students all around the world. He has also worked as an Executive Pastry Chef in top pastry companies such as Dobla, Peninsula Hotel Hong Kong. The Dutch chef and chocolatier master has over 350k followers on Instagram, he is one of the chefs who have elevated their craft to the new art form. He built the foundation of techniques and methods for new generation of chefs. KseniaChabria (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sources are mainly in Dutch, so I don't know how reliable they are. A brief summary of his residence in a Paris establishment via the AFP [1], is about all I find for him. Nothing in GBooks, Gscholar, the NYT either. Oaktree b (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Little to no sources. Leaning delete. Oaktree b (talk) 01:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ALEGRA[edit]

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

Self-sourced (now to a dead link) for its entire 17-year history. It seems odd to have an article on a code using a specific formulation when we don't even have an article on the formulation, Arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian. BD2412 T 18:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Radioactive (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Logic-related deletion discussions. Radioactive (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's quite a few scholar hits going back to 2000. Book references are meager but there are a few. I haven't looked closely at the quality of the sources. "Arbitrary-Lagrangian-Eulerian" has quite a lot more hits and might be notable. --mikeu ^talk 19:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- If the formulation is notable, the code can be mentioned there, but it seems to be a stretch to say that the code itself is notable. BD2412 T 19:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is a distinct lack of hits online on the subject. Most of what comes up turns out to be copying the Wikipedia text, e.g. here. Before having something on "ALE" we want to have something on "ALEGRA"? It does not work that way. -The Gnome (talk) 10:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Software with no independent sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SAM Broadcaster[edit]

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

Non-notable internet broadcasting application, appears to be written by someone involved in its development which would as such fail WP:COI. Reliable sources covering this software were not found upon a web search; only WP:SPS, the software producer's own website, and this very Wikipedia page. The results that were returned strongly cast doubt on the reputability of this software and its developer(s). As such I firmly believe this article has no place on Wikipedia. Joyce-stick (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:BEFORE search returns little in the way of WP:SIGCOV, with most of what turns up being passing mentions (eg. Popular Science, Entrepreneur's Guide to Second Life, Social Media Commerce For Dummies) and very little in the way of recent coverage. More coverage may exist in older offline print sources, but as it stands this is unlikely to meet the WP:GNG unless better sources are unearthed. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slice (company)[edit]

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

Since this is a company, WP:NCORP guidelines apply. None of the references meet NCORP's criteria for establishing notability. The existing references mostly fails WP:ORGIND/WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Congrats! This is the first AfD in a new delsort! –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The prior AfD was closed because the nominator was blocked as a sockpuppet and there had been no discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apart from the funding announcements, I think there are two articles - from Financial Express and Rediff - to be considered. Both are essentially interviews of the founders and fall short of NCORP. Hemantha (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 00:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Stetina[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:MUSICBIO. Very resume-like. I can only find primary sources or trivial mentions in secondary sources. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 8 June 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 23:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abe Levy[edit]

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. No significant media notice that I can see. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is not notable at all, even though he was a filmmaker in a 1999 movie, it does not mean he can get his own article and the citations aren't reliable.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 04:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: With regret. Could be Wikipedia-notable, but I can’t find good sources. Better to improve his coverage at IMDB. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Merger or redirect conversation can continue editorially. Star Mississippi 01:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bad governance[edit]

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

This page is just the opposite of Good governance. It's completely redundant and treads the same grounds as the Good governance article. It's a poorer version of Good governance. If there is anything worth keeping, it can be merged with Good governance. The existing of both articles lead to watered down articles, as editor contributions are spread across two articles. Thenightaway (talk) 12:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, and Management. Radioactive (talk) 18:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is obviously garbage, and seems mostly a mishmash of corruption and basically "this thing which is the opposite of good governance is basically bad governance". However, there might be something more to it. There's some evidence to suggest scholars view "bad governance" as a unique phenomenon worthy of study that is more than "not good" governance. See here and here. Of course, considering the state of the article, this might be worth just redirecting for the time being. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if an AfD was necessary for this. The issue is that both articles should be merged into a single article and improved. Anybody can do this per WP:BOLD. Otinflewer (talk) 04:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So, merger or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This has been relisted but it had to be closed as no consensus and allow discussion on talk page to combine the both articles. Otinflewer (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jamee Ranta[edit]

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

Producer. Refs are primary, interviews and profiles. Nominated for grammy but never won. Very poor references. scope_creep^Talk 11:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Ohio. Shellwood (talk) 11:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG; WP:MUSICBIO. Producer not notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing I see shows notability. Pamelagoo (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Billboard feature was the primary independent source to est WP:GNG Mistephake (talk) 13:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Primary references can't be used to establish notability. There is no secondary references here. scope_creep^Talk 15:10, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your comments and careful reading. Jamee is a prominent producer of music videos for some of the top artists in the country, and I would have thought that the Billboard and Dayton News pieces would establish notability. Perhaps a shorter article would pass muster?

Bethbcpr (talk) 23:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)BethBC[reply]

Delete The Billboard piece is all I can find and it's not a reliable source as discussed above. Overly promotional article as well. Oaktree b (talk) 01:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to George Friedman. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geopolitical Futures[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. While many sources cite the subject's content, none of them provide significant and independent analysis of the publication itself. I think that the citations in the article (and additional ones on the talk page) could make a decent case for why the subject should be considered RS, but they do not provide sufficient coverage for an article at this time. Restoring the redirect to its founder, George Friedman, seems appropriate. I would suggest merging, but there is no information in this article that would be due to include at the target. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Politics, and Texas. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom; would have preferred a G4, but was declined due to newer sourcing on the talk page, but I don't agree with the evaluation there that that sourcing pertains to the subject itself. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 00:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at the deleted article, I do think the current revision is substantially different; the old article's references were still worse as they were limited to PR rather than the quoted coverage we have now. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's Next for Sarah?[edit]

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

This does not seem to meet the WP:SUSTAINED section of the notability guidelines. There are a couple pieces from the date of the show's premire stating "Jennette McCurdy to star in her first post-Sam and Cat project", but not a word was said of it after the fact. The closest I found was some gossipy clickbait about how one line in the show was perceived as a slight against Ariana Grande, but this was a.) mostly WP:COATRACK and b.) sourced to dubious looking celebrity gossip sites. We can confirm the show existed, but that's all it did. It was never reviewed; no articles delved into its history; and it had no after-the-fact impact. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Internet. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed, one season with 4 episodes. Nothing published about it after it ended, or much more before for that matter. Oaktree b (talk) 01:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment unclear why this isn’t a merge discussion. Artw (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because every time I start a merge discussion, literally no one participates... and then the second I do the merge itself, someone undoes it literally two seconds later. Furthermore, I feel there is too little verifiable content worth merging. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Hamilton (American actress)[edit]

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

Lacks notability; soap opera roles were brief guest appearances only. Bgsu98 (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Television. Bgsu98 (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found a lengthy article in the New York Times on Annie Hamilton [2], not the same person, in case anyone wants to follow up there. DaffodilOcean (talk) 09:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Less than a dozen appearances each in two soaps isn't going to satisfy WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. This replaces the nominator's original closing statement, for the reasons suggested at DRV. If desired, another AfD can be filed in due course, though I am not suggesting it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hindi songs recorded by Asha Bhosle[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOT. The singer being notable (or other similar listcruft existing elsewhere) does not change the fact this is obviously song-database listcruft which fails WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:NOTDATABASE - the singer has recorded over 11000 songs; so unless one is willing to WP:TNT this to something that could possibly be manageable, this is obviously failing WP:CSC as well. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There we go again - another selective nomination which goes along the lines of previous nominations with the same irrelevant rationale of WP:NOT. Blaming the singer for having sung so many songs is just blaming an artist for being too prolific, and suggesting WP should discriminate against them. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
another selective nomination Then list other pages so they can be nominated as well, duh. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a convincing argument, particularly when that other stuff similarly fails NOT. Blaming the singer for having sung so many songs is just blaming an artist for being too prolific Nonsense. This isn't "blaming the singer for having sung so many songs"; it's recognising the fact we can't impart any useful, encyclopedic information to readers by providing them with an indiscriminate listing of all of their songs (which in this case span over 8 decades, so really, probably are far closer to the archetypical apples and oranges than anything else even if they're sung by the same singer).. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: I think we've had enough of this arguments on other AfDs. I see no WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in my vote above and seriously can't understand where you're bringing this from. I should have added though, not only the same irrelevant rationale can be found here but also the same constant WP:BLUDGEONING on the part of the nominator. More than one editor asked you to stop imposing your subjective interpretation on every participant. Enough with this, please. Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
People making the same bad argument everywhere (your argument is literally "previous nominations with the same irrelevant rationale"; and the again summary dismissal of WP:NOT) don't really have much of a legitimate reason to complain when it gets pointed out. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: I do not dismiss WP:NOT, I dismiss your misrepresentation of it. Sorry but almost nothing of what you say makes sense. If I make the same bad argument it must be because of the same unjusitfied nomination. Other than that, you've been warned to stop bludgeoning the process and you seem to not be able to accept that others disagree with your perspective. Please stop. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – A grammy-nominated artist and Guinness-record holder. Her discography is never non-notable or indiscriminate. The referencing might be improved but deleting this is ponitless. She has sung 7,892 Hindi songs among which at least 500 songs are listed with a whopping 44 references. I would request everyone to check those facts about Asha Bhosle and consider my points before sharing any views on this Afd. Thank you everyone. Abbasulu (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She has sung 7,892 Hindi songs among which at least 500 songs are listed with a whopping 44 references. Thanks for making my point for me. It is not possible to cover this in this fashion in an encyclopedically appropriate fashion; not something that can be fixed with "the referencing might be improved". We are not a song database, even if the singer is notable, and particularly if such a "list" would include thousands of entries. Comparing with the existence of other lists, which include far fewer entries than even this in its current state (as is in line with WP:CSC, which specifically states that "complete lists" should only ever be reasonably short, which even this incomplete complete list is not), is at best disingenuous. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as with the other duplicative noms, and for the same reasons. The nominator is verging on a WP:POINT violation, and seems to be acting on the theory that if you can't win one argument, you should start ten. In particular, the nom's rationale of WP:INDISCRIMINATE fails: these lists are not indiscriminate, and not only enhance our coverage of the notable parent topic, but also serve to helpfully link these songs to other encyclopedic topics such as the films they were sung in. Further sourcing and scoping work may be needed, but that can be handled through the wiki process; AFD and its toxic zero-sum dynamic are neither needed nor helpful. -- Visviva (talk) 03:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ABF has no place here. These lists being "helpful", is, A) unpersuasive and B) misses the point that it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to be a song database. The real problem is the people who have mode dozens of similar lists to this one. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previously discussed AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Udit Narayan. No change since then in policies and deletion guidelines that may suggest in deletion of this article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is a nine year old AfD proof of anything? Your argument is essentially stonewalling, which is not valid. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note WP:BLUDGEON tracking: RandomCanadian has made 6 7 comments in the thread among 5 participants. Venkat TL (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CANVASS tracking: All of the above have all voted keep with copy pasted comments at most of the AfDs after Shahid left a note at a Wikiproject page. Also, people who keep making the same non-policy based reasons have no right to complain when this gets pointed out. A Wikiproject having a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that stats-only lists are acceptable is really the cherry on the cake, here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian an WP:ANI may be coming if this behavior continues. Venkat TL (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, but continue to discuss a merge if desired. There is no argument to delete the content. Whether it should remain as a list or be merged is a discussion that can continue editorially and does not require further extension of this AfD. Star Mississippi 03:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Armaan Malik[edit]

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

A WP:INDISCRIMINATE listing of apparently all individual songs recorded (not "written" or "first recorded" by) by this artist. Most of it is not backed up by a single source (thus failing WP:V); and it is otherwise probably information which is of interest only to very dedicated fans of the subject. Wikipedia is not an itunes directory or some other form of database (which is what this list is). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Albums and songs, Music, and India. ––FormalDude talk 04:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete~~ I cant be sure whats "T-Series Mixtape Season 2" is. The "saregamapa" is reality show/competition, not sure why Armaan Malik was there. Judge? Guest? Anyways, the list is indiscriminate, it lists literally every song the singer has sung. Verification of every entry is not possible (no sources available). The subject itself doesnt have any significant coverage, as in the term "List of songs recorded by Armaan Malik". The singer maybe notable but it doesnt make the list inherently notable. Also, fails general notability criteria, as the list doesnt have significant coverage. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
merge sourced content to parent article per BD2412. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Armaan Malik as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. SBKSPP (talk) 23:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SBKSPP: Do you mean merge? Because there's currently no list of songs at Armaan Malik. ––FormalDude talk 02:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude: Makes sense as well. But the list is too long, I prefer his singles to be merged to the article. Not sure about the rest. Still changing my vote. SBKSPP (talk) 01:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this AFD with a Delete decision with a comment that I thought that the article being discussed could not be easily merged with the much smaller article on the artist. I was asked to relist this discussion so other options could be proposed so that's what I'm doing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this proably should have been part of the same deletion discussions for the Shreya Ghoshal AfD and the Lata Mangeshkar one, among others. WP:NOT does not apply here, this is a perfectly legitimate list, an extension of a notable singer. More work is called for to meet WP:V. Deletion is not the solution, nor is it justified. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Discographies/recordings of notable musicians are encyclopedic as they are routinely published in academic reference works on musicians. The nominator's rationale that a discography is somehow excluded from encyclopedic coverage under policy at WP:NOTDIRECTORY is flawed. We include a list of novels written by novelists, a list of works by composers, a filmography of actors etc. A discography is a record of the creative output of musicians in the same way that a list of works is a record of the creative output by composers. Further, it's a reasonable content fork of the main article. This was a badly argued deletion rationale, with a potentially negative impact on wikipedia's coverage of creative professionals across the encyclopedia.4meter4 (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how NOTDIRECTORY is flawed. This is literally a textbook example of a Simple listings without contextual information and is also very much a Summary-only descriptions of works. Articles about songs should provide information about authorship, date of publication, social impact, and so on. These lists provide no such information; they in effect only serve as a glorified song-database. We don't accept statistics-databases "lists" for sportspeople, even if their name is Maradonna or Dhoni or Gretzky. I don't see why people think this kind of basically stats-only list is in any way acceptable. Even when we do have lists of creative works, these general are not allowed to be a bare listing of "everything in the universe that exists or has existed"! RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NOTDIRECTORY isn't flawed, your application of NOTDIRECTORY is flawed. Not directory was never intended to exclude a list of this kind, which is essentially listing the works (in this case recordings) created by the subject. Recordings are original works of art, and frankly an FA/GA article on Armaan Malik would require a discography (either in the article or in CONTENTFORK) in order to pass one of those article milestones. Your inexperience with articles in the arts is showing. In a list of recordings in an article on a musician is no more out of place, then a list of novels is for an article on a novelist. Under your logic, we would be deleting Mark Twain bibliography for failing NOTDIRECTORY which is absolutely ludicrous.4meter4 (talk) 01:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A textbook strawman. WP:CSC is clear that scale matters. Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short. If we're speaking of FA/GA, a complete list of recordings is not required. In fact, one would assume that if we ever get to FA/GA for a musician, there would be sufficient sources discussing their work to highlight the most significant ones so that we don't have to give a complete listing. One would also assume that there exist sources to give some encyclopedic content (so that the data can be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources) for these listicles. No-one has bothered to show the existence of such; or how this listcruft does anything beyond being a straightforward database. Such content belongs maybe on other websites (like IMDB or whatever the equivalent for Indian singers would be), but not on Wikipedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think your argument is a straw man argument. A discography does not fall under any of the 6 criteria listed at WP:NOTDIRECTORY. A discography has context as it is limited to a single artist and their creative output (so criteria 1 does not apply). Likewise, it isn't loosely associated because the recordings are all by a single artist (so criteria 2 does not apply). A discography is not a non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations because the original works of art created by a musician are part of what gives them notability for encyclopedic coverage. (so criteria 3 does not apply). A discography has no genealogical basis (so criteria 4 does not apply). A discography is not an Electronic program guides (so criteria 5 does not apply). And a discography is not a resource for conducting business. (so criteria 6 does not apply). In short, there is no policy based application of NOTDIRECTORY to a discography. Likewise, the application WP:INDISCRIMINATE is flawed. Criteria 1 is not meant to be applied to a list of works by (artist, composer, actor, etc) in the way that you are applying it. That criteria is a summary of Contextual presentation which specifically addresses the development of articles on individual works of art, and not to lists of works. We currently don't have policy language in MOS or at NOT that specifically addresses lists in the arts, but perhaps we should. Regardless, work on contextualizing this particular. list could be done, but that is an editorial issue and not a notability issue. Best.4meter4 (talk) 02:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge only sourced content to Armaan Malik. If nothing can be sourced, then redirect. If things can be sourced, merge those. BD2412 T 22:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as with the other duplicative noms, and for the same reasons. In particular, the nom's rationale of WP:INDISCRIMINATE fails; these lists are not indiscriminate, and not only enhance our coverage of the notable parent topic, but also serve to helpfully link these songs to other encyclopedic topics such as the films they were sung in. -- Visviva (talk) 03:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 4meter4 and Visviva. FrB.TG (talk) 04:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List of songs first recorded by the artist is a legitimate CFORK similar to filmography, bibliography etc. -- Ab207 (talk) 05:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am a member of WP:ICTF. Discography of an internationally notable artist. Such articles are split following WP:CFORK, when they grow too large. Dont use WP:BURO to delete articles that people look for. If you dont want a separate page, it will have to be merged. There is no question of deletion in these AfDs. Especially when there is a long precedent of keeping such articles Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Udit Narayan. The delete !vote above is the most absurd !vote I have read so far on Wikipedia. Venkat TL (talk) 08:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previously discussed AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Udit Narayan. No change since then in policies and deletion guidelines that may suggest in deletion of this article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment you would have a lot of difficulty convincing me that all of the above just casually ended up here and then copied their irrelevant and already refuted non-policy-based arguments from elsewhere just, you know, by random coincidence... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can't speak for anyone else, but I came into these conversations from the Village pump. If the response you are getting is out of step from what you would normally expect on AFD, that probably just reflects how badly out of step AFD is with the rest of the project. -- Visviva (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that is out of step is people repeatedly saying "Keep the singer is notable" or "Keep per other similarly unsuitable articles". Thankfully, multiple people making the same policy-free arguments get mostly correctly ignored by reasonable closers. Wikipedia is not a song database, and this and similar lists contain nothing but bare database listings of songs. Unless people can show sources or something to make the listings of songs into something more than database entries, they're completely missing the point. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@:RandomCanadian, as a regular AFD reviewer I don't think the response you are getting is surprising. You are arguing a novel application of NOTDIRECTORY, and you aren't likely to get community support.4meter4 (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list can be improved and meets requirements. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NLIST per above arguments. Now convinced enough. SBKSPP (talk) 00:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perfectly legitimate subject for a list page. Artw (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ofaloto Kite[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is there no WP:soccer? For baseball, so long as they have one game in the majors, we allow it. I'm always unsure about these soccer articles that keep popping up in AFD. Oaktree b (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment N:FOOTBALL has been depreciated which has led to an increase in footballer AFDs. Dougal18 (talk) 11:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pua Falepapalangi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Nominator had placed a proposed deletion tag on this article, but quickly self-reverted and opened this nomination instead, so that "previous" prod does not preclude soft deletion. RL0919 (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Plumb[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:JOURNALIST. Babar Suhail (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Smithy[edit]

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

absolutely no reliable sources have covered this individual, aside from a brief 15 minutes of internet spotlight (which isn't covered in RS), there is nothing to be said about them. I tried redirecting to the show they appeared in but the creator has contested, so now I am proposing outright deletion as it also doesn't appear their appearance in Little Mix The Search was significant or likely to result in someone searching for them. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of information online regarding 'Jordan Smithy' he is a musician from the UK, and appeared on Little Mix The Search. I am refusing the outright deletion as he does appear = in Little Mix The Search he was a member of Jasper Blue and has worked with Ed Sheeran and Avicii . Please do your research before deleting the Wikpediia article .He also is know as the following; Jordan Anthony Smith,Jordan Anthony Smithy Mixer1111 (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to refuse, but it ultimately means nothing. Saying there's lots of information online is not the same as there being reliable sources available, on or offline and as of yet, you've failed to provide a single independent reliable source that covers them in depth. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WikiVirusC^(talk) 17:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only found one source on him[3] that I added, and that is based off an interview mostly. WP:SINGER doesn't pass, and unless more sources can be shown to be out there, WP:GNG can't be shown to pass either. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Plenty of "contestant description" type articles for the show, nothing of substance. I don't think he made it very far in the competition, lack of sources=non-notable for our purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He made hit to the Live Shows which is quite far n the competition. It's the same as X-Factor as soon as you make it to the live shows most members have a Wikipedia. What's the difference? Mixer1111 (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Difference is we have no sources for him that can be used in an article. Oaktree b (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Joris[edit]

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

Unsourced autobiography that reads like a CV. Fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:BIO. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, and Luxembourg. Shellwood (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep He was given an award by the government of Luxembourg for poetry [4], but this version of the wiki article needs a rewrite. Oaktree b (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subjects has significant publications with well-known publishers along with sufficient coverage of his work, plus academic articles covering his body of work (such as this academic article). While the article needs work, the subject meets all Wikipedia notability guidelines.--SouthernNights (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Omondi Abudho[edit]

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

I can't find any coverage to indicate this subject is notable. Although he created a resume/CV that was praised for its creativity in some big publications, the artist himself didn't seem to receive coverage.

The subject of the article appears to be its creator. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Arts, Visual arts, Photography, Africa, and Kenya. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All information is for one one event, a creative resume, which was in the news 10 years ago. FWIW - I think this photographer may have died. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it doesn't impact the nomination but now I feel absolutely terrible for making it. Thanks for providing the extra info anyway. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Always sad to lose someone, but alas, still isn't notable. Please don't feel bad about the nomination. I was just mentioning it because the tenses were changed back and forth. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough sourcing. Johnbod (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage by reliable sources is almost nil. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 08:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Athletics at the 1928 Summer Olympics – Men's marathon#Results. Consensus is against keeping. The "keep" minority do not provide any sources in support of their opinions. Redirection to a plausible target is preferred to deletion per WP:ATD. Sandstein 09:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orla Olsen[edit]

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

Olsen was a non-medaling competitor in the Olympics. We lack any sourced on Olsen that provide any prose. The sportsreference.com source here has no prose. The only other source I found searching google, google books and google news archive with and without the term "runner" was an Olympedia source which also lacks any prose on Olsen. It gets better. There were 57 competitors in the 1928 Olympic marathon that completed. Olsen was not one of those. He was one of the 69 people who started that race but one of 12 who did not finish. So realy about all we know about Olsen was he was in a marathon he did not complete. This is not exactly the thing that notability to the level of having an article is made of. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Denmark. Shellwood (talk) 16:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a little bit more info on the Dansk wiki. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've noted this continued harassment from JPL at ANI and Arbcom. I think this is his 43rd AfD out of his last 95 targeting me. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletion discussions are not "targeting" the creator of an article. They are seeking to remove articles that do not meet inclusion criteria. Of the 12 on people who started but did not finish the 1928 Olympic marathon, 11 were created by Lugnuts. Some of the others have other points to suggest notability, some do not. Each needs to be considered on their own. To claim that nomination is targeting the article creator is misrepresenting the nature of deletion discussions and claiming ownership, while in fact Wikipedia articles do not have owners. I would like someone to actually tell us what number of articles Lugnuts has created, so that what is actually going in is put in perspective. The number is probably at least 100 times the number of articles created by Lugnuts I have nominated for deletion. As explained over and over again there is an attempt to bring our Olympic articles into line with our Olympic inclusion criteria. This is not aimed at any particular editors work. The most recent Olympic article I nominated for deletion was created by a different editor for example.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve using Danish sources. (see below) I imagine that being the leader of the Danish National Socialist party in 1940 might be sort of notable, as might be being the co-founder of Dansk Nordisk Front in the same year. And that's not considering his role as a collaborator during the occupation of Denmark. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources on da-WP don't really help with WP:GNG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Was the Danish National Socialist Party actually a significant power in 1940? Did its leader get any recognition or have any government function?John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to National Socialist Workers' Party of Denmark, pretty much no. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They won 3 seats (out of 149) in both the 1939 Danish Folketing election and the 1943 Danish Folketing election; 1.8 and 2.1% of the votes respectively. They were a very minor force until the Germans imposed direct rule later in 1943 and needed a bunch of collaborators; see Denmark in World War II. Narky Blert (talk) 05:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Olsen was not the party leader in either the 1939 elections or the 1943 elections. The party leader was Frits Clausen. Cullen328 (talk) 02:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Athletics at the 1928 Summer Olympics – Men's marathon, where he's mentioned, as {{R to related topic}}. The sources pass WP:V. Keep the categories and the Interwiki link.

(1) He fails WP:NSPORTS as it now stands, excluding people who are listed in directories but fail WP:GNG for lack of sources. (2) The Danish article about the party he founded, da:Dansk Nordisk Front, is unsourced. For all I can tell, he may have been the only member. Nothing in da:Orla Olsen suggests that his political career was of any note, and he fails WP:GNG on this count also. Narky Blert (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- LOL about him maybe having been the only member.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comment I agree that, based on the current article, this is a prime candidate for deletion. From what I see, his only significant notoriety might be as Gauleiter of Copenhagen under the Nazis, but the lack of any war crime prosecution tends to argue against it. Mangoe (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an online Danish newspaper archive? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We have had this before. Digitised Danish newspapers are available online only up to 1921 - later ones can only be accessed from libraries inside Denmark. See here. Ingratis (talk) 22:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep status as an athlete and leader of a party that got seats in a national assembly probably means sources exist, they just aren't online. Hobit (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- At least on the athletic front, no there is no indication that sources exist on everyone who was in the Olympics, especially people who did not finish the race they were in. For the other matter, we need people to actually produce actual sources, not just hand wave that sources are hard to find.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Hobit. At worst, redirect, per the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For what it is worth, the article still says nothing about his role as a Nazi collaborator during WWII. If people want to argue for weak keep based on that, they should at least bother to add some prose about his role there in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do - I've been kinda busy with one thing and another and my Danish and Swedish - he appears in at least one work by Bosse Schön (which has prose btw) - are basic at best. Obviously I don't have access to Danish newspaper resources which would make life an awful lot easier. That's unfortunate, but I'm not based in Denmark - and would probably struggle with the translation anyway. But it seems reasonable that there will be some coverage in those that could be garnered. But anyway, it's been a little more than ~~two days~~ one day since the article was nominated. It is a little disappointing perhaps that you appear not to have checked the Danish article first. That provides some sourcing and also his full name, which might have been more useful to search using. But those inter-wiki links are tucked away down on the left there and aren't something that is easily spotted, so that's understandable of course. I am surprised you didn't find the documentary film that he appears in - it's on the second page of my ghits; that might have provided some ideas of where else to look; from that he appears to have been a Sysselleder (a gauleiter) in 1938. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Athletics at the 1928 Summer Olympics – Men's marathon. There is no evidence that he passes the GNG and a loose handwave in the direction of dead tree sources does not show that they exist. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete His Olympic participation is really the least of his three "tries" at notability, so I see redirecting on the basis of athletics misleading. I did find a reference in Swedish to his gauleiter position, but it appears to be very passing. I don't see anything that approaches the kind of extended treatment that would constitute the basis for biographical treatment here. Mangoe (talk) 02:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Athletics at the 1928 Summer Olympics – Men's marathon. Of course, if any editor discovers and brings forth reliable sources that actually devote significant coverage to him as a distance runner or a Danish Nazi, the article can be recreated at that time. Cullen328 (talk) 02:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG (lack of SIGCOV), WP:NOLYMPICS (not a medalist), and WP:NPOL (doesn't appear to have been elected to a qualifying office). Also no clear redirect target given his varied endeavors. Article can be recreated if actual SIGCOV is later discovered. Cbl62 (talk) 03:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant achievements, no in-depth coverage in the literature. Binksternet (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, according to Google, there is a 1999 Danish book titled "Orla Olsen". BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WorldCat there is a copy held at the Danish Union Catalogue and Danish National Bibliography in Ballerup. Do we have any Danish wikipedians here? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I doubt that this is a published book. There is essentially no publication data, and the translation of the note acto Google/Bing translate is "Danish personalia clippings mainly contain clippings from Danish newspapers". I agree that it shows at least one person found him interesting enough to make the compilation, but as a signifier of notability it is at best underwhelming. Mangoe (talk) 00:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, but if there are enough clippings for that to exist at all, those clippings are likely enough to meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That may or may not be so. This outlines the process for accessing the folder if anyone wishes to pursue it. Cbl62 (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobit/Cbl62/Mangoe/BeanieFan11: I am in Copenhagen, but my Danish isn't to the level needed to do this --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there may be a way to do the request in English. From there, scans would be all that's needed. Not sure it's a worthwhile use of your time of course... Hobit (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Athletics at the 1928 Summer Olympics – Men's marathon per WP:ATD. If and when sources with significant coverage emerge the article can always be resurrected.4meter4 (talk) 09:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve using Danish sources. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is just "Der skal være kilder på dansk." Mangoe (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that this meets GNG, no redirect needed, can be recreated at a later date if sources are found. Avilich (talk) 01:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, this would be better to be redirected. There are clearly some sources in Danish and Swedish, but the ones that anyone here appears to be able to access are sketchy. And my Danish and Swedish isn't up to bothering to develop the article just to see it deleted anyway. I have absolutely no doubt at all that if we were to be able to access Danish print archives that we could find enough bits and pieces about him to satisfy GNG - and I do mean absolutely no doubt at all. So, to preserve the page history, attribution and access to sources and because it's much more efficient to do so, a redirect to either Athletics at the 1928 Summer Olympics – Men's marathon or Denmark at the 1928 Summer Olympics. A link to the Danish article should then be inserted as a placeholder on both articles. As and when sources emerge the redirect can be reverted and the article expanded. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to Athletics at the 1928 Summer Olympics – Men's marathon- An unsuccessful Olympic competitor from a time when the Olympics were nowhere near the big deal that they are now. No non-database sources have been presented about his competitive career. This person's political activities seem to make a better claim for notability and, though I am far from convinced, I'd be more willing to be convinced of notability on that basis than the Olympics stuff. Reyk _YO! 23:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DiGiCo[edit]

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

Unlikely to pass GNG, most if not all coverage appears to be from content farms directly posting media releases from the business itself. Article itself is in a poor state and reads like an advertisement. Dark-World25 (talk) 12:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Business, and Technology. Dark-World25 (talk) 12:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like a press release and I find zero sources, and it appears to be a copyvio. Oaktree b (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was unsure if it was given that it would seem more likely that the content was copied from wikipedia in the first place. Dark-World25 (talk) 13:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This manufacturer is quite notable in concert sound and musical theatre. I began actively working on improving this article today once I saw the AfD notice. synthfiend (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Keep Sourcing is woeful, search gets a remarkable number of press release 'win stories'. Show me notability, I'll change my vote in a second because I think these guys should be notable (AMS Neve is notable, so is DiGiCo but then WP:OTHERSTUFF, right? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good as my word... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see anything here that is acceptable? https://headlinermagazine.net/search.html?search=digico&id=259

Concert Sound Reinforcement references include Barbra Streisand's 2019 concerts,^[1] The Black Keys Let's Rock Tour,^[2]

Iron Maiden Legacy of the Beast World Tour,^[3] Vampire Weekend,^[4] Queen + Adam Lambert Queen + Adam Lambert Tour 2014–2015 The Rhapsody Tour,^[5] Maren Morris Girl: The World Tour,^[6] Post Malone's Runaway Tour,^[7] Summerfest 2014 performances by Bruno Mars, Lady Gaga, OneRepublic, along with approximately half the mixing consoles used in support of Summerfest were DiGiCo,^[8] Two sold-out Ed Sheeran concerts at Wembley Stadium,^[9] Hella Mega Tour with Green Day, Fall Out Boy, and Weezer,^[10] and the Montreux Jazz Festival 2008-2014.^[11] and Spectrum Sound in Nashville.

^[12]

Broadcast Sound Reinforcement articles include the Grammy Awards,^[13]^[14] The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon,^[15]Red Bull Arena in New Jersey,^[16] Super Bowl,^[17]^[18] and 2014 NHL Winter Classic.^[19]

Installed Sound Reinforcement articles include Rady Shell at Jacobs Park, San Diego,^[20] Hudson Hall,^[21] Chicago Museum of Contemporary Art's Edlis Neeson Theater,^[22] Minnesota Orchestra Hall,^[23] Jack Singer Concert Hall in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, ^[24] and Philadelphia's Kimmel Center for the Performing Arts upgraded audio to a DiGiCo ecosystem in Summer 2021.^[25]

Also, another Tony Award-winning Broadway production not yet included in the article: Jagged Little Pill,^[26]

And a few more references that may be useful.^[27]^[28]^[29]

References

^ Romanello, Linda (26 August 2019). "Live Sound Showcase: Barbra Streisand Returns to Her NYC Roots". mixonline.com. Future plc. Retrieved 9 June 2022.
^ Schultz, Barbara (14 February 2020). "The Black Keys' Let's Rock Tour". mixonline.com. Future plc. Retrieved 9 June 2022.
^ Hogan, Candace (19 December 2019). "The Three-Headed Beast". mixonline.com. Future plc. Retrieved 9 June 2022.
^ Jaffee, Larry (11 April 2022). "Live Sound Showcase: Vampire Weekend Goes 360° at MSG". mixonline.com. Future plc. Retrieved 9 June 2022.
^ Gayhart, Keith (26 September 2019). "Live Sound Showcase: Rhapsodizing On The Road with Queen + Adam Lambert". mixonline.com. Future plc. Retrieved 9 June 2022.
^ Berkowitz, Todd (26 September 2019). "The Many Styles of Maren Morris". mixonline.com. Future plc. Retrieved 9 June 2022.
^ Shuler, Christopher (4 May 2020). "Post Malone's Recent Tour Was A Runaway Success With L-Acoustics". Sound & Video Contractor. Future plc. Retrieved 9 June 2022.
^ Shuler, Christopher (26 August 2014). "Summerfest, and the Mixing is Easy on DiGiCo". Sound & Video Contractor. Future plc. Retrieved 9 June 2022.
^ Leung, Winnie (25 August 2015). "Ed Sheeran Captivates Wembley and Croke Park Stadiums with Meyer Sound LEO". Sound & Video Contractor. Future plc. Retrieved 9 June 2022.
^ Young, Clive (1 October 2021). "Hella Mega Yeah! Behind the Audio of the Summer's Biggest Tour". mixonline.com. Future plc. Retrieved 10 June 2022.
^ Watson, Paul (28 July 2014). "Montreux Jazz Festival". headlinermagazine.net. Headliner. Retrieved 10 June 2022.
^ Shuler, Christopher (9 March 2022). "Spectrum Sound Makes Macro Move To DiGiCo's Quantum Platform". Sound & Video Contractor. Future plc. Retrieved 9 June 2022.
^ Shuler, Christopher (25 February 2019). "DiGiCo SD7 Consoles Have Live Sound At The Grammy Awards Covered". Sound & Video Contractor. Future plc. Retrieved 9 June 2022.
^ Shuler, Christopher (27 February 2014). "DiGiCo Sweeps the GRAMMY Awards". Sound & Video Contractor. Future plc. Retrieved 9 June 2022.
^ Shuler, Christopher (2 March 2020). "Tonight's the Night for DiGiCo — The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon is a Full House with Three SD7 Consoles and Five SD-Racks". Sound & Video Contractor. Future plc. Retrieved 9 June 2022.
^ Shuler, Christopher (15 April 2022). "DiGiCo Desk Drives the Sound at Red Bull Arena". Sound & Video Contractor. Future plc. Retrieved 9 June 2022.
^ Shuler, Christopher (29 March 2022). "DiGiCo is a Team Player for Super Bowl LVI's Halftime Show". Sound & Video Contractor. Future plc. Retrieved 9 June 2022.
^ "Focusrite RedNet Components Chosen by ATK/Clair for Super Bowl Coverage for the Seventh Year in a Row". Sound & Video Contractor. Future plc. 10 March 2022. Retrieved 9 June 2022.
^ Shuler, Christopher (17 March 2014). "DiGiCo Takes the Ice for 2014 NHL Winter Classic, Stadium Series and Heritage Classic". Sound & Video Contractor. Future plc. Retrieved 9 June 2022.
^ Liles, Bennett (13 December 2021). "The SVC Interview: Aaron Beck - Rady Shell at Jacobs Park". Sound & Video Contractor. Future plc. Retrieved 9 June 2022.
^ Shuler, Christopher (27 April 2022). "DiGiCo S21 and Waves Make For a Winning Combination at Hudson Hall". Sound & Video Contractor. Future plc. Retrieved 9 June 2022.
^ Shuler, Christopher (27 April 2022). "Modern DiGiCo S21 Consoles Join Museum of Contemporary Art Chicago". Sound & Video Contractor. Future plc. Retrieved 9 June 2022.
^ Shuler, Christopher (6 January 2022). "DiGiCo's Wide Range of Solutions Gives the Minnesota Orchestra Enormous Flexibility in its Orchestra Hall". Sound & Video Contractor. Future plc. Retrieved 9 June 2022.
^ Shuler, Christopher (11 August 2021). "The Jack Singer Concert Hall updates with DiGiCo Quantum consoles". Sound & Video Contractor. Future plc. Retrieved 9 June 2022.
^ "Philadelphia's Kimmel Center Upgrades with an Eye to the Future". mixonline.com. Future plc. 6 January 2022. Retrieved 10 June 2022.
^ Young, Clive (9 February 2022). "The Journey of 'Jagged Little Pill'". mixonline.com. Future plc. Retrieved 10 June 2022.
^ Borgerson, Bruce (1 September 2003). "Digital Consoles". Sound & Video Contractor. Future plc. Retrieved 9 June 2022.
^ Watson, Paul (28 July 2014). "Power to the People". headlinermagazine.net. Headliner. Retrieved 10 June 2022.
^ "Dave Rupsch: Filling In". headlinermagazine.net. Headliner. 18 December 2020. Retrieved 10 June 2022.

synthfiend (talk) 21:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep, make it shorter and insert all the reliable links the Synthfiend has provided here. --Bigneeerman (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major innovator in digital mixers, one of the industry standards for concert tours, found on top rider (theater) requests. Douglas Self uses the Digico D5T as an example of advanced digital mixer features in his book Audio Engineering Explained. Kirsten Hermes uses the Digicio SD7T as an example of high quality broadcast mixer in her book Performing Electronic Music Live. The National Association of Broadcasters Engineering Handbook gives Calrec, Digico, Studer and Lawo as examples of digital mixers that utterly changed the audio world. Dennis Baxter says the same thing about 3D audio mixers, giving as leading examples Calrec, Digico and Lawo. Digico consoles are used to mix major events such as the Super Bowl and on all the largest Coachella stages, chosen by Dave Rat. Changes in Digico company management are interesting enough for industry magazines to cover. Binksternet (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 15:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Riddell[edit]

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

Screenwriter, producer and story consultant, fails WP:GNG; WP:FILMMAKER; WP:CREATIVE. No coverage presented that addresses any notability of the subject, sources are all reviews of works which subject contributed in some way to. Nomination for BAFTA is not award of major award. No independent notability. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and United Kingdom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; review of sources shows no significant coverage. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 14:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable filmmaker. -Xclusivzik (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all coverage appears to be on works that the subject contributed to, but there is very little coverage on the actual subject. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 15:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mail buoy[edit]

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

Uncited orphan, with no apparent interest in anyone adding references. There are mentions out there, including some in formal print. Lithopsian (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note the reason for the article creator being banned. It doesn't necessarily mean this article should be deleted, but it is mentioned and helps to explain some of the edit history and previous WP:BLAR attempts. Lithopsian (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; no evidence of significance or existence. I don't support any redirect, as there are issues with the verifiability of this concept, and my checks show unreliable sourcing online at best. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 14:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Note the history: this was first prod'ed, then instead redirected, then restored "without prejudice against a further deletion" because the redirect target didn't cover it, then draftified, then pushed back into mainspace because "draft space is only for new articles". In short: nobody wants this thing anywhere. There's nothing keep-worthy here, and there never was. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. --Baggaet (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as appears non-notable. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 18:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find sources showing something of the sort exists, or maybe it doesn't. I'm not really interested in figuring it out. This article has no sources. If it exists it would need a rewrite anyway. Delete. Oaktree b (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article about a prank may be a hoax, but even if it’s not, it’s not needed here. Jacona (talk) 10:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 16:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Solstice RTC[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:ORGCRIT. There are multiple issues with the sources currently in the article, and nothing better turned up in a BEFORE. Here are the current article's sources:


Source	Analysis
"Tim Dupell Partner Letter – Elevations RTC". elevationsrtc.com. Elevations RTC. Retrieved January 5, 2021.	No mention of Solstice. Not secondary or independent.
"Oregon Secretary of State". egov.sos.state.or.us. Retrieved 2022-02-19.	Primary gov. database. No mention of Solstice.
"Rollups: Private Equity Eyes Youth Treatment Centers as a Takeover Target". 17 February 2022.	No mention of Solstice.
O'Grady, Eileen (February 2022). "The Kids Are Not Alright: How Private Equity Profits Off of Behavioral Health Services for Vulnerable and At-Risk Youth" (PDF).	No mention of Solstice (does mention Solstice East in North Carolina)
Miller, Jessica (December 2, 2020). "Utah's 'troubled-teen industry' warned about investigation launched by Disability Law Center". Archived from the original on 2021-01-26.	No mention of Solstice.
"NATSAP: Solstice West RTC Full Member". May 2022.	Not independent. Industry membership organization website on which Solstice has written its own description.

In my BEFORE, I found no independent, significant coverage. The best I could find is a passing mention in this Salt Lake City Tribune list and some press releases via TWL. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Utah. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:GNG, let alone WP:ORGCRIT. Agree with Nom's sourcing comments, it's a mess of conflated/synthesised references that stand up not one salient point in the article. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the sources as discussed above. Oaktree b (talk) 21:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We should move this article to draft then. It is being worked on and there are additional sources that will be included. Farr4h2004 (talk) 23:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is some investigative reporting on this school too - there are two of the same schools and they should be covered in the same article. Also do we not have wikipedia pages on schools in general? How can a school not be notable?

https://wlos.com/news/local/alleged-survivors-of-solstice-east-decry-abuse-neglect-in-protest-call-for-facility-closure Farr4h2004 (talk) 00:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(schools)#:~:text=Indicators%20of%20probable%20notability,-In%20general%2C%20tertiary&text=They%20include%20high%20schools%20in,notable%20sporting%20and%20scholastic%20successes.

Here is the additional school notability. But there are additional sources that can be included for this school in particular. Farr4h2004 (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Norbert Hauata[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources found are either statistics pages or trivial mentions in match reports. Johnnyconnorabc (talk) 12:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Johnnyconnorabc (talk) 12:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Are you talking about the sources just in the article? You have UEFA interview on youtube, other articles like [5], [6], (mirrored around on other sites), a lot of short mentions on other sites, some interviews on others. It all adds up and to me he passes the GNG bar. Govvy (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by Govvy. Giant Snowman 18:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 04:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Alliman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

non-notable sports commentator - no evidence, despite claiming to be a "professional" basketballer that this is true or that he meets NATHLETE PRAXIDICAE🌈 12:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, and Ontario. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Wikibusines spam. MER-C 02:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Luick-Thrams[edit]

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

Cannot find anything to pass WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. nearlyevil 665 12:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 12:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 12:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - I should not have created this article directly in mainspace. The contents certainly can be grown into content that has a place in Wikipedia, but I too doubt that an article on this untenured professor will reach GNG or NACADEMIC. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify. I found one published review, of two of his edited volumes [7], but that's not enough for WP:AUTHOR. Notability not evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Saurashtra Premier League[edit]

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

Per this discussion at WT:CRIC, there are questions over the notability of this tournament, with similar articles being deleted in the past. The league is not of the highest level, a local tournament, failing WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough significant coverage Kpddg ^(talk) 11:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cricbuzz is given as a source to all the matches. So what's the point of deletion of such article. When I opened Saurashtra Premier League article it said that please elaborate and add more info. to it so that's what I did. So why deletion now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MNWiki845 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the nomination, the article does not have significant coverage. Cricbuzz alone cannot establish notability. Kpddg ^(talk) 11:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This league does not satisfy WP:NCRIC or WP:OFFCRIC (i. e. matches do not hold official T20 status). StickyWicket (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Gujarat. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Yearly summary spinouts of Saurashtra Premier League are perfectly reasonable. At worst, merge and redirect back. The information contained belongs somewhere. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The information contained belongs somewhere" - agreed, but not on WP. It's a local/regional tournament that does not meet the notability requirements. All that's needed on the main parent page is a ref for each winner per year. The stand-alone season articles are superfluous. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local tournament, the information about each year doesn't pass WP:GNG. As per Lugnuts, listing a winner on the main article is sufficient coverage for this encyclopedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and SW's comments. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Although I can see a case to redirect to Saurashtra Premier League, there's so little wider coverage that I would think delete is probably a better option; I'm not sure there's anything very much to merge. Redirecting might ensure that articles don't keep on getting created, but there's really very little of value here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 15:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Michael Jacobs[edit]

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

I have no idea what the claim to notability is here. The article states Jacobs owned some mines, was involved in a legal dispute and was a justice of the peace and local judge. I don't think any of those make him notable.

A single reference is provided, a report on the legal case he was involved in. I can find very little information online apart from the occasional reference to him as a miner.

It's possible I'm missing something as the article doesn't explain why he would be notable. But for now, here we are. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 10:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Arizona, California, and South Carolina. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 10:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree, not sure what he's notable for doing. Oaktree b (talk) 12:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While some mine owners are notable, that is not in and of itself enough. Nor is being a vice consul, even ambasasadors are not default notable, consuls very rarely are notable, and vice consuls are not notable for that. His life looks interesting, and it might be informative as a case study, but we need secondary sources. The report of a case is a primary source and that is all we have. This article is not even close to being well enough sourced to justify.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are well over a thousand mentions of him in articles during the 1880s and 1890s in Arizona, and several in the L.A. papers, where he died in 1899. But even his obits, here and here and here are only a brief paragraphs. Most of the articles are either ads for his assay service, or brief mentions like this one. Interesting story, but can't find enough to show they pass GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 15:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G. Sylva[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5, and suitable coverage is unlikely to be available as we don't know basic biographical details about him, such as his first name or date of birth, that would allow us to find such coverage - we don't even know what event he competed in.

Renominating after a procedural keep. Redirect is not suitable per WP:R#DELETE #1; it would make it unreasonably difficult for readers to find other people who are mentioned or are notable with the same initials. BilledMammal (talk) 10:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Belgium. BilledMammal (talk) 10:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is absolutely no grounds for notability here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; oppose redirect. Fails GNG, and other people named G. Sylva or G. Silva (of which there are many) are more likely search targets; redirecting to a sports event would most likely cause readers great surprise. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 09:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of fatal dog attacks in the United States (2014)[edit]

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

A lot of people die from external causes every year, and these deaths are often reported in local or regional newspapers, whether they are dog attacks, house fires, car accidents, tornadoes, ... It is not clear why the dog attacks in one country in one year would warrant a separate list. It's obviously not a rare occurrence. It's verifiable (though no indication if it is in any way complete), but that doesn't make it a notable list topic. Fram (talk) 09:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Animal, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 09:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated: List of fatal dog attacks in the United States (2010s)

The 2014 list was split of from the 2010s list, but the same reasoning applies. This sadly happens all the time, and usually gets only local, shortlived attention, just because it is relatively commonplace and because people die from all kinds of accidents all the time. Fram (talk) 09:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated:

I have not nominated List of fatal dog attacks in the United States, because that page has more context, and an article about Fatal dog attacks in the United States could well be encyclopedic (with perhaps a short list of truly notable attacks, e.g. ones that lead to a change in laws or ones involving notable people). The reasoning for the deletion of the above four lists also applies to the lists on that page for 2020, 2021 and 2022 of course, but is outside the scope of this AfD. Fram (talk) 09:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a premature nomination as there has been no discussion on the article's talk page and no attempt to improve it so it is more acceptable. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 09:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe it to be improvable to an acceptable state, hence the deletion nomination. There is nothing premature about this. There is no requirement to first discuss things on an article talk page before it may get nominated for deletion either. Fram (talk) 10:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with deleting these articles, as long as their content is not merged. The 2014 list was especially large, and was the first to be separated from an even larger list pertaining to the 2010s, which is far too large to be a tenable article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The concept of death by dog attack is definitely encyclopaedic, but to list individual deaths isn't, except for those few that become causes célèbres and influence the entire subject (which cases will have sustained coverage). A good article on death by dog attack will be supported by secondary sources discussing the concept. The list is essentially a collection of incidents supported by sources that the writer of a desirable secondary source might consider his/her primary data. Technically, a newspaper article about someone getting killed by a dog is an independent secondary source, but from the perspective of the subject of dangerous dogs, it's primary data, and listing/categorising these becomes almost original research and databasing. Elemimele (talk) 12:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These are tragic but unfortunately not uncommon. Millions of people die in various accidents, and it's not our place to catalogue them from routine local news. The tables in the main list should also be deleted and that page converted into an article. The other animal lists are also questionable, but much more rare with incidents more likely to receive national coverage. Reywas92^Talk 13:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NLIST is the guideline, I quote the relevant parts Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. I think therefore to prove it should be kept we need to show independent sources deal with the topic, even if they don't include all items on the list. I think it meets the criteria due to:

SACKS, J. J. et al. Fatal dog attacks, 1989-1994. Pediatrics, [s. l.], v. 97, n. 6, p. 891, 1996. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsgao&AN=edsgcl.18429256&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 15 jun. 2022.
W. VAN DE VOORDE; K. DE MUNNYNCK. Forensic approach of fatal dog attacks: a case report and literature review. International Journal of Legal Medicine, [s. l.], v. 116, p. 295–300, 2019. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsair&AN=edsair.doi...........4bd4d840388ae24954fafef0d7313fd5&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 15 jun. 2022.

I think separating by year and decade is arguable either way, but I understand the separation. I don't have a strong opinion on merging them. CT55555 (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- The same kind of sources can easily be found for car crashes. Would that mean that a list of car crashes by year and country is acceptable? Again, I am not arguing that the topic of fatal dog attacks in the US isn't notable, it obviously is, and these would be good sources to use in such an article. But I don't see how having a list of in themselves no notable events halps in any way (it's not like e.g. a list of sports matches, where the matches are what constitutes the season and define the outcome: here the list is just a list of random examples). Fram (talk) 07:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Influenced by the essay WP:WHATABOUT, I'll avoid the question about car crashes. CT55555 (talk) 11:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTNEWS. Dogs kill people fairly frequently, so do other things. This isn’t a remarkable enough event to make huge lists of. Dronebogus (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOTDATABASE. List of fatal dog attacks in the United States should be sufficient in some form, rather than by year, or even decade. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 15:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Empreintes DIGITALes[edit]

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Quebec. Shellwood (talk) 08:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting previous AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Leaving aside the COI issues and the large group of related articles discussed inconclusively in the 2009 AfD, I have added a couple of references but doubt that these pass the requirements of WP:NCORP. While I feel that record labels in niche fields can provide a nexus important to their overall development and that discarding these can be a net loss, I can't see that the present article can be sustained without more coverage to demonstrate its notability. AllyD (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 09:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arasan (health complex)[edit]

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

Bathhouse in Almaty, fails WP:NBUILD: "may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Health and fitness, and Kazakhstan. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of WP:SIGCOV here, here, and here. Passes WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 11:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References in English might be hard to define but as noted by NemesisAT, there is enough coverage in Russian. Pichpich (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But no article in Russian... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, that doesn't matter. Why? I Ask (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it matters, but there is an article on ru.wiki: ru:Арасан (оздоровительный комплекс). There's also one in Kazakh: kk:Арасан монша кешені. Pichpich (talk) 21:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A historical building with sources (listed above) to back it up. Why? I Ask (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 15:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dorea Academy[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability found for this school[8][9]. Fram (talk) 08:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Philippines. Fram (talk) 08:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only good hit that I got is that they are recognized as a private school by DepEd, which isn't a claim for notability. --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:49, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William Moore (author)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. The first source, "Swagger", seems like a promo piece, when one considers that the novel that supposedly triggered that article is a self-published book which failed to get any attention[10]. His companies as well have not had any impact [11][12]. Fram (talk) 08:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 08:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with nom. When your magnum opus has two Amazon reviews, you know you're in trouble. Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of inconsistencies in the page as it is, so if we keep it, it needs a lot of work -- Education says he attended Georgia Tech, but infobox says alma mater is Univ of North Texas and Harvard? It's going to be difficult to verify information at best. Looks like this is a failed author trying to get a wikipedia page started to help promote books that no one wants to buy. WTF? (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just not seeing GNG here and theres nothing to suggest that the subject meets any other notability criteria. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 09:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to Innocence of Muslims[edit]

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

Content is more suitable for the news than for wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chocolatebot (talk • contribs) 07:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Events, and Islam. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly fairly worthless from an encyclopedic perspective. I mean, honestly, who is ever going to read through al this, and to learn what? Almost no effort has been made to condense or usefully summarize the information into something readily informative. If keep, a full rewrite, based only on subsequent serious analysis on the subject, and not news, is probably in order. However, given the length and undue nature of the article as it stands, I would personally be inclined to lean delete, or essentially WP:TNT, given the unrealistic prospect of a rewrite volunteer emerging. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Do we even have one reliable source that discusses this topic, in the form of "international reactions to this"? - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Issues raised so far are not good reasons for outright deletion, if there is too much cruft then a merger of the important info can be made to the films article.★Trekker (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 11:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the second point above. We should be discussing if this is a notable topic and it seems like it is. Then normally such articles should be merged into the article about the film, but there is so much content that is the exact and only reason to have an article like this. I see no reason to delete. CT55555 (talk) 12:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article is long and rambling but the topic is notable. Mccapra (talk) 14:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid information which wouldn't fit in the main article, so this is a valid spin-out. Ample news coverage around the world about the reaction this film caused. Dream Focus 22:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

merge back to Innocence of Muslims which is a pretty short article as it stands. It makes no sense for this section of the main article to be completely separate. Mangoe (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like others have said, there is quite a lot to justify the standalone article. SWinxy (talk) 01:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both the base article and this one are quite lengthy. I don't see any merge helpful. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 21:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Rex Hotel. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ung Thị[edit]

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

Non-notable. Been on the cat:nn list since 2010, never been updated. Tenuous at best. Single blog ref likely written by himself, the rest are about the hotel. No historical coverage. Supposed to be a grandson of emperor but notability is not inherited. Looking for a redirect to hotel. scope_creep^Talk 08:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Vietnam. ––FormalDude talk 09:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the hotel. Zero English sources, French sources don't fare much better. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the hotel as non-notable. As for the 2008 blog post, the subject died in 2001. SL93 (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ung Thi. SL93 (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Florida World War II Army Airfields. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:58, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jasper Intermediate Field[edit]

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

No SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources, fails WP:NGEO. The sources cited in the article are a self-published website and a database (possibly fan-made) which notes only "CAA intermediate site and used by the Army and Navy for some time during the war". The article mentions that Air Force Historical Research Agency material is incorporated in the article but it is not clear what this material is - certainly it is not available at the link, and anyway it is very unlikely to extend beyond the content provided by the database. In my WP:BEFORE search I found a self-published book and a bare mention in a US Geological Bulletin. Tried looking for sources about the crash described in the self-published book reference but came up blank on Newspapers.com and anyway from the description it is very unlikely to pass WP:AIRCRASH. As the airfield was essentially unmanned (and apparently only a sod airfield, so not even paved) it appears unlikely that there could be much coverage out there about this airfield. Am OK with just redirecting to Florida World War II Army Airfields per WP:ATD but thought I would run this one through here rather than doing it BOLDly as I am less familiar with this area of content. FOARP (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 08:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Florida World War II Army Airfields: Good job by the nominator with WP:BEFORE, my search turned up the same minimal content. Highly unlikely to meet WP:GNG. ––FormalDude talk 09:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Eurovision Song Contest 1957. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Martin (singer)[edit]

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

Very little information about the subject appear to be available. Article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO and the subject falls under WP:ONEEVENT. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 07:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Austria. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 07:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eurovision Song Contest 1957. It's a common name, so searching for sources was a bit difficult, but most if not all seem to be about the Eurovision appearance, which is covered in greater detail in that article. The target also includes additional context. Appears to be a WP:ONEEVENT subject. Grk1011 (talk) 13:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eurovision Song Contest 1957, for the reasons stated by the nominator and previous voter. WP:ONEEVENT is the kicker. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 08:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FabFitFun[edit]

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

Unremarkable, WP:SERIESA, WP:NCORP not met. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 02:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 02:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CORPDEPTH for rationale too. All the coverage is routine. FalconK (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A close reading of WP:NCORP says A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Every single item is sourced with reliable secondary sources, including Variety [13], Forbes [14], The National Law Review [15], Insider [16], multiple pieces in TechCrunch, Observer [17] and multiple pieces in Los Angeles Business Journal. A complete picture of the company is provided with the sources. Clearly meets the stringent requirements of WP:NCORP. TechnoTalk (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wiki-lawyering aside, it's hard to argue that a business with 2 million customers isn't notable. TechnoTalk (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This looks pretty well sourced and appears to meet WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply, not just GNG guidelines. I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability. The ones mentioned above do not contain any in-depth "Independent Content" that didn't originate from a source unaffiliated with the company. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please read above where I showed how WP:NCORP is met, using a direct reading of the guideline. When you do WP:BEFORE, also look at what links here to see the article's integration with the rest of the encyclopedia. There's other related info showing the company's impact on society, but since there are some who devalue social media-related content as not demonstrating notability, I'm going to leave it out, and not ref stuff. The article is just fine as it is, with just the basics. Its coverage, as highlighted above, meets both notability guidelines WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. TechnoTalk (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as TechnoTalk's arguments make sense as there's WP:SIGCOV on the company. SWinxy (talk) 04:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After reviewing the sources provided by TechnoTalk, I am not seeing a good argument for deletion. The sources are in-depth and independent and satisfy the criteria at both WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH. I honestly am perplexed on how an experienced reviewer like HighKing could come to the conclusion above. I’d be hard pressed arguing deletion using a detailed source analysis because the sources are strong (by lined authors in notable publications that are not primarily interviews, but provide original analysis and are therefore independent and in-depth).4meter4 (talk) 02:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Oklahoma vs Kansas football game[edit]

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

Unsourced article about an unremarkable game which didn't have lasting notability (just like all such games, there are of course match reports and other sources from the time it happened). Lacks notability. Fram (talk) 07:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, Kansas, and Oklahoma. Fram (talk) 07:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unless there is something truly extraordinary about a game, our practice is to cover individual games as part of our coverage of seasons, e.g, 2017 Oklahoma Sooners football team (where Mayfield's crotch-grabbing is already noted). Nothing extraordinary here (a blowout game with some trash-talking), so no justification for a stand-alone article. Cbl62 (talk) 07:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The same user appears to be an Oklahoma fan who has also created an unsourced article on 2017 Oklahoma vs Ohio State football game, suffering from the same issues. Cbl62 (talk) 07:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem to be particularly notable and most of it is about Baker Mayfield and not the game.--Mvqr (talk) 10:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete enthusiastic editors could try another wiki like an online sports almanac.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No ongoing coverage. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per all of the above. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Run of the mill game in which heavy favorite wins via blowout. Some minor trash talking but nothing sets it apart from any other game. Frank Anchor 15:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The 2017 Oklahoma vs Kansas football game was a conference game in which a lot of trash-talking occurred. that is not a reason to have an article on this, when it clearly fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Not a noteworthy game. Drdpw (talk) 03:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow? Cbl62 (talk) 03:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As a Sooners fan and someone who frequently edits articles pertaining to OU football this is most certainly not needed.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 04:50, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely unremarkable game -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, also I think Snow definitely applies here. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 18:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Catherine de' Medici#Issue. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Victoire of France (1556)[edit]

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

No idea why we would have a separate article for a child who died less than 2 months old. Should be a redirect to either of the parents. Fram (talk) 07:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Royalty and nobility, and France. Fram (talk) 07:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Athel cb (talk) 09:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could be a small subsection in the article about the king. Oaktree b (talk) 12:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly. Athel cb (talk) 16:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a royal biographical dictionary. We do not have articles just to fill in complete family trees. I suspect we have a lot more similar articles that need to go.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Athel cb (talk) 16:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Catherine_de'_Medici#Issue, because the information about her birth seems worth including there. PamD 07:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Catherine_de'_Medici#Issue, per PamD. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
REdirect or merge as suggested by the last two contributors. An infant who lived less than two months is inevitably NN. Peterkingiron (talk)
Delete Non-notable article about 2 months born child--Onetimememorial (talk) 18:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content but please do NOT redirect – only retarget inbound links to Catherine_de'_Medici#Issue. In other words, "Victoire of France (1556)" should not even exist as a Redirect. But yes, the content itself should be added to Catherine d'Medici's bio. (If the painting was notable in its own right, maybe it could have been an article about the painting, but that doesn't appear to be the focus here.) Cielquiparle (talk) 09:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, there must be a link from Victoire of France - though perhaps move Victoire of France (1733–1799) to the base name as Primarty Topic and then make a hatnote there to point to Catherine_de'_Medici#Issue. Otherwise someone will re-create this and we'll go round in circles. PamD 18:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion has been proposed for merger to Catherine de' Medici, and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to that page on June 22. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from that page.

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandre Louis d'Orléans, Duc de Valois[edit]

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

He died aged 2. Can be a redirect to his father or mother, but no reason to have a separate article for this notability-lacking person whose only claim to fame is his family. Fram (talk) 07:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, and France. Fram (talk) 07:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Athel cb (talk) 09:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete people who die under the age of 5 are almost never notable, and nothing suggests this is one of the very extremely rare exceptions to this rule. Wikipedia is not a biographical or royal geneaological dictionary. We do not have place holder articles to fill out family trees.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I agree with the points mentioned, I do have to point out that many other articles such as Carlo, Duke of Calabria or Archduchess Maria Carolina of Austria (born 1740) also have the same issues. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. All those should go. Athel cb (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Instead of deleting this article, why not just make it a redirect? Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Er[18]... Fram (talk) 12:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I reverted that edit to allow for this discussion. As I said before, I am open to discussing the article's movement, but would not like for it to just be removed without warning. :) Unlimitedlead (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 07:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Identity 7: Deadly Sins[edit]

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

A non-notable compilation album. I initially PRODed this with the following rationale: "Non-notable compilation album. No reliable sources included, and searches indicate that it fails the WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM." The PROD was later contested, with the suggestion to "consider (a) merge or redirect to Century Media Records". However, I disagree with both of these suggestions - the album is not currently mentioned on that page so a simple Redirect would not work, and as this album appears to be utterly non-notable and there is no reliably sourced material present, a merger would not be appropriate. Thus, I am bringing it to AFD. Rorshacma (talk) 06:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Rorshacma (talk) 06:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. A WP:BEFORE shows nothing beyond AllMusic and Metal Rules. SBKSPP (talk) 01:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – my search for significant coverage didn't find much of interest, and I agree with the nominator's explanation of why a merge/redirect isn't an appropriate alternative to deletion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Klaudon Ahmataj[edit]

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

Despite a reasonable career in the lower levels of Albanian football and Australian soccer, doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. Google News yields one result, which is two brief mentions. ProQuest returned zilch. DDG had a few WP:RS hits but, again, they never amounted to more than trivial coverage, for example Northern NSW. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:37, 15 June 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)} 06:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NOQUORUM applies. ✗plicit 15:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KLEP[edit]

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

Notable only on local level; no sources. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Education, and Arkansas. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's rare here is that this was a full-service TV station license, not an LPTV, which gives me a little hesitation and suggests a search for sources is in order. I won't lie—this is a tough one to source for newspapers reasons. One DB wasn't working, but I might come back to this. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Station meets WP:BCASTOUTCOMES, but agreed sources are needed. Nate • (chatter) 19:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

W. J. Ross[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5, and suitable coverage is unlikely to be available as we don't know basic biographical details about him, such as his first name or date of birth, that would allow us to find such coverage.

Renominating after a procedural keep. Redirect is not suitable per WP:R#DELETE #1; it would make it unreasonably difficult for readers to find other people who are mentioned or are notable with the same initials. BilledMammal (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 June 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This guy won an Olympic medal, so Redirect to Lacrosse at the 1904 Summer Olympics. A redirect is suitable per WP:R#KEEP #1, WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The above claim is misleading at best. There were 3 teams that competed in the Lacrosse competition in the 1904 "Olympics" so they all won medals. It was the team (which we lack an article on interestingly enough) not the individuals who won medals. The teams pre-1912 were not national teams, and in 1904 there were multiple teams just from St. Louis from multiple athletic groups in St. Louis (some other US cities sponsored multiple teams as well). About 75% or so of the competitors were Americans, a large part beyond that Canadians, the rest of the world virtually not present at all. The Olympics were moved at the last minute from Chicago to St. Louis to be connected with the St. Louis World's fair. Nothing about this leads to any indication someone we do not even know the full name of who was a competitor was at all notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't know his name. This just isn't enough to go on to have an article.Jacona (talk) 11:03, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, oppose redirect; fails GNG and winning a medal as part of a team in an event with only three entrants is no reason to suspect any coverage exists. Redirection would not be a valid result here, since it is far more likely that readers would be looking for one of a number of other equally or more notable people or companies of that name, including William J Ross (attorney), Willie Ross (American football), William Ross (Star Trek), William J Ross (production manager) etc. We should not be surprising readers by sending them to a random sporting event article. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per wjemather, no evidence of notability. Avilich (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

L. Legru[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5, and suitable coverage is unlikely to be available as we don't know basic biographical details about him, such as his first name or date of birth, that would allow us to find such coverage.

Renominating after a procedural keep. Redirect is not suitable per WP:R#DELETE #1; it would make it unreasonable difficult for readers to find other people who are mentioned or are notable with the same initials. BilledMammal (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 June 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sailing at the 1900 Summer Olympics – .5 to 1 ton. A redirect is suitable per WP:R#KEEP #1, WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This individual is not notable. Initial plus last name formats are really not good for redirecting.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While redirects are cheap, we need a full name or at least further indication of who this person was. There could be so many L. Legrus. Jacona (talk) 11:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

J. Bérard[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5, and suitable coverage is unlikely to be available as we don't know basic biographical details about him, such as his first name or date of birth, that would allow us to find such coverage.

Renominating after a procedural keep. Redirect is not suitable per WP:R#DELETE #1; it would make it unreasonably difficult for readers to find other people who are mentioned or are notable with the same initials. BilledMammal (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 June 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cycling, Olympics, and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to France at the 1900 Summer Olympics#Cycling. A redirect is suitable per WP:R#KEEP #1, WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet inclusion criteria. No reason to supposed someone looking for this initial plus last name combination would even be looking for information on this person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There were roughly 3600 people in the United States named Berard in 2010. I'm sure a lot of them began with J. We simply need more to go on to even understand who this J. Berard is. Jacona (talk) 11:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per jacona, no evidence of notability. Avilich (talk) 14:48, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

H. MacHenry[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5, and suitable coverage is unlikely to be available as we don't know basic biographical details about him, such as his first name or date of birth, that would allow us to find such coverage.

Renominating after a procedural keep. Redirect is not suitable per WP:R#DELETE #1; it would make it unreasonably difficult for readers to find other people who are mentioned or are notable with the same initials. BilledMammal (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 June 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This guy won an Olympic medal, so Redirect to Sailing at the 1900 Summer Olympics – 3 to 10 ton. A redirect is suitable per WP:R#KEEP #1, WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The above claim is false. No Olympic medals were given until the 1904 games, so no the person did not win a medal.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1900 not 1904, per this which shows he did win a medal. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In 1900, only three sports received medals for third place - gymnastics, firefighting, and shooting. As a sailor, M. MacHenry would not have received one. BilledMammal (talk) 13:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Olympedia states "We’ve not been able to identify this athlete to know anything further of his life". I think that's a fail on WP:N. Jacona (talk) 11:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable individual. I can't advocate a redirect alternative when the first name of the individual isn't even known and therefore the current title is potentially too ambiguous. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Ponyo (talk · contribs) per G4 and G12. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the Crease (studio show)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The TV show doesn't have any sources, thus cannot be verified. Doesn't meed WP:GNG and WP:NTV also. Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 05:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 05:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In the Crease (studio show). Flibirigit (talk) 10:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

J. W. Dowling[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5, and suitable coverage is unlikely to be available as we don't know basic biographical details about him, such as his first name or date of birth, that would allow us to find such coverage.

Renominating after a procedural keep. Redirect is not suitable per WP:R#DELETE #1; it would make it unreasonably difficult for readers to find other people who are mentioned or are notable with the same initials. BilledMammal (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This guy won an Olympic medal, so Redirect to Lacrosse at the 1904 Summer Olympics. A redirect is suitable per WP:R#KEEP #1, WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The above redirect argument ignores the reality of the 1904 Olympics. The 1904 Olympics was not an international competition, about 75% or so were Americans, most of the rest were Canadians, there were very few teams from anywhere else in the world. In this case this person was a player for a local team in St. Louis where the Olympics were held, his team came in 2nd of 3 teams, This is not exactly the thing of which notability is made. The medal was to the team, but all teams in the competition won medals, so it should not be treated as a major accomplishment, and even then it was to a team of 14 players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We really don't know who this person was, not even their first name, with just these initials and a very sparse entry in the db. We need more to justify even a stub. Jacona (talk) 11:14, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

J. Haller[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5, and suitable coverage is unlikely to be available as we don't know basic biographical details about him, such as his first name or date of birth, that would allow us to find such coverage - we don't even know what event he competed in.

Renominating after a procedural keep. Redirect is not suitable per WP:R#DELETE #1; it would make it unreasonably difficult for readers to find other people who are mentioned or are notable with the same initials. BilledMammal (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Belgium. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Belgium at the 1920 Summer Olympics#Shooting. A redirect is suitable per WP:R#KEEP #1, WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE and WP:CHEAP. Note that an earlier attempt to redirect the article was undone by the nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Because that previous blank-and-redirect was done during an AfD, and because a redirect is not suitable here is readers looking for J. Haller can be reasonably searching for dozens of other unrelated articles. BilledMammal (talk) 08:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, oppose redirect; fails GNG. Redirection would not be a valid result here, since it is far more likely that readers would be looking for one of a number of other people of that name, including Johann Haller, Johannes Evangelist Haller, Jost Haller, Józef Haller, Julia Haller; aside from being a surprise to end up at a trivial mention in a sports event article, finding of these other articles (on people who are actually notable) would be hindered. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet inclusion criteria. No reason to supposed someone looking for this initial plus last name combination would even be looking for information on this person. Especially since above we have a list of 5 other people who are much more likely to be the object of this search.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't really know who this person is without a first name, and we don't even know what event he participated in. There's roughly 14,000 people named Haller in the US right now - how many of them are "J. Haller" and may be at least as notable as this one? Jacona (talk) 11:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

J. Dubois[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5, and suitable coverage is unlikely to be available as we don't know basic biographical details about him, such as his first name or date of birth, that would allow us to find such coverage.

Renominating after a procedural keep. Redirect is not suitable per WP:R#DELETE #1; it would make it unreasonably difficult for readers to find other people who are mentioned or are notable with the same initials. BilledMammal (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This guy won TWO Olympic medals. Redirect to Sailing at the 1900 Summer Olympics – 3 to 10 ton. A redirect is suitable per WP:R#KEEP #1, WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the above claim is false. Medals were not given out at the Olympics until 1904. Anyway, to treat any Olympics before 1908 as one where merely leading in a competition is a source of notability ignores the reality of what the Olympics really were before 1908. They were not the premier international competition they would later become. So we need good sources to justify articles in this period, which we do not have here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If we had the full name, this might well be a keep as the one reference does say they received a bronze and a silver. But without the name, we don't really know who this is and there are so many people named Dubois, we can't redirect it or provide a useful search. We have nothing useful to give our reader here. Jacona (talk) 11:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

J. Baillot[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5, and suitable coverage is unlikely to be available as we don't know basic biographical details about him, such as his first name or date of death, that would allow us to find such coverage.

Renominating after a procedural keep. Redirect is not suitable per WP:R#DELETE #1; it would make it unreasonably difficult for readers to find other people who are mentioned or are notable with the same initials. BilledMammal (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics, Wrestling, and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wrestling at the 1924 Summer Olympics – Men's freestyle light heavyweight. A redirect is suitable per WP:R#KEEP #1, WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE and WP:CHEAP. Note that a previous attempt to redirect was undone by the nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Because that previous blank-and-redirect was done during an AfD, and because a redirect is not suitable here is readers looking for J. Baillot can reasonably be searching for dozens of other unrelated articles. BilledMammal (talk) 08:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet inclusion criteria. No reason to supposed someone looking for this initial plus last name combination would even be looking for information on this person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need more to go on than an initial and an entry in a couple of databases. Jacona (talk) 11:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

S. Abdul Hamid[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5, and suitable coverage is unlikely to be available as we don't know basic biographical details about him, such as his first name or date of death, that would allow us to find such coverage.

Renominating after a procedural keep. Redirect is not suitable per WP:R#DELETE #1; it would make it unreasonably difficult for readers to find other people who are mentioned or are notable with the same initials. BilledMammal (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Athletics at the 1928 Summer Olympics – Men's 110 metres hurdles. A redirect is suitable per WP:R#KEEP #1, WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is not enough sourcing to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is not really a lot to preserve, pretty much just a db entry and I don't like the redirect option above. When I google it, it's all about football (aka soccer). I find S. Abdul Hamid, a player in a PES football video game and Saud Abdulhamid (probably the person on which the game character is based; both are Saudi). Abdulhamid played football in the 2020 Olympics for his country. Jacona (talk) 13:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

W. R. Gibson[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5, and suitable coverage is unlikely to be available as we don't know basic biographical details about him, such as his first name or date of birth, that would allow us to find such coverage.

Renominating after a procedural keep. Redirect is not suitable per WP:R#DELETE #1; it would make it unreasonably difficult for readers to find other people who are mentioned or are notable with the same initials. BilledMammal (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He won a silver medal, so Redirect to Lacrosse at the 1904 Summer Olympics. A redirect is suitable per WP:R#KEEP #1, WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he did not win a medal, the team won a medal. The team was not a national team, but a local team to the city where the competition was held. There were only 3 teams competing, so being among those who came in second out of 3 teams is not much, all teams won medals. The 1904 Olympics themselves were ancilliary to the World's Fair. There was no qualifying at all, so no indication of high level skill in competing, and so assuming that every participant, especially on a team with 14 members, is worth having a redirect, especially those who we lack full names of, makes no sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We need more than W. R. to do a search, we don't need a redirect from a nebulous search term. Jacona (talk) 11:31, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Otto K. Schwarz[edit]

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

fails WP:SIGCOV Estopedist1 (talk) 04:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The sources that have been provided doesn't look reliable. They are most probably self published. The fact that the subject is a sound designer is supported by an about us citation, which probably is unreliable. The whole of the discography section is unsourced. Few english sources, which makes the article more unstable, and in all, it fails WP:GNG. Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 04:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Just a reminder that sources do not need to be in English. They can be in any language, so long as they are reliable. ExRat (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Music, Estonia, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) per G11 and G12. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bichoo (TV series)[edit]

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

This article should be in draft space, but the creator has moved it to mainspace. The sources in the article are very lacking. After several very poor sources were removed, what's left is the main page from the channel broadcasting the show, and a scraper site. Nothing to show this meets notability. The creator needs to strongly re-evaluate what they consider a reliable source and wait for an article reviewer to accept articles. Ravensfire (talk) 04:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. Ravensfire (talk) 04:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. On balance, the consensus seems to favor deletion over redirection or draftification. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:56, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carson Lueders[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. No SIGCOV to justify inclusion per GNG. PK650 (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Washington. Shellwood (talk) 08:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to show WP:GNG. Fade258 (talk) 12:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chicken Girls: restore longstanding redirect to show where he had a main role. Subject does not meet WP:GNG. TJMSmith (talk) 04:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are numerous sources and references for this Notable Singer. Notability is something I notice. Also See Radio Disney Music Awards 2018: Complete List of Nominations, where he has been nominated "Favorite Social Music Artist". Also at - Nickelodeon Announces 2017 Kids’ Choice Awards Nominations: Favorite Viral Music Artist. Ahoj Ashu (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is notable and the article makes support for inclusion in Wikipedia. Awards &sources. IrishOsita (talk) 03:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, this is not a policy based argument. I agree he is notable on social media but this does not count toward the specific notability standards which state a subject has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the subject. I do not see any such sources and the award nominations do not meet WP:NMUSIC? Cheers MaxnaCarta (talk) 06:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would like to see opinions of some more experienced editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Probably WP:TOOSOON. Being signed to Def Jam is a good start but no notable releases as far as I can tell. The award nominations are not enough and I'm not seeing any SIGCOV in reliable sources.-KH-1 (talk) 03:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@KH-1 I agree with all that you said, but would you support a draftify? MaxnaCarta (talk) 06:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. There doesn't seem to be any new projects in the pipeline, so I suspect we might be having this same discussion six months down the track.-KH-1 (talk) 07:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete~~Draftify~~ - (changed to delete, after a lengthy thought I just cannot see this article being up to standard in six months) This is one of those cases where I was wanting to vote keep, but just could not make a policy based argument to do so. The reason for this is that I have certainly heard of this subject before and listened to their music. So I was very surprised to see that insufficient coverage exists for this subject to meet the notability criteria at WP:NMUSIC. There is coverage, it is not like the subjects name does not come up at all when Googled, however the coverage I could locate is examples like this, and I do not consider this or similar sources sufficiently established or prominent to meet reliability standards. There is an archived video on the net of the subject appearing on the view in 2013, and he has a substantial following in the millions on social media. It isn't the usual case of some totally unknown Spotify user having a fluff piece. Still, he does not meet the standards at NMUSIC for notability and so keep is not an option for me. However, giving his following is in the millions 3.1 on Instagram and he is actively producing music/being signed to reputable label/s, there is a chance the subject may meet the NMUSIC criteria within the near future, and so I see no harm in allowing the article to remain in incubation and see if further sourcing will be added during that time. MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Non-charting album and nominated in Radio Disney and Teen Choice Awards for social media/viral atist, minor awards in my opinion (below an Emmy or CMA or what have you). Otherwise it's just to promote his Youtube channel or whatever else he has going on. He signed with DefJam in 2019 and it appears nothing has happened in almost 3 years. Willing to forgive the pandemic years, but basically still zero new since then. Oaktree b (talk) 13:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A Gnews search brings up nothing recent, and even then, it's press releases from 2-3 years ago. Zero traction since then. Oaktree b (talk) 13:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've been not to relist 3 times but we are at an impasse between Delete, Keep, Redirect and Draftify. I'd rather not go down the Non Consensus road which typically means a quick trip back here to AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can discount both !keeps above, one being by a blocked editor, and one by an editor with 200 edits. PK650 (talk) 11:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The keep votes are made without proper application of policy. MaxnaCarta (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haydite, Missouri[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NGEO. Satellite image does not show any community. The most significant structure is a plant of BUILDEX] that makes "Light weight expanded shale (Haydite)". Not a legal recognized populated place or anything else that would justify an article. MB 03:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Missouri. MB 03:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to hear from the article creator on this one, but I'm not finding much besides this concrete plant producing Haydite that opened in what appears to be very close to the same area as this location shortly after WWII. The concrete/aggregate product does create a good bit of search engine noise though. Hog Farm _Talk 04:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That article shows the product (Haydite) was named after its inventor (Steven Hayde). Then the plant was built in 1947 in New Market, Missouri. I can't verify the GNIS entry either. Perhaps the intersection is called Haydite by some because of the plant, but that does not make a community. MB 04:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I've been unable to find anything that demonstrates the presence here of anything other than the rail siding and the aggregate plant. Hog Farm _Talk 03:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete sorting through the topos, there is one which places "Haydite" at one end of the siding for the quarry. It's clearly a rail spot, not a town, of which there is no evidence at all. Mangoe (talk) 05:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be either a quarry or mine location with associated support buildings and rail sideing. Should be notable as a quarry/commercial site with potential if sufficient referencing is available. Vsmith (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is very uncommon for a quarry to show notability. Mangoe (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ales Leonardis[edit]

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

Nonnotable professor Loew Galitz (talk) 03:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Computing, Slovenia, and England. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A full professor is almost always notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- comment "Full professor" is nothing but an informal reference to "professor", to distinguish for from various "subprofessor" ranks, such as "assistant professor" "adjunct professor", etc. And there is no inherent notability for the title. Loew Galitz (talk) 04:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ANYBIO and citations provided are primary. Also doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC. Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 04:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no indication of actually meeting our inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NACADEMIC #5. Would appear to hold an established chair (the Chair of Robotics), rather than just a personal chair, at Birmingham University.[19] An established chair (i.e. one that always exists in the university hierarchy and is held by successive individuals rather than a personal chair that is created just for the tenure of an individual) at a British university meets the criteria of The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Chair of Robotics position is not "named chair". It is a regular departmental chair for department of robotics, so your argument is invalid. Loew Galitz (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Most chairs at British universities are not named. The equivalent position is therefore an established chair, as I have stated. So no, my argument is not invalid. If we restrict NACADEMIC #5 to named chairs then we discriminate in favour of American universities where these are much more common, hence the second clause acknowledging that equivalents are also valid. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is literally the opposite of correct. A British personal chair is awarded in recognition of academic impact and would be equivalent to an endowed chair. JoelleJay (talk) 22:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is entirely untrue. A personal chair and an endowed chair are two entirely different things. A personal chair is basically just a promotion. For instance, a history department can have several professors of history (personal chairs; former readers/senior lecturers who have been promoted to the higher grade for long and distinguished service) but usually only one Professor of History (holding the Chair of History, an established chair that always exists and is advertised and recruited to directly when the current holder retires or moves on and is often filled by someone who already holds a personal chair but who has applied for the more prestigious established chair). The latter may be named, but in British universities usually is not. Until a few decades ago, the latter was usually the only professor in the department, as personal chairs were rare. Now they're much more common. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In America, the "Chair of [Department]" office exists for primarily administrative purposes and is filled more based on leadership qualifications than academic distinction, which is why it is explicitly excluded in NPROF C5. Just because there is only one such Chair, or that professors holding Endowed Chairs can be "promoted" to this position, doesn't mean it is held in the same regard as Endowed Chairs when it comes to notability. To meet C5, a Chair must be awarded specifically in recognition of outstanding scholarly achievement, and specifically not to fill an administrative need. Therefore, the Personal Chair qualifications are much more aligned with the status of Endowed Chair than the Established Chair is. JoelleJay (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see the problem now. You're confusing the "chair" of a department (we would often call it the "head" of the department in the UK) and a "chair" (i.e. a professorship). No, completely different things. This chap holds the Chair of Robotics (i.e. he's the Professor of Robotics). He isn't the chair (i.e. head) of the department. You're completely wrong here, I'm afraid, and you've totally misinterpreted what I said. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a named chair. A named chair to satisfy WP:NACADEMIC #5 is 'the John Smith Memorial Chair of Whateveromics'. 'Chair of Whateveromics' on its own generally denotes the person who is running the whateveromics program. This is an administrative duty, taking care of the whateveromics course. It is actually a sign that the person is not at the high level of proficiency yet that relieving him of all administrative duties and letting him focus on research alone is the preferred option for the institution. There are named chairs in the UK, e.g. the Regius professors. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:50, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  There are named chairs in the UK, but they're quite rare. Whereas in American universities they're extremely common. Hence the second clause in NPROF #5. But see above as to obvious misinterpretation from non-Brits of how British chairs work. If someone says they are (or hold) the Chair of Robotics it does not mean they are the administrative head of the robotics department (they may be, but that's separate from their academic chair). It means they are the Professor of Robotics. An established chair, but (as is usual in the UK) not named after anyone or anything. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Scopus says he has an h index of 41 and 8071 citations, and his 5 highest-cited papers have 864, 781, 543, 349, and 347 citations (excluding large-collab papers: 781, 347, 241, 219, 172). Unless computer vision is an extremely high-citation field I think this is more than enough indication of academic notability. JoelleJay (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: his top two and his 4th most cited paper are the results of comparative tests done by a fairly large consortium of scientists, and while useful, it is not exactly something that is cited as great science but rather as a collateral citation to establish that a technique used in a paper is the state of the art. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Personal chairs and research chairs pass WP:PROF#C5, named or not. Administrative chairs of departments do not. Chair of Robotics at B'ham appears to be the kind that passes. But even if we discount that for some reason, his citation record is clearly enough for #C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per the venerable David Eppstein, I think it passes notability for an academic. WP:NACADEMIC PaulPachad (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find it very weird that people are voting "keep" while there is not a single word about actual achievements of the person. Loew Galitz (talk) 03:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The achievements we have been talking about, in words whose obliqueness perhaps led you to miss them, are his publication of high-impact research, as measured by the many citations other researchers have made to it. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - And the fact he passes an established notability guideline! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even just looking at the citations to pass WP:NPROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frits de Voogt[edit]

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

Olympian who fails GNG and SPORTCRIT. The only sources that come up are yachting magazines trivially mentioning a boat designer of the same name~~, who does not appear to be identical with the olympian (the initials "HW" and the variant spelling "Fritz" appear for the former, but not the latter)~~. The Dutch wikipedia doesn't have any significant coverage either. Avilich (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based on the below, otherwise redirect to Rowing at the 1952 Summer Olympics – Men's coxless four, per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I've just seen the edit history with Canadian Paul's link to show that a person with this name is still alive. The link is now dead, but is available via Web Archive. Name and birth match, but I'll ask for more info from CP. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The images on the Dutch page and the Web Archive article point to him being one and the same, with the translation from the Dutch wiki saying "In his active time he was a member of the student rowing club Laga in Delft . He was director and owner of F. de Voogt International Ships Design and Engineering BV and later became an advisor to this company." Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page is still up. Upon further searching it appears that H. W. "Fritz" de Voogt was his father, so the identification is likely true even though no source I've seen until now seems to actually say it. I still don't find the sourcing to be enough (the link is not an independent source). Avilich (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing here is clearly not enough to justify having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to have won a lifetime achievement award for his post-Olympic work (even though this particular announcement is not independent, the award itself is). That, combined with his Olympic career, satisfies WP:N's presumption of notability. Canadian Paul 02:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no presumption of notability for olympic athletes, nor is there evidence that an award from ShowBoats Design is notable. Avilich (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Are we really claiming ANYBIO is met with a "Showboats Design Lifetime Achievement Award"?! If we can barely verify whether he's still alive, how can we consider him notable enough to have garnered SIGCOV anywhere? JoelleJay (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking we haven't yet proven the identification of the olympian with the boat designer. The data from Sportsreference technically matches, but in the absence of confirmation any attempts to treat them as one must be considered WP:SYNTH. No independent sources have been provided for the boat designer so far, and the Sportsreference link is just a stats database, so GNG isn't met either way. Avilich (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; oppose proposed redirect. The only source we have to explicitly support the rower and the shipbuilder as the same person (i.e. the Dutch Wikipedia article) is not reliable per WP:CIRC. If we cannot find a reliable source to corroborate this link, the rower fails GNG and this article should be deleted. Following that, there is the option to create an article on the shipbuilder, or a redirect to Feadship (same applies to his father Henri, and company De Voogt Naval Architects). Redirecting to a sporting event article would not be acceptable as the shipbuilding link to this name is clearly far more notable. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kelsey Phelps Finch[edit]

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

WP:NOTINHERITED, non-notable entrepreneur. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 03:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 03:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete nonnotable. Loew Galitz (talk) 03:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Wine, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can see no notability here. --Bduke (talk) 08:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:NOTINHERITED is not relevant here, because where did she inherit notability _from_? Are we assuming that in a grandfather/granddaughter pair it must be the man who is notable and the woman riding on the man's coattails? Joseph Phelps doesn't even have his own wikipage. Also, bare assertions of non-notability, with zero explanation for why, are advised against by WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Our core standard for whether somebody is deserving enough to be in our database of 6.5 million articles is whether a reasonable number of reliable secondary sources discuss the person. (And as a reminder, we do not require the secondary sources to themselves be notable.) The sources are provided; keep. B k (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Joseph Phelps is pretty notable. Even the article refers to him as a 'wine pioneer'. He has a NYT obituary, the article subject is not mentioned outside fairly marginal media. You're injecting an accusation of sexism to where there is none, all to bolster your support of an article getting downvoted. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT does not deal with this situation, it deals with cases where the reason for an AfD is disagreement with the subject, not an assertion of non-notability. It's absolutely WP:BADFAITH to even make this accusation.
Finally, it is for the article to establish its notability, not for an AfD to conclusively prove that it is not notable.

The article currently has nine references: two wine auctions, two blogs (JetSetting Fashionista and Paul Wharton Style), what looks like a sponsored article in California Date Night (not itself WP:RS), a photographer's page (how that is a reference, I don't know), stuff from facebook, an event page and, finally, Joseph Phelps' obituary. The latter is as WP:RS as they come (it's the NYT), but the rest aren't, and that one is not about the subject. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 21:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see NOTINHERITED as being particularly relevant here either, but the more significant issue is that Finch doesn't appear to meet the GNG. The NYT article doesn't mention her at all, and the remaining sources are unreliable or non-independent: sites that sell her products, blogs, interviews, Facebook, etc. My search did not identify any significant coverage in independent reliable sources either, so she does not appear to be notable at this time, in my view. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hamdi Mohamed[edit]

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

This is a biography of someone most known for being elected as one of five commissioners of the Port of Seattle. That is a not a highly significant position, not a state-wide office, not the head of the commission. Sources in the article do cover her and the election, but all are routine local coverage that occurs for every local election. (There is a sentence in Bloomberg which is not local, but is about local candidates across the country running on climate change issues). Does not meet GNG. MB 03:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Washington. MB 03:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete nonnotable local politician Loew Galitz (talk) 03:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seattle Port Commission is not a level of political office that confers an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL, and the article is sourced to the purely run of the mill level of local election campaign coverage that anybody running for any local political office anywhere can always show — but at this level of significance, a person would have to show a credible reason why she was of nationalized significance that exceeded the significance of other members of other local government committees, which has not been demonstrated at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marylize Biubwa[edit]

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

Not sure she meets WP:GNG. Current citations are not WP:RS, there's no WP:SIGCOV. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 03:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 03:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete nonnotable activist. Loew Galitz (talk) 03:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Loew Galitz! I've searched for more sources and listed a number of them below, including the BBC. Would you be willing to take a look and see if that changes your mind at all? No pressure either way! Cheers! --Kbabej (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Kenya. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being from a minority group, even a targetted minority group, does not invite any special notability dispensation. Fails WP:GNG by a long way. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Velella! I've searched for more sources and listed a number of them below, including the BBC. Would you be willing to take a look and see if that changes your mind at all? No pressure either way! Cheers! --Kbabej (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. First of all, my "weak keep" !vote isn't something I'm married to, and I'm completely willing to be talked out of it. As the article was originally written, it was quite awful. In looking for sources, though, there's a bit out there not currently being utilized. There's The World, which refers to her as a "queer human rights activist" and covers her moderating a panel here; Kenya Buzz (which has been used quite a number of times on English WP as a source) called her "prominent" and "one of the most forefront and vocal persons behind the Repeal 162 movement" here; the Daily Nation covers her thoughts on reproductive rights here; she helped found The Queer Republic organization, which the Document Women Project highlighted as one of their communities readers should support this month here; myGwork included her in their list of 50 LQBTQ+ women making a difference here; she is a mentor for the Global Peace Foundation, seen here; she has a short profile in the EMolemo Queer Times here; and the BBC covered her being diagnosed with social anxiety here. Overall, I think she passes GNG. --Kbabej (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for purposes of notability in wikipedia, we need independent sources that describe her in reasonable detail, not just mention her, call her "prominent, or write what she said. Loew Galitz (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying, @Loew Galitz. I hear you. I think the first part is met - all of the sources listed above are independent of the subject. None are organizations she's founded or things she's written. As for if those sources describe her in enough detail, I'm still somewhat on the fence but think it just pushes it over (hence the "weak" part of my !vote). Thanks for taking another look - it's appreciated. --Kbabej (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She appears notable per the cited references. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very poor article, obvs, but there do seem to be multiple independent sources amounting to GNG; examples: [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]. Not convinced WP:BEFORE D - "Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability" - was conducted for this AfD. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in view of all the additional sources mentioned above.--Ipigott (talk) 06:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural keep per clear consensus that a week after the first discussion concluded with "keep" is too soon. XOR'easter (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

The OC wall calendar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An article on this subject does not make sense. It fails WP:GNG and no significant coverage can be seen so far. Srijanx22 (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - An AFD that closed unanimously as Keep just ended a week ago. That is way too soon for a re-nomination. Rorshacma (talk) 03:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep as above. I was the nominator for previous AfD. Not sure how a second one came about; this article is pretty well orphaned and pretty much only accessible through categories or wikiproject pages. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, preferably speedily. WP:BEFORE B5 says "Check to see if enough time has passed since previous nominations before renominating." One week is not enough time. Part of BEFORE is also searching for sources, and plenty were provided in the last discussion to show that GNG is passed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cafe de Anatolia[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, no independent coverage in RS. Sourced to puff pieces/sponsored content. KH-1 (talk) 02:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Companies. KH-1 (talk) 02:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hiddenstranger (talk) 10:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage. ChristinaNY (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. --Bash7oven (talk) 07:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanka Meher[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Was deleted a couple of months ago: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priyanka Meher for details. Since then, has collaborated with others and has new references. But the new references only name-check her, nothing in-depth. Still fails notability even with the new information. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and India. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The situation has not changed enough to change from not being notable enough for an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree, it's still not meeting notability standards. Oaktree b (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - still falls under G4. No real developments in the last two-months.-KH-1 (talk) 06:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harpies (film)[edit]

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

Meager sourcing for a made-for-TV movie. All plot. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 00:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Film. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 00:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no valid results for "Stephen Baldwin" + "Harpies" on GNews, GBooks, or Newspapers.com. (Caveat: ProQuest isn't working for me right now.) Zero evidence of reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:27, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Zero? Dread Central review is cited in the article. That's one. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, and theres a snip review in The Christian Science Monitor, here (may need a subscription to access?). Coolabahapple (talk) 13:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep One review and a "half-review", notability is just established. Oaktree b (talk) 13:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dread Central and CSM sources. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: FTR, ReaderofthePack has been working on this article. They've reduced the plot summary and found more sources, though even they admitted the new sources may not meet WP:RS. I appreciate the effort, but I still don't think there's enough here to warrant an article for a one-off Siffy Channel movie. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:06, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Becker describes the making of this film in great detail in his book Rushes. Becker, of course, is not independent of the film so his book cannot count towards notability, but it can certainly be counted as reliable and used as a source. SpinningSpark 12:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How would we feel about a Merge into Josh Becker? Let's face it; this was a one-off made-for-TV film which sank w/o a trace. It's only notable as part of the filmmaker's larger body of work. Only the most rabid inclusionist would miss this article. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 16:50, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"How would we feel"? Well personally I feel you are being gratuitously insulting to other editors with the comment that only rabid inclusionist would miss this article. My opinion on the merge is that that is WP:UNDUE for the director's article – and that is your opinion too judging by that comment. But perhaps what you are really looking for is "deletion by redirect" without merging anything substantial. SpinningSpark 21:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I don't see anything substantial in this article and I think the discussion supports me. I see lots of "Well, here's a source, but..." "I found a review, but..." "I guess this kinda meets notability."

I guess this also speaks to the larger issue of, do we really need to document every TV movie ever made? Is there no piece of pop culture trivia too picayune? It's like the WP:NOTTVTROPES issue. If this was a wiki for TV movies, great, but shouldn't we aim a little higher here than being a repository for every disposable movie of the week? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:NFILM. In addition to the sources above, This book on the film’s producer Stan Lee has coverage on the making of the film. There is also a 2014 review in this science fiction ezine which has editorial oversight, so I would consider it RS. All together we have three independent reviews, the independent Stan Lee book, and the Becker book. 4meter4 (talk) 03:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work! Since you're the one who found these sources, how about adding them to the article? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 05:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Walker (politician)[edit]

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

Delete. Candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one. The existence of coverage about this candidate's candidacy is evidence that the election itself is of note. These articles would exist — and the merely expected and run of the mill level of campaign coverage in the local media, where coverage of elections in the media outlet's local coverage area is merely expected to exist, is not in and of itself sufficient to give a candidate a WP:GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL: if that were how it worked, then every candidate in every election would always get that exemption and NPOL itself would be meaningless. Rather, a candidate's sourcing needs to establish one of two other things: either (a) they were already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason besides their candidacy per se, or (b) they can show a credible reason why their candidacy should be seen as significantly more special than everybody else's candidacies, in some way that would pass the "people will still be looking for information about this ten years from now" test (see Christine O’Donnell). But this doesn't pass those tests at all. Mpen320 (talk) 00:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Colorado and Politicians. --Mpen320 (talk) 00:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person has not even won the primary. Almost no candidates for US house who have won the primary but not a gneral election are notable, but those who have not won the primary at all are just plain not notable unless there is something else that shows notability, which there is not here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and John Pack Lambert. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 21:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I will note that the nominator copied some wording that I often use when I list articles about unelected candidates for AFD, so I'm going to have to express myself a bit differently than my usual template here, but I assure y'all that Mpen320 is not me. Candidates indeed do not get to keep Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, and need to show either evidence that they had preexisting notability for other reasons or a depth of coverage that would mark their candidacy out as much more special than usual, and this demonstrates neither of those things. As always, no prejudice against recreation in November if he wins, but nothing here is already enough to qualify him for inclusion in Wikipedia today. Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I should not have stolen your wording. I apologize.--Mpen320 (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Suspended animation in fiction per WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Corpsicle[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:NEOLOGISM that does not have more than a passing mention in reliable independent sources, thus failing the WP:GNG. Jontesta (talk) 00:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 00:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I cannot find all sources the article currently has on the Internet, but I think the Sci-fi dictionary counts as one source, giving a definition, instances of appearance and a bit of commentary. It surely is not a passing mention! Similarly in Brave New Words: The Oxford Dictionary of Science Fiction, p. 28. Then we have Science Fiction and Futurism: Their Terms and Ideas, pages 47-48, and arguably a long discussion in 10 Short Lessons in Time Travel, the whole chapter 3, although that is all about the concept, rather than the neologistic term. Thus WP:GNG is fullfilled. Daranios (talk) 11:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- SFD is a dictionary and provides a dictionary entry. WP:NOTADICTIONARY... BNW seems to be just SFD in print (dictionary). I can't access The next source which you didn't link, but the last one is about cryogenics/suspended animation, and just used corpsicle in its title. So, zero WP:SIGCOV about this term that I see. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems that the actual topic here is cryonics in fiction, an article that does not currently exist (though the broader topic suspended animation in fiction does, even if it definitely needs a rewrite), rather than the term "corpsicle" itself. For now, a reasonable WP:Alternative to deletion might be to selectively merge a few sentences to Suspended animation in fiction#Terms. TompaDompa (talk) 16:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous discussion. Artw (talk) 23:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge referenced parts to suspended animation in fiction. I am not seeing any content - or arguments/sources here - that provide WP:SIGCOV. This is just a sf jargon used in the context of the linked to article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Suspended animation in fiction: Some of the cited material belongs in the main article on the topic. In general, most neologisms are not notable by Wikipedian standards. I found a few mentions, definitions and dictionary entries, but I could not find much else. The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction's brief entry is perhaps the best of these. However, the entry's description of the term is little different from a dictionary definition. There are enough sources for a Wiktionary entry, and I could see it as a mentioned term in the main article on suspended animation in fiction. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 03:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has a lengthy entry in Science Fiction and Futurism: Their Terms and Ideas. That has far more encyclopaedic discussion than the OED SF Encyclopedia link [26] criticised above for being "too dictionary". It is also briefly touched on in How to Live Forever: Science Fiction and Philosophy and discussed at length in All the Wonder that Would Be: Exploring Past Notions of the Future. I am also swayed by the claim in this source that the term is "a common sci-fi trope". The source is self-published so can't be used as an RS, but it says to me that we should have an article on it. SpinningSpark 11:33, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The term corpsicle—which is the topic of the article under discussion—is categorically not discussed at length by All the Wonder that Would Be: Exploring Past Notions of the Future (the full discussion of the term is Corpsicle is a portmanteau word derived from 'corpse' and 'popsicle'. Pohl coined the terms in his essay "Immortality Through Freezing" (1966) and his novel The Age of the Pussyfoot (1969). in a footnote). The concept of cryonics in fiction is discussed for roughly a page, however. Likewise, How to Live Forever: Science Fiction and Philosophy only says of the term that Niven's irresistible term for the frozen would-be-living is 'corpsicle'. The discussion of the term in Science Fiction and Futurism: Their Terms and Ideas amounts to The term was invented by Frederick Pohl in 1969 in his novel The Age of the Pussyfoot [...] The word is clearly a variant of popsicle (and icicle) and shows a certain level of disrespect for cryonics or at least for those who have participated in the process.
  You seem to be conflating the term with the concept. The article is about the former, whereas your arguments mostly apply to the latter. Is there any good reason why we should cover the term separately from the concept? If there isn't, I don't see why we shouldn't merge to suspended animation in fiction. TompaDompa (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - First of all, I had not linked to the correct page in All the Wonder that Would Be, which I have now fixed. The discussion is section 10.1.3 "Copsicles" beginning on page 274. The quotation you give is merely an endnote at the end of the chapter on page 294. There is much more than this.
  - Yes, I do think this is a different concept from "suspended animation", or at least, it is a subset of it. Corpsicle is a derogatory term especially used when the bodies concerned are being put to some immoral or criminal purpose. That is what all the stories (or most of them) that use the term are concerned with. It is a means of dehumanising the people who have been frozen so they can be treated as commodities. SpinningSpark 15:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - On the How to Live Forever source, you have completely misrepresented it with a very selective quote. The section is titled "Corpsicle" and it is discussing something more specific than "Cryonics" which has its own section in the book. Your opinion may be that it is "only" discussing cryonics but that is clearly not what the author thinks. He puts the related term "Bridesicle" under the same heading because this is another way in which the "freezees" can be exploited. It is not merely because the terms are obviously etymologically related. SpinningSpark 15:13, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - (edit conflict) The discussion on page 274–275 (section 10.1.3) of All the Wonder that Would Be: Exploring Past Notions of the Future is indeed what I referred to when I said The concept of cryonics in fiction is discussed for roughly a page, however.. I have previously read the entire chapter for Immortality in fiction, so I'm familiar with the source. Page 274–275 does not contain discussion of the term corpsicle, that part is solely confined to the endnote on page 294. The discussion on page 274–275 is about the use of cryonics as a means to achieve immortality in the context of fictional works. Section 10.1 "How to Live Forever" (page 266–278) is all about various means to achieve immortality in the context of fictional works, while section 10.2 "The Time of Our Lives" (page 278–293) approaches the same topic in the context of the real world (cryonics gets mentioned again in section 10.2.3 "Cryonics" on page 287–289). TompaDompa (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think you meant Science Fiction and Futurism: Their Terms and Ideas rather than How to Live Forever. Anyway, the reason I gave you a rather brief quote is because that's the only discussion of the term "corpsicle", as opposed to the broader concept. If it is the case that WP:WORDISSUBJECT, which what the article currently claims (the hatnote says This article is about a term. For the television episode, see List of Pushing Daisies episodes.), then that is the only relevant part. If you want the article to be about the exploitation of cryonically frozen people in fiction, then that would constitute a significant scope shift and I would argue that it would be better to cover that topic as part of the supertopic cryonics in fiction or suspended animation in fiction; Corpsicle would at any rate not be a terribly appropriate title for the as-yet-unwritten article on the topic of the exploitation of cryonically frozen people in fiction. TompaDompa (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      (after ec, not yet absorbed your last comment) I cannot agree that the "Corpsicle" section amounts to one of the methods of achiving immortality. It is not – the method is cryonics, which is a separate section. The "Corpsicle" section is about abuse of the bodies, or about authors who have written stories with that as a theme. If the "Corpsicle" section were about the method of cryonics, there would be no need for a "Cryonics" section. You have failed to answer me on why the author is making that distinction if it is not for what I said. SpinningSpark 15:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The reason Stephen Webb wrote one "Corpsicles" section (10.1.3) and one "Cryonics" section (10.2.3) in All the Wonder that Would Be: Exploring Past Notions of the Future is that the former discusses the concept in fiction and the latter the real-world applications, as I said above. TompaDompa (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Well it's peculiar that on the first page of the "Cryonics" section, Webb mentions four different SF authors and gives a detailed plot summary of The Jameson Satellite. Or perhaps not so peculiar given that the theme of the book is the predictions of SF for the future. SpinningSpark 16:09, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You may find it peculiar, but the explanation for the separate sections is that roughly the first half of the chapter (10.1 "How to Live Forever") focuses on immortality in science fiction (and how it might be achieved) and the second half (10.2 "The Time of Our Lives") on ditto in real life. If you have the time, reading the entire chapter will make this abundantly clear (otherwise, you can start by reading the introduction to 10.1 on page 266–277 and the introduction to 10.2 on page 278–279).
      It's also not actually true, contrary to your assertion, that the "Corpsicles" section (10.1.3) is about abuse of the bodies, or about authors who have written stories with that as a theme. The section discusses six works: The Age of the Pussyfoot, Bug Jack Barron, Why Call Them Back From Heaven?, "The Defenseless Dead", "Wait it Out", and "Doing Lennon", but only discusses the abuse/exploitation of the frozen bodies in the context of one of these: "The Defenseless Dead". For The Age of the Pussyfoot and Bug Jack Barron, Webb discusses the general concept of being preserved cryonically until medical progress has rendered one's cause of death reversible. For Why Call Them Back From Heaven? the discussion is about various drawbacks but notably not the abuse/exploitation of the frozen bodies. For "Wait it Out" it's about being conscious while cryonically frozen and for "Doing Lennon" it's about impersonation. As the section itself concludes: Numerous stories, then, use cryopreservation as a form of time travel—as a shortcut to a future in which (it is hoped) science has cracked the problem of immortality. It's a means of putting death on hold.
      This is all rather a tangent of course, since the real question is whether we should have one article covering the term corpsicle and another covering the concept. I don't see a good reason to fork it like that. TompaDompa (talk) 22:39, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to suspended animation in fiction makes sense to me. Most of the sources justify inclusion in Wiktionary rather than Wikipedia. Some do elaborate a bit more, but leave me wondering why we would need a separate stand-alone article on this term when the broader subject is already covered. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion has been proposed for merger to Suspended animation in fiction, and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to that page on June 22. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from that page.

Merge into Suspended animation in fiction and redirect. This is not Wiktionary. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to Merge to Suspended animation in fiction. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ultimate Spider-Man. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OZ (Ultimate Marvel)[edit]

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

Article fails the WP:GNG as there are no reliable independent sources covering this subject in direct detail. This is arguably a WP:CONTENTFORK of Ultimate Spider-Man as it merely recaps plot details from that article. Jontesta (talk) 00:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 00:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ultimate Spider-Man - Not notable enough on its own for an independent article, and there are currently no sources that are not just the comics themselves. But, it is already covered on the main article in the descriptions for the various characters who were affected by it, so a Redirect would be appropriate. Rorshacma (talk) 03:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable plot element. A redirect seems unnecessary, as anyone familiar enough with the material to search this term could surely find the proposed target on their own. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. No evidence this meets notability for a stand-alone article. Could redirect to an article that mentions it as a plot summary (Ultimate Spider-Man seems to be ok for that purpose). Not likely to be a searchable term, heavy WP:FANCRUFT that belongs on Fandom, not Wikipedia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Romanello, Linda (26 August 2019). "Live Sound Showcase: Barbra Streisand Returns to Her NYC Roots". mixonline.com. Future plc. Retrieved 9 June 2022.

[2] Schultz, Barbara (14 February 2020). "The Black Keys' Let's Rock Tour". mixonline.com. Future plc. Retrieved 9 June 2022.

[3] Hogan, Candace (19 December 2019). "The Three-Headed Beast". mixonline.com. Future plc. Retrieved 9 June 2022.

[4] Jaffee, Larry (11 April 2022). "Live Sound Showcase: Vampire Weekend Goes 360° at MSG". mixonline.com. Future plc. Retrieved 9 June 2022.

[5] Gayhart, Keith (26 September 2019). "Live Sound Showcase: Rhapsodizing On The Road with Queen + Adam Lambert". mixonline.com. Future plc. Retrieved 9 June 2022.

[6] Berkowitz, Todd (26 September 2019). "The Many Styles of Maren Morris". mixonline.com. Future plc. Retrieved 9 June 2022.

[7] Shuler, Christopher (4 May 2020). "Post Malone's Recent Tour Was A Runaway Success With L-Acoustics". Sound & Video Contractor. Future plc. Retrieved 9 June 2022.

[8] Shuler, Christopher (26 August 2014). "Summerfest, and the Mixing is Easy on DiGiCo". Sound & Video Contractor. Future plc. Retrieved 9 June 2022.

[9] Leung, Winnie (25 August 2015). "Ed Sheeran Captivates Wembley and Croke Park Stadiums with Meyer Sound LEO". Sound & Video Contractor. Future plc. Retrieved 9 June 2022.

[10] Young, Clive (1 October 2021). "Hella Mega Yeah! Behind the Audio of the Summer's Biggest Tour". mixonline.com. Future plc. Retrieved 10 June 2022.

[11] Watson, Paul (28 July 2014). "Montreux Jazz Festival". headlinermagazine.net. Headliner. Retrieved 10 June 2022.

[12] Shuler, Christopher (9 March 2022). "Spectrum Sound Makes Macro Move To DiGiCo's Quantum Platform". Sound & Video Contractor. Future plc. Retrieved 9 June 2022.

[13] Shuler, Christopher (25 February 2019). "DiGiCo SD7 Consoles Have Live Sound At The Grammy Awards Covered". Sound & Video Contractor. Future plc. Retrieved 9 June 2022.

[14] Shuler, Christopher (27 February 2014). "DiGiCo Sweeps the GRAMMY Awards". Sound & Video Contractor. Future plc. Retrieved 9 June 2022.

[15] Shuler, Christopher (2 March 2020). "Tonight's the Night for DiGiCo — The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon is a Full House with Three SD7 Consoles and Five SD-Racks". Sound & Video Contractor. Future plc. Retrieved 9 June 2022.

[16] Shuler, Christopher (15 April 2022). "DiGiCo Desk Drives the Sound at Red Bull Arena". Sound & Video Contractor. Future plc. Retrieved 9 June 2022.

[17] Shuler, Christopher (29 March 2022). "DiGiCo is a Team Player for Super Bowl LVI's Halftime Show". Sound & Video Contractor. Future plc. Retrieved 9 June 2022.

[18] "Focusrite RedNet Components Chosen by ATK/Clair for Super Bowl Coverage for the Seventh Year in a Row". Sound & Video Contractor. Future plc. 10 March 2022. Retrieved 9 June 2022.

[19] Shuler, Christopher (17 March 2014). "DiGiCo Takes the Ice for 2014 NHL Winter Classic, Stadium Series and Heritage Classic". Sound & Video Contractor. Future plc. Retrieved 9 June 2022.

[20] Liles, Bennett (13 December 2021). "The SVC Interview: Aaron Beck - Rady Shell at Jacobs Park". Sound & Video Contractor. Future plc. Retrieved 9 June 2022.

[21] Shuler, Christopher (27 April 2022). "DiGiCo S21 and Waves Make For a Winning Combination at Hudson Hall". Sound & Video Contractor. Future plc. Retrieved 9 June 2022.

[22] Shuler, Christopher (27 April 2022). "Modern DiGiCo S21 Consoles Join Museum of Contemporary Art Chicago". Sound & Video Contractor. Future plc. Retrieved 9 June 2022.

[23] Shuler, Christopher (6 January 2022). "DiGiCo's Wide Range of Solutions Gives the Minnesota Orchestra Enormous Flexibility in its Orchestra Hall". Sound & Video Contractor. Future plc. Retrieved 9 June 2022.

[24] Shuler, Christopher (11 August 2021). "The Jack Singer Concert Hall updates with DiGiCo Quantum consoles". Sound & Video Contractor. Future plc. Retrieved 9 June 2022.

[25] "Philadelphia's Kimmel Center Upgrades with an Eye to the Future". mixonline.com. Future plc. 6 January 2022. Retrieved 10 June 2022.

[26] Young, Clive (9 February 2022). "The Journey of 'Jagged Little Pill'". mixonline.com. Future plc. Retrieved 10 June 2022.

[27] Borgerson, Bruce (1 September 2003). "Digital Consoles". Sound & Video Contractor. Future plc. Retrieved 9 June 2022.

[28] Watson, Paul (28 July 2014). "Power to the People". headlinermagazine.net. Headliner. Retrieved 10 June 2022.

[29] "Dave Rupsch: Filling In". headlinermagazine.net. Headliner. 18 December 2020. Retrieved 10 June 2022.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

Eswatini-Venezuela relations[edit]

Seychelles-Venezuela relations[edit]

Access Granted[edit]

Wildgirl[edit]

Paige Larson[edit]

Frank Haasnoot[edit]

ALEGRA[edit]

SAM Broadcaster[edit]

Slice (company)[edit]

Troy Stetina[edit]

Abe Levy[edit]

Bad governance[edit]

Jamee Ranta[edit]

Geopolitical Futures[edit]

What's Next for Sarah?[edit]

Ann Hamilton (American actress)[edit]

List of Hindi songs recorded by Asha Bhosle[edit]

List of songs recorded by Armaan Malik[edit]

Ofaloto Kite[edit]

Pua Falepapalangi[edit]

Ali Plumb[edit]

Jordan Smithy[edit]

Pierre Joris[edit]

Omondi Abudho[edit]

Orla Olsen[edit]

DiGiCo[edit]

Jake Riddell[edit]

Mail buoy[edit]

Solstice RTC[edit]

Norbert Hauata[edit]

Justin Alliman[edit]

Michael Luick-Thrams[edit]

2019 Saurashtra Premier League[edit]

Washington Michael Jacobs[edit]

G. Sylva[edit]

List of fatal dog attacks in the United States (2014)[edit]

Empreintes DIGITALes[edit]

Arasan (health complex)[edit]

Dorea Academy[edit]

William Moore (author)[edit]

Reactions to Innocence of Muslims[edit]

Ung Thị[edit]

Jasper Intermediate Field[edit]

Bob Martin (singer)[edit]

FabFitFun[edit]

2017 Oklahoma vs Kansas football game[edit]

Victoire of France (1556)[edit]

Alexandre Louis d'Orléans, Duc de Valois[edit]

Identity 7: Deadly Sins[edit]

Klaudon Ahmataj[edit]

KLEP[edit]

W. J. Ross[edit]

L. Legru[edit]

J. Bérard[edit]

H. MacHenry[edit]

In the Crease (studio show)[edit]

J. W. Dowling[edit]

J. Haller[edit]

J. Dubois[edit]

J. Baillot[edit]

S. Abdul Hamid[edit]

W. R. Gibson[edit]

Otto K. Schwarz[edit]

Bichoo (TV series)[edit]

Carson Lueders[edit]

Haydite, Missouri[edit]

Ales Leonardis[edit]

Frits de Voogt[edit]

Kelsey Phelps Finch[edit]

Hamdi Mohamed[edit]

Marylize Biubwa[edit]

The OC wall calendar[edit]

Cafe de Anatolia[edit]

Priyanka Meher[edit]

Harpies (film)[edit]

Alex Walker (politician)[edit]

Corpsicle[edit]

OZ (Ultimate Marvel)[edit]

Leave a Reply