The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Halsey discography. TigerShark (talk) 23:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Collabs[edit]

Collabs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable per WP:NALBUMS. The EP is a compilation of mostly existing tracks. All of the information is about individual songs or taken from other projects like Manic. There is very little on information pertaining to this project itself. Notability is not inherited, the collection did not chart. There's little information beyond the track listing. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 14:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 14:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Halsey discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:07, 18 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!} 17:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Halsey discography per SBKSPP. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 16:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iman Kalyan[edit]

Iman Kalyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Other than some passing mentions, i don't see any significant coverage from any reliable sources. Fails WP:NFILM. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Shellwood (talk) 23:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I don't disagree with the nominator much. But if anyone knows that old Bengali films doesn't have enough news or reviews published on them. Abbasulu (talk) 01:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NFILM.4meter4 (talk) 22:25, 21 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!} 23:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - One of the best films of Uttam Kumar and much acclaimed. The music was superhit as well. Abbasulu (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE as per nom. _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 08:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - One of the best films of Uttam Kumar and much acclaimed. The music was superhit as well. Abbasulu (talk) 08:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote. ✗plicit 12:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable film. the sources provided aren't significant (only a database entry) and doesn't meet GNG. The keep vote is unconvincing- source? VickKiang (talk) 02:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TigerShark (talk) 23:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Stack[edit]

Chris Stack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Lacks notability; one role on One Life to Live, and nothing else of note. Bgsu98 (talk) 22:51, 14 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) 22:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:NACTOR. In addition to being a main cast member on One Life to Live for several seasons, he has had supporting roles in multiple notable films and has had leading roles in several stage plays with independent reviews. I added refs to the article.4meter4 (talk) 23:17, 21 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!} 23:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, notable actor who has many meaningful roles and article has good sources. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. 4meter4 has done a nice work in adding sources to the article. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 17:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Suggest this discussion continue editorially as to a possible AtD rather than a quick renomination. There is not a strong consensus to keep, but nor is there one to delete and it does not appear that one is going to evolve Star Mississippi 14:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Méndez (sport shooter)[edit]

Luis Méndez (sport shooter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOLYMPICS. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Uruguay. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet default inclusion criteria for Olympians. The one source has no prose on the subject, it is just a sports stat table. It is time for Wikipedia to stop having sports tables masquerading as articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep looking at his German article it states he was a three-time national champion (WP:V here) and that he was honoured as one of the best Uruguayan athletes in 2009/10, with sources here and here. He's also won medals (gold and bronze) at multi-national sporting competitions too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The first source you have provided is in Spanish, not German. A listing of the subject name once is not sufficient for meeting WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. The second and third sources you have provided are of a Rowing athlete who competed at the 1960 Summer Olympics. This subject is a sport shooter who competed at the 2000 Summer Olympics in shooting. Therefore, both articles do not discuss the subject and should not be counted towards any sort of notability this subject has. Tagging @Canadian Paul here because their vote is directly based of the sources you provided. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:31, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, I meant German wiki article which has more info on this individual. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you have a link? What about the other two sources? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Redirect to an appropriate target, possibly Uruguay at the 2000 Summer Olympics. Per Lugnuts' comment above, as those sources indicate coverage that would satisfy WP:N. his accomplishments suggest that there would be sufficient coverage to meet WP:N if we had the correct resources to do so. Since those sources are not available, a redirect is appropriate for the time being. Canadian Paul 01:48, 16 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, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO as a winner of multiple medals at major international and national sporting events, including the South American Games and Pan American Games.4meter4 (talk) 21:34, 28 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, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No one has demonstrated GNG coverage. Redefining ANYBIO to include sporting achievements, despite those not even being awards or honors, is in direct conflict with the global consensus to require GNG be met for all athletes including international medalists. JoelleJay (talk) 22:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 03:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assaf Seewi[edit]

Assaf Seewi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Appears to fail notability criteria for musicians. – Ploni (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Ploni (talk) 23:11, 21 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!} 23:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - couldn't find any secondary coverage, fails MUSICBIO by the looks of it.-KH-1 (talk) 03:41, 29 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!} 03:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Damian Perkins[edit]

Damian Perkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article is promotional and autobiographical (see User:Gonperky), and subject does not seem to have had significant roles in more than one notable production. That said, if his role in Aida is sufficient to meet WP:NACTOR, most of the rest of the article should be purged. – Ploni (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:35, 21 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!} 23:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I find exactly two mentions in Playbill, confirming he was in plays. Comes up also in a Buzzfeed list of the best musicals, that's not nearly enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 03:13, 29 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. TigerShark (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Spooky Sisters[edit]

The Spooky Sisters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Zero relevant hits on ProQuest, GBooks, or Newspapers.com. Prod contested. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:08, 21 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?)} 21:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The show has no notability and no sources.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 06:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No objection to a relist when more input might come Star Mississippi 01:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sergiy Vilkomir[edit]

Sergiy Vilkomir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG, most cited article on Scholar is 451 (which has a total of 15 co-authors, and his name is 13th), while other all other articles remained under 70 citations. Breach of WP:CONFLICT, page is created by Jonathan Bowen (user Jpbowen), who is the co-author of 4 out of the 5 'selected publications', and appears in 3 out of the 7 references. Large portion of Scholar articles has Jpbowen as the author/co-author. Whole article is written like a resume.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: While this person may be borderline, I believe that he meets the WP:PROF "Average Professor Test", noting that "this is a guideline and not a rule; exceptions may exist. Some academics may not meet any of these criteria, but may still be notable for their academic work." In passing, I would also note that this is a rather inopportune moment to be deleting Ukrainian scientists. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 13:53, 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!} 22:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unfortunately I don't see any of the criteria set in WP:NACADEMIC being met. Sources are either not independent or trivial. Alan Islas (talk) 04:27, 29 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 1958. TigerShark (talk) 23:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Solange Berry[edit]

Solange Berry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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) 17:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, Belgium, and Luxembourg. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete all I find is this article, where they comment on notable performances [1]. I imagine there are more sources, I can't see any. French wiki article has Eurovision and what appears to be a blog as sources. not much help there either. Oaktree b (talk) 18:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:55, 21 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!} 23:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Eurovision Song Contest 1958 is a potential redirect target. ~Kvng (talk) 02:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not all singers are notable and the case sticks with this one.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 06:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Eurovision Song Contest 1958. She took part in that contest; the 1960 edition was only a selection process that she did not win. Grk1011 (talk) 13:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TigerShark (talk) 23:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe Leboeuf[edit]

Philippe Leboeuf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Hotelier, GM of Mandarin Oriental. In this lieth not the stuff of notability. Sources are passing mentions, business announcements, industry magazine award insufficient to count as "a well-known and significant award or honor" and so fails WP:GNG. Beyond that, the article's a CV and needs TNT - I think AfD is a better course given inherent lack of notability. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:10, 22 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!} 23:08, 28 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. TigerShark (talk) 23:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TheFestivals[edit]

TheFestivals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

PROD in March 2022 and tagged for notability since then, now we're at AfD with this non-notable web medium. Fails WP:GNG, WP:WEBCRIT: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. " or "he website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization." Neither apply and the sources presented are not significant. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Websites. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:43, 21 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!} 23:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 06:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Government College, Ganye[edit]

Federal Government College, Ganye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Following the soft delete outcomes at AfD for Federal Government College, Ohafia and Federal Government Girls College, Zaria I am nominating other articles created at the same time by the same editor as non notable. Mccapra (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Nigeria. Mccapra (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating as part of this AfD:

Federal Government College, Maiduguri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Federal Government College, Ikom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Federal Government College, Ikirun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Federal Government College, Okposi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Federal Government Girls College, Gusau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Federal Government College, Kaduna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Federal Government College, Daura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Federal Government College, Buni-Yadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Federal Government College, Ikole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Federal Government College, Kano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Federal Government College, Ibillo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Federal Government Girls College, Lejja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Federal Government Girls College, Gwandu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Federal Government Girls College, Tambuwal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Federal Government Girls College, New Bussa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Delete All Note the source, "Full list of Federal Unity Schools in Nigeria" is used throughout - and what we have here is a full list, indeed. No notability, secondary schools are not inherently notable and there is no case beyond their existence made for notability. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All Honestly it seems like some person just made these articles in 3 minutes and didn't come back to them.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 06:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kristoff Wood[edit]

Kristoff Wood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG; lack of WP:SIGCOV. This article would be the closest thing, though it is almost entirely Wood's words since it's an interview. JTtheOG (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. JTtheOG (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 06:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Denzel Deveaux[edit]

Denzel Deveaux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG; lack of WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. JTtheOG (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable footballer.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 06:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Lightbourn[edit]

Dylan Lightbourn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG; lack of WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. JTtheOG (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable footballer.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 06:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Holowesko[edit]

Michael Holowesko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG; lack of WP:SIGCOV. A few passing mentions, as well as this four-sentence article, but not enough to satisfy the guidelines. JTtheOG (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. JTtheOG (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:48, 29 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Festival of Nations (Minnesota)[edit]

Festival of Nations (Minnesota) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This page is written too much like an advertisement... When you look it up Google shows a music festival. No references. Doesn't seem notable enough. 𝙷𝚎𝚕𝚕𝚘𝚑𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚝 👋❤️ (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔🤔) 21:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Minnesota. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as entirely unreferenced. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 06:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Institute for Production Management[edit]

Indian Institute for Production Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Was proposed for deletion with the reason Promotional article created in bad faith and lacking proper sourcing to indicate notability. PROD was contested with no explanation other than potentially controversial deletion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - My WP:DEPROD seems to have hit a nerve. Sorry to be WP:POINTY here but WP:PROD is for uncontroversial deletions. A delete justification that includes an accusation of bad faith is not appropriate for PROD. Also we prefer to improve not delete articles with WP:PROMO. The exception is WP:TNT which is also not an uncontroversial delete proposition. ~Kvng (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Odisha-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Congrats! This is the first AfD in a new delsort! –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion due to previous WP:PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:ORG. 2 gnews hits, 1 is passing mention. LibStar (talk) 01:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn — per the added reviews by Ffranc. The article now passes NFILM. Thanks! (non-admin closure) 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 21:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Viking (film)[edit]

The Last Viking (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails NFILM and a BEFORE check. All the references (such as Moviemeter, FilmAffinity, the Danish Film Institute etc.) are comprehensive film databases that do not count towards establishing notability. In the BEFORE, I found one review in Danish, however it looks like a blog, and the film has a brief entry in a book by McFarland & Company. Said book notes a review from a publication called Scandinavian Film News, however I was regrettably unable to find it. Regardless, it would need at least two reviews from RS sources to pass NFILM. 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 15:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Denmark. Shellwood (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can yo see here:

1. https://cinemaonline.dk/Anmeldelse/den_sidste_viking.3015.html
2. https://www.dvdoo.dk/dvd-film/den-sidste-viking-the-last-viking-dvd-d209621
3. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Viking-Sista-vikingen-Sidste-viking/dp/B01NACV66C
4. https://www.notrecinema.com/communaute/v1_detail_film.php3?lefilm=32908
5. https://danskefilm.dk/film.php?id=914
6. https://en.kinorium.com/106724/
7. https://bibliotek.dk/da/work/870970-basis:26601312
8. https://www.rarefilmfinder.com/movie.php?id=9910
9. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117645/

Search with "Den Sidste Viking". There is more... Thanks Buzancar (talk) 06:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NFILM: released theatrically in several countries and reviewed in mainstream publications upon the original releases. I added the Danish and Swedish release info and a review from Nöjesguiden. Ffranc (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:26, 28 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 University of Minnesota#Institutes and centers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Advanced Study at University of Minnesota[edit]

Institute for Advanced Study at University of Minnesota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject is not independently notable (notability is not inherited from its parent) ElKevbo (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Minnesota. Shellwood (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion due to previous WP:PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as WP:ATD to University of Minnesota#Institutes and centers where it is listed. ~Kvng (talk) 02:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:44, 29 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. Consensus seems to be that the subject has not yet satisfied GNG or NACTOR, but may do so in the near future. It would seem that the consensus is therefore that the article should be deleted now, and recreated if GNG or NACTOR are eventually satisfied. TigerShark (talk) 02:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dhanveer Gowda[edit]

Dhanveer Gowda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Reviewed during new page patrol. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Of the 5 references, one doesn't even mention him and 4 just mention him as being in a role. No in-depth coverage in any of them. Tagged by someopne else since April. North8000 (talk) 11:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North8000 (talk) 11:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – passes WP:NACTOR crit. 1, I think, given the lead roles in Bazaar (2019 film) and By Two Love (plus more on the way). I'm usually hesitant to lean so heavily on NACTOR as opposed to the GNG, but in this case the SNG pass allows us to infer that there may be Kannada-language sources (such as some of these) that are difficult for English speakers to assess. If someone who is fluent in Kannada wants to argue that the available sources don't amount to notability, I'd be glad to reconsider my !vote, but until then this seems like a case where the presumption of notability that an SNG gives is really useful. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete: WP:TOOSOON, lacks WP:NACTOR just two films till now, no significant contribution to the field. QueerEcofeminist[they/them/their] 12:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Boldly relisting for a final time to see if we can get any more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Echoing the above: fails to meet WP:NACTOR and definitely WP:TOOSOON. –Ploni (talk) 00:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE as norm and QueerEcofeminist. _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 08:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as passing GNG. The actor has been playing lead roles in 2 films that have already been released. He is also lead in three more films where principal photography has begun. As per WP:NFF, we actually can host separate articles for these 3 new films and its only gonna take small time to get that done by some filmy fan. I see no point in deleting the biography for few days and see how someone again recreates it. This is a clean article without fans writing overwhelming stuff. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New R. S. J. Public School[edit]

New R. S. J. Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:BEFORE mainly returns listings and wikipedia-clones. But I am aware of sources in Hindi that I can not read or find. Seems to fail WP:GNG The Banner talk 09:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There's a previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New R. S. J. Public School Senior Secondary. No idea how to indicate that above; will somebody who knows how please do so? Yngvadottir (talk) 07:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Using the search string न्यू आरएसजे, I found a couple of later news mentions, and one extended article on a graduate that I couldn't use. As was stated at the previous AfD, we need to be very cautious in applying high expectations of archived online coverage to schools in developing countries, which is a form of entrenched bias. This relatively young school (established in 2001) demonstrates continuing press coverage, albeit sparse. Despite the removal since the first AfD of the SCHOOLOUTCOMES guideline under which secondary institutions enjoyed a presumption of notability, given its location in India (in a major city with many private schools jockeying for coverage), I believe it passes GNG. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - at least it makes assertions that it is notable, and has a citation for a newspaper of record, thus passing most of my standards for school. Bearian (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:22, 28 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!} 23:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Behind the Movies[edit]

Behind the Movies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article about a shortlived television show, not properly sourced as passing WP:TVSHOW. As usual, television shows are not "inherently" notable just because their own self-published production websites offer technical verification that they existed -- the notability test is the reception of third party media coverage about the show in sources independent of itself, to demonstrate that they have been externally validated as significant by virtue of having had attention paid to them by neutral and objective sources.
Full disclosure, I was actually the original creator of this, fifteen years ago when simply verifying that the show existed was deemed enough to get a TV show into Wikipedia -- but the rules have (wisely) been tightened up considerably since then, and I just can't find any reliable sourcing that would get this up to contemporary requirements at all: the best source I can locate is a 50-word blurb in a "tonight on TV" column, which isn't enough. The only reason I'm not just killing it myself as a G7 is that I'm not the only person who's edited it since 2007. Bearcat (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Very big of you to suggest your own article for deletion. But I could find no sources for the TV show aside from its own network. Fails WP:TVSHOW. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 21:20, 28 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Shop[edit]

Let's Shop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article about a shortlived television show, not properly sourced as passing WP:TVSHOW. As usual, television shows are not "inherently" notable just because their own self-published production websites offer technical verification that they existed -- the notability test is the reception of third party media coverage about the show in sources independent of itself, to demonstrate that they have been externally validated as significant by virtue of having had attention paid to them by neutral and objective sources. But the only "source" here is its own (deadlinked) website, and on a ProQuest search for older coverage I'm not finding any non-trivial coverage about the show -- the overwhelming majority of what I'm getting is sources written by the host in her later role as a newspaper design columnist, which doesn't help.
And for added bonus, this article is so minimally written that I can't even subcategorize it for premiere year, ending year or what network carried it, which are pretty basic details that any article about a television series always has to contain. Bearcat (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I did find the show's Amazon Prime Video listing, and here's the producer's episode guide, which cite it was on from 2005 until 2008, and the archive of their website showed it airing on CNBC World, CTV Travel (now T+E) and WealthTV; the latter was infamous early in its history for taking a whole lot of vanity projects (which have been consistently deleted here in the past), as long as the producer paid them off, and the show was in HD. So I suspect this is just generic travelogue programming meant to fill a half-hour and show off shopping malls, but in HD. Also note the copyright on their archive is "Cheryll Gillespie Media Group"...which suggests this is a downright advertorial where the host was compensated for many of the episodes to be in awe of certain places, so this is likely brokered programming. Nate • (chatter) 23:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per above.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 06:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vitaliy Zhupanskyi[edit]

Vitaliy Zhupanskyi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, having checked the uk.wiki article and searched online in Ukrainian and Russian. Would have (barely) met the old NFOOTY standard, but that's not a guideline anymore, hence AfD. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ukraine. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if to read this guideline WP:SPORTSPERSON it's clear that the person is not notable as a sportsperson. --IgorTurzh (talk) 10:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No consensus or policy based arguments for anything other than delete. Draft namespace is for articles to be worked on, not for articles to wait until the subject becomes notable. TigerShark (talk) 02:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Cochrane[edit]

Owen Cochrane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, I was unable to find additional suitable coverage online. Would have previously (barely) made the old NFOOTY guideline, but that is no longer accepted as a guideline, hence AfD. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify - young professional with ongoing career. GiantSnowman 18:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Draft per GS, young player, Govvy (talk) 15:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bbb23 (G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban (non-admin closure) WikiVirusC^(talk) 00:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sahnil Bhatnagar (Actor)[edit]

Sahnil Bhatnagar (Actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article was previously deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sahnil Bhatnagar (Indian Tv Actor)) and almost every variation of article title has been salted. After the creator's draft was declined earlier today, they requested its deletion then created this in mainspace. An IP has removed the G4 multiple times, so rather than edit war, I'm nominating it for a repeat AFD as a non-notable actor. Lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Schazjmd (talk) 20:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Schazjmd (talk) 20:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sahil9610. This is highly likely to be a G5 speedy. --Finngall ^talk 20:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete: Not notable and puff PR source, article is poorly referenced and looks like advertisement. Fails WP:BIO.  DIVINE  20:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete, SALT, and block the author Every source cited fails WP:SPS or at least isn't WP:RS. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per G5. Was waiting on above mentioned SPI to confirm, but this is most likely the sock again. WikiVirusC^(talk) 21:24, 28 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vladyslav Dvorovenko[edit]

Vladyslav Dvorovenko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I'm not able to find sourcing that adds up to WP:GNG, having looked through all the citations at the linked uk.wiki article and done additional searches online in Ukrainian and Russian. They would have meet the old NFOOTY standard, but that is no longer a guideline, thus I'm bringing this to AfD. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ukraine. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. He did not win any significant awards in any major competitions. My very best wishes (talk) 01:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:SPORTSPERSON it's clear that the person is not notable as a sportsperson. --IgorTurzh (talk) 10:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of memorable movie character names[edit]

List of memorable movie character names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet WP:NLIST. (Who has decided said criteria...?) – DarkGlow • 19:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, and Lists. – DarkGlow • 19:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no source for any aspect of the criteria. --Cerebral726 (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Removed criteria. List is based on cited references. Amirak (talk) 03:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No proper WP:LISTCRITERIA, which are supposed to be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. These categorically aren't – the first is It should be unique and memorable name of a prominent character in a (Hollywood) movie, but "unique and memorable" is of course hardly objective. Furthermore, why Hollywood specifically? That's just blatant WP:Systemic bias. I don't see this being salvageable. TompaDompa (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could rename it to List of memorable movie character names in American cinema, and also have Category:List of memorable movie character names in Mexican cinema, List of memoralbe names in British cinema, List of memoralbe nakmes in Hindi-language cinema, etc. That would elimante systemic bias, but it would not really solve the issues of no clear definition. Is this supposed to be characters who are only in movies, or are characters who actually first appeared in books but were later in movies eligibile as well?John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, a few like James Bond started out as a character in a British novel, and Eliza Doolittle as a character in a British play, so evidently if a character was in a film funded by the American film production complex, we can include it no matter what its origin. If that makes any sense I doubt. The whole thing boils down to there are no objective ways to decide what does and what does not belong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This list isn't encyclopedic, it's just someone's personal list of memorable movie names. Now a list such as AFI's 100 Years...100 Heroes & Villains could be justified since it would have coverage of the list itself, but this isn't that type of list. To be honest, this could potentially be deleted under WP:A11 or at the very least, snow closed since I don't imagine this has a snowball's chance of surviving AfD. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh come on -- I included six references. This is hardly a personal list! Amirak (talk) 03:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • • Beyond that, the list of 20 has Dorothy Gale and Mary Poppins on it. Neither of them are on this list. Why? What reliable sources justify this exclusion. These are another two characters that originate with books, not films. That may be a reason to exclude, but then why are Bond and Doolittle here since neither started as a film character.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    References are not the same as reliable sources. You included references that list 20 (and not clearly because of name significance per se), 50, 101, and a few that list 100.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Thoroughly subjective list. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Arguably any of AFI 100 Years... series articles is subjective. Amirak (talk) 03:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• There are multiple holes in that argument. First is that the AFI bases their lists on research and a very specific set of rules. This limits the subjectivity to a certain degree because to get on the list the film would have to not only meet those requirements, but also have to have been covered in multiple independent, reliable sources. It's also worth noting that the list is limited to American films that were released during a very specific period in time. Secondly, AFI is a major notable institution so a list from them will be seen as more of a landmark thing than say, a list put out by Empire or Watch Mojo. They don't put out "lists of the most notable/major/etc" every day.

There's also the issue that the lists are based on characters rather than names. Big difference there, believe it or not. A character can have a memorable name but otherwise be a forgettable character. (IE, people don't remember anything about the character other than the name akin to how many people remember the phrase "that's a spicy meatball" but not the product/company it was meant to promote without looking it up online.)

Then there's the issue of this being based almost solely on US films - assuming a list of this type is feasible to create, it would need to take a global perspective rather than just US films. This would then move on to the issue of sourcing.

Not every list is going to be a RS as far as "most memorable characters" or "most memorable names" goes. A lot of these lists tend to be created as part of a slow news day and are just a product of whomever is working on the news article. Research may be conducted, but not always. Then there's the fact that not all lists are going to be reliable. The List Challenges page is certainly not going to be a RS on here, nor will random sites like The Good in Movies. Watch Mojo could be debated, but it's not going to be the strongest source here. However that poses a new issue:

What names are included off these lists? Do you include only the "weird" or "funny" names? Why one name over the other? What are the qualifications for it being a "memorable" name? To reiterate an earlier point, why focus on the names when the lists are about characters? Picking out names when this isn't the focus of the lists is essentially original research. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not trying to be harsh here, just that this is still a personal list because at the end of the day you're taking sources that aren't about memorable names and cherry picking characters out of them. That's why lists of this nature are typically not doable, because ultimately it's going to be based on OR to some degree. At most there could be a list of characters frequently considered to be iconic, but even then that would take a lot of justification and sourcing to be feasible. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You make some valid points, esp. regarding difference between characters and their names, which is what this list is about. I conceded there is subjectivity in the list, but I'd argue there is also some value (cf. List of humorous units of measurement). There is no other such list focusing on the character name, which in many cases is a creative expression of the writer just as the plot/script is. I think you either way for making a thoughtful, cogent argument. Amirak (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"thank you..." arrgghh! Amirak (talk) 14:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, also unforgivable that it's missing Jeff Spicoli... Caro7200 (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That character is not found in any of the cited sources. Amirak (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- the is basically the Platonic ideal of an incurably subjective inclusion criterion. Reyk _YO! 21:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You're right -- subjective criteria removed. Amirak (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Arbitrary arbitrariness. "It shouldn't be ... just weird"? Clarityfiend (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Removed. Amirak (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This list is literally only notable to a film fan looking for baby names (which will be rejected by their spouse because 'no you're not naming our child Keyser Soze'). Nate • (chatter) 23:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Other than "Forrest", this last bares no resemblance to popular movie-based baby names . Amirak (talk) 03:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "this list bares..." Amirak (talk) 03:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete: Absolutely no reason for this to exist. –Ploni (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SNOW, "memorable" is inherently subjective. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "Culturally significant"? open to suggestion. Many articles have an "in popular culture" section. Amirak (talk) 03:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The "in popular culture" section is a legacy of Wikipedia being overrun by fans creating trivial listings of fan crufts in the years prior to 2006. It is one of the early problems with Wikipedia we are working to fix. It is not a sign of what things should be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No Pussy Galore, no Biggus Dickus--User:Amirak, can you explain this oversight? Drmies (talk) 03:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Drmies: We have a Bwyan --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oversight indeed - alas Monty Python's Life of Brian was not in any of the cited sources. But Pussy Galore deserves to be there, IMHO. Amirak (talk) 03:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Amirak: stop with the WP:BLUDGEON already. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • User:TenPoundHammer, I'm fine with Amirak's responses--they're in good spirits. Drmies (talk) 15:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as WP:A1. Nonsense list with BS inclusion criteria and godawful sourcing (only one list mentions names in the title and it’s from some random site I’ve never heard of). Dronebogus (talk) 08:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Obvious WP:LISTCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 08:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no real reason to set up a limit, and since other sources chose to include multiple numbers and there is no agreement on what does and does not belong in this list, this will always be just a list that a few people agree on but has no concensus behind it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Since we don't do WP:BJAODN anymore, I can't suggest moving it to the List of unmemorable movie character names first. Totally justified move, btw, given WP:OR nature of this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: There is no reason to keep what are functionally a random person's personal opinions here. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 11:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow delete as WP:OR and WP:IINFO. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete I agree with all of the above comments , this is a totally subjective list with no criteria, has OR, and fails NPOV. What does the memorable movie character names mean, as almost all of the refs have different names? Also, what is even the criteria for inclusion? It fails unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources (per TompaDompa), and has loads of exclusions. This should not be in mainspace and IMO this AfD could be closed as Snow Delete. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 07:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, completely arbitrary and subjective list with no criterion whatsoever about what makes a movie character name memorable. The cited sources don't appear to be used to establish inclusion criteria. JIP | Talk 15:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Crawford (soccer)[edit]

Jordan Crawford (soccer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Only source [2] is not sufficient to pass either criteria. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:21, 29 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shailen Vandeyar[edit]

Shailen Vandeyar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

PROD rationale was: "Promotional page. All sources are suspect for reliability and independance, with many being explicit in that they are paid promotions. User appears to be single-purpose in their efforts to promote this person." Deprodded by SPA. Schwede66 19:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, South Africa, and New Zealand. Schwede66 19:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I've opened a sockpuppet investigation Schwede66 23:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not the location to promote not truly notable businesspeople.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable marketing consultant with mostly paid news coverage. Karenluying (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Huh? You wrote the article. You de-PRODDED it. What changed your mind, Karenluying? Schwede66 23:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per the deprod, the article appears to pass GNG at first glance, but checking sources reveals a medley of very similar WP:SPONSORED or sponsored-looking “news” articles. Note that per WP:COVERT, the articles in American publications ([3], [4], [5]) are required by law to disclosed their paid status (with Ascend Agency), while other countries presumably lack similar standards. — HTGS (talk) 00:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I didn’t realise that some of those sources were doing what looks like undisclosed paid promotion. Disappointing. Park3r (talk) 08:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of notability! Fabiobengario (talk) 07:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Calisha Callwood[edit]

Calisha Callwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 29 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!} 23:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eunice Nabalu[edit]

Eunice Nabalu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. All sources are trivial mentions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:46, 29 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!} 23:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Pita Sinapati[edit]

Travis Pita Sinapati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:36, 28 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) 19:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails notability criteria. The Footballean (talk) 08:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Terrence Sinapati[edit]

Terrence Sinapati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:34, 28 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) 19:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:40, 29 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!} 23:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kaleopa Siligi[edit]

Kaleopa Siligi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:28, 28 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) 19:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:40, 29 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!} 23:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pita Falevalu[edit]

Pita Falevalu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:25, 28 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) 19:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:40, 29 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!} 23:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Silao[edit]

Marshall Silao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:23, 28 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) 19:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 06:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coventry University Department of Media[edit]

Coventry University Department of Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Advertisement, "sourced" to its own press releases Orange Mike | Talk 17:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree, delete. Departments are rarely notable, and this is not one of them. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree, delete. This department is not notable. --Bduke (talk) 07:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 18:50, 28 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!} 23:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alisha Terry[edit]

Alisha Terry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there is not enough sourcing to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:23, 29 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 Dungeons & Dragons#Development history. TigerShark (talk) 02:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and influences on the development of Dungeons & Dragons[edit]

Sources and influences on the development of Dungeons & Dragons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A meandering, poorly written, unsourced mess that looks like a TVTropes page, and has been marked as OR for 12 years. The contents of it, when even worthy of mention, should be noted in the respective relevant pages and not in obsessive fanboy fashion here. — nomination on behalf of 2601:1C2:5000:1472:8806:86F:2C7C:5D28 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), per request at WT:AFD, – Joe (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Games. – Joe (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Dungeons & Dragons#Sources and influences links to this as a Main Article, and there is a certain degree of redundancy with most of the important points being covered there. I would not recommend any merge back of this article into that one as the weight between the two seems about right at the moment. I'm a bit surprised that Appendix N, which famously covers most of this, doesn't have it's own article, but perhaps this being a sub article of Dungeons and Dragons explains that. Also it's entirely possible there's some material NOT covered by Appendix N which should be here. A possible structure that would make sense would be "Early History" (Chainmail and the like), "Appendix N" (everything in Appendix N, areas where Appendix N is contested), and "Furthur Influences" (everything coming after Article N). At any rate there are sufficient remedies to the deficiencies of this article that my vote is Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artw (talk • contribs) 15:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Dungeons & Dragons#Development history, with the possibility of merging any sourced material from those first couple of prose paragraphs over, though a quick look makes this look unnecessary as both sections looks largely identical. The itemized list of examples of trivia, a lot of which is unsourced anyway, should not be retained. The actual prose information itself is, of course, notable, but as I said is already covered in full in the main article making this an unnecessary spinout. Rorshacma (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The first two sections were originally copied from Dungeons & Dragons. The diff from 2007 to today is slightly messy, but the sections are largely unchanged. Flatscan (talk) 04:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Dungeons & Dragons#Development history. There is some usable content in the first prose half. The following list needs WP:TNTing for failing probaby every single conviveable policy, it seems like 100% WP:INDISCRIMINATE OR, lisitng and speculating and some D&D conceps. What a mess. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Dungeons & Dragons#Development history, doesn't need a separate article. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 19:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Dungeons & Dragons#Development history. Very poor article with OR, verfiability is also not present. Though the first two sections are decent, so I would prefer merging instead of deleting. VickKiang (talk) 04:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep With the whole book Appendix N : the literary history of Dungeons & Dragons as well as somewhat shorter treatments like in Of Dice and Men or Strictly Fantasy: The Cultural Roots of Tabletop Role-Playing Games written about it, this topic fullfills WP:GNG/WP:LISTN. This obviously needs more sources, but I don't think there is much original research here, as primary or secondary sources can be found for most. Adding more commentary by the latter to balance information based on interviews. WP:Deletion policy says "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." That's the case here in my view, so that's what should be done. Daranios (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Artw and Daranios, the article is currently a mess, but it looks like the sources exist with which it can be improved. BOZ (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Selective merge and redirect to Dungeons & Dragons#Development history. There's no doubt D&D is notable enough to support multiple articles, but this one's a mess. By the time we're done cleaning it up (i.e. removing unsourced material, etc), there's really nothing there that's not already in the Development history section of the main page. Yes, I know there aren't deadlines, but this has been tagged for 12 years. If nobody's done this topic justice in 12 years, the odds that they're going to do so in the next 12 are vanishingly low. And if somebody really does want to do a well-researched deep dive into this topic, there's nothing to prevent them from starting afresh and doing so. Note the use of "selective" in "selective merge"; that means just merge the material which is truly significant and well-sourced that isn't already in the main article. That may well end up being nothing. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• There is a ton written on this topic. No problem meeting WP:N. The question is if it meets WP:TNT and the answer, IMO, is not really. It needs massive trimming and a lot of work. But the topic is notable and at least the first few paragraphs are solid. Hobit (talk) 10:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus that this should not have its own article. Suggested that there might be some value to keep as a redirect, but as OGAE Song Contest already exists as a redirect, it seems to have no real value. TigerShark (talk) 02:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OGAE Song Contest 2019[edit]

OGAE Song Contest 2019 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fan contest that fails several notability guidelines, including WP:GNG. A standalone article is not required, the winner is already covered on OGAE and the remaining songs and places are not notable and could be considered WP:FANCRUFT. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 07:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 07:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The fan club itself is notable, however this "alternative to Eurovision" contest appears to be just a fun yearly event for them. Neither the event nor its outcome receive substantial coverage in independent secondary sources. Grk1011 (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to OGAE as WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe this article falls under point 8 of WP:DEL-REASON, and specifically under WP:GNG for "significant coverage" given it is an online-only fan contest that will never receive enough coverage to warrant its own Wikipedia article. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Sure but see WP:CHEAP ~Kvng (talk) 03:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • True but also WP:COSTLY. It's not a subject that is ever going to be notable enough to require its own article, so actually keeping this as a redirect may serve very little purpose, especially as anyone typing in "OGAE Song Contest" will find the parent redirect as an option before this article. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      There is already a OGAE Song Contest redirect and I am now convinced that is sufficient for searching purposes. I still believe there is an WP:ATD case here as this is material is not entirely worthless as at least some of it could be included in the OGAE article. Leaving OGAE Song Contest 2019 as a redirect is not going to harm anyone's search experience and may encourage further improvement to OGAE in the future. ~Kvng (talk) 14:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:37, 28 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 Move to John Smith (1845 Yorkshire cricketer) and redirect to List of English cricketers (1841–1850)#S. TigerShark (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Smith (Sheffield cricketer)[edit]

John Smith (Sheffield cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT #5. Article previously boldly redirected, reverted after a discussion at RfD. BilledMammal (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Cricket. BilledMammal (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Per the note on the article talk page that I'd forgotten about, redirect to List of English cricketers (1841–1850)#S is probably the most effective solution. An even better solution, as I suggested at the RfD, would be to move over redirect John Smith (Sheffield cricketer) to John Smith (1845 Yorkshire cricketer), where I think the article was originally located. This is because there's no evidence that the man played for Sheffield, which is how we would usually name these - albeit with the usual caveat about the naming of Manchester, Sheffield, Cambridge etc... sides. Then redirect that as above - that way we preserve all the article history, discussions, attribution, sources and so on. That, in cases like this can be quite important - you'd be surprised how frequently more information is squirrelled out of things - was it RN Lee that was just a set of initials originally? Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Why not be WP:BOLD and redirect straight to List of English cricketers (1841–1850)#S? These obvious ones are a waste of everyone's time (: StickyWicket (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because a bold redirect was previously rejected at RfD. BilledMammal (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to John Smith (1845 Yorkshire cricketer) and redirect to List of English cricketers (1841–1850)#S Obviously doesn't seem notable enough for an article so redirecting to this list here is the best option, however as BST states the current disambiguation is incorrect and needs changing. I'm not sure this suggested disambiguator is perfect either but I can't work out a better one with what we currently know. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:17, 29 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 14:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tania Tarannam[edit]

Tania Tarannam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. She lacks significant coverage. I could only find mirrors of the Wiki article. The Times of India source is not independent coverage as her album was released on the same company's record label. The article is full of puffery and would need editing if kept. Dougal18 (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Assam, and India. Shellwood (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only sources I find are false positives, hitting on Canadian people with one of her names. No sources found. Oaktree b (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 06:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Don Cherry. ✗plicit 12:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blue (Don Cherry's dog)[edit]

Blue (Don Cherry's dog) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non notable, verging on WP:OR. Acousmana 12:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Acousmana 12:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Obviously no basis for its own article, I would have WP:BLARed to Don Cherry. Reywas92^Talk 13:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Mr. Cherry's article, the dog was always just a side-piece in the larger, um, let's call it "event" that was Don Cherry. Oaktree b (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Don Cherry, per the above comments. There is no real basis for this to be separate article, and the dog is already covered on Don Cherry's article. I considered going with Delete since I honestly don't think the article's title is a particularly likely search term, but Redirects are cheap. Rorshacma (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Per the article, it's not even a dog, but several consecutive ones with the same name. As noted above, the actual topic here is obviously Don Cherry. TompaDompa (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Don Cherry as the page already listed about the dog. _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 08:28, 29 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 Move to Pleasant Grove child murders. There seems to be consensus that the event is notable, but not the perpetrator. TigerShark (talk) 02:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overturned at DRV to No Consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Huntsman[edit]

Megan Huntsman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Patent WP:BLP1E. ––FormalDude talk 03:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Utah. ––FormalDude talk 03:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  KeepMerge or improve. I think BLP1E is primarily concerned about if we should have an article about the event or the person behind the event. So the main conclusion we can draw here is that there should be an article about the murders. And therefore we should vote merge to that article. If there is not one, the answer is to edit this article into an event article. ie. improve, rather than delete.

  Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_for_only_one_event carefully if you doubt my analysis please. CT55555 (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  A deletion discussion should not have an outcome of "improve". If the article can be improved, you should improve it yourself. And we cannot merge it to an article that does not exist. These are separate topics, this one clearly violates BLP1E. A deletion of this article does not prevent someone from creating an article about the event, it stops them from creating them about the person, which is inline with Wikipedia policy. ––FormalDude talk 12:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't "violate" BLP1E, BLP1E just says it would be better to have an article about the event. Article improvement is a great outcome of AfD. If you are unwilling to make any improvements and somehow think only others should be compelled to do that, then that is your choice, but the AfD trows urgency into the mix and forces action on your timeline. Suggest you withdraw the AfD and drafity and then I actually will work on it without the rush. CT55555 (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Article improvement is often a good result of AfD, but it should never be an outcome that the AfD is closed as. At this point, another editor has already commented on the merits of a potential event article, so I'm not comfortable withdrawing it. ––FormalDude talk 13:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As you wish. Just for clarity, I support drafity as a better outcome than deletion and volunteer to make changes. Maybe I'll get to this before AfD closes, maybe not. CT55555 (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  To clarify my comment below, I favor deletion because in addition to WP:BLP1E, based on my research, it does not appear that an article about the event can be supported at this time, per the WP:EVENT guideline, which is designed to help evaluate topics per the WP:NOTNEWS policy. For example, I have not found WP:INDEPTH coverage in reliable sources, only listicles of similar events generally, and I have not found indications of WP:LASTING effects or a demonstrable long-term impact since the initial burst of 2014/2015 news published during or immediately after the event. The apparent lack of sufficient WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE to support the development of an event article also seems to weigh against draftifying the article. Beccaynr (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  We aren't here to force someone to improve the article, only stating why it should or should not be deleted. Oaktree b (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If I thought the article could be improved (according to our policies and guidelines), my !vote would be different. Beccaynr (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS, e.g. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. Coverage does not appear to be WP:SUSTAINED, and there appear to be no WP:LASTING effects from the event, international coverage is not a sufficent basis on its own to support notability, particularly without a demonstrable long-term impact, WP:INDEPTH coverage does not appear to be available, because Media sources sometimes report on events because of their similarity (or contrast, or comparison) to another widely reported incident. Editors should not rely on such sources to afford notability to the new event, since the main purpose of such articles is to highlight either the old event or such types of events generally, and per the WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE guideline, Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article, so there also does not appear to be sufficient support for an WP:EVENT article. Beccaynr (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not delete Do not delete Megan Huntsman as the article is better put together than other existing articles about serial killers and her case is notable and infamous with a YouTube video about her having 1.3 million views.--Shktriib1 (talk) 00:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Shktriib1: It doesn't matter how well put together it is if it violates Wikipedia's notability policy. ––FormalDude talk 12:50, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And what about her case being infamous with a YouTube video about her having 1.3 million views doesn’t that count as notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shktriib1 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fame may be considered, but according to our policies and guidelines, we also need sources to help us develop an encyclopedic article. According to the notability guideline, Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines. The guidelines are explained on that page, which also references the What Wikipedia is not policy. For this article, the WP:NOTNEWS policy appears to favor deletion of the article, because according to the WP:BLP1E policy (which applies to people notable only for one event) and the WP:EVENT guideline, there does not appear to be enough coverage in independent and reliable sources to write an encyclopedia article about the person or the event. Beccaynr (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 04:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]