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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Twila True[edit]

Twila True (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 seeing any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. Run-of-the-mill businessperson. Typical promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 23:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and California. Shellwood (talk) 23:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The article covers reliable sources please check again. Twila True has received awards. I don't know what you meant by independent in-depth coverage but you can see many news and reliable sources there. If anything in there is look like promotional you can remove that information. But removing a whole article is not necessary I think it should be given a chance. If it can be improved please tell me I will do that. She has founded music academy with two Grammy winners it has sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanny shower (talk • contribs) 06:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - this is independent in-depth coverage in a reliable source that is in the article: Twila True’s Heart is in Two Worlds (Orange County Register, 2015), and this is in-depth coverage in a reliable source of one of the businesses she co-founded that is in the article: 1500 Sound Academy Raises the Volume on Educating Next Generation of Music Creators (Billboard, 2021). Beccaynr (talk) 15:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There is also more significant and in-depth coverage of her: Wealthy OST woman returns to bring hope to Pine Ridge (Rapid City Journal, 2015), and attention from WWD in 2017 that is mostly an interview. Beccaynr (talk) 15:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  A reprint of this 2019 Indian Country Today article with significant and in-depth coverage is also in the article: Seasonal complaint: 'Missionaries are on our reservation!', although it is currently used in a limited manner, and there is also this: True Sioux Hope Foundation Tours Pine Ridge (Indian Country Today, 2018) that includes a focus on her. Beccaynr (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  More significant and in-depth coverage of her: True Sioux Hope Foundation making difference on Pine Ridge (Rapid City Journal, 2017/2018), and this 2016 Orange County Business Journal article is probably in-depth coverage of her, based on the framing and introduction: True Believer, but it is subscription blocked. There is also this article that focuses on her and another business: Polished Perfect nail salons expand while staying true to founder’s toxic-free commitment (Daily Pilot/LA Times, 2016). Beccaynr (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - based on the sources in my comments above, WP:BASIC/WP:GNG notability appears supported, although I think the article would benefit from revisions to remove promotional content and to add information from independent and reliable coverage about her. Beccaynr (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's all about business and charities, and the coverage is there. I did some work to make the article a bit less promotional, to tone down the citation overkill and to prefer the more reliable sources. Marked a few areas that need work. More editing is needed. Lamona (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Seeing Beccaynr's comments above, I edited it to make it less PROMO. CT55555 (talk) 13:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Kenny National School[edit]

Saint Kenny National 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)

Non-notable school. Schools are not automatically notable, and there is nothing to indicate that this (relatively small and relatively "new" primary) school meets the WP:NORG or WP:SIGCOV guideline. To the extent that it is any more notable than the 3,300 other primary schools in Ireland. A news search of the Irish Times [1][2] returns zero results). Not one. Searches of the Irish Examiner [3][4] return only one passing mention (in an article which is substantively about another topic). The de-PROD note suggested that notability might be inherited from the school's association with one notable former pupil. And that the article might "give Niall horans fans information about his primary school". I do not see how this argument sits with either WP:NOTINHERITED or WP:TOPIC. (In that, if someone wants to know where Niall Horan went to primary school, they can visit the Niall Horan article. Otherwise, everyone (ideally) goes to school somewhere. And notability doesn't transfer from a pupil to a school.) Guliolopez (talk) 22:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 22:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even before the 2017 RFC, primary schools have never enjoyed any presumed notability. Sources mentioning it's existence don't show notability, and a single pupil cannot gift it notability. Ironmatic1 (talk) 23:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Ironmatic1. It's ridiculous to say a primary school is notable just because a notable student went there. I'm not seeing anything else to base notability on either since sources for this are essentially none existing. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I now understand that this school is not notable and that there's no reason for it to be on Wikipedia sorry for wasting your time Collbot7789 (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. It happens. AfD is a de-defacto way to improve articles as much as it is a way to delete them. So within reason it's better to make the mistake then not since you never know if people will be able to find references that were missed initially. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - and speedy close as even the author says it isn't notable. 174.212.212.60 (talk) 03:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable. Spleodrach (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar Free (Miniseries)[edit]

Sugar Free (Miniseries) (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 miniseries. Other than passing mentions, same promotional news & interview published in multiple site (e.g. "Chorki to drop 'Sugar Free' for free"), i didn't find any review, any significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:TVSERIES, WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 01:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 01:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 21:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CMT Hot Twenty[edit]

CMT Hot Twenty (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 show. While a show that's been on the air since 2013 would normally be considered notable, this is merely a countdown of seemingly arbitrary videos, with no sourcing in sight about the show itself nor any significance to its rankings. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:11, 28 March 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?)} 21:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nom. Lack of any sources makes some rankings likely incorrect. Similar programs were PROD'd for same reasons (CMT Top 12 Countdown, CMT Most Wanted Live). --Caldorwards4 (talk) 05:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Santos Silva[edit]

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

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

no in-depth, independent source Behind the moors (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Behind the moors (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Behind the moors (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Spiderone - the acquisition of Chelsea FC is the single most important transaction in the world at the moment. That is why I worked on it. Why is the article of Ricardo Santos Silva proposed for deletion? I was certainly not paid for it (I do not know this people) and the article looks fair. Sources are from very reliable media (BBC, SKY, etc). Please let me know how i can improve the article. PeacefulJack (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC) see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cabritos Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the sale of Chelsea FC may be notable, but it does not appear that Silva is. A Redirect to his company, if that survives AfD, would be fine too. Star Mississippi 16:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Aethel Partners. GiantSnowman 10:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep the article. I have improved the article, kept the most relevant and added sources. Ricardo Santos Silva is the face of the bid for Chelsea (see BBC or Independent). I am Portuguese and I do not know him. ScottWillis45 (talk) 11:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Aethel Partners. Per WP:NOTINHERITED, he doesn't become notable by bidding for Chelsea. And the Chelsea stuff is already mentioned in the company article, but no evidence he passes WP:GNG by himself. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @Joseph2302 - I agree he does not become notable by bidding for Chelsea or bidding for Novo Banco. But together with being the owner, Chairman and CEO of the largest private iron ore mine in Europe, he passes WP:GNG ScottWillis45 (talk) 12:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Still WP:NOTINHERITED applies, which is why he should be redirected to the article about the company. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Ricardo Santos Silva is very clearly notable. Sources independent and reliable. Cabritos (talk) 12:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Above Cabritos "keep" struck, ref Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Cabritos. – Athaenara ✉ 12:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Which sources? So far we have:
• [5] doesn't mention him so far as I can see
• [6] says his company is taking over, and has 3 sentences about the company. No coverage of him as a person
• [7] cannot check as behind paywall
• [8] has one sentence about him, is focused on company
• [9] doesn't mention him, not RS either
• [10] about company, he is mentioned in 1 sentence
• [11] about company, he is mentioned in 1 sentence
• [12] about company, he is mentioned in 1 sentence
• [13] about company, he is mentioned in 1 sentence
• None of this is significant coverage about him, which is why he should be redirected to the company article. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I would agree with Joseph about redirect except I'm afraid I think that should go too. No Great Shaker (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have added 2 sources with significant coverage about him: one interview to CNBC and one article in the most reputable Portuguese newspaper about him. There are hundreds of articles about him in the Portuguese media. PeacefulJack (talk) 11:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC) see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cabritos Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Dear @Behind the moorsI am a representative of Aethel Group and its founders Ricardo Santos Silva and Aba Schubert. Could you please delete the 3 pages. These pages are abusive and should be deleted immediately. Please text me here if you want to discuss this further. Wikipedia does not allow me to include my email. Thank you and best regards Rhead1967 (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Not authorized content Rhead1967 (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Authorized content" does not exist here. How a few properly sourced sentences are abusive is a mystery to me. Note that Rhead1967 is blocked for repeatedly blanking huge amounts of verified content. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as lacking notability independent of the current activities. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Thanks @Tony Fox. Ricardo Santos Silva is the chairman and CEO of Aethel Mining (please look at the references) and the face of the group. There are also more controversial news (some bank he acquired in Portugal) and I guess this is why they want the pages remove. Ricardo Santos Silva clearly has enough notability - that is why I have created the article. Thanks PeacefulJack (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cabritos Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the news in Portugal, they never say the name of the group or the mine. They say his name. PeacefulJack (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cabritos Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

please be aware of WP:BLUDGEON. It is not necessary to respond to voters. Star Mississippi 19:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry @Star Mississippi PeacefulJack (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck your second 'keep' !vote. Only one !vote allowed. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep absolutely keep. there is notariety and a very public figure in Portugal and the financial sector. Thanks 2A00:23C6:2B10:BC00:595B:2C9C:885A:ADAD (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: this user "2A00:23C6:2B10:BC00:595B:2C9C:885A:ADAD" has made few or no other edits outside this topic. – Athaenara ✉ 10:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to clearly pass GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep - he clearly passes WP:GNG Ruiramos1976 (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC) see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cabritos Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— Ruiramos1976 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Star Mississippi 18:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:GNG . Reliable sources and significant coverage Vannostrand1949 (talk) 23:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC) see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cabritos Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:GNG Puglia1999 (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC) see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cabritos Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article should be improved but notoriety is there. 85.255.233.208 (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Struck: This anonIP was blocked for Long Term Abuse. – Athaenara ✉ 10:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vote Keep Ricardosantossilva (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC) see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cabritos Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— Ricardosantossilva (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Star Mississippi 19:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Aethel Partners Delete per Joseph's source analysis. If Aethel Partners is deleted then please also delete this article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Aethel Partners per Joseph2302 analysis. Angad.uday (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I guess this wildness is the company and individual wanting their articles deleted. I am Portuguese and Ricardo is clearly notable. 2A00:23C6:2B10:BC00:8500:3548:6157:5B (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I moved this to correct location. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I am the original PeacefulJack and I am the person that created the article for Aethel and its founders. You obviously should delete the articles if that is the consensus but what is the sense of blocking me? PeacefulJack2 (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC) Sock is blocked. Star Mississippi 17:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am Portuguese, Ricardo Santos Silva is a very well known figure and clearly passes notability. I hope my article is good. Thank you and keep the good work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottWillis45 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop duplicate !voting. You have already made a 'keep' commment above this one. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Aethel Partners has now been deleted. Though I still believe that Aethel Mining would be a sensible redirect, as it's one of the companies he part owns. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It should be speedily deleted per {{db-g11}} as unambiguous promotion and advertising. It was inflicted upon Wikipedia by UPEs who have since been blocked as sockpuppets (see User talk:PeacefulJack, User talk:Grahambos, and User talk:Rhead1967 for more about that). – Athaenara ✉ 10:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Also Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Cabritos.) – Athaenara ✉ 12:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Seems to be a mix of routine coverage of this type of article. Of the first six references, not one is secondary specific to him as a person. It is the usual framework article with no effective sources. scope_creep^Talk 18:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwell Smith[edit]

Maxwell Smith (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 might be missing something here but unable to identify how said subject passes WP:NPROF. Surely having one publication with over 2000+ citations and the rest 80< is not indicative of an automatic pass of WP:NPROF. Cannot see any appointments that would qualify either. No WP:GNG pass either. nearlyevil665 21:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 21:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I notice this was passed out of AFC by Ts12rAc (who has a lot more passes than fails, which I also find strange and worrisome) but to keep it short, I was about to do the same thing as the nom, for the same reasons. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the person who reverted out the autobiography template (Francisfycollins, an spa) claims to be the author but not the subject, even though the history says otherwise (Asphodel76 also spa), and I've left a note explaining WP:scrutiny on their talk page. Not sure what is going on there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again also, Francisfycollins deleted talk page question about the notability here [14], even tho it wasn't their own comment. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Only one highly-cited paper, in which they are in a middle position among 10 authors, is definitely not enough by itself for WP:PROF#C1, and there seems to be nothing else. Assistant professors are usually not yet notable and I think this bears out the rule. I didn't consider the odd behavior discussed above in reaching this conclusion, but it also seems worthy of additional investigation. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I flagged this as a likely autobiographical draft and was surprised to see it moved to mainspace. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   08:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I concur that WP:PROF#C1 is not met, and that there doesn't appear to be any other grounds for a keep. The editing history is ... peculiar. The single-purpose account who claims to have written the article is not the single-purpose account that did create it; the two accounts edited within a few minutes of each other on the evening of the 28th: 20:07, 20:10, 20:12, 20:17. XOR'easter (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the current article is promotional and the subject likely fails WP:NPROF with a modest h-index of 20 and less than 1000 citations when we disregard the one COVID 19 article. --hroest 00:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NPROFPharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Eastern Ukraine offensive#25 February. Up to editors what if anything to merge. Sandstein 08:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Starobilsk[edit]

Battle of Starobilsk (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)

Well here we are. This is obviously not a notable battle (Ukraine war cruft). The battle did happen, but the sources available do not show that this is either a significant or notable engagement. This was originally merged into Eastern Ukraine offensive with the blessing of the creator, but one editor (courtesy ping Panam2014) began inexplicably dragging their feet based on a misinterpretation of redirect/merge policy [15]. Curbon7 (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Eastern Ukraine offensive as per original action. Panam2014 appears to be misunderstanding WP:GNG Arakui (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep enough sources.Panam2014 (talk) 05:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Panam2014, As you've mentioned the article is sourced. However, the available sources do not demonstrate that this battle is independently notable from the broader offensive. Wikipedia is not the news, and Wikipedia is not a gazetteer of every single skirmish. Curbon7 (talk) 05:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The sources are sufficient for an article. Panam2014 (talk) 09:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:BASIC, not enough to justify a standalone page separate from the Eastern Ukraine offensive. Mztourist (talk) 14:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge per above. EkoGraf (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Morgan Waters Show[edit]

The Morgan Waters Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:V. Only source used is IMDb, which has (time and time again) been shot down as an unreliable, user edited source for Wikipedia. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 _{(did I do something wrong? let me know! | what i've been doing)} 17:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 _{(did I do something wrong? let me know! | what i've been doing)} 17:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 _{(did I do something wrong? let me know! | what i've been doing)} 17:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article definitely needed some cleanup and better referencing, but that's now been done — and the series won a Gemini Award, which is exactly the tier of top-level national television awards that clinch the inherent notability of a television series regardless of any other problems with the article. For a TV show that aired 15 years ago, by the way, the best sourcing will need to be retrieved from archives (ProQuest, newspapers.com, etc.) rather than being expected to Google well. Bearcat (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The sources added by Bearcat are also SIGCOV for the series from major Canadian newspapers, and the Gemini Award clinches notability. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect preferable but Keep acceptable I personally think it's better in one article but with the award would probably minimally meet GNG Unbroken Chain (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tiflis Avenue[edit]

Tiflis Avenue (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 private gallery in Tbilisi. Couldn't find any significant coverage. PepperBeast (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likewise cannot find coverage that would satisfy WP:SIRS. Article is stub. Chumpih ^t 07:17, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vine awards[edit]

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

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

Promotional non notable article on an award show which really is an ADMASQ about an organization called “Vine Entertainment Group” . The sources used in the article are self published, pr generated, and WP:COISOURCE all of which we do not consider reliable. A before search doesn’t show me any in-depth significant coverage by reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All these links arent self published but from prominent news sources in Uganda were the event happened

https://www.sqoop.co.ug/202106/news/levixone-eats-big-at-vine-awards.html

https://bigeye.ug/mathew-nabwiso-scoops-film-act-award-at-vine-awards/

https://chimpreports.com/deputy-dpp-khaukha-scoops-vine-academys-governance-impact-award/

https://recordradio.co.ug/levixone-coopy-bly-nakimera-win-big-at-vine-awards-2021/

https://www.boom.ug/entertainment/9501/gospel-stars-levixone-grace-nakimera-win-big-in-vine-awards-2021/

https://www.ugchristiannews.com/new-christian-awards-launched-in-kampala/ Thehopemonger (talk) 06:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of those references provide in-depth information on the awards themselves or the organization providing the awards, they simply report on the entities that received the awards. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nommed; fails all flavours of notability, and then some. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Awards provided by a non-notable company established by a non-notable person. Wikipedia is not a promo website, nothing here meets our criteria for notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russ George[edit]

Russ George (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)

Has been the source of some dispute, but when you dig deeper there's not really any significant coverage that suggests notability. Subject does not meet WP:NBASIC. ––FormalDude talk 13:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 13:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 13:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 13:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 13:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not very familiar with notability guidelines, but do this and this satisfy WP:NBASIC? Generalissimo Store (talk) 05:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissimo Store: The first one does easily–I'll add it to the article. The second one, however, is an interview, so it is not independent and therefore does not count towards notability. ––FormalDude talk 05:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at most of the sources listed by WP:RSP as reliable, and a lot of them seem to have articles about George. 1 2 3 4 are about George's Haida experiment. 5 6 7 are also about it, but they seem a bit opinionated, and 8 explicitly references The Guardian in an earlier article about the subject. 9 is about an event instigated by George which is unrelated to the iron experiment, and 10 is an investigative article which seems to cover a great deal of George's career but does not come from a listed perennial source. Are any of these worth adding? Generalissimo Store (talk) 03:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On first glance it looks like some of those are worth adding. I'll take a deeper look as soon as I have some more time. ––FormalDude talk 20:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added those sources as they are reliable, but I'm still not sure that this article passes WP:BLP1E. ––FormalDude talk 20:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would an added section on the Vatican Climate Forest (another initiative created by George) allow the article to pass that test? Generalissimo Store (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would certainly help. ––FormalDude talk 21:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation. Most of the information in this article is duplicative and is either not significant or not independent.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gymnastics at the 1908 Summer Olympics – Men's team#Italy. RL0919 (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Celada[edit]

Carlo Celada (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)

Violates WP:NOTDATABASE, due to be sourced only to databases, and fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage - all we know about him is that he competed in the team gymnastics event of the 1908 Olympics, his name, and where and when he was born. BilledMammal (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Violates WP:NOTDATABASE" isn't true or relevant, as the article is not 1)Summary-only descriptions of works, 2)Lyrics databases, 3)Excessive listings of unexplained statistics or 4)Exhaustive logs of software updates. If nothing can be found for this guy, then redirect to Gymnastics at the 1908 Summer Olympics – Men's team per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we lack the significant sources needed to make an actual article. This is a sports-database entry masqurading as an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or redirect to Gymnastics at the 1908 Summer Olympics – Men's team per WP:PRESERVE, etc. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. As Lugnuts has pointed out, citing NOTDATABASE as a reason to delete this article is out of order and an abuse of process. NOTDATABASE means the article must not be published as a database in the form of a matrix or table only. It has nothing at all to do with sourcing. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Gymnastics at the 1908 Summer Olympics - Men's team. Fails WP:NOLYMPICS but a redirect would be preferable per WP:PRESERVE. Bonoahx (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Gymnastics at the 1908 Summer Olympics – Men's team. In the last 17 days, nobody has found any coverage, but if in future coverage was found that would pass WP:GNG, then and only then could the redirect be reversed to an article. But right now, doesn't demonstrate any notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Cannella[edit]

Victor Cannella (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 simply could not find any sourcing to verify that this Victor Cannella ever existed. The only source cited is IMDb, which is user-generated and thus unreliable; my search of Newspapers.com, Google Books, the Internet Archive, ProQuest, etc. found no coverage at all. I suspect this is a hoax (indeed, the editor who created it had a history of unconstructive edits), and in any event it is unverifiable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: there are literally no reliable sources at all about this person, so even if it isn't a hoax, the article doesn't pass WP:BASIC. He isn't credited on any of the animations that he is supposed to have played on, so either he didn't exist or he was simply a session musician and doesn't pass WP:MUSICBIO. Richard3120 (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We hold IMDb to not be a reliable source. We should have 0 articles with this as the only listed source, instead we have thousands if not tens of thousands of such articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm getting some hits on the name with location in LA in Ancestry, but only on voter registrations, not in census records or anything else that would help me confirm a profession. Exact searching for this name ONLY would be a mistake. If he indeed existed and was born in Italy or was of Italian descent, his name was probably something more like Vittorio and his last name was probably spelled different ways--maybe with double Ns and Ls, maybe single, maybe a mixture; and wildcard that e for other vowels. I've added him to my weekend research list this weekend. Probably a delete, but I'll look anyway. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  DiamondRemley39, I did actually check the genealogical sites (which are usually pretty good about searching for spelling variations with Soundex and the like), and the basic problem is that nothing lines up with the dates we've been given, particularly the very specific death date of February 3, 1946 (in Florida, according to IMDb). I don't seem to have Ancestry access anymore, so would you mind telling me what the voter registrations say? The street address might be useful. Thanks in advance. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Extraordinary Writ, good stuff.

  I can't say where he was when or why (or even *if* he was...), but here are some things...

  • Victor Cognina Cannella marries Marie Scozzaro Baio in Hillsborough, Florida on January 24, 1936.
  • Voter registration, Los Angeles County, California, 1944, 1946: **Cannella, Victor, 455 E 134th St, occupation: aircraft worker (only given 1944).
  • Voter registration, San Francisco, California, 1936: Victor A Canilla, 825 Howard, San Francisco, occupation: cook.

  I didn't find any good hits in member trees, though I didn't look very hard. I also didn't check Family Search. My work is piling up and I'm not sure I'll have time to do all of those things. I may just check for him in Proquest Entertainment Industry over the weekend.

  I don't like to say hoax or not without solid evidence or lack of evidence, but the very first draft of the article didn't even have an IMDb link. The cause of death changed from cardiac problems to polio between an early draft and now. Seems the person who thought this wasn't a hoax was a (regrettably) late admin, who added IMDb as a citation. I am scratching my head over the IMDb edits. It is difficult to get IMDb edited--much more difficult than to get anything on Wikipedia edited--but maybe several years ago it was easier; I don't know. I'll look a bit more. I'm leaning hoax. Wouldn't surprise me if the creator had a relative by this name, or something like that. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The first one is this fellow, a "retired dental technician" and "lifelong resident of the Tampa Bay area" (i.e. Hillsborough County) who lived c. 1911–1987—definitely not a match. The other two are surprisingly difficult to place, but I find it rather hard to believe that either a cook or an aircraft worker would be performing in Hollywood on the side. FamilySearch finds me a few more people with similar names, but they're mostly farmers from Louisiana with birth dates that don't match. It is a bit odd that IMDb would be so far off the mark here, but there have been plenty of horror stories about their questionable or non-existent fact-checking: see e.g. here. (Indeed, they may have accepted it just because it had a Wikipedia article.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Florida" Cannella: WWII draft card has him born 1910. Correct, not a match.
  • "San Francisco" Cannella: I would think that an elderly immigrant pianist might find himself working as a cook on the side during the Depression... or maybe a cook with piano skills lucked out and got work in films that early on? Seems unlikely that this is happening with him living in a different part of the state, though people did get around.
  • "Los Angeles" Cannella: Aircraft worker at 70+? Quite unlikely, even during the war.
  • Another: "New York" Victor Cannella, b. about 1887 in Italy, working in NYC in sanitation in 1940. Another no.
  • Louisiana: Concur these are not matches.

  I once found IMDb off by 25 years on a death... and it was a front-page of major newspapers suicide. ::shrug:: They don't fact-check, or they didn't at one time.

  I'm at 99.9% hoax. Looks like a hoax, sounds like a hoax. One more database to check. Possibly tomorrow. Let me know if you find anything else, @Extraordinary Writ. It's been nice to collaborating on the research. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I don't think this is a hoax because a man of this name has some credits as a musician in a few classic Warner Bros. cartoons (at least according to a fan community that is usually pretty good at historical research). But that just indicates that he was a working studio musician like thousands of other people. Delete per WP:EXIST. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Doomsdayer520: I'd love for it to not be a hoax. Where do you see that a fan community contributed to research on Cannella or at least credits him as a musician? Can you please provide some links or something?

  So far, we've got:

  • 0 credits, actually, on IMDb--everything is uncredited.
  • 0 radio credits at Radio GoldIndex, so he's not working in that industry.
  • Nothing in newspapers.com, newspaperarchive, Proquest newspaper major dailies
  • No loosely matching name/date/location in Ancestry, Family Search, Find a Grave... and we're not even looking for occupation.
  • No authority records indicating anyone at Library of Congress or elsewhere has seen anything
  • Most importantly: WP page history is sketchy, with one key contributor, changing info, and no data to back anything up.

  Two amateur (or one amateur and one professional, as I don't know of @Extraordinary Writ's credentials) genealogists here haven't yet confirmed the man breathed, much less played a musical instrument. We're eager to look at anything remotely credible, at anyone's research. Please, show us. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DiamondRemley39 - To answer your basic question, Cannella is listed in a few places at the Warner Brothers fandom site, e.g. [17]. That's why I merely stated an opinion that the WP article may not be a hoax, because from personal experience, the Warner Brothers fan community practices serious research. But that was not even the basis of my vote, which I suspect you did not read in its entirety. This is a deletion discussion and what matters is notability, which Cannella does not have whether he really existed or not. I do not need to prove to you that it isn't a hoax, especially because I merely opined that it isn't. I don't know if you intended your message to be accusatory, but it looks that way. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for answering my question; I asked about it because you gave some weight to the unnamed fan community saying he has credits. Thank you for providing the link; I checked it and all exact hits for that name on that site are database-style pages without citations and with brief edit histories. So short of contacting the page creators to ask how they verified their information, it's a dead end.

I understood your vote, which I read. I didn't disagree with your call to delete. I wouldn't disagree with it if I believed he had been a real man. Some of us try to help each other out on Wikipedia, so when you came forward with some information, I asked for details, like Extraordinary Wit asked me for further information on what I found on Ancestry. Some of us collaborate and communicate and all that. We build. If you don't want to be a part of that, be wary of stating that you've got information when you're in the presence of researchers. We do like to get to the bottom of things! Best. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I found information about a currently living Brazilian, but nothing additional about an Italian who passed in 1946. I searched Google, newspapers.com, and newspaperarchive.comJacona (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, above analysis makes it extremely likely that this is a hoax. It's likely that the fan communities that picked up on the name just scraped it from this article and/or previous references to it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No hits on name variants in Proquest Entertainment Industry Magazine Archive. I can't prove he existed, much less that he worked on films. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Aviles[edit]

Rick Aviles (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:NACTOR; needs two or more significant roles in order to be eligible; he only has one significant role as Willie Lopez in Ghost. The Film Creator (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Puerto Rico, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What of hosting Showtime at the Apollo? Standup work? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Coverage [[18]] 21:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)DiamondRemley39 (talk)
• Keep - though he died young, he was still a notable entertainer who had an important role in the movie classic "Ghosts". Tony the Marine (talk) 00:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Might fall short of NACTOR but seemed to be notable enough as a standup comedian. Most importantly, I believe he meets GNG for non-trivial newspaper coverage from New York Daily News (linked above by DiamondRemley39), The Boston Globe 1 and The Los Angeles Times. 2 GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment One more piece of non-trival coverage of Aviles from New York Magazine. 3 GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per GNG. More coverage below:
  • "Live: Reviews - Rick Aviles". Kezi. Variety. Oct 8, 1990; 340, 13. Pg. 72.
  • "New Acts: Rick Aviles". Kirb. Variety. Feb 22, 1978. 290, 3. Pg. 90.
  • "Radio-Television: Television Reviews - No Holds Barred". Bok. Variety. Sep 17, 1980; 300, 7. Pg. 60. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Whether also to redirect is an editorial decision. Sandstein 20:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Curzon, 4th Viscount Scarsdale[edit]

Peter Curzon, 4th Viscount Scarsdale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

It's been a while since the 2014 no consensus discussion. This nobleman fails our notability guideline for biographies, and violates WP:GENEALOGY in its current state, since 95% of the article is about the subject's family. The subject inherited the title in 2000, and therefore never sat in the House of Lords. The sources are deprecated or do not provide significant coverage, except one 1997 article which in my opinion helps meet WP:GNG. However, the coverage is only about one event (WP:BLP1E) and it is not WP:SUSTAINED.

My personal source assessment follows.

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
"Scarsdale, Viscount (UK, 1911)". Cracroft's Peerage. Retrieved 20 May 2011.		Deprecated self-published peerage website.		✘ No
Gerard, Lesley (7 June 1997). "familyfeuds". The Independent. London. Retrieved 20 May 2011.				✔ Yes
Gardner, Anthony (22 September 2008). "Open house: Derbyshire's stately homes". Daily Telegraph. London. Retrieved 20 May 2011.			no mention	✘ No
"Enjoy a walk on the wild side in Lady Scarsdale's lovely garden". This Is Derbyshire. Archived from the original on 5 May 2013. Retrieved 20 May 2011.			no mention	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Pilaz (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Viscount Scarsdale. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect per Pilaz's assessment. GNG requires multiple sources with SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 22:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm struggling to understand the 2014 (non-admin) closure, given no credible argument in favour of keeping the article was advanced. One editor suggested that "some people are interested in hereditary peerages" which is pretty much a perfect example of an argument to avoid in a deletion discussion. Plenty of people are interested in the thousands of TikTok "stars" out there. It doesn't mean we should fill an encyclopedia with their bios. This article notably consists absolutely entirely of who Curzon's siblings are, his two marriages, his "American divorcée companion" (good bit of British upper-class snobbery there) and that his step-mother, the "Dowager Viscountess", lives in the vicarage. I think that speaks for itself on Curzon's (lack of) notability. AusLondonder (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Christ Church Foundation School. Clearly a duplicate of the same subject. It's not clear to me that the target article demonstrates notability either, but that would be a matter for a separate nomination. RL0919 (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation School (Barbados)[edit]

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

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

The article has had a More Citations Needed template on it since at least 2012, is only referenced to a travel blog that doesn't work for notability, and I couldn't find anything about in a WP:BEFORE when I looked. Outside of that there are some notable people who went there, but notability isn't inherited and there would still need to be multiple, in-depth, reliable sources that discuss the school anyway, which there just doesn't seem to be. Adamant1 (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Barbados. Shellwood (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Christ Church Foundation School, keeping the redirect. They are about the same school and the target is a better article. Thincat (talk) 09:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect this 420-year-old school to Christ Church Foundation School per Thincat. Jacona (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Primefac (talk) 12:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LiquidO Detection[edit]

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

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

This is an interesting technology, but based on the available secondary sources, I believe it's WP:TOOSOON.

The article itself is also a disaster: clearly a massive WP:COI violation, as the primary author of the article has the same name as the primary inventor of the technology, and the whole thing reads like a massive press release. Even if WP:TOOSOON doesn't apply here, WP:TNT surely does. PianoDan (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I disagree with the nominator in that I think it reads less like a press release and more like it was copied from a report to a funding agency. Other than that, though, I concur. It's an article-sized WP:COI violation that would need to get blown up and restarted from scratch, even if having it were warranted, which is doubtful. The secondary sources I can find don't go into much depth at all. This is barely a mention, and this review gives it only a sentence (The potential for improving the identification of inverse beta decay and reducing background is apparent with a novel detector using a dense array of optical fibers immersed in opaque scintillating liquid). That and the recent publication date are a strong WP:TOOSOON signal. XOR'easter (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's more. Several of the sources aren't sources but links to author profiles next to author names, as if this were a paper. And over a paragraph of the article tells us things that were "confidential" and never published. This is just not written as an encyclopaedia article at all. Looking around, I'm not finding the independent sourcing for rewriting, or even re-stubbing, this. Checking the stuff that cites the 2019 Communications Physics paper, for example, I'm not finding that the rest of the world has written about this in much depth. Uncle G (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete even if notability was somehow established, WP:TNT applies. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, for the reasons given above.--Srleffler (talk) 03:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I strongly disagree with the deletion of this article. First, I would like to suggest that we assume the good faith of the main editor of the article. He is clearly involved with the subject and I agree that some parts needs adaptation regarding the styling (MOS:NOTE was already suggested at the beginning), but it is a relevant subject to be in an encyclopaedia and there are several reliable sources about it, some of them already in the references. From the page logs, It is also clear that the author sought some support and started editing on his sandbox, it already indicated for me his good will. Anyone here more experienced with editing Wikipedia knows how difficult it can be at the beginning to follow all its rules, and it's undeniable the effort already made to create relevant content in this article. Thus, saying that the article should be blown up and started from scratch can sound offensive and for sure is demotivating for beginners. Regarding the conflict of interest, since the author is one of the main active researchers on the topic, I would try to kindly advise him on how to proceed in such cases. Again, that doesn't mean that everything should be deleted, but adapted and improved, and the talk page of the article could be a good start for this purpose. --everton137 (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Rather than simply posting a blanket Duck Duck Go search - which references in that list do you specifically think clear this article of WP:TOOSOON? I agree that most of the sources in that search are cited on the page, but they're almost entirely single-author primary sources. I don't see any notable secondary coverage. PianoDan (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, merely linking to a page of search results isn't enough to demonstrate that good, usable sources exist. XOR'easter (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No one assumed bad faith from the creator. However, an article isn't subject to a pass just because it was created by newcomer who 'worked hard'. The article isn't suitable for inclusion in its current state, and has deep profound flaws that make it harder to fix than to create from scratch (assuming it meets WP:N, which is not clear it does). This comes from this article being written for an audience other than a general encyclopedia, by an author who is not unaffiliated with the project. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (welcome to hear suggestions).

I am the main author of the article here: a professional scientist with recognised and renown track-record in generating knowledge in neutrino science and leader of several international scientific collaborations, including order hundred of scientists across many countries. More precisely, I am the spokesperson of the LiquidO consortium (about ~70 scientists in 22 institutions over 10 countries), which implies supporting our communication/dissemination strategy for which there is NO interest other knowledge generation — our job.

Since WIKI's main goal is to favour knowledge dissemination and WIKI provides the means for this knowledge to be provided by those who generated it, we have provided our article on LiquidO Detection — first article ever in WIKI for me. So, I am certainly new and inexperienced in WIKI and the set of rules/conditions that articles must meet upon publication. Hence, I certain welcome all constructive feedback that would frame our contributions most usefully to the community. Any other conclusion may be likely rooted in some kind of misunderstanding. In any case, I do appreciate if we keep as basis for exchange the main guidelines of WIKI: a) "assume good faith”, b) “be polite and avoid personal attacks” and c) “be welcoming to newcomers”. Extra comments regarding the "LiquidO Detection" article here:

Contribition Publication Context: when I wrote the article (originally in my sandbox), I was proposed to publish it, including some feedback by “expert(s)”. I welcomed this very much as I hesitated on how to proceed (given my lack of experience). Indeed, this promised feedback reassured me to proceed with the contribution(s). Moreover, I was told that the “publication consideration period” (some kind review or evaluation, I gathered) that could last up to ~3 months, period over which I was encouraged to continue to improving the article while still unpublished. All this information was provided by WIKI and much of that never happened. To my greatest surprise (or even shock), the article got published within 24 hours with NO feedback whatsoever was ever offered.

Given the lack of the feedback upon publication, this was some kind of encouragement to proceed following the same lines of the original writeup. Since the article was far from the standard I intended (approval was far faster than told) and it had not yet been fully validated by all my collaborators (i.e. our LiquidO consortium of professional scientists), I was forced to push for further article for completeness and prompt some collaborators for urgent validation of the contents (successfully). Note: the contents are now being reviewed by the full team to further scrutiny the contents. So, some modifications may be expected. To add insult to injury, a few days after publication, we entered into another degree of shock when we discovered that some WIKI experts proposed the deletion altogether — thus directly wasting all the work and disposing its contents as outcome. This is far from the “be welcoming to newcomers” guideline of WIKI from which kind, supportive and constructive feedback. It is altogether surprising that some WIKI experts appear more focused on hammering contributions without offering alternative solutions to ensure knowledge is preserved, specially considering that the knowledge is provided by the scientific professional knowledge generator community. Is this really the message that WIKI community wants to pass here to the scientific community? This seems a rather contradiction to what the wikipedia should stand for. In fact, "delete knowledge kindly provided by first-line experts” should be the last resource, should any mending strategy failed. Also, trashing the effort of others seem right against the WIKI project voluntary basis. If an article, providing proved knowledge, including renown references, failed to match the standard of WIKI, we should trigger support and guidance — not rejection. Moreover, having "first-line experts" to contribute to their knowledge in the wikipedia should be encouraged and supported, else the main WIKI project may be jeopardised.

Beyond the above general impressions, I have duly gone through reviewers your comments and here is some feedback:

1. First, for politeness, I will skip some of the unfortunate terminology used above and/or other appreciations (such as whether article was “massive press release” or a copy “from a report to a funding agency”) in general speculative and incorrect. I would only say that some of those remarks do not seem aligned with the WIKI principles of a) "assume good faith” and b) “be polite and avoid personal attacks”.
2. Second, I would avoid discussion about scientific judgement as this is done, like in all other scientific fora generating knowledge, via peer reviewed publications, conferences and proposals for support/funding. In fact, on those grounds LiquidO is very well served; indeed very successfully despite its early age in technology. Hence, the information provided meets in full — to be best of my knowledge and ability — the WIKI policy as it relies on FACT(s) — with dates — based on information publicly available supported by recognised publications (even Nature) and world leading scientific fora or conferences. Further information may be provided, if needed. Should you have any question or suggestion on how to improve, we surely welcome that.
3. Third, I have gone through the wikipedia deletion policy. I see the article contents do NOT meet any of the 14  listed “reasons for deletion”. Moreover, there exist “alternatives to deletion” (same article; such as “tagging”, etc), none of those has been proposed. Why? Hence, I conclude that the proposal for “article deletion” is both disproportionate and unjustified. Of course, any reasonable discussion for possible improvement is highly welcome, as reiterated and intended, as explained before.
4. I gather that the main possible concern is that I wrote in the article and I am indeed "conceptor" of the technology (substantiated by many of the reference provided), thus I understand this is alluded as a possible [wikipedia conflict of interest |Wikipedia:Conflict of interest]. Instead, the article states the facts (to the best of our knowledge) and those facts should not entail as any kind of handicap or discrimination for contribution to the wiki by me — or anybody else — unless an abuse was identified. I state to my honour that no abuse was intended and, if anything may be misunderstood, I offer immediate resolution. On the hand and as argued before, I understand the wikipedia community should appreciate and encourage the direct contribution form the "first-line expertise", in this case any of the LiquidO scientists or experts. The fact that the article is in WIKI, implies we are opened to the scientific community feedback too. Note the articulation employed is similar to other scientific articles in WIKI, but room for improvement exist, given the above explain conditions explained (WIKI beginner and rushed contributions by WIKI faster than expected approval for publication). Still, I went nonetheless through the [wikipedia conflict of interest |Wikipedia:Conflict of interest] and I did not find any evident direct breaching of the rules by the article. Beyond the aforementioned historical note (including some key names). The article is not about me (or my family o my company, etc) but about the scientific knowledge generated and the status of the technology led by the work of a scientific collaboration (~70 people). While my writing style is unlikely tuned to the wiki style — yes, my work is about writing papers and proposals where several Nature’s and some millions have been achieved so far — I am very happy to be advised and guided, so that the article meets the intended tone. I do thank you in advance. Note this is indeed the constructive approach we expected from WIKI (“be welcoming to newcomers”) and we have so far not felt.
5. Last, the article is indeed “orphan” on purpose because, as explained, we did not want to connect it yet to other wiki articles, since we awaited for all my collaborators to review it (ongoing) prior to proceed with further propagation and dissemination.

So, I am compelled to request the reconsideration of the deletion of the "LiquidO Detection” contribution, for which I fully disagree since a) the article provides unique knowledge so far missing in WIKI (incontestably the most important for us and WIKI) and b) the original authors are open to improve its style, should support be provided, as originally promised. So, I'd like to propose that we convert this discussion into a constructive, sensitive and respectful dialogue (less time-consuming and more enjoyable) to ensure more and better knowledge is provide to the WIKI as a way forward. So, I kindly ask you — wiki editors / experts — to kindly help me (us) help you with our contributions to WIKI, please. We are professional scientists with NO interest(s) whatsoever other than pure knowledge generation and dissemination, both our job, and we offer our knowledge to the community from which we'd be delighted to count on your kindest support and knowledge. Our team and myself would surely be most grateful. Anatael Cabrera (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve I also think this article should be kept. Certainly, the work of a beginner, which can be improved. Yes, the writer and the developer are the same, but I think that experts should be allowed to write about their work, with proper references and scrutiny. Not ideal, but not a reason to delete it all. Ajgw56 (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from nominator. First, I DO appreciate the author's enthusiasm for sharing their work on Wikipedia.

However, I'd like to suggest they carefully read WP:COIE. "Do not edit or create articles about yourself, your family or friends, your organization, your clients, or your competitors." Personally, I'll edit articles about particle accelerators, but I won't about my own company, or about companies the directly compete with it. The author's comment that "the contents are now being reviewed by the full team to further scrutiny the contents." is problematic - members of the LiquidO consortium should NOT have created their own page directly, and once it exists (assuming it is deemed notable), they should be using the Edit Request Template to request other editors make edits, rather than making them directly.

The other policies I'd like to point out are WP:OR and WP:PSTS. Wikipedia is not the place to present original research, and primary sources, while somewhat unavoidable in very technical articles, need to be accompanied with at least some secondary coverage to establish notability. Adding additional secondary sources to this page would be the number one way to improve its chances of surviving AfD. Failure to establish notability (A8) per WP:GNG is the deletion criterion at issue here. PianoDan (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - While I have no reason to doubt the author's motives here are noble in wanting to share their research, the problem remains that this just simply isn't what wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that follows the academic consensus, and is committed to being exactly as wrong or out of date as the current consensus. Wikipedia is not an alternative path to recognition for serious academic work or a parallel path alongside broader academic recognition - it absolutely must follow other recognition. If this research is truly as impactful and important as the author believes, it will be cited by many reliable, academic, secondary sources, which will then likely be used by uninvolved parties to write an article about this topic. But as wikipedia is a tertiary source that is and must be written and maintained by editors who are not credentialed experts, it is absolutely necessary that all information be verifiable in secondary sources. This is why we can't just have an article written by a subject matter expert without independent, secondary source citations. People who are reading the encyclopedia need to be able to verify the information presented on any wiki page without having to contact the author or rely on any trust that the information is correct.

This is entirely separate from the conflict of interest concerns, which are certainly also serious here, but those do not even need to be considered until it's established in secondary literature that this research is important and impactful. I appreciate that a lot of effort must have gone into drafting this page, but quite frankly there's no salvaging this contribution here whatsoever. I would recommend that the author, and the consortium they represent, invest time in the future into making sure that the avenues they pursue for spreading their research are appropriate and receptive, before they invest time and effort into how they will present their research. This is a useful lesson I have learned extensively outside of wikipedia in the corporate world: first sell the meeting, not the business. A lot of effort could have been saved here if the consortium had invested the time into making sure their work was aligned with wikipedia policies before spending so much time on writing this page. I am not sure if there was a disconnect here on the wikimedia side, but a fuller understanding of wikipedia policies by the consortium could have easily prevented this: while we don't assume familiarity of policies for all new editors, as this contribution is from a large professional organization, it seems that more initial legwork ought to have been done here. To the author: I would personally recommend that when you do find an alternative front for presenting this research, perhaps at academic conferences or when submitting review papers, or when you approach investors to make your technology marketable, that you take this advice into consideration. This will likely increase the chances that this research will one day be well-cited and verifiable enough to be included on Wikipedia. - car chasm (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wrong venue. scope_creep^Talk 10:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strands[edit]

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

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

No indication of real notability or non-industry press coverage. QueenofBithynia (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Spain. Shellwood (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: A company which sold its patents on some early products, then changed focus, before being acquired by another firm. The page history shows a sequence of WP:SPA edits followed by clean-up by other editors. While searches find reviews / mentions of their Engager and BFM products, and their participation in industry events, I am not seeing evidence of attained notability. The Italian WP has an article about the acquiring company CRIF, its credit checking service and several acquisitions but not this one; en.wp has an article on one acquisition, the Indian CRIF High Mark Credit Information Services but not the parent, so there is no available merge/redirect target. (There is also an article on one defunct product, the Strands Social Player, whose notability is itself questionable.) AllyD (talk) 07:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per AllyD fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Original Vampires (The Vampire Diaries)[edit]

Original Vampires (The Vampire Diaries) (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 on a non-notable fictional concept, which is comprised almost entirely of in-universe plot summaries sourced to episode recaps, many of which are not even reliable sources. The only exception to this is the few sentences at the end about the show's development, which itself is already covered at The Originals (TV series)#Production. The actual characters listed here are already covered in a much more succinct format at List of The Originals characters, making this article redundant as a character list. As the concept of the "original vampires" from this franchise is not independently notable from the show itself, this article is an unnecessary spinout, and a general overview of the concept is already adequately described as part of the main article on The Originals (TV series). Rorshacma (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as fancruft. Through the mirror of my mind... XOR'easter (talk) 23:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The creator forgot to add any references, and so per WP:V we should forget this article existed. Failure of WP:GNG is an additional problem, and hardly a minor one. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I agree with the above comments. However, Henrik, Mikael, Dahlia, and Esther's information NEEDS to be posted somewhere else. Magik 3099 (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Coll-Barreu[edit]

Juan Coll-Barreu (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)

Speedy deletion was declined on the grounds this was not obvious enough, but this is still obvious WP:PROMO and the subject very clearly fails WP:GNG (of the sources in the article, the link at the top is clearly a biography provided by the subject, the first proper ref does not mention him by name at all, and the others are all entries about buildings with "Text description provided by the architects"... Looking for other stuff does not yield any convincing examples either) and WP:NOTCV (because that is what this reads like, a CV...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Spain. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I can find stuff written by this person, but not stuff written about this person that isn't autobiography. There just isn't independent sourcing for a biography available. And an account named Archimad (talk · contribs) writing about an architect who teaches in Madrid does suggest autobiography here as well, as does xem knowing about NCSU when it isn't mentioned in the published autobiography sourced to the company that xe hyperlinked in the article at Special:Diff/1018288192. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 20:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PRIME (lifestyle management company)[edit]

PRIME (lifestyle management company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. Coverage seems to be extremely limited, and the article looks to be purely promotional. PepperBeast (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a means of promotion (and this is blatent), none of the references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 20:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Swati Singh (disambiguation)[edit]

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

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

Unnecessary dab page, the politician is the clear PT and is now at the base name. MB 14:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. MB 14:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Sportspeople, Women, and India. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Could be taken care of by a simple hatnote. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 20:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wii ISO Archive[edit]

Wii ISO Archive (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)

For more or less the same reasons raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wii Backup File System: fails WP:GNG, no reliable sources at all since its creation 9 years ago, no sources found using both Google and the WP:VG/S custom search engine. theinstantmatrix (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. theinstantmatrix (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is more appropiate for a wiki or site focused on the technical workings of the Wii Rlink2 (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all of the reasons that I and others have voiced at Wii Backup File System. In fact, this one is actually worse off because it's a smaller stub with zero references. Good luck finding one that isn't original research or from a self-published source. — voidxor 23:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JK.Kite (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Rename. As discussed and per the sources identified, the notable entity is the incinerator. The editorial work to move/rename does not require continuation of this discussion. Star Mississippi 19:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aragonite, Utah[edit]

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

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

It having been suggested very pointedly that I should look into this one, I've made a return trip. This is impeded by my usual topo/aerial source not going back beyond the 1970s, but what they do show in that timeframe is a string of buildings along the rails that looks nothing like a town, as they have a decidedly industrial look. Then there is a Quonset hut that sits away from the tracks, but around about 2000 they moved the siding so it now swings by this building, the others having been demolished. Searching shows lots of general references to aragonite and to the incinerator, along with a few rail-related hits and the one ghost town hit. The last talks about some building remnants, but there's nothing there that evidences ruins of residences. Mangoe (talk) 04:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Utah. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 04:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• (Author) Keep The site meets WP:GNG as it is, but in this case, it also meets WP:GEOLAND; a 1950s-era survey of mining in Utah notes a small townsite once existed there. Chubbles (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This former settlement (now a ghost town) and current hazardous and radiological waste site meets WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 04:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That statement is a falsehood, one taken from the article (without any research, not even checking the sources cited) but a falsehood nonetheless. This article is a falsehood. Aragonite, Utah is not a "community" nor a "ghost town". It is an aragonite mill and mine that was at one point run by the Utah Calcium Products Company.(Morris 1964, p. 192) harv error: no target: CITEREFMorris1964 (help). It is in the Tooele County West Desert Hazardous Industries Area, an area selected by the County in part because it was and is unpopulated. The nearest population of any sort is 45 miles away, by design. (GSHI 2015, p. 3) harv error: no target: CITEREFGSHI2015 (help) This is another of the "ghost town"/"unincorporated community" falsehoods that Wikipedia has been publishing to the world, and if it weren't for the GNIS mess this would be systematic hoaxery, ghost towns and communities that do not exist and never have done. Uncle G (talk) 09:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Morris, H.T. (1964). "Mineral and Water Resources of Utah: Limestone and dolomite". Bulletin. 73. United States Geological Survey.
    • Glenn Springs Holding (2015). "Updated Schedule, Transporation and Disposal Plan" (PDF).
      • Comment - Perhaps it is not a falsehood. According to page 368 the book, Utah An Explorer's Guide:[27] Aragonite Ghost Town is an old mining town from the early 20th century that mined aragonite. This mine was only in operation for a few years but today the mineshafts are still open and a few bunkhouses remain, as well as an old truck. Aragonite is also near the Hastings Cutoff, part of the famous Donner Party route of the 1840s. This book was published in 2009 before the Wikipedia article was written, so it is doubtful that the WP article incited a hoax or influenced the author of the book into believing a falsehood. Netherzone (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Courtesy ping Uncle G Netherzone (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment 2 - According to the Provo Daily Herald, Aragonite, Utah's Aptus facility was Utah's first hazardous waste incinerator.[28] Netherzone (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Is not and never was a community. An entry on ghosttowns.com does not actually mean it's a ghost town, but an abandoned site. Reywas92^Talk 13:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Aragonite Hazardous Waste Incinerator per the new source. Delete - Not a community mostly per Uncle G's research that shows it was very likely never populated. Turning to the sources:

• The source cited above by Chubbles literally tries to say that the mineral Aragonite is named after the "town" Aragonite ("This mineral, similar to calcite, but of greater density, is found near the small town named after it - Aragonite"). This is obviously not true - Aragonite is named after Molina de Aragón in Spain, where it was first identified in 1797. This source is therefore obviously not to be relied on.
• GNIS is not a reliable source.
• Utah Atlas & Gazetteer - I cannot access this source, but from what can be seen online it appears to be a map/atlas, and as such does not support notability.
• Utah Ghost Towns - Self-published source, not reliable, does not state that the site was ever really populated but instead just a mine.
• ARAGONITE HAZARDOUS WASTE INCINERATOR, UTAH - This is significant coverage... of the waste incinerator. It is also not independent of the source.
• Aragonite Permit: Clean Harbors, LLC - This is about the waste incinerator, and is not independent of the source.
• Utah incinerator faces penalties, Deseret News - This is the only independent, significant coverage here, but is ultimately about the waste incinerator company.
• Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. to pay penalty for chemical reporting violations at Aragonite, Utah facility. US EPA - Government press-release, not independent coverage, and is about the waste incinerator.

This just confirms what Uncle G said - this place was likely never populated, just a mine and later waste-incinerator. There is some coverage of the waste-incinerator, but as a bare minimum another piece preferably from a different year in a different reliable and independent publication about it is needed to get it over GNG. FOARP (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• You read the Utah's Mining Industry source backward, it says it's the place named after the mineral, but there's still no indication that an abandoned bunkhouse is really a "ghost town" or makes a notable former community. Reywas92^Talk 15:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would this meet your WP:HEY for the incinerator? Ultimately, I'm not terribly bothered as to whether this article is located at its current site or is relocated to Aragonite Hazardous Waste Incinerator, though I hope that name change would not engender a stripping of the content about the geography and prior uses of the site. I am rather unpersuaded that "there is no there, there", in relation to a historical townsite (people who worked in the mines decades ago probably did not all live 45 miles away, for one thing), but if anything about the current article is genuinely inaccurate, I certainly want to correct that. Chubbles (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chubbles - I think the Salt Lake Tribune article gets this to a bare GNG pass for the incinerator. With the Deseret News piece this gets it over the line. WP:CORP is just passed as well, since both the Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News are not purely local sources (instead they're regional, maybe even state-wide), and the subject matter is not WP:MILL. PS - the miners probably lived in a simple camp, not a permanent community. Typically they would only spend a matter of months there each year going by similarly remote mines in e.g., Canada. FOARP (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Just noting a few more useful things: [29], [30], [31]. Chubbles (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Also just noting that I am willing to do the work to add these new sources to the article in the event of a favorable outcome. Chubbles (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't delete this article. Aragonite is still a good place for rockhounds to hunt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.233.22 (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There was a rough consensus that the sources presented were not enough to make this subject meet our notability guidelines. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Stump[edit]

John Stump (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)

Renominating per WP:NPASR recommendation from User:Sandstein, as the last AFD had only one participant after three weeks.

As I stated last time, the sourcing here is horrendous. Most of it is just a personal blog, along with a few clickbait listicles about how "weird" the sheet music is and some YouTube videos of people pretending to perform it. There is an obituary cited, but obits in and of themselves are not reliable sources in the absence of anything else. (Furthermore, I could not find this particular obit anywhere else besides in the blog, so its use as a source doesn't pass muster anyway.)

The only participant in the last AFD added a clipping from the Reading Eagle, but it was written with a personally invested tone that suggests an editorial or otherwise non-journalistic coverage. A book about musicians was also added, but it only mentions Stump passingly in the context of other works.

John Stump and "Faerie's Aire and Death Waltz" have been Internet memes for ages, but there is no biographical or encyclopedic coverage to him or his work outside a few people having fun with it. Not all memes become notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Missouri. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The concerns in your prior nomination were reasonable, but the coverage added during it was enough to establish notability, in my opinion. Walking through the contributing sources:

1. Fee, Christopher R.; Webb, Jeffery B., eds. (2016). "Death Waltz". American Myths, Legends, and Tall Tales: An Encyclopedia of American Folklore. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO. pp. 297–298. ISBN 9781610695688.

   This is a two-page encyclopedia entry with a joint focus on one of Stump's works and another piece that shares its name. It's hard to get a word count from Google Books, but it's several hundred words (the font is tiny), so it's clearly WP:SIGCOV in my view.

2. Gordon, Molly (16 July 1993). "Remove cattle from stage". The Berkshire Eagle. p. 7. Retrieved 19 February 2022.

   This is an arts column reviewing one of Stump's works in a regional newspaper of record in Massachusetts. It's unquestionably SIGCOV, and I disagree that the author's casual tone means she is unable to write about Stump independently—she has no relationship to him beyond reviewing his work.

3. Kemper, Gary (13 February 2006). "In Memorium: John Stump". Glendale Focus. Vol. 3, no. 2. p. 3. Retrieved 27 November 2020.

   This is a reported obituary in a local magazine written by its publisher, the only complication being that he knew Stump. You write that obits in and of themselves are not reliable sources in the absence of anything else, but per the previous nomination, I believe you are confusing paid obituaries with reported ones. There's a huge difference—paid ones are supplied by the person's family and therefore don't count as independent. Reported ones absolutely do count. Regarding your being unable to find the obit independently, that is immaterial: per WP:V, Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access.

Any two of those three is sufficient, so take your pick. There's further coverage from several other sources that aren't quite SIGCOV, e.g. Gersten, Jennifer (25 September 2017). "4 More Unplayable Works (That Were Eventually Played)". WQXR. Retrieved 28 November 2020.

Beyond GNG, there's a case under WP:ANYBIO #2. I agree with you that not all memes become notable, but a satirical work that's persisted for 40 years has a much greater claim to cultural significance than the latest internet fad—Stump composed what is likely the most prominent example of satirical sheet music of all time. I don't think we could justify pages about both Stump and Faerie's Aire, but we have enough for one, and it makes sense to have it located at Stump given that he's the broader topic. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sdkb: I don't need your filibuster. I just explained why the sources aren't legit. The encyclopedia is only a passing mention. The Reading Eagle article is an editorial with a personally invested tone. And the obituary only seems to exist on that one blog post, because I can't find it anywhere else online. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Subject fails GNG, NBAND, and ANYBIO. There's a case to be made that Faerie's Aire and Death Waltz passes GNG but Stump certainly does not. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you speak to whether or not you found the encyclopedia entry to contribute to notability? Based on my OCR scan, it's approximately 930 words, split equally between Stump and the folktale, which is clear SIGCOV. I would be willing to restructure the article around Faerie's Aire as an ATD, but per the WP:BROADCONCEPT guideline, I think the current structure is better. I note that, per WP:NBIO, reviews or coverage of a person's work (the Gordon piece being a quintessential example) count toward notability for the person. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Google books doesn't provide much of a preview but I don't see SIGCOV for Stump, only for Death Waltz. I think the outcome of this discussion needs to be deletion, regardless of any future effort to restructure the piece. Both articles about this subject and Death Waltz already resulted in deletion, so it might be un-wise to try again right now; maybe in another decade better sources will exist, per WP:NODEADLINE. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If you haven't yet been able to access the full Encyclopedia of American Folklore entry, it may have been premature for you to !vote. Per above, coverage of Death Waltz counts for Stump: The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work. ... In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The first two sources I provided count as such coverage. I guess you could try to make an IAR case that that's not enough, but Stump's enduring popularity makes me inclined to be generous rather than stringent in interpreting guidance here—there has been enough coverage to write a fully sourced medium-length biography page, and it serves readers better to keep it than to delete it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I can see no further purpose in this conversation; my !vote stands. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I've looked at the sources as noted; the obits all seem to be based from or refer to the one by the subject's nephew, which lean into primary sources, I believe. In re the newspaper arts column, I think it would be stronger were it in a larger newspaper, and not a small regional daily. I just don't think any of these really cut it to establish notability. There may be something that could be done with the Death Waltz, potentially, if there is any scholarly review of the piece that has emerged or does emerge, but right now, this doesn't make it for me. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The page on the encyclopedia is here and the section is titled Death Waltz. I don't believe it's adds anything for GNG purposes for the person, rather for the work. The other references have already been discussed. An article of the work might be more notable. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems notable to me and well sourced.XavierGreen (talk) 02:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @XavierGreen: WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid argument. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- I agree with the above analysis of the presented sources. Reyk _YO! 03:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete'. Needs more organized sourcing.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 06:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: not enough WP:RS to establish GNG. Veverve (talk) 06:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The sources provided by SailingInABathTub have not been discussed. Sandstein 20:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Antwain Britt[edit]

Antwain Britt (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. Main coverage is through routine sporting reports, no SIGCOV found. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 05:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, Martial arts, Africa, and Virginia. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, meets WP:NMMA due to the subject having competed in more than three professional fights for a top-tier MMA organization (Strikeforce, 2009-2011). SailingInABathTub (talk) 11:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Meeting WP:NMMA is irrelevant as the competitor is no longer active, you will have to prove he passes GNG. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 12:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such requirement, notability is not temporary. SailingInABathTub (talk) 12:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion, or new evidence may arise for articles previously deemed unsuitable."

He was considered "notable" because he met WP:NMMA guidelines, which allows pages to be created in hopes that GNG will be met. When a fighter or athlete retires we need to review the page, and if it doesn't meet GNG we delete the page. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 21:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:SPORTBASIC due to lack of significant coverage. Although the article goes beyond stub length, it's mostly just statistics written out as prose. WP:NMMA tells us that "significant coverage is likely to exist" however none has actually been found. –dlthewave ☎ 14:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It does not follow however that none exists.^{[1][2][3][4][5]}

SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 10:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "delete" argument is that this article makes scientific claims not supported by reliable academic sources. The "keep" argument is that while that may be so, the claims have been reported in reliable sources. I'm inclined to give the "keep" opinions a bit more weight (we do cover notable pseudoscience), but the "delete" arguments are not baseless, and the "delete" opinions are much more numerous. Sandstein 20:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Ebal curse tablet[edit]

Mount Ebal curse tablet (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)

See Talk:Mount Ebal‎ - there has been no peer review for this yet and if you read [32] it's clear that virtually everything about it is or will be challenged including the language, date, inscriptions, etc. Note that it was found in Canaan before the creation of Israel, that it was found without any context by a Creationist. WP:NOTNEWS applies and this sort of extraordinary archaeological claim should not be based on media reports. The fact of the media reports is IMHO not sufficient reason for an article or even its mention in other articles. Also note that at the date claimed that the inscription would not have been about the Jewish God but about the deity Yahweh, who became one of the gods worshiped by the early Israelites before they became monotheistic. Doug Weller talk 10:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SENSATION. The story could be mentioned when competent independent experts publish enough about the supposed artifact to properly contextualize it. Until then, WP's hands are tied. jps (talk) 11:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications." Haaretz is a reliable mainstream publication. Patrick.N.L (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The article you cite is prima facie evidence that Haaretz is not a reliable source for such matters. The problem of conducting science by press release is well-known, and in this case it looks like Haaretz has been hoodwinked. It isn't the first time. jps (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sensationalist media reports aren't WP:RS for archaeological content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications." Haaretz is a reliable mainstream publication. Patrick.N.L (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No reliable source. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications." Haaretz is a reliable mainstream publication. Patrick.N.L (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep What exactly are the grounds for deletion? The lengthy blog post by Christopher Rollston which Doug has very helpfully produced surely, along with the respectable Israeli press stories, disposes of any claim of non-notability or WP:SENSATION. Rollston is exactly the right sort of specialist RS one wants in this field, and should be the main source. The press stories are actually not bad in clearly indicating there will be controversy over this when the thing is published. It has indeed not yet received a proper academic paper, but when it does, we can be sure it will be back, generating plenty of RS even if the the claims are adjusted/discounted by most. Even if it were a hoax (which no one has yet suggested) it would probably become notable. jps's gutting of the article, while at Afd, and introducing a mispelling of Stripling's name, is most unhelpful, & I have reverted it. Johnbod (talk) 12:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability". A 'Keep' argument based around assumptions that suitable sources will become available at a future date is less than convincing, in my opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rollston + 2 longish press stories = notability, imo, even if the basic facts/conclusions are not firmly established (as for very many subjects from similar dates). Johnbod (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If basic facts are not "firmly" established, how do you write an article? I'm happy to consider an example of how to write an article based on a blogpost and a few shoddily done press-releases-cum-articles, but in my experience this is just not something that I've ever seen competently executed. jps (talk) 13:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Conclusion at talk page of Mount Ebal. Since usage of the "LOL" and the term "worse" on Jpost. As if something over here is "bad." And googling who ... is active here... 1. Fanacism and extremism are not limited to one side. 2. An indirect admission that the objection is motivated by one political side and not a moderate one at that.Truth3v3r (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What conclusion? Doug Weller talk 16:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. The notability of the object is dependent on the sensationalist interpretation of ambiguous material as reported by non-academic sources. - Donald Albury 13:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications." Haaretz is a reliable mainstream publication.

  Moreover it is not that extraordinary; the artefact is dated 1200 BC; the term Yahweh was found in Egyptian inscription from the time of Amenhotep III (1402–1363 BCE) : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh#Late_Bronze_Age_origins_(1550%E2%80%931200_BCE) Patrick.N.L (talk) 07:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without prejudice against recreation at a later date when sourcing is actually, well, there. Sensationalist near-churnalism plus a blog post trying to hold back said sensationalism are not a good foundation to build an article upon. XOR'easter (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications." Haaretz is a reliable mainstream publication. Patrick.N.L (talk) 07:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as others have said, for now. Per the above, the extraordinary claims being made in association with this tablet require vetting beyond that done by the general media. I don't think Wikipedia will be harmed by waiting for better sources, while I think it could be if we print huge claims which are later retracted. As ever, reasonable minds may differ on the question. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]