Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin
< October 20 October 22 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 05:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bohan Phoenix[edit]

Bohan Phoenix (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)

Bohan Phoenix

This article about a musician, known either as Bohan Phoenix or Leng Bohan, does not provide evidence of satisfying musical notability or general notability. Nothing in this article refers to significant coverage by independent sources. Nothing in this article indicates that any of the musical notability criteria have been met. This article was created in article space, then moved to draft space by User:Hey man im josh. Then a Career section was added, and the references, which are interviews, were moved around.

Number Reference Remarks Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 npr.org A guide to performers on their radio shows No Yes Yes No
2 tonedeaf.thebrag.com An interview No Yes Yes No
3 djbooth.net An interview about his music No Yes Yes No
4 sinethetamag.medium.com A combination interview and narrative No Yes Yes No
5 liftedasia.com Another combination interview and narrative No Yes Yes No
6 breakingasia.com Mostly interview and partly puff piece No Yes Yes No
7 mixmag.asia Another interview No Yes Yes No

It wasn't ready for article space when it was draftified, and it still isn't ready for article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to evaluate new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:20, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify:Change to Keep per excellent HEY. Until something resembling an article can be written. A few words adding up to a paragraph and a half at best, sectioned off, does not stop this from appearing as a WP:PSEUDO biography. There is notability and per Why? I Ask: "Suitable for mainspace yet? Debatable" and the Nom, "It wasn't ready for article space when it was draftified, and it still isn't ready for article space", I agree there is enough concern to draftify until ready. -- Otr500 (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2022 (UTC) -- Otr500 (talk) 01:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources listed by Why? I Ask (talk · contribs), which clearly establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. While the article could have been further improved, it was a sourced stub that was suitable for mainspace and should not be draftified after Why? I Ask's improvements. I've expanded the article with the sources already present in the article. The article now is even more clearly suitable for mainspace. Cunard (talk) 01:02, 24 October 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gurpreet Singh Lehal[edit]

Gurpreet Singh Lehal (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 academic. I checked Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and none of the criteria seem to apply. Mucube (talk) 02:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 September 30. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 02:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. Shellwood (talk) 05:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Not sure about the status of Punjabi University, but ordinary professorship isn't enough for C5. Two highly cited papers in Google Scholar (763 and 138), which might be enough for WP:NPROF#C1, but the first is just a systematic review rather than original research. I don't have access to Scopus unfortunately, so I'm not going to make a vote yet. Ovinus (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that those papers are particularly highly cited for computer science, which must be just about the most highly cited field of study that exists, and the subject has a short tail of other papers listed on Google Scholar, so I don't think he meets WP:PROF#C1 on the basis of citations. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not Notable, He is only a professor of a university or college. Even there are many Academic Awards in India whose recipients are Notable but he doesn't got any Award. Contributor008 (talk) 07:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: does not pass WP:NPROF#1 outright as his highly cited paper is a review paper and actual research papers are not highly cited in a field that is generally known for high citation rates [5]. However, I think there is an argument that he is well known for OCR in an important language (Punjabi) which may allow him to pass GNG. He has multiple articles about him and his work in the The Tribune (Chandigarh), The Times of India and other national newspapers. [6] [7] [8] [9] --hroest 15:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per sources found by Hannes Rost. The coverage exists; there's more than a couple news items, and they're substantive; however, I'm somewhat hesitant because the majority of them are in the Tribune, a single outlet, and the Times of India has historically not been a great source. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Agree with hroest. Ginbopewz (talk) 13:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: BLP without any inline citations. Google Scholar [10] is a bit weak for passing WP:PROF on 5 year h-index but better for h-index over entire career. They have 2 highly cited papers but then again they are both surveys. But they are also doing things that may have significance within the Punjabi language. I think that Draft and AfC is the way to go so that all of these things can be properly evaluated with references as it is too hard to tell with it like this. Gusfriend (talk) 08:11, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • soft delete He is a college professor but there is no such independent source from which notability proof is there.Lionfox0909 (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This seems a likely autobiography, based on page creator's edit history and a notice on the talk page of previous version copyvios by the creator. Infobox image is a personal snapshot uploaded by the creator. This BLP page has been virtually sourceless for almost 13 years. It badly fails BLP policy and as such it is fully within that policy for any editor to summarily delete uncited information about a living subject. If someone is willing to draftify or userfy this page for improvement, that's okay with me, so long as a willing contributor will take responsibilty for the improvement. The current version of the page still being in pagespace after this closure ain't gonna happen. BusterD (talk) 01:21, 23 October 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! 22:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A'tris[edit]

AfDs for this article:
A'tris (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)

Only one reliable source which can demonstrate significant coverage is provided, seems to be primarily a promotional article. A Google search provides little significant coverage or notability, and is SoundCloud or Allmusic a good source for notability? InvadingInvader (talk) 21:30, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Buffalo News, and AllMusic are reliable sources and the additional reviews identified in this discussion show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is against retaining this article, regardless of whether it's useful, or other articles exist. Star Mississippi 13:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Humanitarian Order of the Kingdom of Gbi Traditional Area Hohoe[edit]

Royal Humanitarian Order of the Kingdom of Gbi Traditional Area Hohoe (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)
Royal and Dynastic Order of the Eagle of Hohoe
Royal Humanitarian Order of the Kingdom of Gbi Traditional Area Hohoe

Non-notable chivalric orders under the patronage of a non-resident Ghanaian tribal king. Both created in article space and moved to draft space by User:DoubleGrazing saying "Mostly unreferenced, and no evidence of notability". They were both moved back to article space by the originator after adding what appear to be low-quality references, but the articles still do not speak for themselves. Nothing in the articles is about significant coverage by independent sources. No evidence of recognition by any nations. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Royalty and nobility, Ghana, and Germany. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The institution of chieftaincy in Ghana is a system that structures and regulates the activity of rulers. It is written in Ghana’s constitution (chapter 270-277)(1) and the Chieftaincy Act of 2008(2). Those who hold the sacred title of “Chief” in Ghana are sovereign rulers in their traditional areas. These sovereign chiefs as recognized by Ghana and the rest of the world as subnational kingdoms which have existed for sure for hundreds of years and in the case of others (Ashanti Kingdom (3), thousands. These kingdoms have the right to self rule within their kingdoms with civil law being carried out by the chief/king. The Traditional councils(4), which holds an advisory position (National House of Chiefs) within the Republic of Ghana . This council and the Republic as well as many other nations and kingdoms, recognizes the right of the chief/king to their Fons Honorum. Therefor, each Divisional Chief/King and above has the right to make any honors system they chose which is recognized by other active and dynastic kingdoms and principalities. This can be shown by recognition of countries in the EU and the Royal Order of the Golden Fire Dog (ROGFD)(5) of Sefwi-Obang in Ghana as it gives with it nobility. For example, the Real Confraria de São Teotónio, recognizes the noble title given by the ROGFD. Both of these orders are recognized by the Augustan Society.(6)
    1. https://www.modernghana.com/GhanaHome/regions/constitution.asp?menu_id2=0&s=w
    2. https://lawsghana.com/post-1992-legislation/table-of-content/Acts%20of%20Parliament/CHIEFTAINCY%20ACT,%202008%20(ACT%20759)/169
    3. Prempeh, I., Boahen, A. A., & Prempeh, A. (2003). The History of Ashanti Kings and the Whole Country Itself and Other Writings (Vol. 6). Oxford University Press.
    4. https://www.kofitutu.com/1567/
    5. https://royalhousemim.org/armsorders_goldenfiredog
    6. https://www.augustansociety.org/ Vwhippo (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have more references than other pages about orders from sub-national monarchies, which are published on wikipedia, with few sources, and mostly referenced by their own page.
I used most of the same references as the Royal Order of the Elephant of Godenu and the Royal Order of the Lion of Godenu, both of which have few references, mostly referencing their own webpage, and most of the links don´t work Leo0274 (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing these pages to other sub-national monarchy's orders pages that have been published, and are still online, on Wikipedia, these two have a lot more references. Specially when compared to the pages of the Order of the Lion of Godenu and the Order of the Elephant of Godenu, which only reference their own website or links that don't work — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.203.153.46 (talk) 02:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reinstate my previous argument: my pages have a lot more references than most other pages of the same topic (Orders from sub-national monarchies), for example Royal Order of the Lion of Godenu and the Royal Order of the Elephant of Godenu, which mostly reference their own website and broken links. Leo0274 (talk) 11:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not relevant. Your article may be better, but is it good enough? Here's a simple question: @Leo0274 which sources cited meet are reliable and meet WP:SIGCOV? Can you list two sources thgat discuss this entity at significant lenght, and explain what makes them reliable? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:47, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it is better than an article that was cosidered good enough to be posted, then I believe it is good enough.
On reliability: I think that the Order´s own website is the most reliable source of information, at least when talking about the insignia, ranks and information like that. Leo0274 (talk) 19:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On notability, there is even a link in Portuguese talking about it, so it was notable enough to have foreigners talk about it Leo0274 (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If something exist is relevant because it shows how the guidelines and rules are applied, creating a precendent. And rules must be applied eqqually to every page.
So, if page A exists, has broken links for references and is referencing their own wesite, then page B, that also references B´s webpage and has a higher number of references, should also exist.
Speacially if A and B are both the same thing. 189.36.253.4 (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the sources cited may or may not support the basic veracity of this topic, but they do not establish notability, and while that remains the case, everything else is moot. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:59, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My article has more references than other articles on the same subject that are currently online, so my article should be good enough to stay online as well Leo0274 (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As one who has been in the study of Royal, Noble and Chivalrous orders, I don't see the harm in the page existing, especially since it has a proper article defending its existence and a history behind it. I currently am in the process of writing an article on Ghanaian Orders of Chivalry and this page has been extremely helpful with details I didn't know about. It is important that the site continues to have this page and any others that can be supported with reference articles and the correct formatting. 166.181.83.42 (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added another reference to speak for the notability of the Orders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leo0274 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 28 October 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 Mulund. Liz Read! Talk! 07:35, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary's Convent High School, Mulund[edit]

St. Mary's Convent High School, Mulund (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, only cites primary sources and a search finds nothing beyond the usual social media accounts and directory listings etc. Fails WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Maharashtra. DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regretful delete or userfy to the editor's own space. I saw this on NPP and put some tags on and before it was expanded and was even tempted to PROD but didn't think that would last long. It seems the editor has made a genuine attempt to try and build an article and a few years ago, this wouldn't have been an issue, but per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES these days, assumed notability is no longer. I also have concerns around WP:COI and the vast prose here that is entirely uncited to any source. If the editor can find some reliable, WP:SECONDARY coverage that has some significance, then I may reconsider, otherwise it's just bordering on being promotional. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mulund - WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 12:13, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how this serves any useful purpose. The premise of WP:ATD-R would be that the new target has some relevance, at least. The page Mulund has a list of other educational institutions but doesn't actually have any prose about education itself in the region. Bungle (talk • contribs) 13:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)4[reply]
1) What ATD-R says is this: "A page can be blanked and redirected if there is a suitable page to redirect to, and if the resulting redirect is not inappropriate." This article is about a school in Mulund - how is the article on Mulund, which as you were able to note contains a list of schools, not suitable as a redirect target? 2) particularly in the light of [[Template:R to list entry]]. 3) It's standard practice to redirect individual schools, if NN, to their respective school districts and this is comparable. Ingratis (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hear your point, I just don't see the usefulness given the state of the respective target article (and in this example, your suggestion should have at least been to the school list section, rather than the bare article title)? I don't outright disagree with a redirect which is a form of deletion, I just don't see how the proposed target in this instance is useful. Usually, regional articles have some discussion about education on them. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think that's necessarily so, and in any case they don't need to - referring you back to ATD-R, and to my previous comment which gives three reasons pro redirect. Another one however is that a redirect preserves the text: since I seriously doubt that any BEFORE included offline sources or sources in Indian languages, this gives more time for any such to be discovered / included without the time pressure of draftifying. Yes, obviously the redirect would be to the list - I didn't think that needed to be spelled out. Ingratis (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 21 October 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 Jake Brennan. As there seems to be substantial interest in merging, article history will be left for that purpose. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Double Elvis Productions[edit]

Double Elvis Productions (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:NCORP 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:45, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. As the author of this page I don't feel qualified to explain why it's pretty clear (and agreed on by the above commenter) that this is a page worthy of inclusion. Multiple webby awards, national press, and was covered in Variety Magazine as recently as this week. [13] Slazarus09 — Preceding undated comment added 16:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. Not a contested draftification, but simply WP:UPE editing.Onel5969 TT me 18:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Entertainment, and Companies. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - There are two issues here, a conduct issue and a content issue:
      • The notability of the company is established by the Webby award for the podcast.
      • The conflict of interest editing and the meatpuppetry are obvious.
      • AFD is a content forum. Conduct is not a reason to delete.
      • Draftification is an Ignore All Rules response to a blatant attempt to force non-neutrally written material into article space, and to have it indexed by Google's spiders, by what amounts to brute force.
      • I think that User:Onel5969 and User:Timtrent know that I dislike undisclosed paid editing as much as they do, but salting notable topics because of corrupt promotion is not the answer.
      • The draft should then be reviewed by a neutral reviewer, and returned to article space when found to be neutral.
      • The conduct issue should go to a conduct forum.
      • There is no right answer to this flagrant violation of conflict of interest and neutral point of view. I think that this is the least wrong answer.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep If the subjects are notable, then they're notable. That is what AfD is about determining. All arguments about anything else should be ignored. Issues with non-neutral writing in articles is a content issue and should be fixed in article, with stubification if necessary. Anyways, here's sources on the subject:
Saval, Malina (October 12, 2022). "Double Elvis Team Grows Storytelling Success Through Podcasting Series 'Disgraceland,' 'Dead and Gone'". Variety. Retrieved October 14, 2022.
White, Peter (September 29, 2021). "'Disgraceland' Producer Double Elvis Ramps Up Podcast Slate With Four Music Series". Deadline Hollywood. Retrieved October 14, 2022.
Gerber, Dana (September 29, 2021). "Team behind 'Disgraceland' to launch new music-related podcast, acquire three others". Boston Globe. Retrieved October 14, 2022.
Ponti, Aimsel (July 21, 2022). "Music podcast launches with episode on Portland". Portland Press Herald. Retrieved October 14, 2022 – via ProQuest.
Seems straightforward to me. SilverserenC 03:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Of the three, the podcast has the best sources (main subject of more sources and more in-depth coverage) and the best argument for notability; although all three pass WP:SIGCOV per the sources provided by Silver seren in each AFD. Further, as a merge is not neccesary; WP:ATD does not apply in this context. Any merger discussion should happen at WP:MERGEPROP. I personally would oppose merging the podcast into the article on Brennan.4meter4 (talk) 02:28, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Along with those advocating Keep, Delete and Draftify, there is Merge proposal that might be considered (though it looks like all Merge targets are currently being considered at AFD).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Jake Brennan Fails NCORP criteria for establishing notability. None of the references provide in-depth "Independent Content" about the *company*. For example, the Webby award is for the Podcast (which already has an article). HighKing++ 18:12, 28 October 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 RuPaul's Drag Race (season 1). Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Glasscock[edit]

Rebecca Glasscock (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 entertainer. Of the three sources cited, I don't know how RS the first one is, but it's an interview, and therefore doesn't establish notability. The second (Nicki Swift) is considered generally unreliable. And the third only provides a brief capsule profile. Search finds nothing even resembling RS sigcov. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ENTERTAINER. Was draftified, but creator moved it back, so here we are. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, Entertainment, and Puerto Rico. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E and for failing WP:SIGCOV. Subject is known only for competing in RuPaul's Drag Race (season 1).4meter4 (talk) 14:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note WP:Interviews is more nuanced than the nom suggests it to be. Jclemens (talk) 15:58, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is true. And I was suggesting what I did, very much in the context of the source and the subject matter. I'm not saying all interviews are useless, but they are all primary sources, and unless there is evidence of journalistic scrutiny and fact-checking standards, I don't see how we can rely on an interview as the main vehicle for establishing notability and verifying statements, as is the case here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete various hits in Out magazine, "where are they now?" articles, nothing substantial about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't find anything outside recaps of their candidacy and small mentions. Several of the sites are paywalled, so don't feel confident saying delete without being able to view the pieces. It doesn't appear their candidacy is enough, nor did they work in other fields that might garner notability. Star Mississippi 18:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Star Mississippi, what candidacy are you talking about? I can't find anything relating to being a candidate for anything in the article. --Kbabej (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    sorry, poor word choice I guess. What do you call someone who appears on a reality show. Maybe contestant would be better. Thanks for asking. Star Mississippi 21:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just throwing some extra sourcing out there I've found. It's not a slam dunk. The subject placed top three in her season. She has a three-page entry (pages 107-109) in the book 100 of the Most Influential Gay Entertainers (source here); appeared in Pandora Boxx/Adam Barta's music video for "You Seemed Shady to Me" (source here); and appeared on an episode of the podcast Queening Out with Laganja Estranja (source here). Even searching through every mention on Issuu, that's all the non-interview sourcing I could find. --Kbabej (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If appearing as a guest on a podcast helps establish notability, then we are going to be flooded with marginal biographies. Liz Read! Talk! 01:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 1). I do not see enough evidence of significant coverage from third-party, reliable sources, but I think a redirect would be more helpful than outright deletion as this is a viable search term. I am suggesting this redirect target as I believe this is what they are most well-known for so it would be the most helpful option for readers. Aoba47 (talk) 00:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hi! Im the creator of this article. Thanks so much, everyone, for your feedback. I’m admittedly a forgetful person, so I have issues especially with sources, checking reliable ones, etc. Whether this article is kept or deleted, thanks for any help that has or will be given here <333 Cornmazes (talk) 12:11, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider Redirect option (in addition to those advocating for Delete)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 1), which gives Glasscock the most attention. Brief mentions in other articles are all connected to her appearance in season 1. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:44, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Accidentally clicked JSTOR in the look for sources. Given the discussion in "Xtravaganza!": Drag Representation and Articulation in "RuPaul's Drag Race", I think that may contribute to notability.Naraht (talk) 04:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a solid source, but I don't think it's significant coverage. The full content about Glasscock is:
    • a mention of her and two other contestants as "diverse types of Queens"
    • "Rebecca Glasscock is not normalized or corrected during the course of the show; she and the other Queens learn that she is the most ideal in terms of her appearance. Repeatedly through the season, Rebecca is told by many of the judges that she is the most naturally beautiful of the Queens. Though all the competitors are beautiful, Rebecca is the Queen who looks most like a woman; she is most capable of passing."
    Overall we have less than WP:100WORDS and it's all still based on season 1 of Drag Race. I could see a few sentences summarizing the source (not just the parts about Glasscock) being due in a (thus far non-existent) §Reception at the season article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:10, 26 October 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. Stifle (talk) 10:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Brennan[edit]

Jake Brennan (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 he's a notable podcaster, nor that he meets N:MUSIC. Draftification was contested, so we're here. Star Mississippi 13:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment.As the author of this page I don't feel qualified to explain why it's pretty clear (and agreed on by the above commenter) that this is a page worthy of inclusion. Multiple webby awards, national press, and was covered in Variety Magazine as recently as this week. [14] Slazarus09
  • Delete and salt. Not a contested draftification, but simply WP:UPE editing.Onel5969 TT me 18:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a valid argument for deletion. It's clearly a notable topic, even if we have a disclosed coi conflict of interest at work.4meter4 (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep If the subjects are notable, then they're notable. That is what AfD is about determining. All arguments about anything else should be ignored. Issues with non-neutral writing in articles is a content issue and should be fixed in article, with stubification if necessary. Anyways, here's sources on the subject:
Sullivan, James (May 3, 2018). "Welcome to 'Disgraceland,' where music and true crime meet". Boston Globe. Retrieved October 14, 2022.
Brown, Lillian (February 20, 2019). "Musician Jake Brennan lands deal for his true-crime podcast, 'Disgraceland'". Boston Globe. Retrieved October 14, 2022.
White, Peter (April 21, 2021). "'Disgraceland' Creator Delves Into Hollywood With Spinoff Podcast Focused On Dark History Of Stars Including Marilyn Monroe & Bruce Lee". Deadline Hollywood. Retrieved October 14, 2022.
White, Peter (September 8, 2021). "Disgraceland's Jake Brennan & 'Crime Junkie' Producer Audiochuck Team On Heist Podcast Series". Deadline Hollywood. Retrieved October 14, 2022.
Saval, Malina (October 12, 2022). "Double Elvis Team Grows Storytelling Success Through Podcasting Series 'Disgraceland,' 'Dead and Gone'". Variety. Retrieved October 14, 2022.
White, Peter (September 29, 2021). "'Disgraceland' Producer Double Elvis Ramps Up Podcast Slate With Four Music Series". Deadline Hollywood. Retrieved October 14, 2022.
Gerber, Dana (September 29, 2021). "Team behind 'Disgraceland' to launch new music-related podcast, acquire three others". Boston Globe. Retrieved October 14, 2022.
Ponti, Aimsel (July 21, 2022). "Music podcast launches with episode on Portland". Portland Press Herald. Retrieved October 14, 2022 – via ProQuest.
Mitchell, Zoë; Dearing, Tiziana (October 3, 2019). "'Disgraceland' Explores Musicians Who've Flirted With The Darker Side Of Rock 'N' Roll". WBUR. Retrieved October 14, 2022.
White, Peter (March 28, 2018). "'Disgraceland': True Crime Podcast Digs Into Dangerous Side Of Rock N' Roll & Eyes TV Future". Deadline Hollywood. Retrieved October 14, 2022.
Kaufman, Gil (March 14, 2019). "'Disgraceland' Podcast Ready to Rock & Shock With Crime Stories About Winehouse, Cobain & More in Season 3". Billboard. Retrieved October 14, 2022.
Verdier, Hannah (March 30, 2018). "Disgraceland: rock'n'roll's worst hellraisers – podcasts of the week". The Guardian. Retrieved October 14, 2022.
Leavell, Byrd (October 2019). "Disgraceland: Musicians Getting Away with Murder and Behaving Very Badly". Publishers Weekly. Retrieved October 14, 2022.
"2022 Best Podcaster: Jake Brennan, "Disgraceland"". Boston. 2022. Retrieved October 14, 2022.
Mulligan, Jesse (November 6, 2019). "Author and podcast host Jake Brennan on his new book Disgraceland". Radio New Zealand. Retrieved October 14, 2022.
He seems quite notable as far as I can tell. SilverserenC 03:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify Promotional article from a Paid Editor. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not seeing a need for that. The text is verifiable to the cited sources, and the subject is notable.4meter4 (talk) 14:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
However, the WP:PROMOTION policy applies separatly to WP:V. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except I'm seeing nothing promotional in the current text of the article. It lists straightforward facts about the subject sourced to reliable sources. What would be the point of draftifying it when it already meets requirements for mainspace publication? SilverserenC 21:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The tone is encyclopedic and the content neutral and verifiable, so WP:PROMO doesn't apply. The positive critical assessment of the subject is actually in the independent RS, so I am not really seeing a strong argument here that the content is problematic.4meter4 (talk) 23:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I trimmed the promotional material quite ruthlessly, as a way of cutting through this dispute. I believe what remains is likely worth keeping. I respect the view that articles with evidence of promotion should be deleted outiright rather than improved, but until that's enshrined in policy, AfDs attempting to apply that argument are likely to be contentious. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And I went in and made some improvements as well. His music history alone has enough source coverage for him to meet GNG before you even get to his podcasting era. SilverserenC 19:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per Vanamonde93. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Immune cycle[edit]

Immune cycle (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)

speculative, unscientific and self-promotional material with problems outstanding LotFourteen (talk) 08:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Immune cycle[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am getting some hits on this topic in published cancer research in particular, but I don't understand the content as a non-medical person well enough to comment on it's potential use in verifying this article for GNG purposes. To me this would seem to need the attention of someone with a background in medicine to properly evaluate. I am going to put in a request for comment at WP:WikiProject Medicine. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article seems to rely on press reports and, to a lesser extent, primary research reports in journals. It is severely lacking in WP:MEDRS-compliant secondary review papers. I hope the listing at WikiProject Medicine will bring in some subject-matter experts, of whom I am not one. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:41, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed. Rather than delete the article, change the name instead to "cancer immune cycle". There are at least two review articles that are WP:MEDRS-compliant secondary review papers. PMID: 32590316 & PMID: 28109906 Jaredroach (talk) 06:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Links to those: PMID 32590316 and PMID 28109906. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:05, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article may list peer-reviewed papers. However, the existence of the immense cycle is not settled science. Until a cycle is shown to exist or generates significant speculation, what place does it have in an encyclopedia? This page exists to promote the work of one individual in order to boost their research profile. The researcher has told local journalists that he cannot secure funding over a twenty year period (Adelaide Now, "Cure de Force: SA doctor’s cancer vaccine coup", May 14, 2022). LotFourteen (talk) 17:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, LotFourteen,
I'm striking your vote here as your AFD nomination is considered to be your Delete vote and no one can cast more than one vote in an AFD discussion. I'd just like to note that all of your 15 edits have been focused at removing Brendon Coventry's article and articles about his work from Wikipedia so you seem to be the definition of an SPA. Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. While this might be a valid subject, the page is of very low quality, the phenomenon is poorly studied, and the results are contradictory. Too soon. My very best wishes (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As it stands, this doesn't belong in Wikipedia. The cancer immune cycle (referenced above by Jaredroach) may scantly support a very brief page on the cancer immune cycle, but that nascent topic is better discussed in Cancer immunotherapy, where it might merit a sentence or two. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:31, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl Academy English School[edit]

Pearl Academy English 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 Ditch ∝ 22:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Ditch ∝ 22:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I wasn't able to find any third-party reliable sources in either English or Nepali. If they've got a website they've hid it well, so I can't use that as a jumping off point to find new sources. There are a few sources like this Hindi result that pops up in a search result when using the Devanagari पर्व एकेडेमी अंग्रेजी स्कूल, but even in those sources they are discussing the similarly named Pearl Academy in India rather than this school. This article was previously included in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaitabare, an AfD that included 24 Nepal-related pages that closed with no consensus. That previous AfD did not appear to discuss this article outside of the nom's deletion rationale, but I thought it might be worth mentioning that there was a previous AfD. If someone is able to find third-party sources please ping me, as I'd be more than happy to reassess if those sources can be found. - Aoidh (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Nepal. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing here: Delete: per Nom. The amount of time looking for any substantial reliable sourcing, finding little, demonstrates a lack of notability. -- Otr500 (talk) 16:41, 23 October 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! 22:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Laidlaw[edit]

Steven Laidlaw (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)

Coverage is just routine sports coverage. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSPORTS. Was deprodded without comment or improvement. Even if NFOOTY had not been deprecated, they would not meet it. Onel5969 TT me 21:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete was not able to find any sources that were notable. JojoMN1987 (talk) 15:17, 23 October 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! 22:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Mafzalur Rahman[edit]

Mohammad Mafzalur Rahman (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)

Can't find any in-depth coverage of this individual. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 21:28, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment After reading this page it seems that the person here is notable but there is no such proof on this for which I ask to retain this page but I would like to say that work can be done on this page.Lionfox0909 (talk) 16:51, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I cannot verify anything on the page. The only source list is a book without an ISBN. Fails verification.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 02:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 02:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Prithimpassa family. Liz Read! Talk! 22:06, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zamindars of Monraj[edit]

Zamindars of Monraj (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)

Here's the thing: the majority of this article has been written by someone with a clear COI, being a proud descendent of the family in question. It's based pretty much on a single source (hence the tag) and that a 404. It's almost entirely unverifiable and consists of a huge amount of unnescessary detail about who married who and who begat who. It's got WP:NOTGENEALOGY written all over it, with a big pinch of WP:COI and WP:OR to boot. I'd be tempted to nominate the Prithimpassa Family, by the same author, for good measure. Mostly/arguably entirely unsourced, it fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Bangladesh. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. With only one source with significant coverage, the topic fails the "multiple sources" component of GNG.4meter4 (talk) 16:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- We have an article on every British peerage, so why not on Indian ones? I am unable to judge from the article how significant the family property was except that they had land in several different states. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The family property was quite significant as they were second in command of the Prithimpassa family while retaining their own Zamindari. Bahadur Khan (talk) 4:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:41, 21 October 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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 00:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beckerle Lumber[edit]

Beckerle Lumber (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)

While the company gets some local coverage, it does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 TT me 20:01, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more references, more content & a picture. (and fixed some syntax errors)
I was thinking of adding more pictures? Is this advised?
Do you think the article is still in danger of being deleted?
Please advise.
PS: This is my first new article so I can use all the help I can get. Stephenbeckerle (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. In addition to the notability concerns, your username suggests that you might have a WP:COI concern with this article. Onel5969 TT me 13:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
does it meet WP:CORPDEPTH now?
Please advise. Stephenbeckerle (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify I think there could be some relevant local interest here and advocate moving it to Draft space where it can be improved over time. While it's unrealistic to think that a local commercial business will have the media coverage of a multinational corporation, the company might be of regional interest and importance. Liz Read! Talk! 22:10, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. Draftify is for developing articles, but with this article's creator now blocked, who will work on the article? Onel5969 TT me 01:03, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The one thing that got some non-ROTM coverage seems to have been the fire, and that does not make notability on its own. Background on family etc. is tacked on and does not contribute. SOrry, but this does not rise to GNG standard. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:32, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:54, 28 October 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! 22:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Twain Sr. High[edit]

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

Zero sources, no evidenced notability. According to Google, it's permanently closed. Unable to find SIGCOV. InvadingInvader (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and California. InvadingInvader (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not saying anything about notability (but being closed wouldn't changed that) but @InvadingInvader: do you have reason to believe that this article was meant to be about a different school than [15]? Their about us refers it as an alternative school as well: [16]. What link(s) did you find to show that it's closed? Skynxnex (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's their 2022-2023 calendar, linked in the 'information' menu item. tedder (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm mostly focused on the San Diego one. The entire debacle seems confusing...and as soon as I look again, Google no longer says it's permanently closed...that's weird. My best guess is that two schools, Mark Twain Junior High and Senior High merged, since PrepScholar lists that a school exists which serves both junior and senior high levels. Regardless, there doesn't seem on be any significant coverage on any school, either the merged or the previous two, at all. InvadingInvader (talk) 22:30, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there are 44 public schools in the US bearing the name "Mark Twain" (per NCES), making using a redirect as an ATD unworkable. Alternative high schools are only rarely notable anyway; we usually cover them in school district articles. 174.212.228.101 (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep. Consensus has not changed in the four days since the last discussion, and the nominator has failed to advance a reasoned argument for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liberland[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Liberland (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)

micronations' activities are almost always trivial enough to be ignored Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 19:21, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep we just voted to keep Liberland a few days ago. Mr vili (talk) 05:41, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. The article got sources from Washington Post, New York Times, BBC. Fifthapril (talk) 07:32, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neonorange you're citing someone here, can you clarify? If you're re-litigating the AfD we just had a few days ago, you need a more coherent reason. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:22, 22 October 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, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ratha Saradhi[edit]

Ratha Saradhi (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, poorly sourced. I did a cursory search for other sources and only found it listed on open source film and movie databases. Nothing with substance. Perhaps a move would be in order, but I don't know where. Ditch ∝ 18:50, 21 October 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! 22:01, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Beet[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. Tagged for notability since July 2020. Insufficiently referenced, and tagged for verification since Feb 2011. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to The Beat (British band) per WP:ATD. He is mentioned in that article. I could only find sources with passing mentions in relation to his work with The International Beat. Nothing significant enough to pass WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Zero stand-alone notability or coverage, and the article proves such by coattailing off established musicians from more notable bands. Mentioned all but once in passing in The Beat article, which doesn't qualify him for a redirect. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 16:59, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - In response to the "redirect" voter above, it is inappropriate to redirect this musician to The Beat (British band) because he was not a member of that band and is only mentioned in the "post-breakup" section of their article due his much later association with some of the members. Otherwise this musician has some associations with various famous people but he does not inherit notability from them, and his own career has never received any reliable coverage. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:45, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regrettable Delete per Nom: Not enough independent reliable sourcing for a stand alone article and entries in the "External links" are not considered reliable. Interviews at best would be primary and a redirect or merge is not possible per Doomsdayer520's reasoning. One source is not sufficient for any article let alone a BLP and the digging required to get past the ambiguity with "Tony Beets" of the Gold Rush (TV series) (who doesn't have an article) shows the little notability of the subject. -- Otr500 (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Les Wilson (musician). Liz Read! Talk! 22:01, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Calder (musician)[edit]

Jean Calder (musician) (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)

Australian country singer fails WP:NBIO with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Australia. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. Skynxnex (talk) 16:57, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or merge to Les Wilson. I did find some coverage in google books. It's clear her career was entirely in partnership with her husband, so I am not certain we really need a separate article. Regardless, we should keep the material at one of these two articles as her work as a musician has been covered in RS. See below.4meter4 (talk) 17:16, 21 October 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! 07:54, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Hayes[edit]

Temple Hayes (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)

Biography of a Religious Science minister. Except for a claim to softball fame which is almost certainly false (see below), there is no actual claim to notability in the article, which has existed for 15 years without ever being adequately sourced, and for many years it has also been severely promotional.

Which National Softball Hall of Fame was she elected to? Not the one found here anyway – here is a list of all female inductees in the various categories. A question about this at Talk:Temple Hayes in 2008 resulted in a change of wording to "nominated" rather than "elected", but in 2015, this promotion laden edit again said she was elected. Since there's no source to be found to confirm it, it can't be included in an article anyway, so there really isn't any notability here. bonadea contributions talk 20:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Here is one piece of independent coverage: [17].4meter4 (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly independent, but it's a local publication (presenting itself as "a free weekly publication, website, content marketing and event company"), and the article is not primarily about her – it's about the organisation she was working for. --bonadea contributions talk 17:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:29, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete motivational speaker, I find sources confirming where she's spoken, rest is trivial coverage. Army reservist isn't notable, the religious stuff doesn't seem notable either. Oaktree b (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find anything other than stuff that looks like promotional guff. JMWt (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shamrock, Colorado[edit]

Shamrock, Colorado (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 am having no luck finding anything out about this place. There clearly was a Shamrock School, which building still stands though it is apparently unused. (Certainly an active school would not be surrounded by farm equipment, as appears on GMaps.) There is a Shamrock Ranch whose southeastern corner lies at the intersection labelled as "Shamrock". Searching is clotted with false hits, but nothing illuminating comes up. Mangoe (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable location. Does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:GEOLAND. Searching newspaperarchive for Shamrock in Colorado finds a few mentions in the Greeley papers of people from Shamrock. [18] indicates that there was a Shamrock school in Adams county. Searching historical topos finds nothing at that location, though the 1:24k topo is named Shamrock (topo names do not make a location legally recognized). I agree that GMaps indicates two possible residences and two other buildings. GBooks finds not much, [19] indicates that the sheriff refers to as an unincorporated area. This is not a legally recognized locale, so WP:GEOLAND #1 is not met. I found no "non-trivial coverage by their name in multiple, independent reliable sources", so WP:GEOLAND #2 is not met. This is a crossroads that once had a school. "Nothing to see here folks, move along..." Cxbrx (talk) 14:52, 27 October 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. I think might be a contentious close but I'm reading the consensus here as Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 07:44, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Spokane, Portland and Seattle Railway locomotives[edit]

List of Spokane, Portland and Seattle Railway locomotives (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)

Wikipedia is not a list of statistics. This is a non-encyclopedic listing of information which is fundamentally not fit to be in an encyclopedia. It also thoroughly lacks reliable sources. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see how a list of locomotives is unencylopedic. Many articles (such as those for train operating companies in the UK, and individual types of multiple unit) list rolling stock. This content could be merged to Spokane, Portland and Seattle Railway but I see no reason why it should be removed from Wikipedia. Garuda3 (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Garuda3, it's always a pleasure to see you at my AfDs. I really appreciate how you frequently cite policies and guidelines to back up your arguments.
    "I don't see how a list of locomotives is unencylopedic." WP:NOTDIRECTORY: Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content. However, Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed. Please see Wikipedia:Alternative outlets for alternatives. Wikipedia articles are not: Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. This is the definition of a simple listing without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Were the article merged as I suggested, the contextual infomation would be there. Similarily to the consensus found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delaware and Hudson Roster. Garuda3 (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Heyo! Original author here! My intent was to perform the following tasks.
1. Have an online all-time roster of SP&S locomotives. When I was a new railfan back in the 80s there was little to no information about the SP&S. I figured Wikipedia was the best place to have this roster. With a way to link to articles about specific locomotives (e.g. Spokane, Portland and Seattle 700) or types of locomotives (e.g. ALCO RS-3) for better navigation. Please note that even today, there isn't another good online all-time roster for the SP&S.
2. I wanted to follow an existing pattern in use on Wikipedia. I was inspired by the way the various British railway articles have a central list of the classes of locomotives, and then individual pages for each locomotive class. For example...
Locomotives of the London and North Eastern Railway is a listing of all classes of the LNER, while it links to LNER Gresley Classes A1 and A3.
So, in summary, and SP&S all-time roster is, I believe, worthy of being on Wikipedia, and my intent was to follow an example that is already being used for other railroads that Wikipedia covers.
Thanks! LarryLeach (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These unsourced lists of "things" are an issue. Why do we need a list of locomotives, with no indication as to why these were chosen to be listed here. No sources, but it's too long to be BS, but no indication why these are important. Oaktree b (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Every railway will have some locomotives, why are these notable? Give context rather than just a list of facts. A decent loco list should have links to every model listed, a "roster shot" photograph (typical photographic example of each type) and as many details as possible, sourced with inline citations. Oaktree b (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for this. Sounds like there is room for improvement and so we should hold off on deletion? An example is List of Great Central Railway locomotives and rolling stock. Garuda3 (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Setting aside that much of that article lacks citations and it is full of original research, I do not believe it's appropriate for Wikipedia to collect massive stacks of information, basically all just taken from one website. Just direct readers to that website if they want to see rolling stock information. Said information also is subject to frequently changing and becoming out of date. This is part of why WP:NOTDIRECTORY exists. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Websites come and go, Wikipedia is much more likely to be sticking around long term. Much of what is listed on Wikipedia is subject to change and the ease of updating is what makes it so much more, and better, than a paper encyclopedia. Garuda3 (talk) 16:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know why I even bother answering you, nothing I say ever registers in your mind. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Heyo!
    Are there specific improvements you wish for me as the author to make? Keeping in mind that I do not have any photos of these locomotives that meet our standard for publication. LarryLeach (talk) 16:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Inline citations which allow verifiability would be a good start. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This list is not unsourced. Thryduulf (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Keep. I fail to understand how a list of locomotives for a notable railway sourced to two independent publications is anything other than encyclopaedic. Given many other similar lists have existed for (in many cases) over 15 years, some of which have survived AfDs - including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delaware and Hudson Roster which you nominated with the same rationale last month - it's very clear that consensus does not agree with your position that such lists are not encyclopaedic. This could be merged with the parent article, but I'd argue against doing that because it would overwhelm that article (WP:SPINOUT is a thing). Thryduulf (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You're misrepresenting what happened at that discussion. While overall consensus was to merge, several editors agreed that the listings are not encyclopedic (and no editors supported keeping the standalone article). And it is very bold of you to assume that two general references actually support most or all of the material in the article. With no inline citations, we cannot verify that. Furthermore, the second source is "The Great Northern Railway Company: All-Time Locomotive Roster, 1861–1970". You'll notice this article is not about the Great Northern Railway Company. Do we have any evidence that book also discusses the SP&S's locomotives? As much as I'd like to AGF, railfans are infamous for adding original research to Wikipedia articles. I know you think I'm just an evil deletionist, but at least stop and consider there might be valid reasons I nominated this for deletion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A point to remember. The SP&S railway was jointly owned by the Great Northern and Northern Pacific. The history of the SP&S is intertwined with the two "Parent Roads". However, I don't have access to "The Great Northern Railway Company: All-Time Locomotive Roster, 1861–1970".
    Is your issue that you want inline citations for, say, multiple entries in the locomotive list? LarryLeach (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to weigh in here. There is such thing as Wikipedia:Categories, like Category:Spokane, Portland and Seattle Railway locomotives. If you really want a list of locomotives from one specific railroad roster on Wikipedia, create all of the pages each about the classes of locomotives you have yet to create. That way, the category will list every locomotive from that railroad just the way you’d like it to, and I doubt it requires any resources, let alone the reliable ones. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Many of the classes here already have articles, and a well-formatted list can be much more informative than a category page. Garuda3 (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Garuda3 TITANOSAURUS 05:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Weak Keeps but I'm not seeing support to Delete this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:14, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep having just been looking at absolutely massive lists of information, this one is the thin end of the wedge. Yes, yes, I know OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a bad argument. However we are going to really get into the weeds if we start trying to AfD every list. Not worth it. JMWt (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how "other stuff is worse" is a keep rationale. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nomination has too many flaws to deal with comprehensively. 1. The information does not seem to be "all just taken from one website" so the suggested remedy does not apply. 2. If information contained within a textual article is encyclopedic, it does not become unencyclopedic if it is listed separately. That is merely a matter of Wikipedia's internal organisation. 3. Do the references support the information? With no inline citations, we cannot verify that. Yes we can. We can read the books and check things out. For reference works of this nature page numbers are rarely even helpful, let alone necessary. Thincat (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the claim about a lack of reliable sources is demonstrably false. The article cites two authoritative books on the subject. Partofthemachine (talk) 19:50, 23 October 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! 08:01, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1994–95 Club América season[edit]

1994–95 Club América season (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)

Season-article without any sources for the season itself The Banner talk 19:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

False. Again, I've showed and explained the sources one by one, the references are journals, TV stations, the structure of the article, the links and now they created a new term: "coverage", maybe tomorrow they will create another one to delete the article. My article was reviewed by wikipedia users and also, approved, now is censored with new terms. The article has 8 sources/references/links, [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], and [25] source number 1 refers to Biyik playing for the club during the 94-95 season, reference number 2 is regards the season 94-95 for Raul Gutierrez being his first one with the club, reference number 3 clearly states Del Olmo was a transfer in for the club for the 94-95 season. Reference number 5 clearly states Kalusha played for the club during the 94-95 season and was another transfer in for the club. References 5 and 6 clearly states Beenhakker situation after was sacked during 94-95 season, reference number 7 clearly states a review of the postseason for the club during 94-95 season. Reference/source/link number 8 was used to structure the squad subsection, the transfers subsection, the comopetitions section and the matches subsection is a RSSSF link even used on 1994-95 Mexican Primera Division season. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me Mister user:Bruxton Hello Sir, I'm created The article 1994-95 Club America season and you reviewed during autumn, now The Banner and his friends wants to delete the article even it is properly sourced. Can you post that the article is not unsourced?. Thank you. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regards the section of matches I used the RSSSF source link. For the squad, transfers and players statistics I used the next source http://yalma.fime.uanl.mx/~futmx/MFL/Mex95/News/norte29my95b.html HugoAcosta9 (talk) 21:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You used a source that is not mentioned in the article? The Banner talk 22:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The source: http://yalma.fime.uanl.mx/~futmx/MFL/Mex95/News/norte29my95b.html it is mentioned in the article section Statistics subsection players statistics at the end of the table. For the position by round subsection and matches of the season section I used http://www.rsssf.com/tablesm/mex95.html the RSSSF 94-95 Mexico season mentioned in the Summary section. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 01:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You claim to have used the rsssf as source but that is never mentioned in the article. Not once. Sorry, but I think we have a WP:CIR-issue here. The Banner talk 09:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article was reviewed by user:Bruxton and includes 7 references/sources/links. The Competitions section links two tables to 1994-95 Mexican Primera Division season the subsection results by round or position by round is properly sourced and linked to https://www.rsssf.org/tablesm/mex95.html same applies to subsection Matches. It is not copyviolation due to it does not exist a similar page on RSSSF, there is a Overall page including 259 teams and hundreds of matches. However my article contains only the matches for the club in question and I did not copy from that site and paste over here, I use the info even it is clear is not the same. Also, that information is available on the Wikipedia Spanish version of 1994-95 Mexican Primera Division season. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You mean that you are now adding RSSSF everywhere. You know that that website is copyright protected? The Banner talk 17:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
False. RSSSF states: "You are free to copy this document in whole or part provided that proper acknowledgement is given to the authors. All rights reserved." Acknowledgements properly included. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not false, you are trying to whitewash your earlier copyright-infringement. The Banner talk 20:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep An in-season source was found not related to RSSF. Source listed below lists the team's transfer window transactions.

Macias, J. L. (1995, Jan 06). Chivas y morelia unicos equipos sin cambios para la segunda vuelta. La Opinión Retrieved from https://library.umaine.edu/auth/EZproxy/test/authej.asp?url=https://search.proquest.com/newspapers/chivas-y-morelia-unicos-equipos-sin-cambios-para/docview/368106807/se-2

There were also coaching changes mid-season and some optimism that the team could make the final as reported below.

Cervantes, R. (1995, Apr 08). Opiniones. La Opinión Retrieved from https://library.umaine.edu/auth/EZproxy/test/authej.asp?url=https://search.proquest.com/newspapers/opiniones/docview/368198932/se-2

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Inomyabcs (talk • contribs)
  • Keep: This AfD of a top-flight domestic league season in Mexico isn't quite so egregiously bad as The Banner going after Real Madrid seasons (for pity's sake), but it is far from good. Nom plainly hadn't the faintest notion of meeting his obligations under WP:BEFORE, nor any legitimate basis to accuse the article creator of copyvio. A casual search turns up many sources. Why wasn't this even attempted before the nomination? Ravenswing 02:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, another AfD with false claims and accusations by the nom. At the time of nomination, it had 8 sources, including something like this which is obviously about the season, and rather indepth. The idea that a season of a top club in football-crazy Mexico would not have sources available at all is rather farfetched, and they don't even have to be in the article to avoid AfD: but here the sources were already provided, but nom decided to proceed anyway. The result is that we have lost a productive editor who had a total (and unacceptable) meltdown over this, other editors need to spend time arguing about articles which never should have been nominated in the first place, and the nom walks away whistling. Fram (talk) 13:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did no claim at all that the article was unsourced. The Banner talk 13:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nom: "Season-article without any sources for the season itself " my reply: "At the time of nomination, it had 8 sources, including something like this which is obviously about the season" (emphasis added). But thanks for indicating your reading skills again with this reply. Fram (talk) 13:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am more concerned about your reading skills and provocations now. The Banner talk 13:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Feel free to add it to the ANI discussion, together with the "speedy keeps" of your last 8 or so AfDs which have all been closed as a "waste of time". But points for wittiness, replying to a comment with "no, you are" is refreshing. Fram (talk) 13:51, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          @The Banner, @Fram take it to your talk pages, the open AN/I or another conduct board please and let this discussion continue on subject's merit. Star Mississippi 13:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I prefer not to let an editor get away with making frivilous AfDs with false claims in the nom as part of a hounding pattern, and then let them try some stupid strawman arguments instead of adressing the actual mistakes they made. That seems directly relevant to the AfD, which the Banner could speed up by withdrawing their now and pinging the only delete to indicate that there were sources all along (@GiantSnowman:). Fram (talk) 14:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            I know there were sources - I checked the article - but I was (and remain) of the view they were not enough for GNG. More than happy to be persuaded otherwise, however... GiantSnowman 17:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            That´s disappointing. You are supposed to look for sources in general, not just base you on what´s in the article already, and even more so xhen it is obvious from this and other AFD´s that the nom didn´t do a before. A quick search gives us e.g. this, this, this, this... a very, very easy GNG pass. Fram (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            Anyway, I've added it to the ANI. Fram (talk) 14:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            I think we likely E/Ced @Fram as we nearly did here. Same goal. Have a good one. Star Mississippi 14:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep baseless copyright allegations notwithstanding, there are more than enough sources to pass GNG. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not surprisingly, many references are provided above. Good grief, this time was arguably the best team in North America that season. A dreadful BEFORE failure from User:The Banner. Can they withdraw it? Nfitz (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So far they've refused (see also their talk) and it appears unlikely. Star Mississippi 01:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point, either this was a bad faith nomination or The Banner really is that terrible at picking articles to nominate (and his record as a nom is just barely over 50%, which with the sheer number of articles he's nominated is appalling). Ravenswing 02:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Red & Black Jeans[edit]

Red & Black Jeans (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 notability. Too short. Almost no sources. Orphaned. Suitskvarts (talk) 12:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak delete - my only concern with delete is that there may be non-English sources. That seems to me to be possible, but I haven't been able to summon the google-woo needed to find them. JMWt (talk) 12:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no sources for the company found. Only hits on jeans in general, the clothing item. Oaktree b (talk) 14:30, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Albania. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not notable enough in Albania, let alone in the English-speaking world. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Kosovo. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:37, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Nom. Fifthapril (talk) 07:37, 22 October 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. Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stereo Satellite[edit]

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

Was made aware of this by its use as an example of a miserable failure of an AfD. I've had a look at that previous AfD, and I find it competely silly. To cover the arguments made in that discussion (as well as the other most common option):

  1. There is no keep argument here; as was said previously, the present sources are all restating the same material as each other, and that material is all glorified press releases anyway.
  2. There's barely a valid merge argument either; this article is two sentences long and the fact that those sentences haven't already been added to any of the three linked band members' articles seems telling regarding notability/how much editors care about this band. You could copy-paste them into those articles (although I'm currently strongly questioning the notability of all three) but an official merge vote puts way more weight behind this scrap than it deserves.
  3. And then, of course, there's the dreaded "How do we redirect to one band member over the others if multiple are notable?" question. First, that's assuming they are which I'm not convinced of; and second, surely the easiest answer then is to delete and let the search term guide users to where they want to go. All three members come up in the top five search results for the term, findability isn't that big an issue.

And by my count, that leaves the delete option. And that's the one I support. Now hopefully this AfD goes more smoothly than the last one. QuietHere (talk) 06:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. QuietHere (talk) 06:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: AfDs on all three members (Here, here, and here). If those clear then that's it for merge and redirect for sure. QuietHere (talk) 07:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was the one who spread the word on the ridiculous first AfD for this band. I voted to delete in that one and wasted my time. I could be persuaded if anyone wants to make the effort to find a solution for the presence of this worthless article, instead of acting like inflexible bureaucrats and insisting that it survive because of a little policy confusion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A bit of a weird case, I grant; the supergroup formed, released one single to media fanfare, and then promptly fell into a black hole. But the group's members are all notable (I have personally voted keep in 2 of those discussions, and the third is at worst a merge-to-band target), and the group did receive sufficient attention, even on the one single, to meet bullet 1 of WP:MUSIC. That's all it needs; WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Chubbles (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This AfD is looking to be just as hopeless as the last one, but allow me to add WP:LOTSOFSOURCES if anyone thinks it matters, while WP:NBAND says that a band "may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria...". There's a difference between may and definitely. Still happily wasting my time on this band that existed for a few minutes then broke Wikipedia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So, the thrust of the argument here is that, even though the group received a bunch of coverage, they didn't actually do anything, and I have some sympathy for that viewpoint; the point of a music encyclopedia is to cover music, and this group released almost no music. I have to believe that is driving the fervor with which the AfD is being argued. If they had never released any music at all, I might go along with that - it would have been a failed salvo in each of the lives of the musicians, perhaps best relegated to a few sentences in their biographies. But they did release a piece of music, and that piece of music was substantially covered; even without an album, or a tour, or any of the other things one often does with one's musical talents, we still have that document, and we have the RS coverage of that document. It doesn't merit a twelve-paragraph article, for sure...but it is, in my view, sufficient for as long an article as we can write on it. Chubbles (talk) 05:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This well sourced article with notable musicians should be kept. Having a second AFD less than 4 months after the first, IMHO, is an abuse of process. Instead, a deletion review should have been instituted, to determine whether or not the previous AFD was done correctly. If the article cannot be kept, the history should be maintained and not deleted via a merge to the article of the most prominent musician. If they are equally notable, redirect to the lead vocalist, or flip a coin to determine the appropriate target. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But I already know why the last AfD failed and it's because everyone disagreed about the arguments, and that's why I started a new one to present a new argument (which you and Chubbles haven't really disputed; the sources are still no good in my mind, like Doomsdayer also said). A deletion review would imply some significant failure of process in the prior, and the only thing that went wrong there was a split vote and a no-consensus. QuietHere (talk) 04:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Here we have yet another argument that was made in the first AfD with no convincing evidence there and none here either. Someone please explain to me WHY the edit history needs to be retained as if that's the end of the argument. When someone typed almost nothing except that some unknown band once existed, that needs to be preserved for posterity? If there's a ridiculous miracle and this band reemerges and becomes notable in the future, someone can re-write the sentence about how they formed in 2017 without digging it out of the archives like it's one of the Ten Commandments and Moses really really really needs credit. I'm also in favor of a deletion review if this thing ends up in useless "no consensus" land yet again. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply - WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yawn - WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Could you please try something else for a change? This time discuss the quality and usefulness of the text to be redirected instead of just saying it should be redirected. The rest of us are. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Gonna second Doomsdayer here. Just because it's possible to save material doesn't mean it's material worth saving. It seems like your AfD votes consistently revolve more around a general desire to preserve everything on WP that you can rather than any specific concern for the article in question in any given discussion. QuietHere (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply - "Well sourced article with notable musicians", information about when the ensemble was formed, the name of their first single, information about the video as well as the main bands of the musicians. "Having a second AFD less than 4 months after the first, IMHO, is an abuse of process". "Someone please explain to me WHY the edit history needs to be [deleted] as if that's the end of the argument". It is easier to keep the information about the ensemble/references and to redirect it, than it is to delete it, then rewrite it later. Once it is proven that the article is accurate and well sourced, the burden then falls on the individiual who would like it deleted. WP:R#KEEP says "They have a potentially useful page history", "make the creation of duplicate articles less likely", "They aid searches on certain terms" and "If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do". It is also irrelevant that "those sentences haven't already been added to any of the three linked band members' articles". If someone tries to recreate the article without sufficient material, the page can be protected, or the link can be salted. Additionally, using phrases such as "competely silly", "ridiculous first AfD" and "worthless article" are bordering on the spirit of WP:CIVIL. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete for reasons I gave in comments above and in the previous AfD. Hopefully the Admin who gets stuck with this dog does more than just count votes. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Precedents for Deletion - (I should have thought of this earlier.) Here are two precedents for "supergroups" with multiple otherwise notable members, in which the band articles were deleted due to non-notability. Both of these bands even released albums. The bands had accomplished nothing on their own, so that supported deleting their articles, without the need to argue about preserving precious edit histories by redirecting and then trying to figure out where to redirect to because there were multiple possibilities. So what was lost to posterity by deleting these bands? Would Wikipedia be better if those edit histories had been preserved? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flying Testicle (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maldoror (band). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply - WP:OSE. Unlike the other articles, this page is well sourced. Metal All Stars, Go Ahead and Die and Lody Kong were once redirected to Kobra Paige, Max Cavalera and Zyon Cavalera, respectively. I would venture to guess, that there are other bands redirected to musicians as well. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OSE's pretty important here, as I would have voted to keep both of those articles if they had the level of sourcing this one does, and I certainly think they should redirect somewhere even now. Chubbles (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you noticed that the decision to redirect can also be debunked with WP:OSE? ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply - "Once it is proven that the [subject] is accurate and well sourced, the burden then falls on the individiual who would like it deleted" instead of being redirected with history in tact. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already addressed that "burden" at least five times in both AfDs by arguing that the quality of the text and its usefulness for future editing purposes do not justify the redirect option. Even Chubbles has argued about the quality of the text but in the other direction, and that gets my respect. On the other hand, simply copying the names of policies and cherry-picking provisions within them, and doing so again and again, is much less impressive. And by the way, those insisting that this article be merged or redirected somewhere should accept the "burden" of doing so themselves if this hopeless discussion ever ends. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply - "It is easier to keep the information about the ensemble/references and to redirect it, than it is to delete it, then rewrite it later". "Three of those sites do describe aspects of either the video or the song in some amount of review detail, and talk about plans to perform on a cruise". There is going to be some overlap between articles that talk about the same band. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would just like to reemphasise what I said initially about the sourcing not being nearly as good as other editors claim. Neither keep voter has actually explained why the sources are good despite that so I find it hard to accept as just a matter of disagreement. Yes, sites like Blabbermouth.net, BraveWords, and Loudwire are commonly accepted sources on WP, I've even used them myself plenty of times, but I'm not convinced they're enough for a whole band article because of the nature of the info they provide. @Jax 0677 @Chubbles what makes you say otherwise? QuietHere (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Blabbermouth and Loudwire, which I am more familiar with, are often rather informal in their tone, and their websites are "ugly" in a way that breeds suspicion from editors who are used to the UX design of The New York Times and The Atlantic. But they do independent journalism akin to what we might have expected, in previous music-rag generations, from publications like HM and Kerrang. Chubbles (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But that regards the websites as a whole, not the specific articles which are at question here. Again, I've used these sites before, I'm familiar with their tone and page design, and I don't care about those things. What I care about is the content of these articles being redundant to each other and, as I put it above, glorified press releases. That is precisely what is at issue here. QuietHere (talk) 18:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply - Three of those sites do describe aspects of either the video or the song in some amount of review detail, and talk about plans to perform on a cruise. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Spin and Billboard sometimes just report more or less the same thing that a press release says, too; they know what their readers are interested in, and that can overlap with what is issued in promotional blurbs. The decision to report on a band at all is an exercise in editorial discretion; they get tons of press releases that they don't act on in any way. I don't think any of that challenges the general independence of the websites. Chubbles (talk) 23:39, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (This is in response to both comments above) A performance/tour announcement is just another thing that comes with a press release. In fact, I suspect several of these "articles" are just word-for-word press releases. I just removed Jammerzine after suspecting it had plagiarised another page, but then it turns out Grimm Gent also uses the exact same text. That's three out of ten sources that are definitely no good. Two more are only a sentence or two and just restating things that appear in other articles, so I wouldn't accept those either. That's half. And the other half are also mostly restating the same things, just phrased differently. The original content in any given article never amounts to more than a sentence or two. These are all unreliable sources. Not because of the websites they've been posted on, but because of the content they posted. Sure, there is "an exercise in editorial discretion" involved in posting anything to one's website, but if you didn't write it then it's WP:PRIMARY, and if you just rearranged a few words to make it sound more original then it's glorified PRIMARY. It's the same issue I brought up at the very start of my initial proposal: there are zero valid sources in this article, and no further coverage has been located. There is no keep argument here.
    Now given that two of the AfDs on individual members closed as keep, I'd be willing to compromise on moving these three sentences into a section of one or both of those. Call that a merge vote I suppose. Delete this page and let the name stand as a search term where people can find the members' pages and be directed to those article sections. Whatever, just so long as this article does not stay because there is no justification for it remaining on its own. QuietHere (talk) 18:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply - Writing about a tour that a band will perform is something that helps establish notability of a music album article. There is going to be some overlap between journalism internet sites that write about the same music ensemble. Three of those sites are describing the band or its music in critical reception form. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But the websites didn't write that, they took it from a press release. And the "critical reception form" is, again, limited to just a few sentences total between all the sources. I hate having to repeat myself but you're just restating arguments that I already responded to. If this is a keep, it's the weakest keep I've ever seen. QuietHere (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply - "A few sentences total between all the sources" is enough. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In re: "Delete this page and let the name stand as a search term where people can find the members' pages and be directed to those article sections." - this is terrible information management, and does not reflect how people use Wikipedia, especially when coming from other websites (like external search engines). It is the worst possible solution to the problem you've identified. The term should go, internally, to some place where we have information about its topic. The most sensible place for that information to reside, I maintain, is an article on the band. Chubbles (talk) 03:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --FMSky (talk) 21:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Needs more input by new people, less by those who have already commented at length.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:03, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete: I do not find the sources, especially when they just regurgitate information from another source, to be very good. If you give out a press release everyone will have the same information. I did find some information here and here but one is an interview and the other a partial interview so I don't think changes anything. Some notable musicians and some not so notable got together. One song and a video, with a proposed album that I can't find a disposition, and no ending to the story. Notability in not inherited. Just not notable enough to pass WP:NBAND. -- Otr500 (talk) 02:32, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact of having two or more notable members is explicitly a criterion indicating notability per NBAND. NOTINHERITED does not trump this fact. Chubbles (talk) 05:51, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - "There is going to be some overlap between journalism internet sites that write about the same music ensemble". "A few sentences total between all the sources is enough". How is there notability in not inherited? --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if this is responding to me (the indentation suggests it is), but WP:BAND bullet 6 recognizes that there is utility in providing information about a group with more than one notable member, where there is no clear redirect target. Instead of just deleting and leaving the user to sift in search, we provide a common-sense article for a band, in some cases more for practical information-organization reasons than for notability per se. An overly restrictive reading of NOTINHERITED would prohibit this, but I don't believe NOTINHERITED should be interpreted to trump WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 17:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The sources by Blabbermouth.net [32] and Loudwire [33] [34] pretty much lead me to say there's notability. Other publications like Broadway World [35] have started to introduce the members as being part of the band, so the page that can list members serves the reader. Why? I Ask (talk) 16:35, 1 November 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Blue-Eyed Giant[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM.

PROD removed with "Removed PROD tag: found several Turkish reviews as cited in Talk:The Blue-Eyed Giant; admittedly I'm not familiar with Turkish sources so if the film's notability is still in question feel free to bring this to AfD" DonaldD23 talk to me 22:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Turkey. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Coverage in Turkish newspapers [36], [37], [38]. Yüsiacı (talk) 22:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC) Yüsiacı (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at these ... the first is not about the film, but refers to celebration of Nâzım Hikmet, who in the piece's title might be referred to by the phrase "blue-eyed giant". In the second, this is also not about the film, but about the poem. The third is a biography of Nâzım Hikmet and does not mention the film. Sorry. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Quick searches on Google Books and Google Scholar reveal a number of sources with in-depth discussions of the film. The nominator has the onus of explaining why they think these are inadequate per WP:BEFORE. --GGT (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GGT--Gazozlu (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:58, 21 October 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! 09:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

American International Theism University[edit]

American International Theism University (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 am sending this to AFD as the notability is borderline. According to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES most university that award degrees have enough coverage to be notable, but I don't think this one have enough coverage for a standalone article. This school can award degrees, but I didn't think the notability didn't pass WP:GNG. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 10:10, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: fails WP:NORG, lack of depth in coverage in the reliable sources. SunDawn, companies and orgs need to clear a higher bar than GNG. Venkat TL (talk) 10:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - other than a website, an address and a couple of academics, I can't see much evidence that it is a real university or actually has any matriculated students. JMWt (talk) 10:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per the above MaxnaCarta (talk) 11:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 14:20, 21 October 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! 09:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Group Workcamps Foundation[edit]

Group Workcamps Foundation (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 a very local charitable group. Sources exist, but they are (a) brief local media articles and (b) fairly obviously not independent as they are frequently asking for funds JMWt (talk) 09:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No sources available on web or news. No coverage for purposes of verification or notability. MaxnaCarta (talk) 11:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No references except for their own site. WP:LOCALINT, too. I tried to find independent media coverage, but found nothing aprop. --Suitskvarts (talk) 12:32, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Colorado. Shellwood (talk) 14:17, 21 October 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. Or more specifically, there is a consensus not to delete, but no specific consensus to do anything else particularly. If anyone wishes to take forward discussions on merging or moving to draft, these can be taken forward through talk page discussions or via WP:BB. Stifle (talk) 10:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disgraceland (podcast)[edit]

Disgraceland (podcast) (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 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Passes criteria 2 of WP:WEBCRIT as the podcast won a Webby Award. Lots of critical reviews available in RS (Boston Globe, LAT, Variety, New York Post etc.) Clearly a WP:BEFORE was not followed.4meter4 (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As the author of this page I don't feel qualified to explain why it's pretty clear (and agreed on by the above commenter) that this is a page worthy of inclusion. Multiple webby awards, national press, and was covered in Variety Magazine as recently as this week. [39] Slazarus09 — Preceding undated comment added 16:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. Not a contested draftification, but simply WP:UPE editing.Onel5969 TT me 18:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a valid argument for deletion. It's clearly a notable topic, even if we have a disclosed coi conflict of interest at work.4meter4 (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yes, I do not that you have the same loathing I have for UPE/COI editors. My recommendation for salting was not to prevent recreation of the article, simply to not allow it to be recreated without admin oversight. Onel5969 TT me 02:06, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the subjects are notable, then they're notable. That is what AfD is about determining. All arguments about anything else should be ignored. Issues with non-neutral writing in articles is a content issue and should be fixed in article, with stubification if necessary. Anyways, here's sources on the subject:
Saval, Malina (October 12, 2022). "Double Elvis Team Grows Storytelling Success Through Podcasting Series 'Disgraceland,' 'Dead and Gone'". Variety. Retrieved October 14, 2022.
Mitchell, Zoë; Dearing, Tiziana (October 3, 2019). "'Disgraceland' Explores Musicians Who've Flirted With The Darker Side Of Rock 'N' Roll". WBUR. Retrieved October 14, 2022.
White, Peter (March 28, 2018). "'Disgraceland': True Crime Podcast Digs Into Dangerous Side Of Rock N' Roll & Eyes TV Future". Deadline Hollywood. Retrieved October 14, 2022.
Kaufman, Gil (March 14, 2019). "'Disgraceland' Podcast Ready to Rock & Shock With Crime Stories About Winehouse, Cobain & More in Season 3". Billboard. Retrieved October 14, 2022.
Verdier, Hannah (March 30, 2018). "Disgraceland: rock'n'roll's worst hellraisers – podcasts of the week". The Guardian. Retrieved October 14, 2022.
Leavell, Byrd (October 2019). "Disgraceland: Musicians Getting Away with Murder and Behaving Very Badly". Publishers Weekly. Retrieved October 14, 2022.
"2022 Best Podcaster: Jake Brennan, "Disgraceland"". Boston. 2022. Retrieved October 14, 2022.
Mulligan, Jesse (November 6, 2019). "Author and podcast host Jake Brennan on his new book Disgraceland". Radio New Zealand. Retrieved October 14, 2022.
Seems pretty obvious on this one. SilverserenC 03:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. In terms of the sources, the podcast has the strongest evidence of significant coverage of the three; although all three have enough sources to pass WP:SIGCOV. The decision to merge for editorial reasons is optional, and it's a decision that should not be made here at AFD but through WP:MERGEPROP. A merge is not absolutely necessary, so WP:ATD does not apply in this context.4meter4 (talk) 00:12, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ––FormalDude (talk) 07:10, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The draftification was "contested" by an obvious sock or meat puppet, that I have blocked. As such it isn't really a contested draftification at all, but given the support for keeping it as is, I don't think I can unilaterally re-draftify, and consensus here is conspicuous by its absence. I'm honestly somewhat frustrated about this discussion, as the issues with promotion are both obvious and somewhat easily fixed, and if someone had done so we could have had a reasonable discussion about notability, and saved a good bit of argument. So, loath as I am to provide free labor to someone seeking to promote themselves, I've cleaned up this page; if someone were to do the same with the two related pages, we could likely close the AfDs and discuss how many pages should exist here. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:37, 28 October 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 Earl of Ulster. Consensus is there isn't sufficient sourcing to establish notability for this particular member of the royal family, regardless of whether others might be. The history is under the redirect if there's a desire to merge some of the material. Star Mississippi 14:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster[edit]

Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster (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)

What makes this person notable? He is associated with British nobility, but that doesn't make him automatically notable. I am not seeing WP:SIGCOV about him outside short catalog-like entries generated for all British nobles of similar level. My BEFORE failed to find anything, WP:NBIO does not appear to be met. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and United Kingdom. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirect to Earl of Ulster - To my great surprise, there is just not enough out there to support a stand alone article. According to sources such as this is somewhere like 14th or so in line for the British throne. Even by a failed proposal to allow all royal family members eighth in line or below would not have enabled him to have a standalone article. I went pretty deep into books. How can someone so deep into the royal family not have coverage? That is surprising. However this would sort of be a "but there must be sources" argument, so its a delete from me unless someone finds the RS to back an argument for keep. MaxnaCarta (talk) 08:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Out of interest, is there a policy about having a BLP's full name and DOB on a page? Given this appears to have these details for the whole family, this seems a tad.. unnecessary.. JMWt (talk) 09:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we do. This is an encyclopaedia and these details are in the public domain. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:20, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I've discovered it is more complicated than that. WP:DOB JMWt (talk) 09:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. As in this case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirect to Earl of Ulster Shared MaxnaCarta's sense of surprise, search threw up nothing whatsoever. And that means he's a non-notable noble. Agree with MaxnaCarta's reasoning to redirect to Earl of Ulster as an alternative to deletion! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:17, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alexandermcnabb I've changed to redirect to Earl of Ulster it makes sense I reckon! MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree! :) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:18, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Like all children of the Queen's royal cousins, he easily has enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, especially dating from when he was younger, as young members of the royal family generate massive interest. Note that, given his age, most of this won't be easily accessible online (see WP:OFFLINE). Also note that one day he will be Duke of Gloucester, which, although it will no longer be a royal dukedom, is still one of the most significant titles in the British aristocracy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I am stuck @Necrothesp. While I have participated in hundreds of XFD, this is the first time I have ever seen a member of the royal family at XFD. Both you and the nominator are highly experienced. I am very much open to advice and counsel here. Voting delete for this did not feel right. I mean I was like "Surely there is something out there?. But there is legit nothing even in books, and I also did a search on EBSCO. As a student at University of Melbourne, I did a search across our eleven libraries and there is nothing available. Heck, even a Google book search on "Earl of Ulster" generates results for previous earls dating back to 1600, yet not this fella? Deleting this just does not feel right. Regardless of status does a person not need significant coverage? If you say he easily has it, where? I am legit stumped. MaxnaCarta (talk) 10:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there's plenty of coverage in newspapers in his younger days. Nothing particularly "in depth" maybe, but he's hardly that obscure. I maintain that the chldren of the royal dukes are notable. Note the recent AfD discussion for one of his cousins. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Necrothesp "Well, there's plenty of coverage in newspapers in his younger days. ". Uh, ok, can you link it? And if it's not "in depth", well, WP:SIGCOV is failed. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How does one link to a 1980s newspaper?! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:03, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are online archives. But while offline citations are perfectly acceptable, trouble is there aren't any given. Perhaps we might Draftify if you're intent on looking for them, but in the abstract that seems a lot like a "there must be a pony in there somewhere" line of reasoning. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 07:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Earl of Ulster. Not enough WP:SIGCOV to warrant his own page (which I am also genuinely surprised about), but as a member of the Royal Family, he could be a common search term and redirects are WP:CHEAP. I would consider British royal family to be a suitable target as well, but he is not mentioned by name in that page at all. Frank Anchor 14:46, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Earl of Ulster. My university library had zero significant coverage in any databases, including the archives of The Guardian, The Observer, and The Times. I did find a birth announcement, and a couple passing mentions. Nothing that would count as significant coverage.4meter4 (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as above, if there's anything that's appropriate to merge. Seems like a classic case of "must be notable just by virtue of existing", where the sources really don't stand that up. (Beyond that mere fact, which can readily be covered elsewhere.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Member of the Royal Family. Plenty of coverage around. From his birth, childhood (article in the Illustrated London News 2 July 1988), People reporting the birth of son, notable guests at the Queen's funeral (search google news for "earl of ulster" funeral). There's probably more offline especially about serving in Iraq with Prince Harry Piecesofuk (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To me those look like press releases and fail SIGCOV. Well, I can only access the first link, but it's one short paragraph, 2-3 sentences. That's not indicative of significance. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the number of sources should also be considered when determining notability:
    "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability." Piecesofuk (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but is this not trivial coverage? His birth, people reporting birth of his son, etc. seems very much trivial coverage to me. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That being the case, then I think up to half the bio articles in Wikipedia easily meet deletion criteria. Seems a bit odd to me that someone around 30 in line to the throne is not notable enough, yet 16 year old wannabe pop stars who write their own bios are. My point here being that the very fact there is nothing in the public domain about the Earl actually does make him notable! Maybe someone could contact him through Buck house for comment, or to ask him if he wants to be deleted?92.12.84.72 (talk) 12:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you feel other articles fail WP:SIGCOV, then you're free to nominate them for deletion, but that has no bearing at all here. You may be unimpressed by the efforts of people who achieve celebrity through their own endeavours (... such as those might be...), but if secondary sources are still less taken with the "person with very posh title does utterly quotidian thing that would otherwise attract no comment whatsoever", why should Wikipedia, given our rather clear sourcing policies? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is not a member of the British royal family by any of the definitions of it: he does not hold a royal style; he does not appear on the royal family's website; he is not listed as a member of the royal family by the lord chamberlain, etc. Even if he were, that alone would not be enough; per WP:INVALIDBIO, a mere relationship to someone notable is not grounds for inclusion. He either is covered in reliable sources to a significant extent or is not. Can we please start citing some non-trivial coverage? Surtsicna (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    According to the Gazette he's a member of the royal family Piecesofuk (talk) 03:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He could be a member of the First Martian Hoochie-Coochie Trumpet Band, but with no WP:SIGCOV and no guideline that tells us that members of that band are automatically presumed notable, we are guided by policy such as WP:BIOFAMILY. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a twenty-year-old source, during which time there's been a new monarch, abolition of the Act concerned, and him getting bumped a few more slots down the list by fresh more-royal-than-thou spawn. But it might be argued he's a member of the RF by the laxest possible definition: i.e. the former scope of that Act, which is all Chaz's cousins, however many times removed. By which logic we should also have an article on Flora Vesterberg too? Either he passes the general notability guideline, or he doesn't -- and it looks very much like the latter. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:47, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think we have enough material in the article. Title holders in the UK are generally considered notable, especially those close to the Royal family. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:40, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:GNG. And he's not even strictly speaking a title holder: "Earl of Ulster" is a courtesy title, being a substantive title of his daddy. Which according to the article he doesn't even normally use. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:43, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ayyappan Sreekumar[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO - appears to be WP:SELFPROMOTION based on a series of press releases and interviews none of which are credible secondary sources - the achievements are a series of minor awards: 'Certificate of Participation' from "Guinness World Records" for participating in the longest film documentary and the non-notable Primetime Media Awards which was awarded to B4blaze not Sreekumar himself. Dan arndt (talk) 06:25, 21 October 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! 05:32, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Susie Wiles[edit]

Susie Wiles (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)

Unelected political consultant who has not held office. While apparently described by an Axios reporter as a 'top political adviser', we have no guidance that political consultants or, as they are known in the UK, SPADS are notable per WP:NPOL. Additionally, coverage does not lead to a pass of WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:40, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:40, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON based on this CNN article. She will likely meet WP:GNG this time next year if the big man does pick her, but she's just not there at the moment. Curbon7 (talk) 04:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks like she's had coverage of her going back years, since she was in charge of DeSantis' campaign four years ago (and Trump's in 2016 too) and Romney's campaign before that. Here's some sources in addition to the three currently in the article:
And this was just a cursory look. There seems to be a lot more out there on her. SilverserenC 05:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SS. Unfortunately the nominator does not seem to have exercised their due diligence. Kingoflettuce (talk) 09:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The numerous sources listed above by Silver seren provide more than enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:52, 21 October 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Benita Husband[edit]

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

Appears to be more of a promotional bio. All references/sources are company bio pages, press releases, etc. No reliable media coverage shown. Needs heavy sourcing to show it meets WP:GNG If kept, article needs reworking for multiple other issues. JamesG5 (talk) 03:47, 21 October 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. You can let me know if you want this article draftified. Liz Read! Talk! 03:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Priya Ponnapalli[edit]

Sri Priya Ponnapalli (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 appears to be a largely promotional piece for someone who doesn't meet the WP:GNG Among other things the mention of her company links to a blank page for what seems to be a start up. Most of the references are just mentions or listings, no significant coverage or noted accomplishments. JamesG5 (talk) 03:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete agree with nom. GSearch only shows where she works or brief mentions. Nothing for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 04:21, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Edits highlight significance of achievements. Please do not delete this article on a true leader in AI and ML. PSON2023 (talk) 00:07, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Edits highlight significance of achievements. Please do not delete this article on a true leader in AI and ML. PSON2023 (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Edits highlight significance of achievements. Please do not delete this article on a true leader in AI and ML. PSON2023 (talk) 00:53, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
what is AI and ML? Oaktree b (talk) 13:10, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Artificial intelligence and machine learning. History of both accounts editing and promoting the article fits with idea of this being promotional. JamesG5 (talk) 18:30, 24 October 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! 03:34, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Faridpur Jamia Islamia Madrasah[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced, seems more written like an advertisement than an article. No SIGCOV found, and an almost certain GNG fail. InvadingInvader (talk) 03:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I failed to find anything on Google. This doesn't pass GNG. Numis Zuhair (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a notable educational institution. Mehedi Abedin 22:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Insider[edit]

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

WP:DICTIONARY. Unsourced. Even if it should be on here, it'd probably be better to nuke it and start over. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 03:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

High Definition (Vitalij Kurprij album)[edit]

High Definition (Vitalij Kurprij album) (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 coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Albums requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. PS. See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vitalij Kuprij Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:01, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination + my own search which also came up with nothing of value. Important note for other editors: the title of this article misspells the artist's name (It's "Kuprij", not "Kurprij") so if this does get kept it still needs a move. And I gotta be honest, that PROD cancel was kinda nonsense given it was over a decade ago and not on the same grounds as this one. QuietHere (talk) 05:19, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to satisfy the requirements of WP:NALBUM. Dan arndt (talk) 04:01, 25 October 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 Samson (band). Liz Read! Talk! 02:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Biceps of Steel[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM, nothing useful found in a BEFORE.

PROD removed with "Film not released until 2003. Appears to be notable", but nothing was added to prove that statement of notability" DonaldD23 talk to me 02:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Music, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Zero sources found, I find the term being used in everything from the Seattle Seahawks to Thor movie articles, but nothing about this film. Oaktree b (talk) 04:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Samson (band) where it is covered near the end of the Career section. Gab4gab (talk) 12:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Redirect to Samson (band). My WP:BEFORE found trivial mentions, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, though this has 3 hits but might still be too short for WP:SIGCOV. IMHO per WP:ATD, redirecting is better than deleting, we could add some of these refs into the existing article, but as the refs are mostly trivial mentions even if merged it would probably just be one or two sentences. VickKiang (talk) 02:45, 22 October 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! 01:50, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Centaurus High School[edit]

Centaurus High 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)

A review of sources comes up short for this high school-- one article about a possible shooting there was actually a non-event, and other sources only seem to mention the school in passing. Nominating for deletion per WP:NSCHOOL and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. A loose necktie (talk) 01:41, 21 October 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! 01:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy Kahn[edit]

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

This article was deleted in 2010 and restored, but still doesn't meet the notability guidelines for actors. The article's subject has not had any credits or coverage in more than 15 years. And the article has only one reliable source. Matuko (talk) 01:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Matuko (talk) 01:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Zero sourcing found, the one used in the article is good, but we need more than that. It appears this individual is no longer active, so we likely won't find any further sources. Oaktree b (talk) 04:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NACTOR. Minus the Sun Sentinel article I don't see any other mentions in the press, and neither a (dead link to a) cast bio nor an IMDB entry are useful for establishing notability. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 06:46, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No evidence of any significant coverage from reliable sources. Moresdi (talk) 09:10, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BASIC- hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources and only one reference is decent for basic information. Looked for sources but failed to find anything. Not notable because he has not received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. RealPharmer3 (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No significant coverage. I сhecked the page in other languages. But they are even shorter. --Suitskvarts (talk) 10:32, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete: This one is a shame. The source referenced above is a good, in-depth write-up, but the requirement that WP:SIGCOV comes from reliable sources, rather than a single source, is problematic here. Whether the subject meets WP:NACTOR or not is another question, but unless any other sources can be found—sources which, at the very least, mention him—I unfortunately don't think WP:GNG is made out. Dflaw4 (talk) 09:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_October_21

Leave a Reply