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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Columbine High School massacre in popular culture[edit]

Columbine High School massacre in popular culture (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)

Another list(icle) of media in which an otherwise notable topic appears in. This is yet another violation of multiple policies and recommendations (multiple policies and guidelines (WP:IPC, WP:GNG, WP:NLIST, WP:INDISCRIMINATE,WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR, plus the just created WP:NOTTVTROPES). While mostly referenced and at least not failing WP:V, according to my BEFORE, this probably unrescuable, as this topic does not appear to have been covered before in a way that meets SIGCOV. A SOFTDELETE alternative might be redirecting this to Columbine_High_School_massacre#Popular_culture, although that section is not very impressive. Nothing warrants merger, as this entire article is an ORish list of media mentions, without any analysis (i.e. reliable sources saying that depiction of the event in x is actually significant with regards to pop-culture). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Crime, Popular culture, Education, and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Not satisfied with completely and persistently understanding WP:IINFO, you and TPH are now writing essays to try and enshrine your preferred interpretations? Jclemens (talk) 07:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:NPA, WP:AGF... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  PS. By TPH do you mean User:TenPoundHammer? Shouldn't you directly ping them when you mention another editor, per best practices? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete standard example of WP:NOTTVTROPES. It was a tragic event, but not something where we need to list every time anyone even mentioned it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:OR. If no reliable independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. Obviously the real-world event itself is verifiable in reliable sources, and suitable for Wikipedia. But an indiscriminate list of badly referenced mentions is not. There may be some secondary source that covers this in a way that would allow us to write a proper section, but there would be nothing from this article to WP:PRESERVE. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:01, 18 May 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. While this would appear to be a no consensus by the numbers, the strength of !votes clearly tips this to delete as those have policy on their side. Those arguing this could be solved editorially have not provided policy based reasons to keep it. If someone believes there's significant Malaysian sourcing, I' happy to provide in draft. Star Mississippi 01:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My Jet Xpress Airlines[edit]

My Jet Xpress Airlines (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 managing director of a Malaysian aviation startup came on live chat and wanted to know why his company couldn't have an article, when inadequately-sourced articles like this one exist. He's right - I checked, and I don't think this one meets notability criteria. The sources cited are primary. I'm loath to delete it based solely on the complaints of a competitor, though.

Also, the company's been around for 50 years, so maybe I'm just not using the optimal search terms or looking in the right places. DS (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and Malaysia. Shellwood (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep an airline that operates a Boeing 737 size aircraft is of note, deletion is not a cure for badly referenced article it just needs some work. MilborneOne (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep GNews has a few good hits in Transportation media/publications, this one [1] for example. Oaktree b (talk) 00:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  and a few other sources in Malaysian media, in Malay? and Chinese it looks like. I think we have notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's a press release - same as this one on the Kerry website which is marked as PR. Fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nonsense to suggest that a company that operates a Boeing 737 is notable - there's nothing in our guidelines to suggest that forms part of the criteria. This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company which must be met by appropriate references and this article has no references that come close. I'm not an expert in searching for Malaysian sources though but my attempts came up empty - its all very well wishing that better sources exist but we also can't assume that they do for sure exist. Finally, references that are based on company announcements and press releases fails ORGIND and do not assist in establishing notability. As it stands, this topic fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just Need Some Works To The Article Emery Cool21 (talk) 12:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to be the one who does that work. DS (talk) 12:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn’t be necessary for someone who votes to keep an article to edit it. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:NCOMPANY. Operating B737 or whatever is not a free pass allowing the company to have a catalogue-entry that fails GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The topic/company appears to be of note and the article could be edited and reworked.Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "appears to be of note" - where?

  Edited and reworked: sure. Are you volunteering to do so? DS (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Not my job or required of someone who votes to keep an article. Based on the article itself, I think the company is notable and someone else can improve or expand it. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 07:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disney's Really Short Report[edit]

Disney's Really Short Report (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)

Mike's Super Short Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Leo Little's Big Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Three closely related interstitial shorts, not a single reliable source among them. As shorts and not full shows in their own right, they are far less likely to have ever received any WP:RS attention. Indeed, they get no relevant hits on Newspapers.com or ProQuest -- just tangential mentions or program directories. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disney-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete seeing as there has not been any sources the past 9 years this is not notable and fails WP:GNG. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 18:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mike's Super Short Show was previously deleted at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and lack of RS. Megtetg34 (talk) 05:40, 24 May 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. Star Mississippi 02:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Kwangshin Kim[edit]

David Kwangshin Kim (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)

Pastor of unclear notability. Article has no secondary sources. His ministry may be notable, but unsure if Kim is notable. Natg 19 (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Religion. Natg 19 (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Zero hits elsewhere, but I find one mention in GBooks ("The Religions of Los Angeles") and what looks like a brief mention in JSTOR about missionary churches. Leaning non-notable, might find more detailed sources in Korean language items? Oaktree b (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep as he is the head of a notable ministry. Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, KO Wikipedia cites to nontrivial coverage in several sources, including the Kukmin Ilbo[2] and Mission Times[3]. Even if these sources were rejected for some reason, there seems little doubt that others could be found with some effort. -- Visviva (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Subject appears more than notable and article should be able to be improved upon with available sources.Bookworm857158367 (talk) 21:47, 24 May 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. Star Mississippi 01:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Sanctions Project[edit]

Internet Sanctions Project (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)

Sources here are mostly primary sources, even on user-generated platforms, and many do not even mention the Internet Sanctions Project. It does not seem to meet WP:NCORP. MarioGom (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, and Internet. MarioGom (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It looks like it meets WP:GNG to me... The original author only included four citations to mainstream media references (The Register, the Washington Post, Heise and the Associated Press), but those aren't insignificant, and a quick search found a ton more, which I added a few of. The news media seems to view both the project itself as significant, and the opinions of the people who're doing the project as individually significant. And it seems like most of the organizers are notable individually as well, since there are preexisting Wikipedia pages about them. Perhaps the article would be improved if any of the primary sources which weren't contributing usefully were culled, and the remainder were moved into the External links section? Otherwise, for a relatively short article, it seems well-written and well-supported with citations. EVhotrodder (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Blocked sock --Blablubbs (talk) 11:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Which sources are you referring to, exactly? I see 8 hits for Internet Sanctions Project on Google. The Washington Post piece [4] do not mention the project at all. It's just a quote by one of the founders? That poses two problems: 1) notability is not inherited, there may be some info due for the founder page, but that doesn't make this project notable, and 2) WP:ORGCRIT requires significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, and that's simply not existent here. MarioGom (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references in significant mainstream international media refer to the letter and solution proposed by this active organization, which seems to play a significant role in an important contemporary debate. Seems consistent with WP:GNG and WP:NCORP to me. Detlevore (talk) 08:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since you mention WP:NCORP, can you cite the exact sources that provide significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject? MarioGom (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article has lots of references, but none of them are about this organization. In fact, I couldn't find one that even mentioned the organization. A Google news+archive search turns up zero results. I am not sure what references in mainstream media outlets the keep !voters could possibly be talking about. agtx 15:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lack of SIGCOV in RS. Topic fails WP:NCORP. Megtetg34 (talk) 06:03, 24 May 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 INNOVATE Corp. or a section thereof, should a defunct stations one be created Star Mississippi 02:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WADA-LD[edit]

WADA-LD (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 defunct LPTV station. No sources. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and North Carolina. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Wish there was a good redirect target that could at least list the subchannels for diginet tree LPTVs like these and would be open to anyone suggesting one. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Let me get this straight. Consensus is being determined solely by the same two editors who have doggedly pushed the POV that notability hinges solely on the existence of a currently valid FCC license? No credibility there. As for a redirect target, the article contains a link to a parent company. The state-level list article, if it's properly serving the purpose of a historical record, should have a section for defunct stations. Wilmington is a large enough media market to where a media-specific subarticle should exist. It's not like there are zero possibilities. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 19:38, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I object to this characterization because that is not—at all—my view. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I can't discern whether this is a Keep vote here. Any suggestions on possible redirect targets?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the HDC? holdings company I guess is the best bet.Oaktree b (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, a line item in a "defunct stations" table in INNOVATE Corp., or possibly a spinoff list, is probably the only useful thing I could see. There's no table of HC2 stations now, though. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:05, 18 May 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 per WP:SK#1. The nomination is only proposing a merge. I suggest adding merge templates to the articles denoted and starting a discussion on a talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drugu[edit]

Drugu (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)

Merge the one or two sentences in the article to Turkic peoples, and then redirect. Mooonswimmer 23:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Neither of which involves the administrator tool, and could have been done in two edits as opposed to the three edits that this AFD nomination took. This is articles for deletion. If you don't want the administrator deletion tool used, you are in the wrong place. Uncle G (talk) 23:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Asia, and Turkey. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To a Place[edit]

To a Place (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, fails WP:ALBUM. Mooonswimmer 23:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lipshitz Saves the World[edit]

Lipshitz Saves the World (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, unproduced comedy Mooonswimmer 23:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not enough sourcing, show wasn't picked up. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. Deleted by Cryptic under WP:G11 (non-admin closure) TartarTorte 02:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rajender Singh Pahl[edit]

Rajender Singh Pahl (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)

CSD G11 removed. Article is WP:PROMOTION Whiteguru (talk) 22:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Whiteguru (talk) 22:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• EDIT CONFLICT ??? CSD tag was not visible on the page, yet visible in page history. Article is still promotional in nature. --Whiteguru (talk) 22:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As per your warning, I have made the changes. The article has now become neutral and encyclopedic in nature. Also I have provided the references from the top journals and newspapers that you can verify. Not even a single word is written without a reference. I therefore request you to remove the CSD tag. Prasun020 (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment not seeing notability either, sources don't help much. Oaktree b (talk) 23:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Festersen[edit]

Pete Festersen (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)

Elected official with no significant coverage outside local sources; fails notability criteria for politicians and WP:GNG. – Ploni (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Nebraska. Ploni (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 18:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete failed candidates for congress are almost never notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Melvin Black[edit]

Melvin Black (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)

Elected official with no significant coverage outside local sources; fails notability criteria for politicians and WP:GNG. – Ploni (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Tennessee. Ploni (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This article features Black, but doesn't offer WP:SIGCOV of him; a search through newspapers.com returns no sources that provide SIGCOV either. Doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I didn't find any significant coverage via google and newspaperarchive. A redirect to Metropolitan Council of Nashville and Davidson County would be OK, but I saw more stuff on other people with the same name, so it would probably do more harm than good. Jacona (talk) 12:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda McClendon[edit]

Amanda McClendon (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)

Elected official with no significant coverage outside local sources; fails notability criteria for politicians and WP:GNG. – Ploni (talk) 21:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Tennessee. Ploni (talk) 21:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Appears to fail WP:GNG, as no sources that provide WP:SIGCOV appear to exist. Curbon7 (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

J. B. Loring[edit]

J. B. Loring (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)

Elected official with no significant coverage outside local sources; fails notability criteria for politicians and WP:GNG. – Ploni (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Tennessee. Ploni (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Appears to fail WP:GNG. No sources that provide [{WP:SIGCOV]] seem to exist. Curbon7 (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable local level official.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Gentry Jr.[edit]

Howard Gentry Jr. (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)

Elected official with no significant coverage outside local sources; fails notability criteria for politicians and WP:GNG. – Ploni (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Tennessee. Ploni (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clerks of local courts are just plain not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Greer[edit]

Ronnie Greer (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)

Elected official with no significant coverage outside local sources; fails notability criteria for politicians and WP:GNG. – Ploni (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Tennessee. Ploni (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pam Murray[edit]

Pam Murray (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)

Elected local official with no significant coverage; fails notability criteria for politicians and WP:GNG. – Ploni (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Tennessee. Ploni (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vic Lineweaver[edit]

Vic Lineweaver (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)

Elected local official with no significant coverage; fails notability criteria for politicians and WP:GNG. – Ploni (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Tennessee. Ploni (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Tygard[edit]

Charlie Tygard (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)

Elected local official with no significant coverage; fails notability criteria for politicians and WP:GNG. – Ploni (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Tennessee. Ploni (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Philips[edit]

Stephen Philips (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:BLP of a musician, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The notability claim here is essentially just that his music exists, and the only source being cited is his own self-published profile on the website of his own self-owned record label, which is not a notability-assisting source -- and it's been flagged for the referencing problem since 2014 without ever having any new references added. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to get over WP:GNG on real coverage in real media. Bearcat (talk) 20:36, 17 May 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. Bearcat (talk) 20:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The only sourcing appears to be a website which is involed in publishing his work. No indication of secondary sources that are independent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beekeeper (band)[edit]

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

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

Article about a band, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The attempted notability claims here are charting #102 on Canada's campus radio charts (a WP:BADCHART that cannot establish musical notability, as it isn't IFPI-certified), airplay on CBC Radio 3 which is unverified as their name appears nowhere at all in the page that's being cited to support it, and a concert tour which is sourced solely by an unreliable blog and the band's own self-published website rather than the WP:GNG-worthy coverage about the tour that's actually required to pass the touring criterion.
This is, further, referenced almost entirely to blogs, university student media, the band's own website and other sources that aren't support for notability; there's just one citation to a real major daily newspaper, and even that's just their hometown newspaper giving them a Q&A interview in which they're talking about themselves in the first person, which means it would be fine for use if the other sourcing were stronger but can't vault them over GNG all by itself.
Essentially, nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to be referenced a lot better than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and British Columbia. Bearcat (talk) 20:19, 17 May 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. Star Mississippi 02:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of the Faroe Islands[edit]

List of people on the postage stamps of the Faroe Islands (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)

Deprodded without comment. Yet another "List of people on the postage stamps of X" article with zero encyclopedic content or sources. Expanding the list is doing nothing to improve its lack of value, its lack of sources, its lack of anything. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Denmark. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A source was added before the deletion proposal, and I was about to post a comment at Talk:List of people on the postage stamps of the Faroe Islands when this new message was posted to me.
  If the concept of List of people on the postage stamps of X is at all legitimate on en:wp, this list is among the better half on them. It is sourced and it is complete. Bw, Orland (talk) 20:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sourcing is far from the only issue here. A lot of these "List of people on the postage stamps of X" articles are being deleted or nominated because it's difficult to WP:V every single one of them, and no one has expressed any reason why they should be kept. What encyclopedic value do they contribute? Wikipedia is not a list of everything that ever existed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @TenPoundHammer: I recognize your method in this matter, having used it myself to remove abandoned portals at no:wp. However; if your aim is to erase the whole concept of these list articles, you can only achieve some of your goal by removing the weakest ones. In the end, erasing the whole concept should be treated in another forum that individual deletion proposals for all 171 lists. Bw Orland (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I've added a danish language academic source discussing the national symbols of Denmark and its realms. This book comfirms that the stamp policy of the Faroese Islands is to reflect the Islands' history and culture. Thus, that would be the answer to the encyclopedic value: these people are carefully selected as important people in Faroese history. Bw Orland (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is not an indiscriminate list, but has encyclopedic value as a reference work of the most notable people of the islands.

Unlike a category, this has the added benefit of beautiful artwork, so it can also include some documentation about the artists. This makes the list a biographical, philatelic, and artistic treasure useful to biographical, philatelic, and art historians. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"It looks beautiful" is not a reason to keep. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Nice cherry picking. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: a sourced list of people that the Faroese themselves consider important enough to be on their stamps: just as valid as the many "Hall of Fame" lists we see. These are notable people - I've added {{ill}} links to a few who are in no.wiki or da.wiki but not yet in en.wiki. The no.wiki equivalent appears to be a Featured List - yes, I know that every wiki is different, but it seems worth mentioning! PamD 10:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Since the Faroese government took charge of the postal service in th 1970's, the stamps have had a role in shaping the Faroese national identity. The people depicted on the stamps, have played noteworthy roles in the Faroese society. Of course it is both appropriate and useful to others to compile a list of these people, as to recipients of honors and awards, and even those who declined to recieve them. Efloean (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The topic is clearly notable and of importance. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:10, 24 May 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. Star Mississippi 02:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert O. Wray[edit]

Robert O. Wray (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:NBIO. – Ploni (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• While the secondary sources and the article itself are not strong, based on WP:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes and WP:ANYBIO, Wray should still qualify. I should note I have a WP:COI as a paid consultant working for Wray, although I did not contribute to this article. A retired two-star Rear admiral (United States) of the United States Navy,[5] Wray had to be nominated by the President of the United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate (U.S.C. §601), as he was in 2007 [6] and 2010 [7] The most analogous policy is WP:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Politicians, for “Political figures not elected to public office”, which states that sub-cabinet officials (assistant secretary, commissioner, etc.) are usually considered notable, especially if they have had otherwise notable careers.” As with non-civilian presidential appointees, what these approximately 1200 Wikipedia-qualifying sub-cabinet officials have in common is the positions are nominated by the president of the United States and must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. [8] “Rear Admiral is the highest naval rank maintained during peacetime."[9] Wray served as president of the Board of Inspection and Survey,[10] which Congress established 1868 to inspect and assess the military readiness of all vessels in the Navy, reporting to the Secretary of the Navy. Wray also meets the award criteria for WP:ANYBIO for having “received a well-known and significant award or honor.” Wray won the Bronze Star, the Legion of Merit and Distinguished Service Medal. [11]. BC1278 (talk) 23:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Military. Ploni (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and New York. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sufficient sources for WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets notability guidelines.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep many non independent sources, but probably just satisfies WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 09:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pascal Etcheber[edit]

Pascal Etcheber (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:NACADEMIC. – Ploni (talk) 18:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Philosophy. Ploni (talk) 18:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and France. Shellwood (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I thing WP:GNG is the guideline to use here (and which the subject appears to fail) rather than WP:NACADEMIC. The subject is a management consultant with a degree, as most of them have, not a "philosopher". Phil Bridger (talk) 13:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair point. I agree that he seems to fail WP:GNG too in any case. –Ploni (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Meets neither academic nor general guidelines. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 14:41, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Virgines[edit]

Israel Virgines (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:NBIO. – Ploni (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Christianity, and Philippines. Ploni (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are a handful of mentions in the press relating to his unsuccessful political career, but none of it amounts to significant coverage, in my view. Since reliable sources don't discuss Virgines in depth, he doesn't meet the GNG/WP:BASIC. Although he's mentioned in a few other articles, there's no single one that would make a logical redirect target. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- He appears to be more of an academic administrator than notable as a professor; as a failed political candidate he fails WP:POLITICIAN. SUMMARY: NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:59, 20 May 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 Legislative Assembly of Omsk Oblast. ✗plicit 01:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of chairmen of the Legislative Assembly of Omsk Oblast[edit]

List of chairmen of the Legislative Assembly of Omsk Oblast (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 list with one item fails WP:NLIST. Gabe114 (talk) 18:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, Lists, and Russia. Gabe114 (talk) 18:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Legislative Assembly of Omsk Oblast, seems that would be useful info there. Reywas92^Talk 19:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Legislative Assembly of Omsk Oblast. Spokoyni (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Legislative Assembly of Omsk Oblast. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 06:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Donald A. Coggan[edit]

Donald A. Coggan (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 strongly fail notability guidelines. A quick Google search ("Donald Coggan engineer") yields basically nothing. – Ploni (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Engineering. Ploni (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination. No results other than his books and his own website. -eco^{talk to me} 21:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete With both the sources listed and sources available online, fails to meet WP:GNG. Reads like WP:RESUME. Firsthand accounts for sourcing without outside support. NiklausGerard (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asare Bediako Adams[edit]

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

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

Does not meet notability criteria, and clearly written by the subject (User:Bediakoasare4). – Ploni (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Ghana. Ploni (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iman Ebrahimi[edit]

Iman Ebrahimi (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 evidence that he meets WP:MUSICBIO, WP:BIO, or WP:GNG. It can be difficult to find reliable sources online about notable Iranian people, but having searched the romanised and Persian spellings of his name online, I can only find that he did release an album, but not whether it had any chart success, news coverage, or won any awards. The one reliable-looking source I could find on him online [12] says that he wanted to buy a notable football club in 2016. Storchy (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, and Iran. Storchy (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the presented sources do not seem enough and about half are not acceptable sources such as Myspace and youtube. I agree with nominator that because of the subject being Persian it may be hard to find sources or verify if he meets MUSICBIO. Samanthany (talk) 00:12, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Purdy[edit]

Stephen Purdy (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:BLP of a musician and writer, not making any strong or properly referenced claim to passing either WP:NMUSIC or WP:NAUTHOR. The notability claim here is essentially that his work exists, which isn't an automatic notability freebie in the absence of a WP:GNG-worthy volume of reliable source coverage about it in the media, but the referencing is entirely to the self-published websites of directly affiliated companies or institutions. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the subject of third-party coverage and analysis in actual GNG-worthy media. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, and Mississippi. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as noted, there is proof here that the author exists, and that the author has published a couple of works and worked in theatre. Is there any indication that any of that is notable? Not that I can find. I found mentions of him in discussion of several musicals, but not in any great volume; I found a review of one book on a site that looked to be not terribly notable, but no real coverage of either he or his books. I can't find any proof that he meets any notability guidelines. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The citations are not adequate and it doesn't pass MUSICBIO or GNG.Samanthany (talk) 01:14, 21 May 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 John Salley#Television. ✗plicit 01:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I Can't Believe You Said That[edit]

I Can't Believe You Said That (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 sourcing found on Newspapers.com/ProQuest. Twinkle somehow failed to notice that this was previously prodded in 2009. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reliable citations found, agree with nominator. DonaldD23 talk to me 20:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Donaldd23 (talk · contribs), would you a support a merge/redirect to John Salley#Television, where the television show is briefly mentioned? Cunard (talk) 08:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as listed above. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect to John Salley#Television, the show's host, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I did not find significant coverage in reliable sources about the subject. The best source I found was:
  1. Garron, Barry (1998-08-14). "Fox attitude, plus tailbone". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on 2022-05-18. Retrieved 2022-05-18 – via Gale.

     The article notes: "Following "Outrageous" is "I Can't Believe You Said That," a shriek-a-thon game show hosted by former National Basketball Assn. star John Salley in which family members reveal embarrassing things about each other. "Quirky"? "Savvy"? Not unless those words have been radically redefined. The show is utterly bereft of edginess or even a camp quality. I can't believe they programmed that."

  Cunard (talk) 09:15, 18 May 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 Restore disambiguation. which I have done. Star Mississippi 03:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA European Qualifiers[edit]

UEFA European Qualifiers (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)

Effectively double with FIFA World Cup qualification and UEFA European Championship qualifying. The Banner talk 17:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore disambiguation The "UEFA European Qualifiers" is a branding name for commercial purposes, and should not be considered a singular competition. The article is almost entirely unsourced and violates WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOR. This page has information on qualifying since 1934, when UEFA did not even exist. In addition, the European World Cup qualifiers are still counted as a FIFA competition, merging all this information together makes no sense. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore disambiguation per above, as completely unsourced to start with. Kante4 (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 01:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore disambiguation as above. GiantSnowman 06:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore disambiguation as above. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • If there is a strong consensus for deletion, so be it. My mistake may have been the focus on statistics rather than substance. Let me note however that stats are unsourced across multiple football articles, including FIFA World Cup qualification, UEFA European Championship qualifying (average points per game for every team - what is it if not OR???) or, for example, European Cup and UEFA Champions League records and statistics ("biggest disparity between group winner and runner-up", ratio of goals to appearances etc., oldest and youngest goalscorer - all without an external source). As regards the fact that we speak of two distinct tournaments - yes, we do, but this is precisely why I felt that such an article would be useful. The same teams, with the same players, compete in the same way every two years under different headings - but then from the point of view of sports (as opposed to formalities) it makes no sense to analyze the 2002, 2006, 2010, 2014, 2018, 2022 stats separately from the 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020 stats. As a matter of fact, I started to develop the page precisely after I wanted to find some combined stats and could not find them on Wikipedia. Please give it a thought. Ivan Volodin (talk) 09:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore disambiguation Agree with the others, should the nav template be on this page? Govvy (talk) 09:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore disambiguation per above. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• restore disambiguation per above Hhkohh (talk) 04:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Double Dutch Drinks[edit]

Double Dutch Drinks (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)

There are references here, but per WP:CORP - quantity does not determine significance - the depth of coverage is fairly passing and routine for this small company. The article itself also lacks depth. Uhooep (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ajinkya Bhasme[edit]

Ajinkya Bhasme (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:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Lacks quality book reviews to support his author claim. Also, the "Critical reception" or "Reception" section are generally used for books, not for authors. Besides that, most of the citations are WP:ADMASQ. High probability; the page is a WP:UPE by an WP:SPA . Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Authors. Hatchens (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete very promotional, I find no sources. Oaktree b (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anne-Marie Minhall[edit]

Anne-Marie Minhall (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:BLP of a radio personality, referenced exclusively to her own staff profile on the self-published website of her own employer rather than any evidence of third-party reliable source coverage. As always, broadcasters aren't "inherently" notable just because they exist, but must have their work externally validated as significant by third-party sources: notable broadcasting awards, newspaper or magazine articles about her and her career, and on and so forth.
As I don't have access to databases in which I could recover archived British media coverage, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to those resources can find enough proper coverage to salvage this -- but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have better sourcing than just her own employer's staff directory.
Note as well that the first discussion ten years ago is not definitive: radio presenters are not automatically notable just because they're on the radio, but rather she has to be a subject of coverage, in sources other than her own employer, in order to establish her significance. But the first discussion hinged entirely on "notable because she exists" rather than on any evidence that she could be brought up to a WP:GNG-passing standard of sourceability. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and England. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing found, I expected to find something if she's been there for 14 yrs, all are for her employer/from their website. Oaktree b (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I've expanded the article to include a couple of appearances as a celebrity presenter for classical music concerts, and she seems to be notable in that area. There's also a paywalled article in The Times, which from the visible snippet seems as if it might be discussing her in terms of invisibility of older women in the media, but isn't showing up in the Times Archive in the Gale service (possibly too recent: October 2014) - anyone got access to the current Times? PamD 09:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've expanded the article with bad sourcing that isn't support for notability.

Presenting orchestra shows is only a notability claim to the extent that you can support it with journalistic reportage about her presentation of orchestra shows in media; it does not go toward notability if you have to reference it to the self-published websites of the orchestras she presented for, because they aren't independent of the claim being made. Something like that requires media coverage to be done about it by journalists, not just the self-published website of the organization that hired her to do the work, before it turns into a notability claim.

Her agency profile on the self-published website of her own PR agent is also not a notability-assisting source, because again it isn't independent of her.

The only two sources here that are remotely acceptable reliable sources at all are #4 (INews) and #7 (Rhinegold) — but she isn't the subject of either of those sources, and instead is just briefly namechecked in sources whose primary subject is something else. So they would be fine for use unlike the other five, but they don't get her over WP:GNG all by themselves if they're all she's got for media coverage.

You're going to have to try harder than that. Bearcat (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Access to the 2014 Times article is available via Gale, and only mentions Minhall: "Within days, his permanent replacements had been put in place: Anne-Marie Minhall on weekday afternoons and Alexander Armstrong, of Pointless and "Pimm's o'clock" fame, on Saturdays." 2010 commentary titled "An age-old injustice" from The Sunday Times is on Gale and only mentions Minhall in a list: "Radio does not throw women like this on the scrapheap. On the contrary, it is where women broadcasters of Smith's age and above flourish. They include Shelagh Fogarty and Sarah Montague (both 44), Anne-Marie Minhall and Jo Whiley (both 45)..." (and 18 more names). There is also a 2016 interview with Radio Times on Gale, with a graf labeled CV that includes basic biographical and career information. She is also listed as a speculative nominee for a SONY award by the Guardian in 2007 (via Gale "So maybe this year we might see nominations for more female presenters, perhaps including Jenni Murray, Emma B, Jo Whiley, Anne-Marie Minhall, Sarah Kennedy, or Laverne herself?"). She also hosted a charity event in 2018 (via Gale), and her timeslot moved in 2013 (via Gale). I have not looked at ProQuest yet, but I think more is needed to support WP:BASIC notability because these sources are largely not offering secondary context or commentary about her and her work. Beccaynr (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Fully referenced and passes notability criteria. Rillington (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not fully referenced at all — five of the seven footnotes are primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and the other two just trivially mention her in the process of not being about her, so there are no sources here at all that are getting her over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - I added a few sources from ProQuest, including one review focused entirely on her show in The Independent, another review in The Observer focused in part on her show, and a mention with some commentary and context in The Independent about her role as a news editor at Classic FM, as well as some of the 'CV' information noted above that preceded the Radio Times interview. I think these sources help support WP:BASIC notability, particularly in combination with other sources noted in this discussion that indicate she is assumed to be familiar to readers. Beccaynr (talk) 00:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:BASIC per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 01:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Certainly exceeds the bare minimum for notability based on the references listed. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 03:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree. ~~~~ Nwhyte (talk) 09:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems sufficient for an article. Artw (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The sources listed are all either churn, self published, or (a single) paywalled. Even if I assume good faith on the paywalled source, that is only 1 significant and independent source, which is not enough to establish notability. Rockphed (talk) 04:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 19:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grinzola[edit]

Grinzola (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)

There is only one source. This source contains a leaflet(primary source, because it is an exhibit). The commentary is not enough to make an article beyond WP:NOT#DICDEF. The company(Nordex Food) has no article on Wikipedia. Lurking shadow (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Lurking shadow (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no evidence that this is a notable product, even though it seems to have existed in the 1990s and was sold at Sainsbury's: [13] [14] —Kusma (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. No opinion on notability but seems to exist per the Wellcome source I added to the article and Lynda Brown The Shopper's Guide to Organic Food (1998), pages 68 and 163, which describes it as "a Briestyle sliceable cheese". ETA: also two hits in WL: "Nordex Food" in Super Marketing magazine (Feb. 18, 2000) snippet states "Nordex Food has changed the name of its Cornflower range to Dairyland Organic and given it new, modern packaging. The range still includes Butter, Extra Creamy Danish Blue, Cream Cheese and Grinzola, and all have Soil..." and "Danes gain foothold for organic dairy products" in Grocer. (March 12, 1994), Vol. 216 Issue 7142, p33. There might well be more sources in Danish. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  My theory is that they had to rename the cheese when Gorgonzola became a protected name in the EU in the mid-1990s. The Wellcome source says it was produced by Gedsted Dairy, which in Danish is "Gedsted Mejeri" (so Nordex is only the importer to the UK), and I am pretty sure the cheese is still being sold, under the name "Blå Kornblomst" = "Blue cornflower". Here is a cheese shop selling it. —Kusma (talk) 19:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a nice, even believable theory, but in the absence of any reliable source tying these two together it is simply original research.Lurking shadow (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed. I certainly wouldn't add any of my claims to the article. But maybe my speculation is useful for someone else who can show the cheese is notable after all, or who can prove my theory. —Kusma (talk) 20:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nothing found, maybe in Danish? No news articles, only rehashes of what's given in wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 00:12, 18 May 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Beresford[edit]

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

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

Article which likely fails WP:NACTOR. A child actor who only appeared in one series (Coronation Street) in a recurring role and has not had any other roles since. There is little, if any, media coverage about him and the article's only source is an archived profile of the character he played on the series' official website with no information on the actor himself. Koljanc (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and United Kingdom. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, absolutely agree with the nomination, this is someone who played a child actor with no significant or notable storylines and who has no acting credits since. The article was created at a time when these kind of articles were more passable, however there is nothing here to suggest an article is warranted. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there is a reason why the guidlines ask for multiple significant roles. One role, that may or may not have actually been significant, does not cut it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Gbooks has a hit, in French, from 1782. nothing notable here.Oaktree b (talk) 00:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There's one mention in The Sun (I think it was), a tabloid about the 60 years of Coronation Street, and he hardly gets a mention. Not notable at all. Oaktree b (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ACTOR. Scraped Google for WP:SIGCOV and it’s not there. NiklausGerard (talk) 21:51, 20 May 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 Vinh Long Radio Television. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 15:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of television programmes broadcast by Vinh Long TV (THVL)[edit]

List of television programmes broadcast by Vinh Long TV (THVL) (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 removed the speedy deletion because I didn't think it met that qualification. However, I believe this article fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY as it doesn't seem to have the proper fit for an article. Paul McDonald (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, mostly non-English content with essentially no context. Even the headings make no sense to me personally. Perhaps someone who spoke Vietnamese fix it, but otherwise it should be deleted per nom. bop34 • talk • contribs 15:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Lists, and Vietnam. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete blatant WP:NOTDIR. LibStar (talk) 03:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Vinh Long Radio Television as WP:NOTDIRECTORY. SBKSPP (talk) 01:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If anything similar is to be added to Vinh Long Radio Television then it needs to be independent of this list. desmay (talk)

• desmay (talk · contribs), would you support a redirect to Vinh Long Radio Television that preserves the history under the redirect? Cunard (talk) 08:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it can be verified independent of Wikipedia I don't see why not. Would it perhaps be better to call it a list of shows "produced" or "created for" instead? desmay (talk) 14:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Vinh Long Radio Television (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. The article content is useful for editors to search for sources and reviews about the television programmes to expand Vinh Long Radio Television. Cunard (talk) 08:20, 22 May 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. Star Mississippi 03:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Bardales[edit]

Lady Bardales (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)

Nominating on behalf of Kaltariel (talk · contribs) who prodded the article; as it was previously AFD'd in 2020, it's not eligible for prod. Previous AFD closed as "no consensus" Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Police and Law. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated it because the topic didn't seem to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. There doesn't seem to be wide enough interest in the topic. Kaltariel (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I still stand by my view stated in the 2020 nomination that the sources are too tabloidish.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• This is the third nomination..we need to establish a limit on nominations because otherwise, in 20 years we will still be debating whether an article merits being deleted or not. I think two or perhaps three nominations would be enough and then if it's not deleted after that, snowball. As it is I will again vote weak keep. The subject was involved in a big scandal, the Monica Lewinski of Peru if you will. And we are not nominating Monica for deletion. Antonio El Donado Martin (aca) 19:56, May 17, 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this and this establish notability. NemesisAT (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The above sources are WP:SIGCOV, there are a few more in English at Newspapers.com, and she is certainly not any less notable than she was in 2020: notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Jacona (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Salis[edit]

Steve Salis (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 a non-notable businessperson. All coverage appears to either be hyperlocal (inside the DC beltway), niche industry, and run-of-the-mill financial announcements about his various businesses. Paid creation and ongoing paid editing, some of which is likely undisclosed. valereee (talk) 14:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Washington, D.C.. valereee (talk) 14:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree, non-notable. hyper local covergae Oaktree b (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I see no assertion of importance or significance here. This is a living person who operates some businesses, has raised some money, and has had legal issues. Like the nominator, I see a few local sources about his business but not much directly detailing the subject. A reasonable search finds lots of self promotion and some marginal, routine business news but nothing approaching the standard of multiple independent and reliable sources directly detailing the subject. The subject exists, does business, and is a relatively successful self-promoter, like tens of thousands of small businesses owners across the DC area. However, Wikipedia is neither Facebook nor Linkedin. You don't automatically get a Wikipedia page just because you want one or paid for one. BusterD (talk) 16:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Chiming in, obviously not to vote, but to address a few issues. Specifically, I’d like to address two points:

• "hyperlocal, niche industry" Having mostly local coverage or coverage within a niche industry is not an impediment to meeting GNG. WP:AUD only applies to organizations, not people or other subjects.
  
• "run-of-the-mill coverage" - This Washington Post article is a lengthy profile piece on Salis in the Food section of an international paper of record, and This Washingtonian article is another WP:RS all about Salis's background and career. None of these are routine.

As the article history clearly demonstrates, I have disclosed my connection with the subject; editing, changes, and content suggestions have been made and reviewed by numerous neutral, unaffiliated editors, including Spencer, Theroadislong, Z1720, Chicdat, and JzG. I ask that the discussion here please focus on relevant guidelines. Sheena 2022 (talk) 12:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sheena 2022, the fact multiple other editors, even ones with long experience, edited the article doesn't necessarily mean an article subject is notable. Sometimes it takes someone who is extremely familiar with a particular subject area to think, hey...are we sure this guy's notable? I did go in and look at the sources before I nominated this. These are all either very local (including WaPo and the Washingtonian), or are in niche industry sources (like Nation's Restaurant News) or are run-of-the-mill financial stuff, like American City Business Journals. Plus the stuff in the industry/business journals are about the businesses, not about him. In general what we need to see are three articles like the WaPo one about him; of those three, two need to be outside his local area AND outside industry niche publication. ETA: you are perfectly welcome to !vote, but be aware that it's not actually a vote. We call it a !vote ("not vote") because the closer looks at the arguments, not the numbers. valereee (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: a paid or connected editor, no matter how previously successful, is in exactly NO position to chide established and trusted editors about what we should and shouldn't cover in an AfD about a subject with which they are clearly conflicted and have a financial stake. I do appreciate the presented sources, but these profiles meet the definition of routine dining and business news. This news space would have otherwise been filled with a similar article about another restauranteur/entrepreneur as appears almost daily in those journals. BLP is a policy, not a guideline; in order to protect any living person, Wikipedia requires a higher level of sourcing than that we might normally accept in an article about a restaurant or a real estate business. I'm not seeing sufficient direct detailing to move the needle for me. BusterD (talk) 16:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of subject himself (rather than associated organizations) receiving significant coverage outside of the local area; no clear significance or assertion of broader importance. Spencer^T•C 17:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Like the other experienced editors, I'm not seeing non-local sigcov; just the usual fluff local interest pieces that WaPo's just as prone to printing as any supermarket weekly. (And that being said, I'm with BusterD -- nothing prohibits a paid editor from registering his or her opinion at AfD, but it wasn't seemly even before said editor complained on the Notability talk page at the position taken by every other editor here. Beyond that, claiming the support of other editors by virtue of them also editing the article is disingenuous at best, especially when the bulk of their contributions was to clean up the excessive fluff of the previous paid editor.) Ravenswing 04:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Bad Girl's Guide[edit]

The Bad Girl's Guide (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)

Yet another unsourced stub on a reality show too short-lived to have garnered attention Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, unsourced? Two articles are cited in the article. Another one at Florida Today [15], another at Cincinnati Enquirer [16], another at The Morning Call (Allentown, PA) [17] DonaldD23 talk to me 16:01, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  All three of those are syndicated press releases. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guess we disagree. A press release is written by the company behind the show. These are all independent different writers with totally different articles. Just because they were syndicated to different newspapers does not mean they are press releases. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, here's another one from Variety [18], and one from The Austin Chronicle [19] DonaldD23 talk to me 17:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - multiple sources already shown. At worse this could have been a redirect to Cameron Tuttle. Not sure deletion should have been first option to discuss for this. Then again based on sources and the article itself this was a sitcom and this nomination is talking about a reality show, so I'm not sure what is going on there.. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 01:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CNN Special Investigations Unit[edit]

CNN Special Investigations Unit (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 sourcing found. Prod contested Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:This is significant coverage. Zero is definitely wrong.Lurking shadow (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Gold, Matea (2007-01-08). "CNN adding weekend investigative series". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.

     The article notes: "Heartened by the success it’s found with documentaries about Osama bin Laden and waste in the federal government, CNN is debuting a new weekly investigative series this month to showcase long-form pieces by some of the network’s best-known correspondents. “CNN: Special Investigations Unit,” which will premiere Jan. 20, is the latest initiative at the cable news network, ... The new hourlong series, which will air Saturdays and Sundays at 5 p.m. with a repeat at 8 p.m., will feature work by chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour and anchors Anderson Cooper and Soledad O’Brien as well as correspondents like John Roberts, John King and Candy Crowley. ... The first installment of “CNN: Special Investigations Unit” will be “The War Within,” a piece by Amanpour about Muslim extremism in Britain."

  2. Glick, Douglas; Applbaum, Kalman (2010-08-17). "Dangerous noncompliance: a narrative analysis of a CNN special investigation of mental illness". Anthropology & Medicine. Vol. 17, no. 2. Routledge. doi:10.1080/13648470.2010.493605. ISSN 1364-8470. Retrieved 2022-05-22 – via Taylor & Francis.

     The abstract notes: "Using the linguistic method of discourse analysis, we analyze one high profile instance – an episode of CNN’s ‘Special Investigations Unit’, which aired several times in the summer of 2007 – to demonstrate a narrative linking of the high social costs and failures associated with noncompliance and, therefore, the imperative of enforcing it for the safety of society. Through the semiotic reduction of a ‘poetic parallelism’, the episode reflects and reinforces existing cultural models for mental illness, including its status as straightforward biological disease amenable to pharmacological therapy but which remains uncontrolled due to widespread noncompliance."

  3. Opuiyo, Alafaka (2007-02-24). "CNN documentary delves into MLK papers". Afro-American Red Star. ProQuest 369701069.

     The article notes: "[former U.N. Ambassador and Atlanta Mayor Andrew] Young was one of many interviewed in the recently aired special, "CNN: Special Investigation Unit, MLK-Words That Changed a Nation." ... In the program, reporter Soledad O'Brien interviewed Young and other colleagues of King including activist Dorothy Cotton, Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) and King's attorney, Clarence Jones. They divulged intimate information about the decisions that were made and key events of the civil rights movement including the Montgomery Bus Boycott, the arrest of Rosa Parks and King's assassination. The documentary also examines King's life through his library of writings and books housed at Morehouse College, his alma mater. James Polk, executive producer of the program, said Morehouse College and the city of Atlanta were very gracious to grant CNN access to the locked vault full of King's handwritten documents."

  4. Jacquette, Dale (2010). "Journalism Ethics as Truth-Telling in the Public Interest". In Allen, Stuart (ed.). The Routledge Companion to News and Journalism. London: Routledge. p. 218. ISBN 978-0-415-46529-8. Retrieved 2022-05-22 – via Google Books.

     The book notes: "To illustrate the problem, we consider a case study involving a recent exclusive report from the CNN Special Investigations Unit by Drew Griffin, Kathleen Johnston and Todd Schwarzschild, titled "Sources: Air Marshals Missing From Almost All Flights". Dated 25 March 2008, and offered both in broadcast and on-line internet formats, the report cites official statistics and anecdotal evidence collected from interviews with both named and anonymous sources about the surprising paucity of armed air marshals accompanying passenger flights in the United States in the wake of terrorist hi-jacked airplane strikes against the World Trace Center in Manhattan and the Pentagon in Washington, DC, on 11 September 2001. Here are some of the report's highlights from the network's website: [quote] This is attention-getting journalism. It touches a nerve for all people who travel by air or have friends and relatives who fly. ... What CNN informs us, and with apparently solid justification, is the startling fact that there are actually very few air marshals aboard US flights."

  5. Haugsted, Linda (2007-01-07). "CNN Forms Investigations Unit". Multichannel News. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.

     The article notes: "The episodes will run under the banner CNN: Special Investigations Unit. The series will focus on current pressing issues, and it is designed to complement CNN Presents, ... Special Investigations Unit will include reporters such as Christiane Amanpour, Anderson Cooper, Soledad O'Brien, medical correspondent Sanjay Gupta and correspondents John Roberts, John King, Candy Crowley, Drew Griffin and others. The first episode, The War Within, will be reported by Amanpour."

  6. Walker, Dave (2007-08-28). "CNN, Spike Lee give camcorders to kids to capture life after Katrina". The Times-Picayune. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.

     The article notes: "With an assist from filmmaker Spike Lee, CNN's Soledad O'Brien took a chance on some amateurs in hopes of getting fresh perspectives on New Orleans' recovery at K+2. Almost all of the footage for "Children of the Storm," a CNN "Special Investigations Unit" documentary airing at 7 p.m. Wednesday, was shot by New Orleans-area teenagers."

  7. Less significant coverage:
     1. "What's on Tonight". The New York Times. 2007-08-29. ProQuest 2223078937.

        The article notes: "8 P.M. (CNN) CHILDREN OF THE STORM Earlier this year the “American Morning” anchor Soledad O’Brien and the filmmaker Spike Lee gave 11 teenagers in and around New Orleans video cameras to create diaries as they rebuilt their lives after Hurricane Katrina. Their films are at the heart of this episode of “CNN: Special Investigations Unit,” in which the young people, four of whom are shown above with Ms. O’Brien, center, describe their journeys."

     2. Shattuck, Kathryn (2007-09-08). "What's on Tonight". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.

        The article notes: "8 P.M. (CNN) NARCO STATE In this “CNN: Special Investigations Unit” documentary, Anderson Cooper traces the opium journey from poppy flower to addiction and examines how the drug is pushing Afghanistan into crisis."

     3. Hale, Mike (2007-06-30). "What's on Tonight". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.

        The article notes: "8 P.M. (CNN) SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT: BATTLEFIELD BREAKDOWN A report by John King on the costs of the Iraq war, in American lives and money, and the battle readiness of the Army’s active units."

     4. Shattuck, Kathryn (2007-01-20). "What's on Saturday Night". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.

        The article notes: "8 P.M. (CNN) THE WAR WITHIN Christiane Amanpour, CNN’s chief international correspondent, talks to young people, clerics and Shahid Malik, one of only four Muslim members of the British Parliament, about the cultural conflicts within Muslim communities in Britain and other Western societies, and the influences pushing some toward philosophies of extremism. The documentary inaugurates the network’s new series “CNN: Special Investigations Unit.”"

     5. Uhles, Steven (2007-05-04). "CNN special on Brown offers no new insight". The Augusta Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.

        The article notes: "With one of the world's most extensive news-gathering organizations at its beck and call, CNN's Special Investigations Unit has chosen to commemorate the birthday of the late James Brown by telling the same old story in the same old way. ... There are a few times when the piece surprises. Although they have nothing new to say, some of the famous faces associated with Brown, but rarely heard from, are given some screen time, including former James Brown bass man Bootsy Collins, biographer Bruce Tucker and Usher, who was taken under the wing of the singer."

     6. "The Week's guide to what's worth watching". The Week. 2015-01-08. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.

        The article notes: "CNN Special Investigations Unit: Crime & Corruption As New Orleans attempts to recover from Hurricane Katrina, the city has struggled to overcome the culture of corruption that had become endemic to the Big Easy. Correspondent Soledad O’Brien speaks to the city’s first inspector general about his mission to root out mismanagement, and to prosecutors who are trying to curb the violence that hinders the return of residents, tourists, and business investment. Saturday, Aug. 30, at 8 p.m., CNN"

     7. "Health Notes". Savannah Morning News. 2007-03-12. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.

        The article notes: "Residents from Emory University School of Medicine and Morehouse School of Medicine will be featured in a CNN documentary that gives viewers a behind-the-scenes look at the lives of residents at Atlanta's Grady Memorial Hospital. "CNN: Special Investigations Unit - Grady's Anatomy" which follows the lives of three Emory residents and a Morehouse resident, will air at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. March 24 and 25."

     8. Moore, Frazier (2007-06-24). "The skinny on 'Shaq's Big Challenge,' Paula Abdul and the costs of Iraq war". Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2022-05-22.

        The article notes: "Now a CNN Special Investigations Unit documentary examines the unexpected consequences of this protracted war. On "Battlefield Breakdown," CNN correspondent John King reports that nearly two-thirds of the U.S. Army's 42 active brigades are rated unable to perform due to shortages of manpower and equipment, including armored vehicles, lithium batteries, even water. And he reports that, early on, the Pentagon resisted Congressional efforts to add more armored vehicles, perhaps mistakenly believing the war wouldn't last long enough to warrant the investment. "Battlefield Breakdown" premieres Saturday at 8 p.m."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow CNN: Special Investigations Unit to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 09:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Cunard, WP:GNG is met.Lurking shadow (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cunard DonaldD23 talk to me 01:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sannyasi Deshonayok[edit]

Sannyasi Deshonayok (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:TOOSOON. Appears to fail notability requirements for future films WP:NFF. Should be deleted or moved to draft until release. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• It seems this film was released October 2020 ? in which case reviews are needed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 06:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Nomination and comment above sum it up. I concur. -- 2pou (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

United States girls' national under-16 soccer team[edit]

United States girls' national under-16 soccer team (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 youth team, all substantive sources I found were from US Soccer so it lacks independent coverage. Reywas92^Talk 13:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 13:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 19:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no evidence the team passes WP:GNG, only sources I can see are primary sources from US Soccer. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:26, 17 May 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Russell[edit]

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

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

PROD Does not meet criteria in WP:SPORTBASIC. Simply a player. was declined removing deletion request as has played loads of professional games so meets football player notability. As we know from the metric ton of sports AfDs, that's no longer a notability criteria and I am unable to identify coverage that would meet GNG requirements. Just some game reports. Note when searching, it does not appear the sports exec is the same Drew Russsell. With appearances for multiple teams, there isn't a clear AtD target either. Star Mississippi 13:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United States of America. Star Mississippi 13:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment just dropped a note at HELP Desk as I have no idea what broke this, and changing brackets to ital didn't help. Star Mississippi 13:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• This appears to be SIGCOV. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – There just aint no "significant" coverage that shows Russell having "success in a major international competition at the highest level". – S. Rich (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where does it say someone has to have "success in a major international competition at the highest level" to be notable? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    "Success" supports notability – if it's there. But we have no indication of success at any level. – S. Rich (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there is clearly not enough coverage here to meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The only in-depth coverage I could find was from the The Gazette (Cedar Rapids, Iowa) (the link is now included in the article), which is partly an interview and seems to be very local coverage (it's his home town's local newspaper). In order to pass WP:GNG we would certainly need something else, but all I can find are statistics database entries, match reports, transfer announcements and youth coaching advertisements (nothing that would be SIGCOV). Jogurney (talk) 16:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 07:02, 21 May 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 Military patrol at the 1924 Winter Olympics with the history underneath it, should someone find access to book sources with which to flesh this out. Star Mississippi 03:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stanisław Kądziołka[edit]

Stanisław Kądziołka (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)

Kądziołka not only did not win a medal (as part of a team) in the Olympics, his team did not even finish the competition they were in. So that really is not at all a sign of notability. It is also not a good sing when he is Polish, but the Polish Wikipedia article has one source, the same in English sports reference source used here. Olympedia has an entry with no text just sports tables. A search in google books came up with this name, but it was about a person born about 1920 who was being mentioned because as a schoolboy he was friends with someone who became an international leader. So this is not a good redirect target because most extant sourcing is about a totally different person who just happened to have the same name. John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• If nothing can be found on him then redirect to Military patrol at the 1924 Winter Olympics per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about the fact that there is another person with the same name that is mentioned more often in sources?John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @User:Johnpacklambert, could you provide some of these sources? Jacona (talk) 12:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Military patrol at the 1924 Winter Olympics. Doesn't look to pass WP:NBASIC or WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about the fact that there is another person with the same name who is mentioned more often in sources?John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Assuming participating in Olympics is not sufficient for automatic notability, there's next to nothing about him in the accessible Polish sources. Possibly something in non-digitized stuff. At least I can confirm this is not a hoax, assuming the mention of him in 2006 book is based on RS (I can only see a snippet that does mention he was part of the Polish team that withdraw from that Olympic "patrol" comptetition): [20]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He was obviously a national athlete. The fact there are few digital references to him yet, doesn’t mean there aren’t many published written ones. Wikipedia is want to forget that Books still exist. If the project had deleted every unreferenced stub in its early days, half the best pages would never have been written. Who knows how this page may be expanded in the future - give it a chance. Giano (talk) 14:57, 24 May 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cari Guittard[edit]

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

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

Lacks independent sources, so she doesn't satisfy WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Business. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable, sources are her bio in the Huff Post as a contributor, and the like. Oaktree b (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the sourcing is not there to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 17 May 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. Star Mississippi 02:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Torture in Ukraine[edit]

Torture in Ukraine (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)

Reason: Misleading; written in present tense, cites references from 2001 ie before the revolution. Actions in "eastern Ukraine" may be committed by Russian or Russian-backed troops Elinruby (talk) 11:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC) Adding: topic itself may possibly notable but this article does not support that. Elinruby (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete appears to be created by a WP:SPA who's entire wikipedia history appears to be connected to the recent war in Ukraine. The complete focus on alleged misbehaviour of one side of the conflict, and the absence of mention on the other side (despite widespread reporting) make me think this article exists to push a point of view. I note WP:POV CT55555 (talk) 12:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Convincing arguments for keep here, withdrawing my delete vote. CT55555 (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Law, and Ukraine. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:01, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems well-sourced. I mean it's going to be one-sided, there isn't really a happy side to this sort of thing. Oaktree b (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I believe that the vast majority of countries have some history of torture, including my country. We even have several articles on torture from several countries. According to WP:DEL-CONTENT, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Vandalism to a page's content can be reverted by any user." Furthermore, the article is referenced. Whether they were acts committed by Russians or not is something that can be added to the article, as long as they are referenced with a reliable source. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You make a good point. I'm reconsidering my delete above...I may change it...let's see what others say...currently I'm more open minded. CT55555 (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per Wagners rationale. Per good sourcing. Improvements could be made of course, but overall a good article. BabbaQ (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Blow it up and start over As nom. There are some current allegations that Amnesty and HRW take seriously. Well, one that I am aware of, and I don't exclude the possibility of others, which is why I said that the topic might be notable. But the article should confine itself to torture if any by the government or armed forces of the current non-Soviet government, ie since 2014, with perhaps a background section on abuses of the prior Soviet puppet regime. But this misrepresentation of actions under Soviet control in 2001 as part of the current government's record should not sit around in the meantime waiting for somebody to maybe one day fix it. Elinruby (talk) 08:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but Rewrite per Wagner. I think the topic is notable enough to keep, but the article needs a lot of improvement. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep  This is a notable and timely subject, and there is much more material available to satisfy WP:GNG and balance this article (re: occupied Crimea, Donbas “republics,” and in current war zones, occupied territories, and Russian concentration camps). —Michael Z. 18:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rewrite - Wagner makes a good argument; the topic is certainly noteworthy enough for inclusion, but in line with several of the other comments here, this does feel like a bit of a WP:TNT situation. Sleddog116 (talk) 13:34, 24 May 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 undeletion of these articles. I concur with Joe Roe, but no one is contesting the deletion after another week. Star Mississippi 02:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linde Nijland[edit]

Linde Nijland (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)

and bundling Ygdrassil (musical group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

I came across the page Linde Nijland as I was originally going to propose merging the page Ygdrassil (musical group) into it. However, I cannot find significant coverage for Nijland or her musical duo to satisfy the criteria at WP:NMUSIC, so I'm proposing that both be deleted. There's simply no media coverage, no reviews, no chart success, no releases on major record labels. The options are

1. delete both
2. keep Linde Nijland and make Ygdrassil a redirect
3. keep Ygdrassil and make Linde Nijland a redirect
4. keep both.
   ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Very sparse coverage and sources, as the AfD proposal says; might be somewhat more notable for the Dutch Wikipedia but not for English Wikipedia. Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 18:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Netherlands. 19:21, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Technically eligible for soft deletion, but I don't want to delete two pages under that procedure, especially when the nominator is unclear about whether they actually favour deletion. Please note that the language of coverage has no bearing on notability here on the English Wikipedia.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 11:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for what it's worth, I favour deleting both. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:53, 19 May 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. I understand the redirect was challenged (courtesy @Liz:) so I won't restore it, but rather treating this as an expired PROD as there is no one challenging the nomination based on information that currently exists. Star Mississippi 02:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Islam in Bhutan[edit]

Islam in Bhutan (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)

there is not enough material to justify a standalone page; probably because the subject is not notable. no sources other than some collections of estimates and vague numbers from sources that aggregate these statistics were found on a WP:BEFORE search. an attempt to redirect it to Religion in Bhutan was reverted. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nations with Islam have a page on them relating to the nation and the muslims, so if any event or somthing relating to islam in bhutan occerrs in can be added here. Affiliating (talk) 17:29, 17 May 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.