Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< August 01	August 03 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum rate theory

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

This is basically a WP:DICTDEF and has no hopes of ever evolving beyond this. You calculate various rates according to various quantum theories and models. That's it.

The article was prodded, but an IP objected without rationale, so I'm taking it to AFD instead. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there is plenty of reliable coverage in independent sources from which the article can be expanded.^[1]^[2]^[3]

References

^ Ulrich Weiss (2008). Quantum Dissipative Systems. World Scientific. pp. 200–201. ISBN 9789812791627.
^ Hyland, Brittany L.; Martens, Craig C. (2014). "Toward a quantum trajectory-based rate theory". Theoretical Chemistry Accounts. 133 (10): 1–9.
^ Activated Barrier Crossing: Applications In Physics, Chemistry And Biology. World Scientific Publishing Company. 1993. pp. 273–277. ISBN 9789814590907.

SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 01:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are still nothing that ammounts to a topic. There's just random instances of random rates being calculated according to various models which happen to be quantum. It's like having a topic on "Canadian car mechanics" where you're studying the mechanics of cars that happened to be owned by Canadians. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was unable to find significant coverage of "the mechanics of cars that happened to be owned by Canadians" in reliable, independent secondary sources - can you link any? SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 03:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried to fix up this article after it was first created, which involved removing a lot of copyvio. It's been expanded again; someone with more library access than I have at the moment should check for excessively close copying. That aside, I've come to think that there isn't a coherent topic here. The words "quantum", "rate", and "theory" have been used in conjunction to describe the calculation of some rate in various models that use quantum physics in various ways. Assembling those various uses together would be creating an appearance of unity where none existed. XOR'easter (talk) 15:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Honestly, I think there MIGHT be a topic there, but the recent re-expansion by an IP editor has made the article so terrible as to warrant WP:TNT. As far as I can tell from the copyrighted material that was removed and the sources, this is a theory that adapts Marcus theory using a particular set of equations, so not just a general topic, and if we could find someone who could write a coherent article on THAT theory, it probably warrants inclusion per SailingInABathTub (talk · contribs). But if it keeps getting either blanked back to a WP:DICTDEF or bulked out with milquetoast generalities, then there's no point in keeping it. PianoDan (talk) 16:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Response: It is true that you can calculate various rates according to various quantum theories and models, but the ratio between the conductance quantum and quantum capacitance, which is a pure electron quantum rate constant of a quantum channel is the most basic case from which all the others can be derived as a special case (including Marcus theory). I rephrase the topic to make this clear, but perhaps the title of the paper should be changed to the "quantum rate theory of the electron" or "electron rate theory".

Perhaps the title may change to Quantum Rate Principle? Apparently, all that is said to be quantum rate theories are derived from this principle (in one or another way) which is the ratio between the quantum conductance and quantum of capacitance or chemical capacitance. 168.227.32.91 / 45.6.149.12 20:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no topic here. The introduction introduces a thesis: that effectively any ratio can be called a rate, and claiming that it is common in science to do so. It cites nothing that (from their titles) would support the general position. It gives a bad example: flux (e.g. magnetic flux is measured in tesla), but presumably flux density is meant (magnetic flux density is measured in tesla per square metre), though to my knowledge one never refers to spatial densities as "rates". Is there a discipline known as "quantum rate theory" or a "quantum rate principle"? I strongly doubt it. I don't expect that "rates of events" fit a general pattern in quantum mechanics, and so each case must be studied in its own context, which suggests that this cannot be a coherent topic. Can one juxtapose terms like "quantum", "rate" and "theory" to mean something like "theoretical rate determination in quantum systems" (note: "rate" here would normally mean temporal rate of a process only)? Sure, but the compound phrase occurring in some textbook does not make it a topic, especially one that would need to be a field of study to qualify. 172.82.46.195 (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC) On looking more closely, the phrase is quite common, but it seems to mainly refer to more than electron transfer, and presumably tries to incorporate tunneling effects, since these do not manifest in classical thermodynamics. The rather simplistic stitching together of the context-sensitive value of quantum capacitance (which is presented in Quantum rate theory as being inversely proportional to temperature, although temperature does not feature in its definition) strikes me as extreme OR (meaning that it seems very unlikely that the content has been sourced). I would argue for WP:TNT through deletion. 172.82.46.195 (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note also what looks like WP:OR at Conductance quantum apparently introducing ideas from Quantum rate theory (diff ), which IMO should be reverted. 172.82.46.195 (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done, see this diff 2601:647:5800:1A1F:CCBF:2541:EADD:F590 (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki Possible WP:OR. This looks like something from a textbook or a physics paper, which is not what Wikipedia is about. This could be transwikied to Wikiversity as an essay, as Wikiversity is generally a more acceptable place for original research. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:B15A:4ECC:3C0E:728A (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Too much original research. Title is confusing, and content does appear to be from a thesis, textbook or a physics paper. -- Otr500 (talk) 10:28, 6 August 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 2021–2022 global supply chain crisis. And/or possibly Shortages related to the COVID-19 pandemic#Household goods; that's up to editors. Sandstein 09:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 tampon shortage

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

We are WP:NOTNEWS. This made news for a few weeks in June 2022. If anyone is interested in a merge or redirect we can send it to 2021–2022 global supply chain crisis Bruxton (talk • contribs) 22:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: COVID-19 and Economics. Bruxton (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Health and fitness. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as directed. People were hording as I recall. Non-notable for a stand alone article, but an interesting footnote in the covid scheme of things. Oaktree b (talk) 23:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears to be an enduring issue (e.g. Grocery Shortages 2022: Products That May Be Hard to Find (CNET, Jul 26, 2022)), and there is in-depth coverage that can further develop the article, e.g. How the tampon shortage is exacerbating period poverty in the U.S. (Philly Inquirer, Jul 17, 2022), A tampon shortage is the latest nightmare for women (CNN, Jun 10, 2022), ‘A crisis’: The US tampon shortage, explained (Al Jazeera, Jun 17, 2022), Tampon shortage may lead to serious health issues. Here's what you need to know (NBC12, Jun 22, 2022), Many factors causing shortage of tampons, sriracha, other goods, MU economist says (Columbia Missourian, Jul 25, 2022). Beccaynr (talk) 00:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and per WP:EVENT, there appears to be WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE beyond a short news cycle after the initial months-long supply disruption began to receive national media attention, e.g. The Great Tampon Shortage of 2022: The Supply Chain Problem No One’s Talking About (Time, Jun 7, 2022), coverage is significant and WP:INDEPTH, e.g. feature length articles, contextual information, and per WP:GEOSCOPE, there has been international coverage, as noted above. The background section of the WP:EVENT guideline explains how it can help interpret WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS, and based on the sources and guidelines, there appears to be sufficient support for this article. Beccaynr (talk) 00:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And there may be WP:LASTING impacts, e.g. "On June 13, Senator Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, issued a letter to the CEOs of the five major U.S. tampon manufacturers, including John Moeller, of Procter & Gamble, to raise concerns about public reports of tampon shortages and alleged price gouging." via ‘A bad thing for women’: Tampon shortage among challenges Upper Valley women are facing (Valley News, Jun 26 2022), although per this guideline, that it may take some time does not make this topic non-notable. Additional coverage includes: US reeling from tampon shortage as prices of menstrual products go up (Guardian, Jun 15 2022), Rochester feels effects of national tampon shortage, (Post Bulletin, Jun 23, 2022), National tampon shortage impacts Greater Lansing area (The State News, Jun 30, 2022), What's causing the tampon shortage? Here's what to know and how you can help (Indianapolis Star/Yahoo, Jun 22, 2022), Why Your Preferred Tampons May Be Hard to Find (NYT, updated Jun 22, 2022), Yes, there’s a tampon shortage. Here’s why. (WaPo, Jun 13, 2022) Doctors urge caution over tampon shortage: Avoid DIY products (UPI, Jun 28 2022). Beccaynr (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You gathered up the news. There have been many shortages related to the supply chain (i.e. the cotton needed for tampons) and they are probably better covered in the target article: 2021–2022 global supply chain crisis. Bruxton (talk) 01:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is significant, in-depth coverage over time, in diverse sources, including international news, that discuss contexts, including the long-term nature of the supply disruption, health impacts, and political and economic aspects. This is not routine news, and the shortage is ongoing. Several other shortages linked to the 2021-2022 global supply chain crisis have their own articles, and this one also appears supported, per the WP:EVENT guideline. Beccaynr (talk) 02:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only article you collected from July, was about the supply chain, not specific to tampons. The news has moved on, other than to comment on the many ongoing shortages. Bruxton (talk) 02:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That July 25 article has a separate section focused on tampons specifically, discussing labor shortages, stricter regulations specific to tampons, supply chain logistics, and "materials used to make tampons — including cotton". The article from July 26 linked above lists tampons, quotes Procter & Gamble, and links to additional coverage. The news does not appear to have moved on, and the shortage is continuing to be reported as ongoing. Beccaynr (talk) 03:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And there is more: The Latest on the Tampon Shortage (MSN/Civic Science, Jul 26, 2022), which is the kind of study that seems to further help support the notability of this event. Beccaynr (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this seems to be a general theme in some of the reporting, e.g. "The latest supply chain problem – a shortage of feminine care items – has prompted Arizona advocates to renew calls for “period equity” to ensure that menstrual products are accessible and affordable for all." (Tampon shortage spotlights fight against ‘period poverty’, Phoenix Business Journal, Jun 22, 2022), which is also beyond the supply chain issues (also discussed in this July 17 article linked above). Beccaynr (talk) 03:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, rename: title should be something like 2022 United States tampon shortage, as there is no indication in the article that it concerns anything happening outside the US (I've just added the geog context to the lead). PamD 08:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am wondering if this topic might be better covered in a more broad article that covers supply chain disruption in the US in 2022, and maybe 2021 and even 2020, more broadly, instead of making seperate articles on each good that gets disrupted by the supply chain problems.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is possible, but we'd have to navigate WP:BROADCONCEPT and WP:SYNTH issues. We need to be careful not to link up these events in ways not supported by sources. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:B15A:4ECC:3C0E:728A (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (and redirect) to 2021–2022 global supply chain crisis. It is not encyclopedic to list every items the US or world is in short supply. Apparently Covid 19 is also to blame so it could be merged (or added to) Shortages related to the COVID-19 pandemic#Consumer goods that does have a "This section needs expansion" tag. -- Otr500 (talk) 10:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree with Otr500 - a section in 2021–2022 global supply chain crisis fits nicely. the items already there are condoms, toilet paper, and aluminum cans. I think many would find tampons there to be logical. Lamona (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article seems to fit well in the 2021–2022 global supply chain crisis article only because it is wikilinked to this article, similar to another article about infant formula. I think if there is an attempt to merge the content from the available sources, including the non-supply chain issues of "period equity" and "period poverty" discussed in the sources noted above, it would be WP:UNDUE, and the weight of the available sources on this topic helps support a standalone article. Beccaynr (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: We supposedly have unlimited space but not everything in the world needs a standalone article. Almost all of the things listed at 2021–2022 global supply chain crisis, including automotive manufacturers and electronics makers, sunflower oil, barley, electronics, jewelry, clothing, pet supplies, and home and garden items, have available sources. We already have 2022 food crises, 2022 United States infant formula shortage, 2020–2022 global chip shortage, 2021–2022 global energy crisis, Shortages related to the COVID-19 pandemic, and probably more. We could list 2021-2022 toilet paper shortage, aluminum shortage, popcorn, fertilizer and pesticides, and even plastic resins. It has been predicted "It’s going to continue to get worse". To create an article on every item that is in short supply is mundane and not really encyclopedic. As for as "period equity" and "period poverty" it is still no less a "supply chain problem". -- Otr500 (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources do not describe period equity and period equity as a "supply chain problem" in the sense that it is strictly pandemic-related. And as you note, there are standalone articles for a variety of goods, and I identified further sources that could expand this article, which would otherwise make it more specific, detailed and in-depth than any good mentioned in passing in the 2021–2022 global supply chain crisis article. The available sources appear to indicate that the well-documented disruption (that is ongoing) to women's health and well-being is more than "interesting footnote in the covid scheme of things", and a standalone article can be supported by the WP:EVENT guideline, which has not been disputed. Beccaynr (talk) 02:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to new section Shortages related to the COVID-19 pandemic#Household goods. This is likely just a short term issue, and as pointed out above, many common household items are similarly affected. The big one for many of us was toilet paper. If this has longer-term ramifications, and coverage continues, including reports of what companies are doing to address the shortage, there's no reason it couldn't be forked back. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Annelyn Alba

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

Fails WP:NBAD. zoglophie 15:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Philippines. zoglophie 15:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Badminton-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Available sourcing is insufficient to meet GNG. Avilich (talk) 00:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the nom- fails WP:BAD. It appears that a few more entries in Category:Filipino female badminton players could also be nominated.

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Barela

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

Subject does not meet standard for notability Roundlion929 (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and New Mexico. Shellwood (talk) 20:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Andrevan@ 20:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources appear to all be mentions in passing or tangential mentions, discussing another subject. I can't find much to support notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RPerf

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

Not notable enough for its own article. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk / contribs)} 17:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk / contribs)} 17:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Andrevan@ 05:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Princeton Application Repository for Shared-Memory Computers

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

Seems to be mostly advertising. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk / contribs)} 17:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk / contribs)} 17:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The conference paper describing this test suite in 2008 has been cited over 4K times. There are references to it in G-Scholar in 2021 and 2022. I would advise, though, to better identify the developers. The name in the infobox is clearly a key person, but the articles are written by a team and most likely no one person can be considered the developer. Lamona (talk) 23:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Andrevan@ 05:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of evidence of notability in Google Scholar search. WP:PROMO issues can be addressed through normal editing. ~Kvng (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I'm basing my vote on the scholarly citations identified above. I found this one [[1]] which also shows other papers citing the developer's work. It does need some cleanup and is a bit WP:ESSAY in tone. I also marked a few dead links. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I might have heard of this, but it doesn't seem to have quite enough sourcing to meet the threshold of notability. SWinxy (talk) 02:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to University of Oregon. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert D. Clark Honors College

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

This college does not meet notability criteria in any way. The college supports about 0.03% of the student population at the University of Oregon. I got that percentage from the UO page, which lists their enrollment at 22,298 students (with a source, of course), compared against this UO article which says the Honors College has approx. 800 students. Out of the four sources on the college's page, three are from the parent university, and they're just fact sheets, not sigcov. There are a few articles I've pulled up from Newspapers.com, but most every one I've looked at out of the 73 results are just one-line name drops about where a student is attending college, so not worthwhile in any way with proving notability. There's one piece actually about the college, but it's the quintessential definition of hyper-local; it's a 1984 piece from the Lebanon Express (circulation 2,149) with no byline that says the enrollment in the college was up from 211 to 410 students. At 15,000 students enrolled at the time (per the same article), even with the higher number in the Honors College at 410, that's even worse than the current abysmal enrollment rate at 0.02% of the student body. I have not found sources unaffiliated with the uni that cover this institution with any amount of significant coverage. All the pertinent information can easily be wrapped into the larger Uni of Oregon article. Kbabej (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of Oregon. Possibly relevant article here[2], additional source here[3]--18:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Jahaza! Thanks for the sources. I had seen the JSTOR piece, but am not able to access it. The second source is two sentences without sigcov, and half of that is a quote which I believe is from the college itself, though I can't access the footnote. Do you have access to either the JSTOR piece or to see what the footnote is on the second source? --Kbabej (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have access to the JSTOR reference via the Wikipedia Library and Springer publishing:

Singell, L. D., & Tang, H.-H. (2012). The Pursuit of Excellence: An Analysis of the Honors College Application and Enrollment Decision for a Large Public University. Research in Higher Education, 53(7), 717–737. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41679545.

It discusses Clark Honors College (CHC) throughout all six sections, and how "it represents a typical honors college."

The quote from the second source (Old Main, Small colleges in Twenty-First Century America) is from Digby, Joan, Peterson's Guide to Honors Programs, Princeton, NJ, (1977). All three sources look reliable, and the Digby source, though old, also appears to have significant coverage of RHC. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think the Old Main source has only passing mentions of CHC beyond the quote from Digby. Even though it's reliable, it is dubious it withstands the bar for significant coverage of CHC. Part of the problem is the sort of random way Google books displays the pages that are identified on a search-- sometimes it hides pages that were available previously, then the next time gives full access (minus a few other arbitrary pages). Anyway, I just wanted to retract my thought above that it could serve as significant coverage for GNG purposes. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thoughts and update, @Grand'mere Eugene. I don't have access to JSTOR, so that's helpful. So from your research it sounds like we've got one source (the "Pursuit of Excellence" article). I don't think one source is enough to support the article; I wouldn't include the hyper-local 1984 piece from the Lebanon Express (mentioned in my nom statement) a useful second source. I think this college info can easily be wrapped into the parent article. But I'm also still open to be convinced if you feel strongly it should remain or if there are other sources we haven't seen. --Kbabej (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be voting in this AfD because I taught at UO and one of my nephews is a graduate of Clark Honors College. Even though I think I can be objective, I acknowledge it's too close a connection. Were I voting, I would count both the 1977 Peterson's Guide to Honors Programs and the "Pursuit of Excellence" article, and a third source: " Honors Pathways and Curriculum Structure" (2022), pages 14, 20-21. Even though this third source is undergraduate research, it seems to me it is reliable, secondary, and substantial coverage. Plus, it's current. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Grand'mere Eugene I appreciate the input. Given the Old Main source is only a passing mention, and the student project is, well, a student project, I still believe there's only one source supporting the notability of this school. The student project seems to be a regurgitation of the school's recruiting info, and there are no inline citations for where the student found the info. I would not consider it sigcov, as there does not seem to be an analysis of the info, just a repetition of it. Regardless, glad we crossed paths. I've seen you on the Oregon project and hope to be more involved in Oregon articles. Cheers! --Kbabej (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found another source from UO's student newspaper that may be of interest, especially for NPOV: The honors problem: Extra tuition and high dropout rates in the Clark Honors College. And, if redirect is under discussion, consider as a redirect target Honors colleges and programs, which credits CHC's establishment in 1960 as the first of the current model of honors programs. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 03:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That’s the source I used in the AfD nom (third sentence) but I don’t think it counts toward notability, as it’s the school’s source and a student paper. I have no qualms either way about where this gets redirected to. —Kbabej (talk) 04:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Nom or as ATD "Redirect to University of Oregon". Student newspapers just do not advance notability for a stand alone article. -- Otr500 (talk) 11:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of Oregon. Easy, based on existing sources and those uncovered with a simple Google search. No evidence of standalone notability outside the University of Oregon. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blobject

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

Made up term which hasn’t reached common parlance regarding arbitrary items and architecture, not documented in a variety of literature and at best is a description of something   Kadzi   (talk) 23:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Architecture, and Products.   Kadzi   (talk) 23:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I added a source from Vox, and combined with the other sourcing in the article, I think there's more than enough to push it past WP:NEO. PianoDan (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very limited use neologism that is not more than "blobby designs". -- Otr500 (talk) 11:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has a lot going for it. The sources, including the new Vox source, the details of these other sources, the Bruce Sterling titles, and fuller coverage mentioned in Further Reading and External links. Seems a notable topic (becoming more notable by the hour). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources demonstrate that it's an actual term used in the world, not made up by some Wikipedian. --Albany NY (talk) 04:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On seeing this, I immediately confused it with Binary large object, usually referred to as a BLOB but often as a blobject. I started searching and found a company. After these mis-starts, I found a bunch of articles including this review and this art show, both from 2003. Then I kept finding more and more including [4], [5]. I found a band named blobject, and kept finding more. Altogether, newspapers.com had 109 matches, but I would say about 30 were "bad", and about 15 were about the company, maybe 5 were about the band. That left somewhere around 50 about the term, and many of these were significant coverage. In my opinion, this is sufficient to Keep this article under WP:GNG, but some work should be done to acknowledge the other uses of the term. Jacona (talk) 12:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources in the article, including this one, contain significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 09:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found some more sources: this [[6]] in Metropolis, this [[7]] in Stanford Magazine, and this [[8]] in the Christian Science Monitor. A redirect wouldn't work since there are two people who could credibly claim to have invented the term, based on the sourcing. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael D. Ratner

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

Mightily promotional article, tagged to death as such with Citation Needed decorating almost every line. Stood up on incidental mentions and tangential coverage, no WP:SIGCOV. No evident notability, fails WP:GNG; WP:FILMMAKER. Oh, previously deleted twice, once for copyvio, once for promotion. Which is not to say that these, at least the copyvio, apply here. Promotion maybe more... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why this page is up for deletion ASAP. Sheps2010 (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This page now has its proper citations. Why is it up for deletion? Sheps2010 (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found this on my watchlist and was perplexed why I had it there before realizing I was involved in a prior G12 deletion. Looking at the history, the current borderline-G11 state of the article is a recent expansion -- older revisions touch on the promotional but don't fall nearly so far. Notability of producers is a bit complicated as most producers aren't covered as broadly as equivalently significant actors or directors, but I think there might be a case for notability here; the problem is every attempt to make this article has been disrupted by massive copyvios and LinkedIn-tier promotionalism. It's a tricky case right on the border. Vaticidalprophet 03:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple sources from Forbes, Entrepreneur and other top-tier publications that speak about Ratner.

What are copyvios and what is LinkedIn-tier promotionalism?

Please explain ASAP Sheps2010 (talk) 04:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can we stop with the ASAP please, we're here to discuss the notability of the fellow, barking orders does nothing to help us with our discussion. Oaktree b (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With sourcing, something to look at is whether the articles were part of a marketing package (ie, paid to have an article written) or who wrote them. In the case of Forbes, it was written by a contributor. What this means is that the writer isn't part of Forbes's staff and as such, they don't provide any sort of editorial oversight or factchecking. This makes it essentially a self-published source. It's not exactly a random Wordpress blogger situation, but it's not exactly far off either. Now as far as what this means for notability/reliability, it means that the onus is now on showing that the writer is a reliable source, which can be fairly difficult to establish since we'd need to show where she's been cited as a reliable source by other reliable sources. Academic and scholarly sources are usually the best for this, but newspapers and such can work as well. It's just harder to establish this since a lot of times the focus with newspapers and media outlets tends towards the sensational rather than reliability, particularly when it comes to showbusiness and anything related to Hollywood type stars and singers. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing to be careful about are articles that are either reprints of a press release or so heavily copied from one that it's more or less a press release. Press releases are considered primary sources since they were put out by the person or their representative, so they can't show notability. There are one or two exceptions (like the Oscars putting out a press release of winners), but as a rule primary sources can almost never give notability. With business this is kind of difficult since this is kind of a regular thing, which is why WP:NBUSINESS has a rule about routine coverage. I'm not as savvy on that front so I can't really give much input on that.

As far as copyvio goes, that means copyright violation. This means that wording is either taken verbatim from a copyrighted source or is so closely paraphrased that it poses a copyright issue. Linkedin-wise, this is usually a term on here that people use to refer to articles that come across as a CV or resume. Linkedin pages are meant to promote the individual, so this is used when an article comes across as promotional as well. Promotional content can be one of the more difficult areas to navigate on Wikipedia because what seems fine in one area will come across as promotional on here - especially if you work for marketing and advertising. Promotional language is very commonplace there, so it's harder to notice if something would be non-neutral elsewhere. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now that said, if you are part of a marketing agency or were otherwise asked to come here and edit the article, then it's vital that you look over WP:COI. You can edit with a conflict of interest but you must be transparent about it and make sure to follow guidelines. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Beyond press-releases of things his company has sold to media outlets, there isn't much. This [9] half interview article, this provides details about his Biebs movie [10], neither of which is of much use for sources. An interview here: [11], rest is all fluff about his wedding or chats about movies he's made. Oaktree b (talk) 00:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only semi-notable item could be the Streamy award for "Cold as Balls", which I don't think is a notable award. Oaktree b (talk) 00:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and the entire middle and bottom third of the article are unsourced and read like a CV or a linkedin post. Very promotional in tone. Oaktree b (talk) 00:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possible COI/promotional Andrevan@ 05:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, COI is always a concern. Oaktree b (talk) 12:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The very first source I randomly looked (Forbes) states COURTESY OF OBB MEDIA and is more about the promotion of a skincare company with Hailey Rhode Bieber. Press releases are usually very advocacy and a BLP demands better sourcing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 6 August 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 05:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

T. J. Hoisington

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

Sources are not WP:Reliable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 22:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This orphaned AfD was never added to a daily logpage for some reason, so I found it from a database report -- shockingly, the article is still just as bad, and the argument made by the nominator is still correct! This seems like a pretty straightforward WP:VANITY article. jp×g 22:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. jp×g 22:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no evidence of notability. Looks prolific, but no non-trivial coverage found. BilletsMauves (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hello, jp, I was going to close this AFD but not only has the page been moved to a different title since this AFD was launched but the AFD tag was removed years ago. I'm no longer so certain about the appropriateness of reviving these forgotten AFDs when current editors are unaware of these discussions. Perhaps you should retag the articles under discussion when you relist the original AFDs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: That is a little awkward. When I did a few of these the other day, CyberBot I was insistent on adding AfDs notices to articles the minute I formatted ancient AfDs (even if I was just doing so in order to quickclose them). I guess now it's decided not to. What would you say to adding a notice to this article and relisting? jp×g 02:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, retagged. jp×g 04:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting formally just to give a bit more attention and to let a full week pass since JPxG's retagging.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Bilorv (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As a BLP the sourcing standards are higher. Wikipedia is not intended as a resume. Although most people want an article on themselves, usually promotional style articles are little more than pseudo biographies. -- Otr500 (talk) 12:21, 6 August 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 00:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kassall Greene

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep User has nominated ~25 articles for deletion in ~20 minutes. Imposisble that a WP:BEFORE was done for each, and the nominations appear to be in bad faith. NemesisAT (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Each nomination needs to be judged on its own. While at times a large number of nominations made at once may make doing so hard to do, the solution to such a problem is not to made a fast decision, but to keep the nomination open long enough for people to find useable reliable sources to boost the article. I am going to go look and see if I can find some.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I did find this photo with him named in the caption [12]. This is not enough to justify keeping the article, but I think we need to do more searching. Ideally for current people one would do a google news search before nominating the article, and if one found something one would at least say "I found a captioned photo, but that is not enough to add towards GNG." I understand that a good encyclopedia is not found with a huge number of small articles lacking good sourcing and good substantial statements, but we are not going to get to a good article by deleting alone. Low inclusion criteria does not just lead to us having lots of articles on people who are not notable, it leads to use having articles on people who are notable that either do not mention all the things they did to show notability or do not come close to using all needed sources. Basically some article creators create a bare minimum article, and then hope others will come improve it, but when they have flooded the project with lots of new content no one ever really comes along to do either, even after a decade. It does not do us good to delete articles that will just be recreated in a few months when people bother to check in depth for sources, so I think we need to make sure to let this nomination run its course until we are sure we have ruled out there being any reliable sources that are in-depth and give significant coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per NemesisAT. In addition, he is a young international capped player with an ongoing career. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Bilorv (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and WP:NSPORTS with no significant coverage to "qualify for an article". This is a classic NOTSTATS. It is less than a resume and even falls short of being considered a pseudo biography so I guess we can call it a glorified dictionary entry. -- Otr500 (talk) 12:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NOTDATABASE, WP:GNG, and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5. The !votes for keep are meaningless; one is procedural (WP:NOTBURO), and the other appears to be based on the same procedural concerns as well as a now-removed guideline (international capped player). BilledMammal (talk) 14:48, 7 August 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 American Independent Party. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Shearer

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Being a co-founder of a minor (aside from its singular results in the 1968 presidential election) political party is not a criterion for presumed notability, nor is being an unelected candidate for a major office. National political party chairs are also not considered inherently notable. After combing through multiple search engines, I found only passing references and trivial mentions of the subject, routine campaign coverage, and WP:PRIMARY sources. There appears to be no WP:RS-based significant coverage to be found. Sal2100 (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Politics, Politicians, and California. Sal2100 (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to American Independent Party. A search through newspapers.com for both Bill Shearer and William Shearer does not seem to return any sources providing WP:SIGCOV, only passing mentions and routine election coverage. n.b. Calling a party which the following year received 9 million votes and won 5 states a minor party feels intellectually dishonest. Curbon7 (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am OK with the redirect as an ATD. As for your n.b. comment: point taken. I have added a qualifier to my original comment which hopefully provides clarification. Sal2100 (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to American Independent Party per Curbon7. -- Otr500 (talk) 12:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese voice actors of foreign descent

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

Full disclosure: I did help edit this page. The original creator of this article, as stated on the article's talk page, intended it to be a list of voice actors in Japan who were not of ethnic Japanese descent, yet specifically wanted to exclude voice actors who were of Japanese descent but came from a non-Japanese nationality. Therefore, the scope of this article/list was never clear to me and also seemed non-notable. lullabying (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --lullabying (talk) 20:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Essentially a content fork of a possible "List of Japanese voice actors" (I would presume), fails WP:NLIST, no sources provided showing "Japanese voice actors of foreign descent" have been discussed collectively in RS. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete oddly ethno-nationalistic/ethno-centric seeming content fork not to mention pure trivia. Dronebogus (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. lullabying (talk) 04:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Uncomfortable implications of highlighting ancestry, making the list's very premise inherently non-neutral, and it does not seem notable nor encyclopedic. Joyce-stick (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Joyce-stick (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Joyce-stick (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Sistorian (talk) 09:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Clark

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

Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources as required by WP:SIGCOV. Of the three sources, one is a dead link, one is a closed statistical database and one is an open statistical database.

Sistorian (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator (WP:WDAFD). I accept the work done by the cricket editors to find additional sources justifies consensus to retain the article.

Sistorian (talk) 08:54, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Cricket, and New Zealand. Sistorian (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dead links often have archived versions available, like this one: [13] Indignant Flamingo (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Indignant Flamingo. I forgot about Wayback. However, the mentions of Jackie Clark are routine only and I still think there is a lack of significant coverage in the article.

Sistorian (talk) 21:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: she is mentioned here but the whole point of that article is that there isn't much coverage on her. I strongly suspect that significant coverage is provided in The Warm Sun on My Face: The Story of Women's Cricket in New Zealand, but I don't have access to it. StAnselm (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a copy of that book on order, but it'll be a couple of weeks before I'll get hold of it. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily notable as an international women's cricketer playing at the highest level. You know, it really does baffle me that people can't see this and take a step back and for moment think they might be notable, given the level they played at. There is a Cricket Project which can help. User:Sammyrice - another notable New Zealand cricketer, do you have any additional sources to hand? StickyWicket (talk) 06:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Given her notable career, I'm sure there must have been plenty of stuff about her in the NZ media at the time, but as it was before the Internet age the problem lies in accessing it, especially for those of us not living in NZ. JH (talk page) 06:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- According to this annotated bibliography, this article: McLeod, Marion. "Stumping a myth", Listener 120(2497):26-28 (December 26, 1987) is mostly about Jackie Clark. But note that that article specifically discusses "lack of media coverage". So maybe it's a situation where we feel there should have been (more) coverage, and some people at the time maybe even agreed with that, but the coverage that definitely exists from that time seems to confirm that there was a lack of coverage. In the immortal words of Castor Troy, "what a predicament!" Indignant Flamingo (talk) 07:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean that the Listener article, which we know to be about her, discussing the lack of coverage of her is the sorts of significant coverage that we need to keep the article we have on her? We don't need to actually be able to access the article or to include anything from it in the article, only to know that it's about her (I think, the whole NEXIST thing is something else where the goalposts seem to have moved quite randomly for me). It's unlikely that we'll be able to access a magazine article from 1987 electronically, and it may be a bit niche for NZ libraries beyond the really big ones. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NZ do have the Papers Past digitised library but its newspapers section only goes to 1979 and the other sections didn't turn up anything when I searched for Jackie Clark or Jacqueline Clark. She is briefly mentioned in this article that laments the lack of information about women's cricket in NZ. I think we would always have to verify that the "Stumping a myth" article in the Listener has significant coverage on Clark, maybe the NZ Wikiproject could help? The article is available at the National Library in Wellington and possibly other libraries according to this. Alvaldi (talk) 09:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of stories seems to drop off at PapersPast after the 1950s from my experience. I'll look at The Times archive when I get the chance. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per StickyWicket. W C M_email 08:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to New Zealand women's national cricket team if no sources can be found at this time. Alvaldi (talk) 09:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep extended career for one of the leading women's international teams at the time. Beeeggs (talk) 11:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - International cricketer. No other rationale required. Of course more information needs to be dug up about women's cricket - but that's true everywhere, not just in this situation. Bobo . 11:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the sourcing we've already found, and what we'll likely find in a more in depth search it looks to be a clear GNG pass. There is a suitable redirect if required though, although I don't think this will be needed. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the Listener article mentioned above provides the significant coverage needed to pass NSPORT. St Anselm (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Played 11 Test matches and 31 ODIs for New Zealand. Clearly notable. Paora (talk) 01:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Her significant international career makes her notable. The gaps in her article can always be filled in. This is what we have always done with male cricketers; I hope we are not going to treat women differently.Sammyrice (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given the coverage we've got here I think there's enough to keep this, especially as it helps to redress some of the systematic bias. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. Consensus is this article should be retained and, as a woman cricketer myself, I am pleased about that. The underlying issue, however, is the mass creation of what you call "stubs" by the conversion of bare statistics into a couple of sentences with no attempt to find significant coverage in sources more reliable than the databases. I have been randomly reviewing items in User:Lugnuts/Cricket and, taking those as a sample, I would think well over 50% would fall within the remit of the intention to implement a form of WP:CSD across Lugnuts' stubs.

I know I am permitted to accept consensus and close an AFD case I have opened but I need to check the process and make sure I do it right. I will come back soon and do that here. I am grateful to you all for working hard to save Jackie's article, but your work should have been done when the article was created. Laters.

Sistorian (talk) 08:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 08:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Meston

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

Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources as required by WP:SIGCOV. The sole source is a statistical database only. Sistorian (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and England. Sistorian (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine my surprise when, after having discovered prose in another nomination made alongside this one, when I found prose in the “database source” used as a source here. It’s not exactly common and I was genuinely surprised to find two AfD in a row where, as a result of that prose, the nomination is invalid. In this case it’s an obituary from The Cricketer. I suspect a Wisden obituary and other prose sources will also exist. I’ll, obviously, see what I can find at some point but will struggle to do so given the number of cricket AfD which have been nominated in the last 36 hours. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Wisden obit is just a shallow blurb. JoelleJay (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the ESPN paragraph is another example of statistics put into words, as is the case with the John West article. It adds nothing of value to the brief information already in the article, except perhaps that Meston was an amateur player. I cannot say if that is important or not.

Sistorian (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Curious to that this user claims to have one month's experience on here, having created zero articles, then all of a sudden magically appears nominating articles like a pro at AfD. I doubt they are a new user, through their deletion nom of a female international cricketer is pretty ironic considering their userpage blurb. StickyWicket (talk) 07:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:AssociateAffiliate. In the words of Michelle Madow: "Everyone has to start somewhere. If you let people bring you down now, you'll never know how high you could climb. And you owe it to yourself to try".

I am not aware of any requirement to create articles before venturing into AFD. I have followed the WP:AFDHOWTO and Twinkle instructions very carefully. These are clear and well written so, as (I think) I am fairly bright, I have been able to place my first few entries. I have not, however, had the confidence to try a WP:MULTIAFD yet, which would perhaps have been the ideal way to present the Meston/Greene/West cases. I will make sure I can manage individual entries first and then try a multiple one someday.

As for nominating two female cricketers, their articles lack significant coverage and I am not a feminist, let alone a militant feminist, so I fail to see any irony. You refer to my "userpage blurb" and, yes, I am a woman and a lesbian and an environmentalist and many other things. If you have any problems with those, then I am sorry but they are me and I doubt if I will ever change. Do please reconsider your decision to retire, however, because something like this can hardly be worth getting steamed up about.

Sistorian (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I took a crack at looking for sources about him. Looking for Sam Meston and Samuel Meston on the British Newspaper Archive mostly just turned up sources on the footballer of the same name. On Newspapers.com, these obituaries are the best I found[14][15]. The rest seemed to be mostly match reports though I might have missed something. Alvaldi (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NCRIC and by extension WP:GNG. StickyWicket (talk) 07:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meeting NCRIC certainly does not mean that a subject meets GNG by extension. –dlthewave ☎ 12:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per StickyWicket. Sometimes WP:COMMONSENSE just has to be applied. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources which have been added are either short blurbs or brief mentions of Meston in the context of a match recap and do not demonstrate significant coverage sufficient to meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 12:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources above, including the Wisden obit I found, are essentially proseified stats or mentions in routine match recaps. Not SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Personally feel there's just enough about enough here, with what then likely exists offline for a GNG pass here given his career was in a time of offline media. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and keep - Deleting County Championship players is an odd course of action. The Cricket Wikiproject is more than able and willing to find sources if you feel they are necessary. To send to AfD before finding out whether more information can be found saves people from leaving premature delete !votes. I'm always impressed by what is available and can be accessed on newspaper archives. Bobo . 00:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the sources added are all significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and so the subject passes WP:GNG. St Anselm (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the nominator has been blocked as a sock puppet. St Anselm (talk) 01:22, 10 August 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 List of Gloucestershire County Cricket Club players. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Greene

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

Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources as required by WP:SIGCOV. The sole source is a statistical database only. Sistorian (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and South Africa. Sistorian (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Gloucestershire County Cricket Club players Only played two fixtures, and I'm not seeing much to suggest a GNG pass in albeit a very simple search. His name is reasonably common though and there could potentially be coverage in Gloucestershire related annuals. For now I'm at redirect as a suitable WP:ATD but if anything is fine I'll happily reconsider. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Gloucestershire County Cricket Club players per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stafford FM

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

Non notable local radio station. From looking at sources online and beyond, we can see slight local interest that falls foul of WP:GNG beyond a wider audience than one town. Furthermore, original article appears to be created by a DJ/Staff Member who has not declared a WP:COI   Kadzi   (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although cited sources are somewhat sparse, article is factual, accurate and harmless. This matters more than blind obedience to WP policies. Harumphy (talk) 07:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's not how WP:NOTABILITY works on Wikipedia. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article sites three independent reference and I see no issues with WP:GNG. Rillington (talk) 13:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:BCAST and WP:GNG per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 00:34, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 19:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Station holds a broadcast licence and originates its own programming so passes WP:BCAST but the article could use a clean up and rewrite (no need for it to include schedule information, for instance, and it needs some references as it was clearly written by someone close to the station). Flip Format (talk) 09:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Issa Fazli

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

The article does not seem to fulfil the requirement of Notability; The only part that I think comes close is the last section, which, however, is also not notable enough as per WP:EVENT Yet Another Internet User (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sexuality and gender, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 19:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sad story for sure, but the individual isn't notable as a paralegal. I find zero sources about them. Being transgender alone isn't enough for notability; while they struggled to get out of Pakistan, it's nothing terribly noteworthy for our purposes. They aren't notable as a writer, and rather run of the mill as a paralegal. Oaktree b (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against renomination Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lalo Encinas

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. The uncredited roles outnumber the credited ones. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:45, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Arizona. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I improved ref3 so anyone can read it without a Newspapers.com account. That ref is probably the most in-depth coverage. Searching does find plenty of hits, but they I didn't see anything more substantial - mostly just listing his name as appearing in a film, or in a list of "Native-American" actors. MB 01:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this article violates "no original reasearch" rules. We source that statement on his Apacheness to a source over 100 years old, and then say this is contradicted by census records based on no source, but I am guessing the person who wrote that may have looked at the census records. Wikipedia editors should not be trying to directly parse meaning out of census records and other primary documents, they should be building articles on statements by reputable scholars. If we lack those, as we do here, we should not have an article, period.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. Has some sources including the newspapers clip. There might be more sources out there. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 02:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 19:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I really was hoping there would be some sourcing for him, but I can't find much beyond cast lists. Doesn't appear notable. This brief mention in LOC newspapers database [16] Oaktree b (talk) 23:58, 2 August 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 05:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Albertini Holness

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Caribbean. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep User has nominated ~25 articles for deletion in ~20 minutes. Imposisble that a WP:BEFORE was done for each, and the nominations appear to be in bad faith. NemesisAT (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per NemesisAT. I found sources which show he is notable in Cayman Islands like [17], [18], and [19] among many other sources. In addition, he is a young international capped player with an ongoing career. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 19:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG as I couldn't find significant coverage of him. Dougal18 (talk) 12:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, of the three sources cited by Das above, Source 1 is a passing mention that merely namedrops Holness once, Source 2 is too short to be SIGCOV since the article is one extremely short paragraph long, with Holness mentioned in essentially a single sentence, and Source 3 is also a passing mention as Holness is only mentioned a couple of times as part of a list of names, with no coverage of him whatsoever. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The community came to a consensus in March that international and professional caps alone do not confer notability and WP:NFOOTY was deprecated. Based on that, I disregarded the comment by Das osmnezz and Rylesbourne, which attempts to LOCALCONSENSUS around the community's decision. I also disregarded the comment from NemesisAT, which does not attempt to advance an argument as to how Engerman is notable, and gave less weight to Fats40boy11, who falls into the trap of SOURCESEXIST. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 08:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Engerman

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Caribbean. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep User has nominated ~25 articles for deletion in ~20 minutes. Imposisble that a WP:BEFORE was done for each, and the nominations appear to be in bad faith. NemesisAT (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The article itself needs significant improvement, but there are some sources out there regarding Engerman. An improvement tag would be more sufficient. Fats40boy11 (talk) 08:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We cannot "speed keep" an article just because it was nominated too fast. Speedy keep is for articles that there is no grounds at all to ever consider nomination. We might procedurally keep an article in the case of too fast a nomination. However since we can keep extending the deadline, and we do not need to rule on a nomination the same as a similar one made about the same time, there is no real procedural grounds. What we need is to find sources that are reliable, secondary, in-depth and independent of the subject. I am going to hold off on voting until there is more time for those who thing this article should be kept to find such sources and tell them about them here, and also hopefully if they find such sources they will add them to the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per NemesisAT and Fats40boy11. In addition, he is a international capped player with an ongoing career. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 19:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets GNG for playing for a national team. Rylesbourne (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make sense, GNG is based on significant coverage not what team they've played for. –dlthewave ☎ 03:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of significant coverage as required by NSPORTS and GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 03:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The community came to a consensus in March that international and professional caps alone do not confer notability and WP:NFOOTY was deprecated. Based on that, I disregarded the comment by Zanoni and gave less weight to the comment from Das osmnezz, which attempts to LOCALCONSENSUS around the community's decision. I also disregarded the comment from NemesisAT, which does not attempt to advance an argument as to how Robinson is notable. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 08:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Robinson (footballer)

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep User has nominated ~25 articles for deletion in ~20 minutes. Imposisble that a WP:BEFORE was done for each, and the nominations appear to be in bad faith. NemesisAT (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per @NemesisAT:. I found sources which show he is notable in Cayman like [20] among other sources. In addition, he is a 12-time capped international with an ongoing career. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. By the time I wrote this another 30 are probably deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has clearly decided all players that play for national teams he does not feel confer notability are those which should be deleted. The usual revisionism and elitism around notability in sports Zanoni (talk) 08:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. The one above is good but not enough on its own. Giant Snowman 15:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 19:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Das osmnezz and Zanoni. Indianfootball98 (talk) 13:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOTDATABASE, WP:GNG, and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5. Editors !voting "keep" need to present sources demonstrating notability, rather than objecting on procedural grounds. BilledMammal (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The provided sources do not amount to SIGCOV as required by NSPORTS and GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 03:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 08:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trey Ebanks

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep User has nominated ~25 articles for deletion in ~20 minutes. Imposisble that a WP:BEFORE was done for each, and the nominations appear to be in bad faith. NemesisAT (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per @NemesisAT:. I found sources which show he is notable in Cayman like [21] among other sources. In addition, he is a young 8-time capped international with an ongoing career. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. By the time I wrote this another 30 are probably deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has clearly decided all players that play for national teams he does not feel confer notability are those which should be deleted. The usual revisionism and elitism around notability in sports Zanoni (talk) 08:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. The source above is good but not enough on its own. Giant Snowman 15:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 19:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The community came to a consensus in March that international and professional caps alone do not confer notability and WP:NFOOTY was deprecated. Based on that, I disregarded the comment by Zanoni, Das osmnezz, and Skippo10, which attempts to LOCALCONSENSUS around the community's decision. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kion Parchmont

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep User has nominated ~25 articles for deletion in ~20 minutes. Imposisble that a WP:BEFORE was done for each, and the nominations appear to be in bad faith. NemesisAT (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per @NemesisAT:. In addition, he is a young international player with an ongoing career. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. By the time I wrote this another 30 are probably deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has clearly decided all players that play for national teams he does not feel confer notability are those which should be deleted. The usual revisionism and elitism around notability in sports Zanoni (talk) 08:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we base articles being kept or deleted on the merits of the article. Unless we want to limit article creation in any given project, there is no reason to try and limit article deletion. Articles are kept or deleted on their merits, at the present, not possible merits of the subject in the future. We lack indepth quality sources that provide significant coverage and are reliable, secondary and independent of the subject. So at this time we need to delete the article. This is without prejudice against recreation if at the future the subject does received GNG meeting coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Surely this player has played for an international team, so should not be deleted. (https://www.national-football-teams.com/player/81906/Kion_Parchmont.html) Skippo10 (talk) 20:11, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 19:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Lacks SIGCOV and seems to be an easy case of WP:TOOSOON he is a young player and will most likely grow down the line but if you ask me now, does not have enough to meet WP:GNG --Littehammy (talk) 00:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5. Most keep votes are procedural and should be dismissed per WP:NOTBURO; the other (Surely this player has played for an international team, so should not be deleted) needs to be dismissed per WP:LOCALCON as it aligns to a guideline that a broad community consensus was found against a few months ago. BilledMammal (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article lacks evidence of SIGCOV as required by NSPORTS and GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 03:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The community came to a consensus in March that international and professional caps alone do not confer notability and WP:NFOOTY was deprecated. Based on that, I disregarded the comment by Zanoni and Das osmnezz, which attempts to LOCALCONSENSUS around the community's decision. I also disregarded the comment from NemesisAT and XtraJovial, which do not attempt to advance an argument as to how Burris is notable. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kareem Burris

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Grenada. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep User has nominated ~25 articles for deletion in ~20 minutes. Imposisble that a WP:BEFORE was done for each, and the nominations appear to be in bad faith. NemesisAT (talk) 22:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 17:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has clearly decided all players that play for national teams he does not feel confer notability are those which should be deleted. The usual revisionism and elitism around notability in sports Zanoni (talk) 08:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per NemesisAT and Zanoni. In addition, he is a young international capped player with an ongoing career. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 19:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per my comments elsewhere; fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5, and procedural reasons are insufficient justification to keep. Editors who wish to keep this article need to provide examples of significant coverage from independent and reliable sources. BilledMammal (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article lacks evidence of SIGCOV as required by NSPORTS and GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 03:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The community came to a consensus in March that international and professional caps alone do not confer notability and WP:NFOOTY was deprecated. Based on that, I disregarded the comment by Zanoni andDas osmnezz, which attempts to LOCALCONSENSUS around the community's decision. I also disregarded the comment from NemesisAT, which does not attempt to advance an argument as to how Bryan is notable. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shemari Bryan

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

HeinzMaster (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep User has nominated ~25 articles for deletion in ~20 minutes. Imposisble that a WP:BEFORE was done for each, and the nominations appear to be in bad faith. NemesisAT (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has clearly decided all players that play for national teams he does not feel confer notability are those which should be deleted. The usual revisionism and elitism around notability in sports Zanoni (talk) 08:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per NemesisAT and Zanoni. In addition, he is a young international capped player with an ongoing career. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 19:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, in line with my !votes on similar nominations; fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5, and procedural reasons are insufficient justification to keep. Editors who wish to keep this article need to provide examples of significant coverage from independent and reliable sources. BilledMammal (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article lacks evidence of SIGCOV as required by NSPORTS and GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 03:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The community came to a consensus in March that international and professional caps alone do not confer notability and WP:NFOOTY was deprecated. Based on that, I disregarded the comment by Zanoni and Das osmnezz, which attempts to LOCALCONSENSUS around the community's decision. I also disregarded the comment from NemesisAT, which does not attempt to advance an argument as to how Smith is notable. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tafari Smith

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep User has nominated ~25 articles for deletion in ~20 minutes. Imposisble that a WP:BEFORE was done for each, and the nominations appear to be in bad faith. NemesisAT (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has clearly decided all players that play for national teams he does not feel confer notability are those which should be deleted. The usual revisionism and elitism around notability in sports. Capped 20 times internationally with ongoing career Zanoni (talk) 08:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per NemesisAT and Zanoni. In addition, he is a young international capped player with an ongoing career. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. There is no significant coverage in the article and none has been presented here. This is a modern day athlete from a English speaking country during the golden age of the internet so if there were sources they should be easily accessible. The closing admin should note that per WP:NSPORTS, all athletes must pass GNG, no matter their age, number of caps or if they have an ongoing career.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 19:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, in line with my !votes on similar nominations; fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5, and procedural reasons are insufficient justification to keep. Editors who wish to keep this article need to provide examples of significant coverage from independent and reliable sources. As for the number of caps, there is a broad community consensus against presuming notability on such a basis. BilledMammal (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article lacks evidence of SIGCOV as required by NSPORTS and GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 03:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The community came to a consensus in March that international and professional caps alone do not confer notability and WP:NFOOTY was deprecated. Based on that, I disregarded the comment by Zanoni and Das osmnezz, which attempts to LOCALCONSENSUS around the community's decision. I also disregarded the comment from NemesisAT, which does not attempt to advance an argument as to how Brooks-Belle is notable. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kayini Brooks-Belle

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep User has nominated ~25 articles for deletion in ~20 minutes. Imposisble that a WP:BEFORE was done for each, and the nominations appear to be in bad faith. NemesisAT (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has clearly decided all players that play for national teams he does not feel confer notability are those which should be deleted. The usual revisionism and elitism around notability in sports Zanoni (talk) 08:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per NemesisAT and Zanoni. In addition, he is a young international capped player with an ongoing career. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. There is no significant coverage in the article and none has been presented here. This is a modern day athlete from a English speaking country during the golden age of the internet so if there were sources they should be easily accessible. The closing admin should note that per WP:NSPORTS, all athletes must pass GNG, no matter their age, number of caps or if they have an ongoing career. Alvaldi (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG per my searches in Google News, DDG and ProQuest which found nothing better than one passing mention and a bunch of stats pages, which contain no meaningful prose. Arguments about presumed notability due to the subject being young and having international caps have no relevance to any accepted Wikipedia policy or guideline and, at best, are WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. I also note that there is no significant coverage cited in the article either and not one participant of this discussion has provided the multiple sources required to demonstrate that this sportsperson meets GNG or SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 19:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, in line with my !votes on similar nominations; fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5, and procedural reasons are insufficient justification to keep. Editors who wish to keep this article need to provide examples of significant coverage from independent and reliable sources. BilledMammal (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article lacks evidence of SIGCOV as required by NSPORTS and GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 03:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions must all be discounted, because they all fail to address the reason provided for this deletion request: lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Nobody here seems to be able to find such coverage, and it is by now clear community consensus that such coverage is required for an article. Sandstein 09:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Deans

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, England, and Caribbean. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep User has nominated ~25 articles for deletion in ~20 minutes. Imposisble that a WP:BEFORE was done for each, and the nominations appear to be in bad faith. NemesisAT (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has clearly decided all players that play for national teams he does not feel confer notability are those which should be deleted. The usual revisionism and elitism around notability in sports Zanoni (talk) 08:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per NemesisAT and Zanoni. In addition, he is a young international capped player with an ongoing career. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 18:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - where is the significant coverage? Google News has hits but it's for a Gaelic footballer from Ireland of the same name. Definitely not the same Jordan Deans. ProQuest has plenty of hits but, again, it's for the other Jordan Deans. I can't comment on whether the Irish Jordan Deans meets WP:NGAELIC but from my searches I can say that the Anguillan Jordan Deans fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC due to a complete absence of significant coverage that is independent of the subject. The 'keep' comments above have no relevance to any accepted policy or guideline and appear to be WP:LOCALCONSENSUS or invalid. Comments relating to the number of nominations, the number of caps or the age of the player are irrelevant. The article clearly violates SPORTBASIC which states Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article. The article is linked only to database websites with low standards for inclusion and so violates another part of the same guideline which says Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5. Number of caps cannot be used to presume notability, per a broad consensus that removed that metric from WP:NSPORT. BilledMammal (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. There is consensus here, albeit weak, that an article in mainspace isn't suitable at the moment. As there's some material in reliable sources that could plausibly grow, the argument to draftify is more persuasive than that supporting outright deletion. Those arguing to keep, both here and at the previous AfD, have spammed a lot of links, but have not demonstrated that any of them constitute substantive coverage. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzalo Lira

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

This article has been nominated for deletion twice before: first (deleted), second (no consensus). The closer's suggestion after the second nomination was to revisit the discussion "when [Lira is] no longer in the news". This third nomination is taking place three months after the last one. Gonzalo Lira gained very brief prominence during the conflict in Ukraine because of his short disappearance, which was due to an alleged detention by the SBU (for which no evidence was ever produced). Since then, nothing noteworthy has happened, and is unlikely to happen. Other than that, Lira is just known for a couple poorly received films and a few books. I do not think it is WP:DUE to have an article about Lira. His views are fringe, and he's essentially just a vlogger. During the previous discussion, there was a lot of traffic as a result of canvassing, which I hope we can avoid this time round. BeŻet (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same as last time, non-notable "journalist". Sources are mentions with no sig cov. He's mentioned in an NBC News article that was published a month ago, but only gets a few lines [22], and that's about the best source that's come up since last AfD. Still nothing worthwhile. Oaktree b (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note
Nominated by the same user (BeŻet) as the last time around April 21, 2022 - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:44, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note repeated attempts [23], [24], [25] to place notability tag (by the same user) almost instantly after the last unsuccessful nomination.

@BeŻet I understand your strong view about the notability of Lira but I don't think it's acceptable that yet another AfD came from you. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...so? BeŻet (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Look BeŻet , you even executed, what appears to be, a double vote at your last nomination for deletion (nominated by you) - back in April so please please spare me the "so" comments, okay? Your constant endeavours to delete this article do not look good from a neutral point of view. I believe you should step aside for a while. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You've been pestering every single Delete vote. Spare me your condescending comments. BeŻet (talk) 08:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As with the successfully deleted page on Patrick Lancaster, the Lira page relies heavily on 1) a brief mention in an NBC article; 2) a brief mentions in a questionable source (Firearms News); 3) an article in The Bulwark (website) and The Daily Beast; 4) articles on his disappearance in places like Cyprus Mail and some Spanish language sources. All of these (except NBC, which has a single sentence on him) are mostly inspired by or about Lira's alleged "detention" by the SBU. There are also a few sources or reviews on him as a novelist or film maker, but these also do not seem particularly noteworthy to me. I think it's obvious that the article was created because of Lira's popularity among a certain "anti-Western" or "pro-Russian" crowd on YouTube and Twitter, not because of his failed endeavors as a filmmaker or novelist: having an article making him seem more respectable and legit.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep the above users particularly Eremenrich, know about the notability of this youtube personally because they have edit warred for months about how to shape the article. Removing many sources. This is a well established youtube personality. ~~John~~ 2A00:1370:8172:9394:54C6:36CE:F88B:2EF (talk) 08:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC) This signature is deceptive-this #vote is by an IP, not an established user.[reply]

Note to closer: This IP, who has probably edited under user names given their strange dislike of me, has few or no edits outside this topic area and is also WP:canvassing editors it thinks likely to support keeping the article, see [26], [27].—Ermenrich (talk) 11:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Too soon. Three months isn’t enough water under the bridge. Can we leave it a little longer and see? BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Too soon. - I would like to see if that person gets any additional notable coverage by the end of the year. Please re-evaluate in January 2023. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Once this article gets deleted, you can reconsider creating it afresh in January 2023 once he gets more coverage, but I highly doubt he will gain any. He can't pull the "I got kidnapped" trick more than once. BeŻet (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think so. Also, a reminder to you - WP:BLP apply to the talk pages as well. If you continue your behaviour on this page (please come up with a RS for your statement above that WP:BLP subject ...pulled the I got kidnapped trick.. or remove it) this will have to go elsewhere. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 18:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Made up by himself. Should be banned — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.109.90 (talk) 18:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft pending development of substantial encyclopedic coverage, which does not appear to exist at this time. BD2412 T 19:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a good solution, so that the content does not get entirely removed in case Lira does in fact become more notable. BeŻet (talk) 11:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would hope this doesn't get to another AfD (for a 4th time). Perhaps even draftifying could be an option, but I don't think much will come up; we haven't found decent enough sources now. Oaktree b (talk) 20:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article should remain as this person is very influential among leftists such as Yves Smith and the pro-Russia, Anti-American left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatherineTheGreat2022 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak draftify; keeping wouldn't be the end of the world. There's a decent amount of reporting on his alleged abduction, and reporting on him more broadly from two sources that are reliable enough for our purposes (The Daily Beast and The Bulwark). If the coverage of the alleged abduction had been more in-depth, I'd probably come down keep, and I think one or two more instances of RS coverage about him as a person would get to keep. As it stands, I don't think it would particularly hurt the encyclopedia to keep this in mainspace, but it probably falls a bit shy of GNG. (Disclosure: I'm working on a draft that mentions Lira, so I suppose I have a nonzero bias in favor of having an article to link to.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:58, 8 August 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 Proposed second Scottish independence referendum. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2023 proposed Scottish independence referendum

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

The subject matter is covered by proposed second Scottish independence referendum. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to proposed second Scottish independence referendum (noting that Proposed 2023 Scottish independence referendum is already a redirect to the same article). Rosbif73 (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rosbif73. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Proposed second Scottish independence referendum. There is no sensible argument to the contrary. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 20:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested above, and quickly if possible, before more time is wasted on it. We also have 2023 Scottish independence referendum as a redirect. EddieHugh (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - as outlined above this is would seem a sensible way forward. Dunarc (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EEMBC

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

Seems to mostly consist of advertising Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk / contribs)} 17:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk / contribs)} 17:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although admitted to be borderline due to lack of inline citations. Most of the promotion for the 2013 era and litany of "members" seems to be gone now. Needs work, but searching for news on EEMBC I find a bunch of sources. W Nowicki (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Femke (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant coverage in reliable sources found via Google New search: [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]. Any WP:PROMO issues in this short article can be addressed through editing; WP:TNT not required. ~Kvng (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drago Đurić

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

Somewhat generic name, but can't find proof of WP:GNG for this specific holder. All the references in the article seem to be primary sources, and many are archived. A Google Books search doesn't seem to mention him anywhere in the first few pages, a search of general Google with site:rs shows a bunch of other people. Actually found a cursory reference to his son being famous for something unrelated, but again no significant coverage of the father. Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Serbia. Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have no evidence of passing WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR, or anything else. His full professorship is suggestive that there might be something we're missing, and there is a language barrier, but significance in philosophy can sometimes be a bit opaque even for English-language philosophers, and we can't base an article on a vague hope of finding something. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dead People (novel)

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

An article created by an WP:SPA on book that does not appear to pass the WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. There are currently no reliable sources included in the article. I searched for any kind of coverage or reviews using both the English "Dead People" and Spanish "Gente Muerta" titles, and turned up very little outside of press releases or blog entries. The Spanish language Wikipedia has an article on the book, but it is largely identical to this one and also lacks any reliable, secondary sources. I was also unable to find any real information on the listed publisher of the book as well. One Spanish-language blurb I found seemed to state that the author self-publishes his work, but this was through using Google Translate on my end, so take that info with a grain of salt. I am bringing this to AFD rather than using a WP:PROD in the hopes that someone who understands Spanish may have more insight. Rorshacma (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Spain. Rorshacma (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — the Beans founds nothing to prove the notability of the book. R E A D I N G ^{Talk to the Beans?} 08:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not finding much, which honestly is kind of par for the course for horror novels. I do see where they were nominated for an award, but didn't win. I also found an article in Spanish, but I'm not able to pull the whole thing up. The author looks like he may be notable, but that would take some digging for sourcing as well. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did not find any significant coverage of this book (other than the one spanish article) that would lead me to believe it meets WP:NBOOK or any other notability guideline. Jacona (talk) 13:07, 4 August 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) —VersaceSpace 🌃 04:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jan te Nijenhuis

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

Not notable enough to have a stand alone biography article, the article has been a stub since 2018 consisting of two lines. The second source looks dead, the third source is unreliable. Jan te Nijenhuis publishes racist pseudoscience for the Mankind Quarterly [33] and the only other main journal he has published in is the Intelligence (journal) which also has a history of publishing eugenics and racist pseudoscience and fringe stuff peddling the Spearman's hypothesis. The third source on the article was written by Michael Woodley (this is the white supremacist who was recently exposed in the New York Times [34]). Nijenhuis and Woodley have co-authored papers in fringe journals [35] so it is hardly an independent or neutral source. In conclusion I am not seeing enough reliable sources for this guy to have an article at Wikipedia. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This person is not a notable academic, and most of their published work is in pseudo journals. 2603:8081:8040:3186:341D:DE51:533A:925B (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He seems to be widely known and quoted for his research claiming a decline in intelligence and (counter to the scientific consensus) claims that a significant factor in this supposed decline, in western countries, is genetic and linked to immigration from other parts of the world. We don't have to believe these racist theories to recognize that he might be notable for his work in this area. However, per WP:FRINGE, our article needs to state this all clearly, not merely to say that he is a psychologist. He is well cited, so he has a case for WP:PROF#C1, but I think the case for #C7 (influence on the non-academic world) may be stronger. I found multiple sources in apparently-reliable publications on this:
- Editorials on his work on race and intelligence: [36], [37]
- Explainer on his research in a science-communication web magazine: [38]
- Academic articles published in direct response to his work, with his name in the title: [39], [40], [41], [42].

—David Eppstein (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep Per the source discussion above, seems to pass notability. I don't agree with much of anything he spouts, but so long as we discuss it using NPOV, it's fine for here on wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above. There are additional sources on and beyond. No doubt that he is a well covered expert in his field. The fact that he is provocative (still a positive frame) doesn't seem to damage his notability either. gidonb (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April Engelberg

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

Non-notable person. Fails WP:POLITICIAN, never been elected to a political office and failed the previous time they ran. Not notable in any way for any other reason and makes no claims to be. Purely a failed politican candidate of which there are thousands. Possible COI with creator. Canterbury Tail talk 17:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and doesn't appear to have any form of notability. Let's not jump to conclusions about a COI but, regardless, the subject simply isn't notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Perhaps notable in the future if she is elected to a higher office. Jmanlucas (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No prejudice against recreation if she does attain notability in the future. However it's also possible that just being elected to Toronto council, should it happen, isn't enough for notability. Oh and there's a definite COI, as the creating user posted this on their user page before deleting it. Canterbury Tail talk 18:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of what's written about her is in relation to the decision to the provincial government to cut the number of municipal wards mid election, she was one of the unlucky that had her electoral riding carved up as the election was happening. As a lawyer, she isn't notable. She was never a politician. Can review if/when she wins the election in October. Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your points about notability, though I argue that several of her competitors that have also not been nominated do have wikipedia pages. Also the news articles linked show that she is a well-known member of the community, and that should make her notable, no? I can link more TV interviews if necessary.

About the COI, I do not know her well. She lives in my building, that's all. When I first made the article I read that I should state this as COI since I wasn't sure and wanted to air on the cautious side, but my first edits were deleted immediately without any discussion at all, which I thought was unfair, so that's why I removed it. VicenteEsnaola (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they have not already won; the notability test for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one, and the article as written is cited entirely to primary sources (directory entries, etc.) that are not proper support for any claim that she had preexisting notability for other reasons independently of being a candidate. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the fall if she wins, but nothing here is grounds for her to already have an article now. Bearcat (talk) 11:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She didn't win an election, and all the coverage is routine election coverage, which fails WP:NPOL. Jacona (talk) 13:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't see how meets WP:NPOL. Interviews aren't sufficient to show notability. Also other candidates not being nominated is not grounds to keep as per WP:OTHERSTUFF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above, fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Colombo

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

Non notable scientist and political candidate. He doesn't meet WP:PROF--he has only a Master's degree and almost no publications. He doesnt meet POLITICIAN as he has not yet been elected to any office. DGG ( talk ) 15:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above, fails on both counts. Oaktree b (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Uncited academic doesn't pass WP:PROF#C1 (or other PROF criteria); unelected candidate doesn't pass WP:NPOL. News coverage appears to be entirely about his candidacy, so he doesn't appear to be notable as an activist independent from that candidacy. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 08:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revenants in fiction

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

Fails WP:LISTN and WP:INDISCRIMINATE as a pure example farm that is almost entirely original research. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Lists. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure fancruft, not a hint of scholarly discussion. Dronebogus (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely made up of trivia, with no actual discussion on the topic or any kind of legitimate sources. Nearly all of the entries are non-notable, and there are huge amounts of WP:OR going on here for a lot of them. Rorshacma (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While I agree that the article in its current state is an indiscriminate list of unsourced and disjointed examples, I think there is a concept here which could be notable, if we could locate decent sources. For example, The Encyclopedia of Fantasy has an article on revenants. /Julle (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TNT applies; the article could be rewritten as something decent, but there is no point in keeping it as it stands Dronebogus (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you take another look, you will see that it no longer resembles the article that was taken to AfD. (: I hope someone else will be able to edit it further; I don't have as much time to spend on it as I'd have preferred. /Julle (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I applaud your efforts, the problem now is that what is left without the list of trivia is basically the exact same topic as the main Revenant article, and thus there is still no actual reason for this to exist as a separate topic. Rorshacma (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the list turns it into a WP:DICDEF. Different issue, same conclusion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Revenant is about the folkloristic concept, though, with discussions about various mythological undead like the draugr. The consciously fictional concept, used in literature rather than folklore, seems different enouh, to me, to fit better in a separate article. Ashley's SFE article, for example, avoids the mythological even to explain the background, and focuses solely on the literary. We could, of course, add the fantasy revenants to the revenant article instead, but since they migth better be understood as two related but separate traditions and concepts I wonder if that's the best solution? /Julle (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Julle: I believe an article move to Revenant (monster) would be in order if this article ends up being rewritten, much like the Gargoyle (monster) article that I made a while ago. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. I have no strong opinions on the title, I just feel a) we can probably make something of this and b) I think it works better treated as a separate concept. /Julle (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That really is the central issue of the many "In Popular Culture" lists on Wikipedia. In many cases, there is a potentially notable topic behind it, but the lists are most certainly not an appropriate way to cover it, and do not contain any actually sourced material that would be useful in developing a prose article. Additionally, a lot of times, there is not even a real reason for the "portrayal in media" subject to even be split out of the main article if it were not just a overly long list of non-notable trivia. This one is a perfect example of that - the Revenant article is not particularly long, so adding a short section discussing the topic in prose format using sources like the one you presented would certainly be preferable over this separate, messy trivia list. Rorshacma (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, I took a look at some sources I've used to salvage similar articles (see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genies in popular culture (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loch Ness Monster in popular culture (2nd nomination)). I was most hopeful that The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters (edited by Jeffrey Andrew Weinstock) might have an entry, but it didn't (it instead refers to the "Monsters in Video Games" entry, where the only mention is in the sentence Doom is is particularly renowned for its monster design, with monsters like the revenant, hellknight, and the end boss Cyberdemon regularly noted as iconic monsters of video gaming.). I also thought Icons of Horror and the Supernatural: An Encyclopedia of Our Worst Nightmares (edited by S. T. Joshi) might have an entry, but it didn't. I found no relevant entry in The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy (edited by Gary Westfahl) or the other sources I checked either. There's nothing wrong with the entry in The Encyclopedia of Fantasy discovered by Julle of course, but we would need more than that to write a decent article on this. TompaDompa (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to revenant. There is some decent stuff here and if someone wants to recreate the article one day when its needed due to the main articles size then they can do that, as of now both are too short for it to be really necessary.★Trekker (talk) 07:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to the main article. The current content seems particularly useless and there's no immediate sign of improvement, so I'd say start from scratch in the main article if the topic does have any potential. TTN (talk) 14:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The old article was a list of trivia. The current one is a dictionary definition. Regardless, there in nothing worth preserving here. It needs to be destroyed so that something else can be built. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 17:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. SFE entry is reliable, but more would be needed. I am concerned whether this is not overlapping with some similar concepts, frankly, the entire concept of revenant is fuzzy. For now I'd merge this to said article (revenant), it's not like it's long, and source discussion above doesn't inspire hopes that we will find much. Ps. From article on revenant: "The term "revenant" has been used interchangeably with "ghost" by folklorists. While some maintain that vampires derive from Eastern European folklore and revenants derive from Western European folklore, many assert that revenant is a generic term for the undead". Ghosts in fiction/Ghosts in popular culture would be another valid target (it's surprising those are red links...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to Revenant. There does appear to be some secondary coverage of this topic, but clearly not enough to justify a WP:SPLIT from the main article. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:27, 5 August 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 12:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh mythology in the arts and popular culture

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

The topic may be notable, but what we have here is a 99% unreferenced (two footnotes) list of media in which Welsh mythology topics appeared in. This fails WP:OR/WP:V as a potential article, WP:IPC as well, and likely WP:LISTN and WP:GNG. For an example of how messy this is, note a bunch of examples of "media (novels, movies) in which characters have names based on Welsh mythos characters", where said media has no other connection to Welsh mythology (and where it's just some random editor's assumption that the name is indeed inspired by Welsh mythology and not some other use or is just a coincidence). It's like someone would populate the Slavic mythology in popular culture with lists of media in which characters have Slavic names... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture, Lists, and United Kingdom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - While the topic is potentially notable, this article is just a TV Tropes style listing of minor trivia that is vaguely related to Welsh mythology. There is no actual discussion on the topic, or any sourced material on it. As mentioned by the nom, a lot of these are not even true examples of the depiction of Welsh mythology in popular culture, and simply times that a character or location happened to share a name with something from Welsh mythology with no real relation to the subject beyond that. Rorshacma (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 12:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Server.com

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

Server.com is a defunct (1996-2007) SaaS provider. It has sources, but lacks clear notability. It's borderline, as noted by User:MarioGom reviewing earlier but ultimately the company fails WP:GNG, WP:OPGCRIT. Note the more stringent requirement for notability under NORG, "a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules" - so parsing out company announcements, company influenced coverage, releases etc... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and Technology. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have a declared COI. However, this easily meets the 3 good sources rule- Network World,Media Life, and About.com. – Sean Brunnock (talk) 11:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Sean Brunnock (talk) 13:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would argue the conflict of interest disappears when the company does. Leaning notable with the sources given above. Oaktree b (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources in the article easily satisfy WP:3REFS-

Server.com offering six ASP services for newsletter management (Network World, 350 words)
Server.com's rise as an ad domain (Media Life, 370 words)
Server.Com - WebApps For All Occasions (About.com, 670 words)

– Sean Brunnock (talk) 09:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Sean Brunnock (talk) 11:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Just the Media Life magazine, TechCrunch, NetworkWorld, and About.com make it pass notability for a company such as this and the other more passing mentions support it. Skynxnex (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources cited would not allow us to do more in this article than list the company's chronology and list of product offerings. Hardly enough to meet the spirit of WP:CORPDEPTH. FalconK (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CORPDEPTH states, Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. The articles were not trivial. There were each well over 100 words. See WP:100WORDS. Sean Brunnock (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about word count. Articles that are merely lists of products, for example, are specifically trivial. FalconK (talk) 23:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Network World- I was researching newsletter management services and I found an ASP with a very useful set of services that include a mail list service along with other offerings that are simple to use and effective.

Media Life- After the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, America's wired population dramatically increased the amount of time spent in online chats and forums.

About.com- With all the great things they have to offer you really can't afford to do without them.

I'm not sure how you got mere lists of products from that. – Sean Brunnock (talk) 00:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 11:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

International Kickboxing Federation

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

Fails GNG Zafir94 (talk) 05:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 July 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Martial arts, and California. Shellwood (talk) 08:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an organization that seems to be just a shadow of its former self. It was never considered a major kickboxing organization and there's a definite lack of significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Papaursa, please see WP:NOTTEMPORARY. ~Kvng (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTTEMPORARY is irrelevant to my comment. The fact that it was previously PRODed speaks to the fact that its WP notability has always been questionable. As a long time martial artist, I was merely giving some background information. The fact that it's never met WP:GNG is a fact and a definite problem. Papaursa (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Newspapers.com search finds 234 mentions of "International Kickboxing Federation" in the 2000s, 40 in the 2010s and 1 so far this decade. So clearly, as you've said, it has peaked. WP:NOTTEMPORARY asks us to think about how this discussion would have gone if we were holding it 20 years ago. If we would have found it notable back then, it remains notable today. ~Kvng (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My experience with the IKF goes back 20+ years, but that was before I ever heard of WP. What I remember is coverage of events and individual competitors and not significant independent coverage of the organization itself. However, doesn't mean it wasn't there and if you find some please let me know and I'll change my vote. Papaursa (talk) 23:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed a selection of the Newspapers.com results and found it to be as you say, all about events and competitors. I didn't find significant coverage of the organization. ~Kvng (talk) 01:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for checking. I guess my memory isn't totally shot. Papaursa (talk) 02:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's part of the kickboxing history in the United States and the world. Just because it's not major anymore like WAKO, WKN, WKA, WBC Muaythai, don't forget it was! And as a user I always want to read about kickboxing history. IKF aren't trash. Zbreller (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zbreller can you suggest any reliable sources for kickboxing history that have covered IKF? ~Kvng (talk) 13:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is a niche sport and so we're going to find sources in niche publications. I've added a few links to Google Books sources. There are a lot of mentions in a lot of publications which indicate that the IKF is/was one of the biggest orgs for this sport. So far though, I'm still looking for something that will pass WP:NORG. I suggest that we'll find such material in a "History of" type book - can anyone more knowledgeable track something down? I'm deffo leaning towards a weak Keep at least on this. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 00:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gualtiero Zanolini

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

Fails WP:GNG. Cannot find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, lack of WP:SIGCOV. World Scout Committee member does not amount to much. 1 pageview (30 days) for a BLP is very low. Edwardx (talk) 11:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Scouting, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 11:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources may be mostly scouting-related, but I'm betting that if we were to search Italian language sources, more could be found. It has sources, and while a little obscure, I think it does have value. --evrik ^(talk) 17:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 00:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Huqooq-e-Sindh March

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

A march apparently held in March. Has not resulted in any enduring consequence or change to Pakistani politics or society. Perhaps a brief note in the Sindh Government article, but this article is wholly WP:UNDUE and fails WP:GNG and WP:LASTING. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Pakistan. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Major news event, covered widely by Pakistani media at the time in depth. See for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ETaFqY7LL8 , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzeisU9O1_Y Here a report from Umarkot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XpbyomBYVE --Soman (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:29, 2 August 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 11:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nadežda Pavlović

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

Per Wikipedia:BLP1E and/or WP:NOPAGE. She was not even supercentenarian (person who is/was aged 110+). In fact, she was only 109 years and 3 months old. Also, the author of this article seems to have determined that she is a or "was the oldest known living person in Serbia" recognized by an organization called ESO, but I don't think ESO is an internationally recognized and prestigious longevity science organization, unlike Gerontology Research Group. More famous and prominent articles about the oldest people, the country's oldest person titieholder, have also been deleted in the past like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misao Okawa (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yukichi Chuganji (4th nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mamie Eva Keith (2nd nomination), etc. There is no reason to keep only this article of the oldest person in a small country like Serbia, when considering impartiality...--Ayuta Tonomura (talk) 10:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions 10:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Hertweck

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

No evidence of any notability. Very few passing mentions in GNews[43], nothing useful in generic Google[44], no attention for his career so far. Fram (talk) 10:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Journalism, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 10:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this resume/CV-like article on a "polymath" does not meet notability criteria for WP:NMUSICIAN, WP:NAUTHOR, WP:NARTIST - nor the general notability requirements. The fact that he worked as the Senior Project Manager for the Grammy Foundation or worked with notable musicians does not count towards establishing his own notability. What is needed is SIGCOV in reliable sources that are independent and not user-submitted content. Netherzone (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sorry for taking a while to respond, I just started classes. New to this whole thing, just trying to get a feel for biographies as I'd imagine that those criteria are more strict. I realize that finding sources for this on Google News will be difficult, especially considering he had a career writing for a news source with Grammys. Thank you Fram for teaching me how to remove a source with the GNews link, super useful! I would like to bring attention to the the results on Google Scholar, which seem to have far more on the topic at hand. With these options [45] and [46]. And Netherzone makes a good point the resume like structure, I will attempt to convert as most of it as I can into a more narrative style. I do believe this topic meets the notability criteria, though I am very willing to improve it even if we have to move it to draft. Guac Is Extra Delicious (talk) 08:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Your Google Scholar links start with a citation, but already the second hit[47] is a Wikipedia mirror, another one[48] is a MA thesis, as is this one, leaving us with just a handful of short references to articles Hertweck wrote. The second link you provide is mostly the same set of titles, with some completely irrelevant ones added[49][50]. Fram (talk) 08:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for replying to this, I can see what you're saying about those scholar results. But I do believe they satisfy WP:AUTHOR as being "widely cited by peers or successors". If that is not the case, then I will be happy to take it to draft like my Ashley Martinez article, since I need to become better at biographical articles and selecting those topics. Guac Is Extra Delicious (talk) 01:33, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @Guac Is Extra Delicious, I think you are misunderstanding that guideline. I'm not seeing anything that establishes that he's widely cited by peers or successors. @Fram may have a different take on this, but to my understanding he definitely does not satisfy WP:NAUTHOR. Netherzone (talk) 02:05, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I definitely may be misunderstanding the guideline Netherzone, really grateful that you people are trying to educate me on this. Genuine question, just trying to learn. Wouldn't the citations in Billboard (magazine), Journalism History, and Zenodo indicate this? Guac Is Extra Delicious (talk) 02:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  User:Guac Is Extra Delicious has been blocked as a sockpuppet. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Having a cool job at The Recording Academy does not confer notability. Novemberjazz 01:12, 5 August 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. Sandstein 13:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo Puglisi

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

Not enough WP:SIGCOV to justify having an article on a minor, particularly given this has already been subject to significant vandalism ITBF (talk) 10:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Journalism. ITBF (talk) 10:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject has received coverage from major Australian news outlets on several different occasions, take this in News.com.au, this in The Age and this by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Clear WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E pass. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: there's been repeated third party coverage of his journalism, particularly related to the high profile interviews he organised. The vandalism seems to have coincided with the subject calling attention to their article (https://twitter.com/Leo_Puglisi6/status/1553987410609913856 and https://twitter.com/Leo_Puglisi6/status/1554048161500512257), so it's not clear whether that'll be an ongoing problem. Given how young the subject is, care is obviously needed to ensure the article only covers information he has chosen to make public. James (talk) 04:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Devonian Wombat and James, with an added helping of WP:NORESVAND. De Guerre (talk) 05:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and semi-protect: Clearly notable; the vandalism spike seems to have finished, but given his profile and detractors I can foresee it recurring. Josh Parris 07:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History of rugby union matches between Japan and the United States

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

No clear rivalry between the two countries, basically a list of matches and fails WP:NOTSTATS Bcp67 (talk) 10:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby union, Japan, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 10:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just a list of stats. LibStar (talk) 04:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NRIVALRY and WP:GNG. We've deleted a number of lists like this in the past where there is no rivalry between the sides, and this is another case of this. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete There is a rivalry between Japan and the two North American teams, USA and Canada. Canada more so, as Japan and Canada have played each dating back to 1932, and have played each other the most of any teams outside there own continent. However, the rivalry with the U.S. is strong and the two teams share a strong history, playing early tours back and forth, before competing in the Pacific Rim Championship, the Pacific Nations Cup, and not to mention their World Cup matches (1987, 2003, 2015). Since they first met each other back in 1985, they have played each on average 0.65 per year. This will most likely drop as Japan has become a tier one nation. MarioBayo (talk) 09:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You'll need to provide GNG evidence supporting claims that a rivalry exists. I've not been able to find any for either USA or Canada in terms of significant coverage of the rivalry. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Made up concept that remains non-notable. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 05:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NRIVALRY and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see this article meeting WP:NRIVALRY KSAWikipedian (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Eugene Vaughan

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

Sources are thinly veiled advertorials for Vaughn and his company, Vonski Travels. Not seeing any evidence of significant coverage in RS independent of the subject KH-1 (talk) 10:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Aviation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 09:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure puff.Unbh (talk) 11:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No credible claim of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent coverage as noted by nom. –FlyingAce^✈hello 23:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per author request. ✗plicit 13:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Valjalo

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

Per Wikipedia:BLP1E and/or WP:NOPAGE. Also, the author of this article seems to have determined that she is a supercentenarian or "was the oldest known living person in Croatia" recognized by an organization called ESO, but I don't think ESO is an internationally recognized and prestigious longevity science organization, unlike Gerontology Research Group. More famous and prominent articles about the oldest people, the country's oldest person titieholder, have also been deleted in the past like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misao Okawa (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yukichi Chuganji (4th nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mamie Eva Keith (2nd nomination), etc. There is no reason to keep only this article of the oldest person in a small country like Serbia, when considering impartiality...--Ayuta Tonomura (talk) 08:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions 08:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Croatia. Shellwood (talk) 10:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:BLP1E, "WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people". This person is not living, so that rationale is not relevant here. Jacona (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright. But I guess this article still not reach WP:GNG.--Ayuta Tonomura (talk) 01:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tio Cipot

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

Fails WP:GNG, no sources were provided that would indicate significant coverage, only the regular match reports / contract extension reports Snowflake91 (talk) 09:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovenia. Shellwood (talk) 09:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reasonably well-known footballer as seen through reasonable enough coverage in for instance [51], [52], [53] and the like Geschichte (talk) 11:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are routine reports like contract extensions or match reports, you can find this for literally any player that signed a pro contract with the club. Snowflake91 (talk) 11:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per above. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 20. By the time I finish writing this, another twenty will probably be deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Other WikiProjects doesn't delete 20 articles per day" is not a reason for keep, and you literally copy/paste that same reply at every AfD, for example at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pascal Estrada, but at least there you managed to provide some in-depth coverage, unlike in this article. Where is the in-depth coverage of this player that goes beyond "Tip Cipot extended his contract until 2026" and a regular match reports? Looks like people are just trying to mass-keep those poor articles because of their disagreement with the WP:NSPORTS new notability standards, so they try to provide some "in-depth" sources which in reality are just routine reports...how about you create just 1 well-written, long article with many sources per day, instead of creating 20 full-stub, half-done, one-sentence articles per day about barely notable or non-notable footballers? Snowflake91 (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The "reasonable enough coverage" above is 1. NZS: routine contract extension announcement that has 2 non-quote sentences on him] N; 2. RTVSLO: another routine announcement of the same contract extension, with 2 of the 4 non-quote sentences on him being essentially the same info as in the first source N; 3. Slovenske Novice: pure interview/quote summaries, less than a sentence of independent secondary commentary N. Definitely does not meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 22:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Ref 1 and 2 above are not SIGCOV, 3 is OK but not enough on its own. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the source analysis above shows that this player fails WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of significant coverage. It may also be time to reevaluate Geschichte's Autopatrolled right if they are still creating database-sourced sports stubs and presenting match reports as SIGCOV for players. –dlthewave ☎ 05:09, 8 August 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.

Clement Pryke

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) (closed by Dr.Pinsky Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)) [reply]

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

The current sources are insufficiently reliable. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 09:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A quick look at Google Scholar (and News (the space stuff not the tree-house) (New Scientist and NYT mentions)) seems to me to indicate sufficient notability according to WP:Prof. (Msrasnw (talk) 10:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Speedy Keep: Pryke is notable, whether the sources are reliable or not. His 2016 election as a Fellow of theAmerican Physical Society is sufficient in and of itself. Hs academic record passes WP:NPROF 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C1 (well cited pubs) and #C3 (Fellow APS). —David Eppstein (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes multiple NPROF criteria. JoelleJay (talk) 04:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly meets WP:NPROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:33, 3 August 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. Although this seems like a Weak Keep (or even a Reluctant Keep). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeoneer (game)

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

Board game that likely fails WP:GNG. User:VickKiang deprodded is as they found one seemingly reliable review (in German), but the other sources found don't appear to be RS, so with just one review GNG requirement of multiple sources meeting SIGCOV does not appear to be met. Prior discussion of sources is here: Talk:Dungeoneer (game). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Games. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Polish magazine Rebel Times, which me and Vic are leaning towards seeing as reliable, did review one of their six stand-alone games: [54] Dungeoneer: Grobowiec Króla Nieumarłych -> that's Dungeoneer: Tomb of the Lich Lord. So now we have two arguably reliable reviews. I might have jumped the gun here (should've checked the Rebel Times archive first, will do next time). The notability may be borderline now. What do you think? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment @Piotrus: This is probably the most borderline AfD I've been so far. I find Rebel Times to be probably reliable, it seems to be an okay ref, the cover designs for the older issues feel unprofessional, but newer issues seem to be better. The coverage is extensive for sure, and that's easily one ref for GNG. What about the other site? I don't see their editors having much expertise, but they also publish other refs, including a magazine, I tried to search for some info online on the editors, but failed to find them appearing in other RS. So whether it's an RS needs a lot of debate, though it's definitely Option 1.5-2 if this is at an Wikipedia:RfC, right between generally and marginally reliable, probably closer to the latter, but given the few available refs on BTG, I don't think the guidelines for refs are that stringent. We've seen other articles (probably worse in refs?) being debated at game-related AfDs, but this is very borderline and it's open to interpretation. Still, I guess that as it's very borderline, and there might be other refs in older magazines, considering the game having loads of BGG ratings and even appearing on the Polish magazine, I might assume there could be one more RS somewhere? Of course, this is quite close to WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, and the notability is very, very debatable. I would go with neutral to weak keep, not weak delete, but I won't vote for now as the notability is very borderline. If more other editors vote keep, I might keep my vote if it helps to establish a better consensus. Many thanks!

Keep. @Piotrus: Currently, this article gets an easy keep from me. I've added a couple of refs. Right now, the article has 3 or 4 refs meeting GNG. I added two Pyramid reviews, a well-known magazine we consider to be an RS. Rebel Times is also another easy ref to count towards GNG. The other link is debatable, if it's an RS, there's four refs counting towards GNG, if not, then three. Anyway, only 2+ are needed, in this case, 3 or 4 refs make an easy keep vote from me. Considering that you said hopefully someone will dig at least one more decent source, at which point I'd be happy to withdraw my nomination, I think this could be withdrawn as keep, as Pyramid is a good ref as long as the one cited isn't a capsule review or if it's from its own company (in this case, it's not), if not, there'd probably be consensus for keep. Of course, this is a niche game still, searching directly from Google couldn't find much results, only when I tried to search the web links from BGG, or checking some of the magazine websites (I guess Pyramid isn't indexed much) could these refs be found. Still, the article is poor, probably have a fan pov with a horrible gameplay section. As I haven't played the game nor read the rulebook, and don't have access to all of the refs, it'd be probably better for someone else to do these (I think I pinged BOZ and Guinness323, as they do lots of work on articles for older games from magazines, books), but I support this article be kept, albeit the other games with unrefed parts be trimmed and rm. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 03:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully someone will dig at least one more decent source, at which point I'd be happy to withdraw my nomination. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BOZ: @Guinness323: Based on the low traffic of game related AfDs, I think BOZ and Guinness323 are fairly involved in these AfDs and done some to keep articles, see the Australia (board game), and maybe Angriff, as some work has been for also, so I’ve pinged them. VickKiang (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Piotrus: Added new source, unsure of whether it's an RS though. There's an about us, and review system, but probably no policies, though, one of its editors is well-known and a subject matter expert with WP page, see Arno Steinwender. Added another two Pyramid reviews, see article, and support keeping the article. VickKiang (talk) 03:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@VickKiang Aren't the Pyramid reviews "capsule" mentions, too short to warrant WP:SIGCOV? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: I think the review suggests that there’s more content, I’d expect they clearly mark their capsule reviews? VickKiang (talk) 07:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@VickKiang So you think those are just snippets? If we can verify this, I'd agree GNG is met, but we can't assume that. The visible text is very brief and does not suggest there is more clearly. Hmmm, who can help? User:BOZ? User:Guinness323? Nobody listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Board_and_table_games/Resources#Reliable_reference_archive seems to have it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I'm probably assuming, but at the end of each, they end with ..., and the sentences seem to be incomplete. Of course, that's my speculation, but I saw a lot of Pyramid articles being like this, with ... presumably saying there's more? VickKiang (talk) 07:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VickKiang Hmmm, true, I missed that. Your argument is stronger. I'd like to see at least one such sample article and compare it to the full version to see if we can expect SIGCOV. Sigh, it's such a shame that this magazine is not online. I wonder how many ppl actually read the physical copy? 50? Double sigh. Such a dinosaur in the digital era. Not that it's uncommon. Polish prime sf/f magazine, Nowa Fantastyka, is just like that too (it has some reliable reviews and such too that are next to impossible to even locate, their ToC is not well digitized either). What a waste... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd try to find one, they do have some short sample PDFs for each volume, but it seems to be more about the contents. Of course, others, such as Arcane, aren't online at all, this required $6 (probably) each, but considering its nicheness and it being no longer in print, it's strange that payment is still required. VickKiang (talk) 08:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a business. Stuff like Rebel Times or Esensja being made available to all is still an exception, and, arguably, not a great business model :( Shame this stuff is so chaotic we can't get any sort of subscription through Wikipedia library etc. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Piotrus: @BOZ: As this has been relisted, IMO we need to decide on whether the Pyramid is SIGCOV. I'm pinging Piotrus (AfD nom) and BOZ, who I had a discussion with here. Maybe Guinness323 could help with this also. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I am leaning towards yes, but sigh, how osbscure is their archive that nobody here claims to have access to it? I wonder if we can get a subscription to it through WP:LIBRARY... Hmmm. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you do, let me know, I'd be the first person to sign up! :) BOZ (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BOZ Watch this space? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pyramid is a reliable source, and the ellipsis articles are the opening sections of actual reviews. Newimpartial (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Pyramid meets WP:RS. Not a great article, nor is it likely to be one. And apparently not a great game. I'd not hugely object to a good merge target, but a soft keep is where I'm at. Hobit (talk) 02:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, the review from Pyramid in the link is certainly incomplete. No idea how much more there is, but that's not the whole thing. Hobit (talk) 02:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per VickKiang and Hobit. BOZ (talk) 03:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wirtual

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. I only found reliable sources related to the TrackMania scandal, which then is WP:BLP1E. ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 15:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Entertainment. ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 15:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think Wirtual passes WP:NCREATIVE, specifically in "creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work", along with criterion 2 of WP:BLP1E. Specifically, according to WP:NOTBLP1E, while exposing cheaters might be the most notable thing he's done, it's not the only thing he's done or the originating reason for his fame. BrigadierG (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that this meets criterion 2 for WP:BLP1E, and criterion 3 isn't clear cut here. ~ Bra71l · 16:15, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added more of Wirtual's achievements. He personally never considered the Cheating investigation an achievement, and apparently also feels some kind of guilt over it as Riolu left streaming after the report was published. He has set many records and I've mentioned them now on the page. He is also about to cross a million subscribers so thought it would be nice to have a Wikipedia article on him. Hope you keep the article. Thank you so much and have a great day. ~ User:Nicenicey18 16:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Norway. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources seem to be either primary, or quick mentions of him in stories about larger topics. No significant coverage that focuses only on him. At the very least, this is WP:TOOSOON - every single secondary source that mentions him is no older than 5 days ago. Fred Zepelin (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because I consider the cheating video to be a WP:BLP1E—no indication of lasting notability. SWinxy (talk) 04:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BLP1E Andre🚐 22:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. ✗plicit 11:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nsimeyong

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

One of a number of articles being thrown up by new page patrol on Cameroon that are undersourced/unsourced stubs with non-notable streets, features or neighbourhoods. Content from here could be merged with Yaoundé article except all but one sentence of it is unreferenced. Fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Cameroon. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to have plenty of coverage in ISBN 9783825869977 and ISBN 9782709908054, among others. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are antiquated sources - the village of Nsimeyong has been subsumed by the expansion of Yaoundé and is now a suburb of that city - not a settlement in its own right. It's a neighbourhood of Yaoundé, situated between the districts of Biyem-Assi and Mvolyé. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So? It was once a separate settlement, and Wikipedia covers history as well as the current situation. We have articles for the former separate settlements that now make up London, and they would all be snow kept if nominated for deletion, so why treat Yaoundé any differently? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Much of Cameroon has experienced urban sprawl so many villages have been absorbed. Administrative division has also been altered. Djflem (talk) 11:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scopa, Antoine (2003), Démocratisation et autochtonie au Cameroun: trajectoires régionales différentes, LIT Verlag Münster, ISBN 9783825869977 Djflem (talk) 09:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: appears to be close translation of:https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nsimeyong, where there are sources.Djflem (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources. Djflem (talk) 09:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2023 in hip hop music

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

I sent this article to draft as part of NPP duties but it was recreated by the same editor. It should be deleted so that the editor can submit the article through AFC. See Draft:2023 in hip hop music. Bruxton (talk) 04:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bruxton (talk) 04:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 04:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Sricsi (talk) 12:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too soon, and not enough information to be encyclopedic. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Conceptually, I'm hypothetically okay with the article existing. It can be done - 2023 in heavy metal music is out there. But this particular article is too half-baked and unsourced to be ready to be published yet. Sergecross73 msg me 11:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: found no available sources for any listed releases meaning claiming any of these are releasing next year is purely speculative and not even worth listing in a draft. Also worth noting that all the results I found for the Lil Mosey album call it The Land of Make Believe with no results for Make-Believers so even that title is inaccurate/presumably speculative. Not strictly too soon in my mind, as Serge said you've got the heavy metal page and I've also been working on Draft:List of 2023 albums which has been coming along well so far, but this page is far below the standard set by those two. QuietHere (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2020 puma sightings in Santiago

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

Not a relevant event on its own. Also, WP:NOTNEWS Bedivere (talk) 04:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Bedivere (talk) 04:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Chile. Shellwood (talk) 09:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:50, 4 August 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 00:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tyanna Simon

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Not a lot of coverage, but given that women football players have been shown to get less coverage for the same level of skill I think we should be generous here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lijil (talk • contribs) 04:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could only find her mentioned in match reports. The Football Profile268 website isn't reliable. Dougal18 (talk) 11:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I could not find the sourcing necessary to pass GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Herisht

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

Mass-created article by Carlossuarez46 (talk · contribs) about a place misidentified as a village, to which the user Rezamihandoostdar (talk · contribs) added unsourced content in 2020 about its supposed significance in Zoroastrianism. I can verify that there is a temple near Ardakan that is called Harisht or Herisht in English, among other names, but as most of these sites are self-published or travel sites, I am not 100% confident that the site meets WP:GNG. Note that Harisht in the search engine also returns matches for people with this name. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Geography, and Iran. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing but passing mentions and blog-type sources found in my searches for “Harisht”/“Herisht”/“Pir Harisht” with “Zoroastrian”. WP:Before has to be proportionate to the effort put in by the original author, which in this case was near-zero.FOARP (talk) 06:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per passing mentions and self-published sources as the only way to check notability. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Junpei Oka

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Japan. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NGYMNASTICS. LibStar (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shohei Kawakami (gymnast)

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Japan. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only a champion at junior level. Fails WP:NGYMNASTICS. LibStar (talk) 05:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGYMNASTICS. Fats40boy11 (talk) 10:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Third Man Museum

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

Content not sourced. Appears to be using Wikipedia for marketing public relations. Copy is promotional in tone and not encyclopedic. The subject is questionable in its notability. Myotus (talk) 02:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Museums and libraries. Myotus (talk) 02:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. There appear to be good sources in the EL section; have you done proper WP:BEFORE? The Washington Post article checks out. Doesn't seem especially promotional (no more than the article on the museum the nominator works for, as he has very properly declared), nor un-encyclopaedic. Notability is decided by sources. Johnbod (talk) 02:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Washington post article you are referring to is an external link not a citation. The citations that are listed appear to be more promotional and provide little value to the article and appear to get more recognition for its connection to the film than the museum itself. It is important to point out that just because the film is notable does not mean the museum is notible WP:INHERITORG. Being in a national newspaper in such a manner means little for notability it simply means you have significant PR budget and/or staff. Beyond the puff marketing pieces there is almost nothing in the content of the articles listed showing notability.

The creator and main contributor of the page (and just about the only contributor of actual content on the museum), Gstrassg, created their account then created and built the page and has contributed to nothing else on Wikipedia. Gstrassg appears to be a the owner of the museum as "Gerhard Strassgschwandtner" is listed on the page (He has not properly declared his connection with the organization). This is a Conflict of interest. As far as the copy's tone, it is better than most promotional articles on Wikipedia and it can be easily corrected as Elemimele has noted, however, it still adds to the issue that the article is a PR piece and not notable. The questionability of the article was first pointing out by Legacypac in 2018 on the talk page who moved it from Draftspace to live. I do not agree with the decision to move it live. Due to the conflict of interest and lack of proper citations (at the very least) the article was not ready be moved to live.

My feeling is the page is not ready to be a Wikipedia article, it should be deleted or at least moved back to Draftspace WP:DRAFTIFY for other editors not connected to the organization contribute, have the proper citations, and come to a decision when it is ready to (if ever) to be added into Wikipedia. Myotus (talk) 13:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Look, before launching, or voting on, an Afd, you are supposed to consider not just whether the article as presented meets notability & other standards, but whether it could, especially with a small amount of work. It would have been less trouble, and much better, for you to have included some of the ELs as regular refs, rather than launch an Afd, bringing in other editors who probably have better things to be doing. Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From what I have seen there are many Afd have have that potential. Many articles I have seen over the years sent into Afd through appear to be guided by bias, some by gender bias, some by racial bias, some by location, some by rural/urban bias, some by representation in sources, etc. Wikipedia is trying to work on that. And we need to do better. WP:BIAS Being located in a large Western city with access to multiple media outlets gives the Third Man Museum undue access coverage make what should be unnotable, notable. Keeping the article shows a location bias. Organizations need to be held to a higher standard in urban areas. Myotus (talk) 19:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, but I disagree. IMHO I’ll explain why I disagree. First, deletion at AfD is not cleanup, per AfD, [if] the can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD. Yes, it’s very biased and has a COI, but I did some c/e, it’s better (still bad though), and I’ve added the external links as refs. That WP has a gender bias is definitely a problem, see Gender bias on Wikipedia, it’s probably Anglocentric or European centric, though that’s partly because it’s an English one. But I am curious, how is this alone a deletion rationale? WP:BEFORE needs checking all refs, not just the ones currently in the article. Besides, you purpose that keeping the article shows a location bias, but how is this alone a good argument? Bias is an endemic problem, but just deleting one article doesn’t help much, so I disagree. VickKiang (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (a bit weakly); as well as the Washington Post article, it has write-ups of the "edited-but-prompted-by-press-releases" type in Bupapest Times[55], and unprompted passing mentions in the Financial Times [56] and Guardian [57]. The Telegraph and Daily Express also regard it as sufficiently worthy to mention in lists of things to do in Vienna. Given the competition for things to mention in a city as large and cultured as Vienna, this constitutes evidence it's reasonably notable. There are places where the tone is slightly promotional ("Specialists and generalists, they created the museum from scratch"), but AfD is not clean-up: the language can easily be copy-edited to ensure it's straightforward, factual writing. Elemimele (talk) 07:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep IMO the two refs, from The Daily Telegraph and The Washington Post are RS, independent, and secondary (The Guardian ref and this are too short to meet the significant requirements); still, I think it meets WP:GNG (2 or more are needed, it has 2), judging by the notability guidelines for organisations, IMO the press, which are well known newspaper of records, are secondary and independent. Therefore, I would vote for weak keep. See also my comment above, many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per the above. Given that there are appearances in high-profile sources, I'm sure more will appear. —VersaceSpace 🌃 04:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as The Washington Post, and The Telegraph so passing WP:GNG in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 16:47, 4 August 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 23:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shijinlal

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

The article fails to establish why it is notable. Director has only directed one low-key film. Only one source found on the person in the article and nothing else except this, but it is unclear if that guy is the same person. Best to redirected to Grandma. DareshMohan (talk) 01:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

he is the director. He has directed the Film Grandma. Your vandalizing the page @DareshMohan @BangJan1999 Monhiroe (talk) 05:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, the page was nominated for deletion and not intended to hurt feelings. no vandalizing has been done. DareshMohan (talk) 05:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correct References is given there Monhiroe (talk) 11:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - too early, should have worked as main director on at least three films. Neutral Fan (talk) 09:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable director. Nothing in the article to indicate WP:N is met. Case of WP:TOOSOON.. Jupitus Smart 17:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anish Khem

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOLYMPICS and lacks WP:SIGCOV Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is an international player for Fiji and was part of there Olympics Football team for 2016 .There is coverage about the subject. FBC News ,FBC news,Fiji Sun ,FBC News ,FBC News,Fiji Times Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. In addition, he played at the Summer Olympics. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 20. By the time I finish writing this, another twenty will probably be deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 20:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, local coverage, but I think he's just over the line. —VersaceSpace 🌃 04:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per coverage stated by Pharaoh of the Wizards. Article can potentially be expanded using the sources. Copyrightpower1337 (talk) 14:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 04:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taione Kerevanua

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a search brought up three potential sources from FBC News, this, which is a passing mention that only mentions his name once, this, which is the same, and and this, which is, again, a passing mention. Therefore he fails WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not proven. —VersaceSpace 🌃 04:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Malakai Kainihewe

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's very close, but I reckon he just fails GNG. There's a couple of articles in the Fiji Village from 2011 about him here and here, but these feel like routine coverage, and the second article is very short. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the shown articles do not really prove notability; they're local coverage. —VersaceSpace 🌃 04:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that Kainihewe is probably non-notable, but I must note that the locality of coverage is completely irrelevant when trying to determine if someone passes GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chah Bardi, Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad

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

The image on the article that supposedly represents the article subject.

Mass-created article by User:Carlossuarez46 based on unreliable databases; name of this putative village is of a well. However, as there is nontrivial content in the article, an image which is purportedly a photograph of the village, I am instead going the route of AfD. However, I cannot verify the provided English or Farsi name (چاه بردي) in a search engine. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there's clearly something here, but I do not believe it is known by this name. In fact, given that there are tens of thousands of village articles, I do not doubt that whatever this photo is, would be covered in another article. —VersaceSpace 🌃 04:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V - there isn't a reliable source saying that the subject exists, and we only include verifiable information here. The Iranian census doesn't count because they frequently list places which aren't settlements, and the Google translation of "چاه بردي" indicates that it's a well. Google Maps labels the settlement at these coordinates as "Sarpari". Hut 8.5 11:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, I, too noticed that the closest settlement seemed to be Sar Peri. I could find evidence in Farsi-langauge news that Sar Peri exists, so not AfD'ing that one. I've asked the uploader of the image and the user who added it to the article to double-check the name of the village in the photograph. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the image to the article solely because of the description accompanying the image. Wouterhagens (talk) 07:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Samuela Kautoga

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sufficient sourcing below to show notability. Giant Snowman 17:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - @GiantSnowman: These are some sources which show he is notable in Fiji: [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], among many many other sources chiefly about him not listed here from Oceania Football Center, Fiji Live, Fiji Sun, Fiji Times, Fiji Football, FBC News, and Fiji Village. In addition, he is a 16-time international capped player who was voted 2018 NZFFI Fiji Best Player with an ongoing career. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 20. By the time I finish writing this, another twenty will probably be deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources by Das osmnezz.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 04:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Moncherry

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Africa. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, despite participating in numerous recognised international competitions, does not appear to have ever been close to winning any medals and his career seems for the most part uneventful. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

World Kickboxing Association

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

Fails GNG Zafir94 (talk) 05:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Martial arts, and New Zealand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How does this fail WP:GNG? I can see it mentioned in quite a few sources and it appears to be a notable organization? Simeon (talk) 09:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete.~~ All references used in the article are the primary sources. In order to pass WP:GNG, the reliable and independent of the subject sources must be in place, significant coverage is required. None of this has been established. Just because someone 'personally' knows about the organization does not make it notable. Zafir94 (talk) (your deletion nomination is considered a vote to Delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sadly, this is another organization that seems to be have diminished in stature. More importantly, my search did not find the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Papaursa, was that a web search you did? The organization was formed in 1976. WP:NOTTEMPORARY may apply. If it diminished before the internet, that could explain an empty search. ~Kvng (talk) 13:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng Yes, it was a web search but my view is also shaped by previous involvement with kickboxing. I was the person who originally recommended WKA-Pro world titles for showing notability when WP:NKICK was created. I've been familiar with the WKA and some of its events for decades, so I didn't make this vote lightly. If someone can show sources that meet WP:GNG please let me know and I'll be happy to change my vote. Papaursa (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Papaursa, consider what your !vote would have been in 1980 or whenever this organization was at its peak, that's what WP:NOTTEMPORARY is about. ~Kvng (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'd ever have been able to find the sourcing required by WP:GNG, though I wouldn't rule out the possibility of sources existing. The problem is that what I ran across was about their events and individuals competing in them, which would have to be considered passing mentions from a WP standpoint. Papaursa (talk) 20:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It's one of the governing bodies in kickboxing, one of the oldest, with World and Euro Championships. It offers us the notability for fighters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Kickboxing_task_force In my opinion you should just ask for more documentation. Certainly without even more sources such articles should not disappear from Wikipedia. Or we can all go... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/World_Kickboxing_Network equals WAKO! It must be reinstated. Zafir94, but you know this mate.! Zbreller (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is almost completely reliant on primary sources, and I have yet to come across any coverage to suggest this promotion passed WP:GNG at any point. Whether it was a major promotion or not is irrelevant if it cannot pass notability guidelines. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 16:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep One of the most notable Kickboxing governing bodies in the history of the sport of kickboxing, was formed in 1976. They have paved the way for modern kickboxing. WKA has had a measurable significant impact on sports as per WP:ORGSIG. Lethweimaster (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, but needs a sourced rewrite. Saintstephen000 (talk)

Comment It would be good if some of the people voting keep could show some significant independent coverage of the organization in reliable sources. All of the various kickboxing organizations currently listed at AfD have been significant, in varying degrees, to kickboxing--that's not the issue. The issue is showing that they meet at least one of WP's notability criteria. Otherwise, we're looking at WP:ILIKEIT. I'd love to see these pages kept, but only if they're WP notable. If good sources can be provided for any of these organizations, I hope someone lets me know so I can change my vote(s). Papaursa (talk) 10:33, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful not to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion. It's easy to fall into that trap - I've done it before myself! Lethweimaster (talk) 11:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The one "keep" does not cite any actual sources, which is what any topic needs to get an article. Sandstein 14:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of coverage about WBC Muaythai, its very reputable organization, most Notable Muaythai fighters that have wiki ages here, have gained their notability by winning the WBC Muaythai title. Its wrong to not have this encyclopedic article online, when we have an extensive Muaythai ecosystem. We just needed to expand the article and improve citations, these series of nomination for kickboxing article are very off-putting. Its really odd that this Organization was deleted. Anyhow, can you relist as Draft for me please, I don't want to have to recreate it again from scratch. Thank you. Lethweimaster (talk) 09:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

World Boxing Council Muaythai

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

Fails GNG Zafir94 (talk) 05:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for World Boxing Council Muaythai[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Martial arts, and Thailand. Shellwood (talk) 08:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a significant Muay Thai organization, but I didn't find coverage to convince me that WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, ineligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It's one of the governing bodies in kickboxing and the biggest for Muay Thai, one of the oldest, with World Championships. It offers us the notability for fighters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Kickboxing_task_force In my opinion you should just ask for more documentation. Certainly without even more sources such articles should not disappear from Wikipedia. Or we can all go... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/World_Kickboxing_Network equals WAKO! It must be reinstated. Zafir94, but you know this mate.! Zbreller (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate your opinion. However to pass WP:GNG - a Significant coverage in Reliable, secondary sources that are Independent of the subject is required. The way the articles have been written (sourced) - none of this is unfortunately demonstrated.

It is indeed "one of" the governing bodies, like your said. Organizations like WMO, IMTF, WMC, IAMTF, WMF (the list is long) could definitely argue your statement "the biggest for Muay Thai".

Just because someone "personally" knows about the organization and just because they existed in the past, doesn't make it "notable" and pass WP:GNG.
- There are properly sourced articles, that pass WP:GNG, about other notable historic subjects that existed 'before the internet'.
- If these organizations are in fact notable their notability and passing of WP:GNG should not be hard to demonstrate, right?
So the solution could probably be:

1. to either improve, source the articles as required to meet WP:GNG;

2. or merge some of the properly sourced content into Kickboxing history;

3. or delete;

4. ?

Otherwise what is the point of WP:GNG if they are not followed? Zafir94 (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 14:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meriden Gap

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

This article lacks any real clarity and is mostly written about a small green area between Brum, Coventry and Solihull. It lacks any real notability other then a name given to some green belt. I think this would be better placed either in the Coventry and Solihull articles or given a brief mention in the wider West Midlands County article. But what do other editors think? It has no real wide claim to fame. Most green belt can be given a name like the Dukeries in Nottinghamshire or the Hull Gap near Hull. DragonofBatley (talk) 00:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/quick thoughts: no view yet on this AfD, but this term has been kicking around for a long time and it's the only bit of Green Belt I can think of which has a "name" as such, which suggests sources may be out there. This search of Hansard indicates usage going back to 1990 (including one reference in 1998 to the "so-called Meriden Gap"). Things like Borough of Solihull or West Midlands council documentation/reports may be useful: for example there are a few mentions in the Solihull Strategic Green Belt Assessment Report (July 2016) which can be found by searching for "Meriden Gap" "Borough of Solihull". The latest edition of the Buildings of England series (the Pevsner Guides) for Warwickshire (2016) needs to be checked as a priority; I don't have access to it. It might be worth checking some of the relevant articles in the Victoria County History of Warwickshire, some of which were written in the 1960s when the green belt movement was just getting underway. Sorry, no more time to look further at the moment: just some thoughts there. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 09:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well a merger is possible, and the article is hardly well-written, but it is a well-established term used in many books (press the 'Books' button above) so it seems clearly notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:11, 2 August 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 Book of Love (band)#Candy Carol album and the Candy Carol Tour (1990–1991). Consensus is against keeping, and this seems to be the most appropriate WP:ATD among those proposed, but this can be changed by editors as appropriate. Sandstein 14:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Candy Carol Tour

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

This tour doesn't seem notable enough to have its own article. It's entirely referenced by primary sources and seems more like a database entry than anything.

Could also be merged into Candy Carol. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Candy Carol. There isn't enough content here for a full-fledged article, but this is a plausible search term with information relevant to the album article. ✗plicit 01:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Candy Carol (tour). Coverage exists under a different title. [64], [65], [66], [67]. 2001:569:5593:5900:90E0:EBBE:1798:3609 (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The last of these links appears to be an article about Barrack Obama, tied to the subject matter through the name Candy Crowley. Just flagging in case you pasted the wrong link?

Not convinced the rest is sufficient. Seems like very limited coverage to me, comprising a few paragraphs in local publications. Xplicit, what do you think? MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Book of Love (band)#Candy Carol album and the Candy Carol Tour (1990–1991), as this section with relevant information already exists and I don't think there is anything further that is viable to merge. As a search term, it's probably quite useful but I don't think it stands up as a noteworthy independent article (not least due to the primary sourcing). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. ✗plicit 06:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

World Business Lenders

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

I don't think this business meets GNG. Although we have some references, they offer limited actual coverage. Most simply provide routine coverage of a new HQ.

The article was created by an editor with a possible COI but underwent significant cleanup to remove peacocking and promotional content. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, United States of America, and New Jersey. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Add "predatory lenders" to your search and you'll come up with plenty of sources. The article needs to reflect this: it still looks like an advertisement for the most part. Jacona (talk) 10:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some sources. [68],[69],[70],[71],[72],(this last one is an opinion piece, but may be helpful for search clues) [73]. Jacona (talk) 10:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jacona. I'll do some more looking into it later, but it looks like there might be enough for the article to stay (and be substantially rewritten). I feel I should point out that sources 1, 2, 3, and 5 are the same article, all appearing in Bloomberg publications. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 12:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, I think there is probably enough in some of the cited sources above to get the article satisfying WP:ORGCRIT. I think it only just skims past as it stands, so further WP:SIGCOV would be helpful. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consort kin

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

Appears to be an abstract social construct from Ancient China. Article has no sources and strange claims which read like myths rather than fact eg. "Corrupt and incompetent consort kins have been linked to the downward turn of fortunes for many dynasties."   Kadzi   (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep. This is a genuine and notable topic regarding the politics of both Ancient and Imperial China. Agree that it needs sources (I'll find some this week).
While it is true that consort kin (the families of imperial wives and concubines) have been overblamed in very early legends for the downfall of dynasties, it is also historical fact that the women closely linked to male rulers (especially mothers of imperial children) and their own blood families did obtain a degree of power in the court that could and did destabilize government policy and expenditures. The men of the consort families were frequently granted rich emoluments by the emperor when he took one of their daughters into the imperial harem, including titles of nobility, enfeoffments, sinecures, and official positions in the capital. These people sometimes understandably prioritized the gains of their own clan over loyal government service, and when they also held some sway over the emperor, this could lead to some pretty big problems. A general example would be persuading the ruler to disinherit an heir apparent in favour of a younger son borne by a woman of their family, which naturally led to succession struggles, including armed conflict between the families of the two mothers. Also the men elevated to high government office by way of dowry gift sometimes lacked the training of lifelong scholar-officials and would just straight up do a bad job in a position that could cause great harm.

The sources for this kind of thing are super plentiful in the historical literature, and I'm confident there have been multiple entire books written on the topic. I'll track some down for us and add them to the article, but it's definitely a topic deserving encyclopaedic coverage. Folly Mox (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Updating this to note that as foretold, there have been several books written about this topic, in broad historical overviews and also as specifically related to the Han and Tang periods. A search of google books for the native term "外戚" confirmed this. English language sources on the topic in general, as constrained by free access sources and sources available through the Wikipedia Library, are sparse. I have not yet searched for sourcing for the individual examples listed in the article, nor even clicked through to all the individual biographies to see if their sources contain general discussion on the topic of consort kin and their power dynamics, but all are historically attested. The article does seem to rely overmuch on individual examples rather than giving a high level overview, and organizing the concept around "leading figures" is probably misguided and an artefact of the premium position afforded biographies in standard imperial Chinese historiography. A rewrite with sources would be the ideal outcome, which I intend to manifest. Folly Mox (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep wàiqì is a historically important topic. Taung Tan (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kan'Nal

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

1. Article has only 3 references 2. Does not comply to Wikipedia layout policy 3. Written in prose form and one person point of view 4. Written in a fans pov. Uricdivine (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Uricdivine (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy/Procedural Keep - The nomination lists reasons to improve the article, with no indication that any research was done to find if the band is covered in reliable sources. Violations of WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:BEFORE. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big! (Betty Who album) by the same nominator. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide the citations. I am unable to find anything good. Zeddedm (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BEFORE, already linked above. The responsibility lies with the nominator. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 22:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cleaned up the article a little, but unable to find any good citations. Zeddedm (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per Zeddedm. Was also unable to find good citations. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 02:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Ulrich Weiss (2008). Quantum Dissipative Systems. World Scientific. pp. 200–201. ISBN 9789812791627.

[2] Hyland, Brittany L.; Martens, Craig C. (2014). "Toward a quantum trajectory-based rate theory". Theoretical Chemistry Accounts. 133 (10): 1–9.

[3] Activated Barrier Crossing: Applications In Physics, Chemistry And Biology. World Scientific Publishing Company. 1993. pp. 273–277. ISBN 9789814590907.

[1]

[2]

[3]