Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 29 August 31 >

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. Star Mississippi 03:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Parviz Iskenderov[edit]

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

Although the facts are laid out and easily verifiable, the article appears to lack a significant, independent coverage in the secondary sources, so it seems to fail WP:GNG. Zafir94 (talk) 01:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, Belarus, and Australia. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack of independent sources and I found nothing to show he's a notable kickboxer. No indication he's won any notable titles. Does not pass WP:KICK and WP:GNG Lethweimaster (talk) 12:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unfortunately, this article fails WP:GNG. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Dozens of articles authored by the subject are cited throughout Wikipedia in order to meet GNG of other organizations/people in combat sports (including those @Lethweimaster: tried to improve). Zafir94 (talk) - Being the author of articles used on wikipedia doesn't make him pass WP:GNG. Lethweimaster (talk) 08:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So, as a journalist, according to what you are saying, he is "not notable", but what he does/writes is used to establish the notability of others. Also Wikipedia:Notability_(journalists) would be helpful. Zafir94 (talk) 10:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, there are many articles from journalist that are used all across Wikipedia, adding coverage and strengthening notability of these subjects, however this does not in any way make these journalists notable. Lethweimaster (talk) 13:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case, it seems obvious that the subject would be widely known in the field of combat sports, since the authors on Wikipedia use his work to establish notability of other subjects they write about, including some of the most prominent athletes and kickboxing organizations.

    As a fact there have been only a few journalists specializing in covering kickboxing, meaning all those "many articles" on Wikipedia wouldn't really exist (wouldn't have multiple sources) if it wasn't for those (only a handful of) journalists covering this sport, as a result helping with the notability of its participants.

    In other words, there wouldn't be a Wikipedia, if there was no articles to cite. And there wouldn't be those cited articles if there was no authors/journalists that write them. Zafir94 (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not entirely sure that just because Wikipedia cites this person's work, he's automatically eligible for an article. Has there been any coverage on Iskenderov himself? Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 01:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You should probably once again review this section on your talk page previously left for you by experienced editors, admins. Zafir94 (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are confusing "using his work" on wikipedia with being notable himself. As cited in the failed proposal Wikipedia:Notability_(journalists): This would include far too many journalists. For example, Lethwei World is the most respected website and the authority for Lethwei, the founder and editor in chief is a Burmese named Aung Mint Sein. His articles are used as coverage in many articles on wikipedia to establish WP:GNG, but it does not make him notable and does not make him pass WP:GNG himself. One day Lethwei World might have a wiki, similar to Fightmag (where Parviz works), but it doesn't justify a stand alone page for Mr. Aung Mint Sein nor for Parviz Iskenderov. helping with the notability of its participants does not make them notable. By the way, the fact that we spent time on his Journalist aspect proves also that there is no claim to notability for his career as a fighter. He doesn't pass WP:NKICK. Lethweimaster (talk) 10:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have read that section on my talk page, and I follow its advice. That remark you made has absolutely no relevance in this discussion.
    Also, I 100 percent agree with the editor above me. Please take a look at Wikipedia:BLUDGEON Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing really to reply to a "participant" whose "participation" appears to be only tagging/agreeing with everything to be deleted. Zafir94 (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Your claim "Lethwei World is the most respected website and the authority for Lethwei" is just your opinion, which basically shows bias. Neither this website really appears as an independent reliable source or a notable publication.
    2. Nobody said that if someone's articles are cited on Wikipedia makes them notable. Unfortunately, you seem to be missing the point established above.
    3. "The fact that we spent time on his Journalist aspect" proves that the person is versatile, and this aspect is in fact proves that it is an important part of bio of a living person.
    4. Further, in my opinion, it would be fair to say that WP:NKICK needs a thorough review - based on its current (as of writing) criteria practically every articles on Wikipedia fails.
    5. It was me, who nominated this page for deletion, in order to have a proper discussion, so the administrators can make a final decision.
    6. Would be good if other members reviewed the article and the above, and also participated in this discussion. Zafir94 (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He's not notable as a martial artist and I don't believe he meets WP:GNG. I see articles written by him, but to be WP notable he needs to have articles written about him. Papaursa (talk) 16:37, 5 September 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) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Meyer[edit]

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

As with his brother, Anthony Meyer (actor) (also AfD'd here), I was trying to substantiate the article's claim that he was born in Watford. In doing so, I discovered that I could find absolutely no significant coverage about him, and his roles, like his brother's do not appear to be significant enough to pass WP:NACTOR.

I checked all the usual Google suspects, as well as WMF Library, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, British Newspaper Archive, and Newspapers.com and found nothing, even when adding specific terms like "Watford" or "Octopussy". Please note that he is not, so far as I can tell, the David Meyer of Dover who has quite a few hits on Newspapers.com. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. QuietHere (talk) 03:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unfortunately, this article fails WP:GNG. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly a notable actor who has had numerous leading roles in Shakespeare productions and appeared opposite some very ntoable actors in films BD2412, QuietHere and Handmeanotherbagofthemchips. I've expanded it and suspect there is much more coverage of him in various theatrical publications and newspapers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there any sources that constitute WP:SIGCOV? Everything you added that I have access to appears to be a trivial mention of the "David Meyer played X" variety. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NACTOR asks for "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". That I can see, there are some notable projects here where Meyer has minor roles (e.g. 3rd Squire in Parsifal) and some non-notable projects where Meyer has significant roles (e.g. starring in that 1976 Hamlet), but none of his roles beyond Octopussy satisfy both requirements at once. And as PMC said, the sources you added are mostly passing mentions that don't satisfy SIGCOV. I just don't see a notability pass here. QuietHere (talk) 11:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

90% of actors don't have what you could call extensive biographical coverage, it's time the guidelines were updated to acknowledge this. Actors who are mentioned in dozens of reliable sources from many notable films typically are acceptable. I was discussing this recently with SusunW that most biographies don't have the coverage we want but you have to put bits and pieces together. Wikipedia is better off having this than not.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Im not entirely sure that i can agree with your opinion. The sources that support the pages of the more notable actors, contain not just passive mentions, but entire opinions on the impact theese actors have or had. If, in order to establish the notability of one person, you have to (your own words) "put bits and pieces together", then that's proof that this person is just not notable. Wikipedia is not better off having an article about everyone who starred in some sorta role, based on just routine coverage. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If 90% of actors don't have extensive biographical coverage, we shouldn't have pages for 90% of actors. You don't get a Wikipedia page just for doing a job, whether that job is appearing in movies, being a CEO, or playing sports. GNG is the governing standard for biographies except where explicit exceptions (NPOL, NPROF) have been carved out. We literally just finished litigating this with the recent NSPORTS RFC, and I'm starting to think we need a NACTOR RFC as well. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then there's hundreds of thousands of biographies on Wikipedia which should be deleted based on the lack of "extensive coverage" criteria then. Only the top actors tend to have biographies and massive amounts of coverage. Many of our guidelines are contradictory and merely the opinion of a handful of editors, and could quite easily be updated/replaced. The main criteria should be "is there enough coverage to write a minimum start class half credible encyclopedia article about that person", and "has this actor had any notable leading roles in films and stage performances?"? The reality is that a very large number of biographies can be written but don't have detailed articles about them. Some people would prefer it if Wikipedia strictly only covered the most important content of course, you have a point. But Wikipedia clearly isn't what you want it to be with its 6.5 million articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then there's hundreds of thousands of biographies on Wikipedia which should be deleted based on the lack of "extensive coverage" criteria then. That is exactly what I'm saying, yes. Quality is far more important than quantity. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The most important content should be quality first before we grow and go for quantity, but Wikipedia hasn't developed like that.. There's a theatrical article in PDF about the Isaac Newton role at:

www.nature.com › articles by P Ball · 2011 — Isaac Newton perplexes and fascinates ... David Meyer, one of three actors — including a woman — who play different facets of Isaac Newton ... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meyer isn't even discussed in the text of that article! He's mentioned in a caption. Come on, man. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The role is discussed though and it's reviewed in a major journal as a notable play/role.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The play is being reviewed in a major journal. Not one word of that review is devoted to Meyer's performance. His name literally does not appear except in a caption. It is the absolute epitome of a trivial mention. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
His role is notable enough for a full page in a major journal!! It's a science journal so of course it's going to be written from the viewpoint of Newton. I'm sure there are reviews about the play and his performance in theatrical publications/newspapers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And if there are, I'm sure you'll be able to find some and post them here, but so far you've produced a lot of sizzle and absolutely zero steak, so I'm not exactly holding my breath. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly notable now; excellent WP:HEY by User:Dr. Blofeld. I think those who voted delete before Dr. Blofeld's work should be made aware of the article's expansion. Shahid • Talk2me 14:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable and passes WP:GNG. Its recent expansion has secured notability and assuredness regarding Meyer's career. ♦ jaguar 15:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jaguar. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable, given the number of references (ie, passes WP:GNG). The editor formally known as SchroCat, editing from 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 09:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • SchroCat, if that is who you are, you ought to have the experience to know that number of references does not correlate in any way to quality of references, and frankly this is an embarrassing argument for you to be making. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it is me. There's nothing embarrassing about my !vote, although perhaps I should have been clearer about it. The number and range of references referring to him provide a certain weight, rather than just an ephemeral mention. The number and weight of these smaller references get it over the GNG hurdle in my opinion; I've also run a few additional media searches and found a partial profile in a local UK newspaper and an interview with him in The Independent - as a UK broadsheet, it's a reliable source. I also looked at his brother but he comes no-where near enough GNG for me to say the same thing there. This Meyer is a bit different. That's just my take on it, but obviously people's mileage differs. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 09:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. 5Q5|✉ 11:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since it has been expanded, the notability has been demonstrated. Edwardx (talk) 11:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep − a no-brainer: repeated reviews in The Stage of his work as a performer and as a director. Tim riley talk 17:52, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The people voting to keep this article clearly have not actually looked at the sources. Not a single one mentions Meyer in any greater capacity than "David Meyer played X role". Significant coverage is required in order for a reference to support a notability claim, and not a single one linked here does so whatsoever. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one who hasn't looked at the sources then. Which Twin is Tony?". The Guardian. 2 February 1985. p. 13 Newspapers.com . WP:SIGCOV says " Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. " ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem! A director who works in tandem with Richard Hickox on a Britten opera at Sadler's Wells is not notable? Come off it! Tim riley talk 19:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jayda Brown[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, sources are interviews or trivial coverage. Avilich (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 30 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Meyer (actor)[edit]

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

In trying to substantiate the article's claim that he was born in Watford, I discovered that I could find absolutely no significant coverage about him, and his roles do not appear to be significant enough to pass WP:NACTOR.

I checked all the usual Google suspects, as well as WMF Library, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, British Newspaper Archive, and Newspapers.com and found nothing under both "Anthony Meyer" and "Tony Meyer", even when adding specific terms like "Watford" or "Octopussy" (which appears to be his most significant role). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have also listed his brother, David Meyer, at AfD here.

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valerie Tian[edit]

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

Potentially non notable actress. Not much coverage about her. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:36, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 30 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! 05:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhaila Bowden[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:NSPORT. Avilich (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Avilich (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Belize, and California. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I found [1] and [2] among many many other sources. She is clearly significant figure in Belize women's and international football with an ongoing career, the best ever Belizean women's player and probably the only one to play abroad. I look at the other Sports WikiProjects (or any WikiProject) and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. By the time I finish writing this, another 30 will probably be deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 23:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would be very helpfull if you provided us the other sources you claim you found, @Das osmnezz: (edit:i initialy pinged the wrong user, sorry!) Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Handmeanotherbagofthemchips your ping of @Das osmnezz likely did not work because your signature was still the same from the first ping. Basically, if your first ping is not correct, the best solution is to undo the edit and redo it or ping the user in your edit summary. I have pinged them again for you in this response. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, got it, many thanks. Again, sorry for pinging you, it was an error! :) Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, happens to the best of us! Eddie891 Talk Work 15:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes GNG as per Das osmnezz.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, at least untill Das osmnezz gives us the sources they claim they have. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 22:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Clear fail of WP:GNG. All of the sources listed above are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The NPLW article is decent, but we can't have a biography based on one IRS (obviously the broncosports piece is not independent). Furthermore, the fact that the only coverage of her is related to her high school, college, and amateur career, rather than anything about her playing in Belize, is a solid indication that a standalone is not warranted here. JoelleJay (talk) 20:38, 3 September 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 Delaware and Hudson Railway. There's a clear consensus that a stand-alone article is not warranted, but no consensus to delete, hence a merge seems to be the way to go. Randykitty (talk) 14:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delaware and Hudson Roster[edit]

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

This article is a fairly clear violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and lacks anything besides primary or otherwise unreliable sources. Wikipedia is not a locomotive roster hosting service. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:44, 30 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. The "keep" closure notwithstanding, a possible merge can still be discussed on the article's talk page. Randykitty (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Parrish[edit]

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

All sources are from Stars and Stripes, which lacks WP:INDEPENDENCE. Other sources are lacking, does not appear to meet WP:GNG. A loose necktie (talk) 07:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Georgia (U.S. state). Shellwood (talk) 08:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 6th Port Headquarters. The nomination lacks WP:COMPETENCE. The contention that Parrish wrote Stars and Stripes, a major newspaper, is utterly absurd. Nor is the article written from a single source. Normally that would rate a speedy close, but I am not convinced that sufficient biographical material exists to create an article on the subject. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see the nomination contending Parrish WROTE Stars and Stripes, but rather that the article was solely sourced FROM Stars and Stripes. That isn't accurate, but the majority of sources are Stars and Stripes. Unless, of course, there's another nomination out there that didn't come through correctly. Intothatdarkness 16:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    By saying that Stars and Stripes is not independent of the subject, the nominator is indeed claiming that the subject of the article is the writer of Stars and Stripes. Most likely, the nominator is unaware of what is meant by independent of the subject. Or, for that matter, the fact that the sources used in the article are irrelevant to a determination of WP:GNG, since that depends on the existence of sources, not whether they are actually used in the article. And you're quite right; it isn't the only source used in the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Still...was it necessary to go after the nominator? A simple "Merge...subject not notable on his own" would have easily sufficed. Intothatdarkness 21:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was my first whole page, I was shocked that it was nominated for deletion within minutes after I created it. I don't see how any one could have read it and checked the citations so quickly. I would have hoped that giving it some time it might grow some citations, their must be more about this decorated veteran in 2 wars. I figured that if it doesn't grow, it could be merged into the the 6th Port Headquarters as Hawkeye7 suggested. I would love to see this get a little time and see if it grows. We really need to preserve history as best we can so future generations can have a valid, factual source for this kind of history. These units were so critical in the support of the troops with supplies, food and other critical items, basically thrown into a job that had little training. Without these support troops and the Col that brought them over, the war supply chain would have stalled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kleebis007 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, and I have written a bit about them in Allied logistics in the Southern France campaign. Actually, it is not uncommon for articles to be nominated for deletion soon after being deleted. Or even deleted. The New Page Patrol (NPP) goes through the newly created articles. The first hurdle you have to get over is what we call a "credible claim of notability", and the best way to do that is with a first sentence that tells the NPP why the subject is worthy of an article. They won't check the citations. You managed to do that. In fact, I was the one who marked it as reviewed. However, you now have to make that case it passes GNG. Here, you have a problem, because we just can't find any biographical information about hi, It would be different if he had managed to get promoted to brigadier general. (Also I would be interested in locating a copy of the Men on the Job. I've told the MilHist Bot to look for it for me.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 13:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To invite scrutiny of the newly presented sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (retracted my closure to vote instead) as to me, the sources provided do not seem objectionable from a GNG standpoint. Obviously independent of the subject, sigcov is visible, seem to be secondary sources, and The Atlanta Constitution seems to be reliable. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:25, 7 September 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 Lady Godiva#Images in art and society. Liz Read! Talk! 05:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Godiva in popular culture[edit]

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

Another mostly unreferenced violation of WP:IPC/MOS:POPCULTURE, i.e. pretty random list of media mentioning Lady Godiva (ex. "In the 1970s TV series Maude, the opening song, sung by Donny Hathaway, includes the lyrics, "...Lady Godiva was a freedom rider, she didn't care if the whole world looked."" or "Sliding Doors Gwyneth Paltrow's character says 'like lady shagging Godiva'", and worse, like "Home Time, a 2009 sitcom filmed and based in the city" - perhaps a misplaced reference to Coventry?). As an article, this fails WP:GNG. As a list, WP:LISTN. Note that aside from the usual list of mostly trivial appearances, this article also features a short section on Lady Godiva as a patron of engineers, and longer on her prominence in Coventry, both badly referenced. Something from this could be perhaps merged to the main article on Lady Godiva, which could probably use an "in popular culture" section, but I am skeptical whether anything from the current mess is easily salvagable. My recommendation is to do a redirect, without deleting history; maybe one day, when someone feels like creating such a section in the main article, they can check this mess and find a few tidbits of use. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, Popular culture, and Lists. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm seeing sources which cover the topic of this article: e.g. 1, 2. If others disagree, then redirect to Lady Godiva#Images in art and society as an alternative to deletion. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The first source ("Discover the History of Lady Godiva") seems more related to the Lady Godiva article than here. The second ("Look: The impact of Lady Godiva on pop culture") is more relevant but it contains zero analysis, it's pretty much a copy of some of the examples from our article, pasted into a local newspaper. The lack of any analysis, not even an introductory paragraph, combined with a rather obvious case of rewriting a Wikipedia article (our list here), makes it not really useful, IMHO. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective Merge to Lady Godiva#Images in art and society - When all of the TV Tropes WP:EXAMPLEFARM elements are removed, neither this nor the main Lady Godiva article are so overly long that a WP:SPLIT would actually be necessary. The two prose sections (the "Coventry" and "Engineering Mascot" sections) contain a few bits of sourced content that would be appropriate to merge to the main article. Of the two sources provided by Ficaia above, the first is decent, but is entirely contained to the specific topic of historical art of Lady Godiva rather than the concept of popular culture as a whole, and would be much more at home supporting the "Images in art and society" section of the main article. The second source I don't feel has much value, as it is also just a list of examples, and I honestly would not be surprised if it was created by cribbing this very Wikipedia list, as many of the entries in it appear to just be slight rewordings of the entries here. Rorshacma (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, possibly purging of the worst of the trivia. Lady Godiva and her legend are a significant cultural icon in Coventry. If the article were full of red-links, it might be different, but the articles alluded to all exist. at Worst merge as just suggested. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect per all. Agree with the nom that this doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV or WP:MOS. Jontesta (talk) 21:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep, merge, or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Lady Godiva#Images in art and society. This is an unusual case of a topic that is probably mostly known from popular culture depictions, so it makes more sense to have everything together in one article. The combined article (once the vast body of unsourced content is removed from the nominated article) will not be overly long. BD2412 T 00:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect per above. QuietHere (talk) 03:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selectively merge and redirect per above; article should not be kept in the condition it is now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 14:31, 31 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! 05:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Bush[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Lack of in-depth independent coverage. The sources are all articles written by him, or are completely or primarily interviews, or very minor mentions. MB 05:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Food and drink, Thailand, and Oregon. MB 05:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nominator. Subject does not meet WP:NJOURNALIST. ––FormalDude talk 09:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The coverage in Time Out[3], BK Magazine[4], Thailand Insider[5], Splendid Table[6] and CNN[7] are primarily about him or his views on northern Thai cuisine, but they're all interviews. All of them do include introductory material in the writer's voice, but they're not exactly in-depth. There's a lot of mention of his book, but not much in terms of reviews by established publications. The New York Times' recommendation[8] isn't a dedicated review, so it probably doesn't count towards WP:AUTHOR. Thai-language sources are mostly about his exhibitions.[9][10][11] --Paul_012 (talk) 10:46, 12 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! 05:44, 15 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! 06:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep: The author's views and works have received substantial coverage in prominent secondary sources. But I also conceded that most of them are completely or primarily interviews.--IndyNotes (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interviews are primary sources and are not independent and therefore do not count towards notability. ––FormalDude talk 08:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      There is no policy or guideline that says that. The best we have is an essay WP:INTERVIEW and it has a section for Notability Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability which says "if the material the interviewer brought to the table is secondary and independent, [it] contributes to the claim that the subject has met the requirements laid out in the general notability guideline." One has to look at the type of interview and gauge it. For example Time Out is "merely quoting" blocks of text with little added by the journalist. Same with BK Magazine and Thailand Insider. Splendid Table and CNN are less clear as the journalist is more involved making commentary or responding to what the person said. The other thing is the essay says "A multitude of interviews with a breadth of styles shows a wide range of attention being given to the subject and can be considered as evidence of notability." For some reason this person has a lot of interviews, sources are choosing to pay attention to them, even if individually some interviews are "merely quoting" blocks of text as a whole they might show a different picture. -- GreenC 16:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I ask the closer to allow at least one extra day, I started a bit of organizing and located an image on commons, submitted for ARS help as well. Lightburst (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If we can truly base an entire BLP article solely on stuff written by the subject themselves, then im going to create my own website, write whatever i want, then create an article on Wikipedia describing me as the best person to ever exist, and solely reference it to my own website. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 14:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks independent coverage to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Willing to reconsider if he ever publishes again but currently does not pass WP:NAUTHOR. At this time, it seems like he is quoted as somebody knowledgeable on Northern Thai cuisine but nothing present is able to pass WP:NJOURNALIST. -- BriefEdits (talk) 00:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NBIO. He's written articles but that doesn't make him notable enough. NytharT.C 20:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Young Jr. (American football)[edit]

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

Undrafted, currently unsigned. Has not plaued a single professional game. Sourcing is database and routine transactions. Fails WP:GNG Slywriter (talk) 21:51, 30 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. Author requested deletion. (non-admin closure) Slywriter (talk) 23:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Mosley[edit]

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

Undrafted, currently unsigned. Has not played a single professional game. Coverage is standard database and routine transaction. Fails WP:GNG Slywriter (talk) 21:49, 30 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 under WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deanna B. Marcum[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG – a librarian and a managing director of a small nonprofit. Only references are to sources closely associated with the subject.

This is one of a number of biographies with questionable notability added by Rlhuffine. — kashmīrī TALK 20:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep notable professional awardee, no policy based reason for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.143.154.162 (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Policy is mentioned. Received a non-notable award from a charity no longer in existence. — kashmīrī TALK 21:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Non-notable (but there's more than just one award and the ALA award--which still exists--is definitely notable) would be one thing but no longer in existence isn't an argument against notability per WP:NTEMP. Skynxnex (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable author and librarian, has sufficient sourcing to meet WP:GNG. Andre🚐 02:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ITSNOTABLE? You need to provide at least some evidence. — kashmīrī TALK 09:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Evidence is already in the article as it exists. Your rationale is invalid. The references are not mostly sources closely associated with the subject. Andre🚐 14:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Multiple publications which have been subject of a scholarly review. Gusfriend (talk) 10:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Meets WP:AUTHOR with multiple, independent reviews of her work. Also, to be clear, she was an associate librarian of the United States' Library of Congress, which is the library for the United States Congress, not a small/local library. DaffodilOcean (talk) 11:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Meets WP:AUTHOR as stated. Marcum was president of Council on Library and Information Resources for eight years and a university dean for three years. Google Scholar shows her scholarship has been cited hundreds of times by other academics, and she received the American Library Association's highest honor in addition to the Miles Conrad Award (which continues to be awarded as of this year), so meets WP:PROF. Topshelver (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't think her citations are enough for WP:PROF#C1 but the major awards look like a pass of #C2 and heading the CLIR could pass #C6. Published profiles give in-depth independent coverage for WP:GNG, and multiple published reviews of multiple books pass WP:AUTHOR. This is one of a number of AfDs on clearly-notable biographies initiated by User:Kashmiri in an apparent case of WP:HOUNDING against long-term editor User:Rlhuffine. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Another personal attack by someone who supposedly is an administrator. @David Eppstein, it's only for lack of time that I'm not taking your incessant attacks to ANI. — kashmīrī TALK 21:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Negative evaluations of patterns of contributions are not the same thing as personal attacks. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    With this level of understanding of Wikipedia policies (here: WP:HOUNDING), shouldn't you consider a voluntary recall?
    (This is just an evaluation of your pattern of reasoning). — kashmīrī TALK 16:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think "evaluation" means what you think it means. There is no evaluation in your comment, only innuendo. I note that this is not the first time you have been accused of hounding, this month alone. In both cases you explicitly admitted to looking through contribution lists to find other edits to work against. That may be appropriate behavior in response to new or low-quality editors but not with long-term good-faith editors with whom you merely have a difference of opinion. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article shows awards and significant positions in her field. I count > 50 publications by her. The citation counts are not high, but I think they may be comparable for the field which, oddly enough, does not produce much writing. Lamona (talk) 05:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above; an impressive amount of work and significant in her field with some extension into popular culture, plus the awards and reviews of her books. Skynxnex (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG Lightburst (talk) 04:42, 4 September 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 be discounted as unfounded in Wikipedia practice and guidelines. They argue that the subject is automatically notable as the head of the Small and Medium Business Development Agency (Azerbaijan), but there is no notability guideline to the effect that heads of government agencies are automatically notable (compare WP:NPOL). Sandstein 09:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orkhan Mammadov[edit]

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

fail to see how this ultra vanity spam article is notable - the subjects position isn't a notable one, he isn't elected to the position and even so, it's not inherently a notable position, the sourcing is worse than lackluster and again, complete vanity spam. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Azerbaijan. Shellwood (talk) 14:02, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It could be notable under WP:NPOL if the chamber of commerce can be considered as a national office. He has also received some international press coverage (see here for example). Chagropango (talk) 14:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless I'm mistaken, he isn't elected as a chairman. In any case he isn't notable under NPOL either - if anything, his name can be mentioned in the article about Small and Medium Business Development Agency (Azerbaijan) but not as a stand alone. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:02, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He satisifies NPOL as the head of a national government agency. I do not see any reason why his position does not meet the requirement. There is no need for a position to be elected. (In this case, he was appointed by the President of Azerbaijan). Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Might be eligible as above, but we need better sourcing than what's given in the article. I can't read the language so can't find much of anything for him. Oaktree b (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 21:11, 23 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! 20:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Article should be edited to conform to the style encyclopaedia article (MOS). However this person is notable as head of a government entity. Also there is significant coverage Per Chagropango as is to be expected of the head of an "important" government agency.
PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don’t agree that his current position makes him notable. He doesn’t come close to meeting WP:NPOL. The repeated recreation of the article suggests a use of Wikipedia for self-promotion. Mccapra (talk) 06:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - His position also indicates that he may likely be notable via other ways. Searching his name in my search engine, after filtering out the NFT Artist and the MMA fighter of the same name, has yielded these of what appear to be decent coverage in what appear to be reliable sources in the first two pages: Article 1, Article 2, Article 3, Article 4, Article 5, USAID Press Release, Article 6. These are just random picked from the first two pages as an indicator, presumably there is more.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 13:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment im not sure what to vote as of now, however, if the stuff about constant recreation of the article this other editor said is true, then i would vote delete. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 14:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That would obviously be an issue. But I do think we can give the benefit of the doubt, the account seems to have been creating Azerbaijan related articles for around 5 years which all appear to be in good faith. PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 14:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hasn't anyone told them in theese 5 years that recreating deleted articles without consensus is bad? Plus, were all of these recreations done by the same editor? Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    From the logs I can see that a page of this name has been deleted once about a year and a half ago through PROD. And then it was created by another user about 4 months ago and that page was moved to draft for certain issues to be fixed. That page is still in Draft:Orkhan Mammadov and they have been working on it for some time, it wasn't submitted for creation. Then it seems like this article that we are talking about right now is a separate article, it looks quite different at first glance as well, with very different sources used. PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems to pass GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:27, 31 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) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William C. Burton[edit]

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

Below GNG – author known for one book (a legal thesaurus). Recipient of three minor awards (all from small charitable organisations). One of major editors in this article seems to be the subject himself.

This is one of a number of biographies of questionable notability added by Rlhuffine. — kashmīrī TALK 20:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. notable former asst. attorney general, special prosecutor, and author. Article isn't great. Obviously, the man shouldn't be editing it himself. Still, this guy is basically the Roget of legal writing and legal libraries I think. Winner of the "Blackstone Award at the Friends of the Law Library of Congress Wickersham Awards Ceremony"[12], doesn't really seem like a tiny insignificant thing. American Society of Legal Writers Lifetime Achievement Award, usually the other winners are like SCOTUS justices. Andre🚐 02:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The book may indeed warrant an article. But this is an author's bio, and my nomination centred on the WP:ANYBIO criteria. — kashmīrī TALK 08:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Author meets the criteria. Plenty of sources for notability. Award-winning and frequently cited author. Your rationale is invalid. Andre🚐 14:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft to rewrite with better sources and excise COI, but otherwise leaning keep. BD2412 T 04:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, deletion is not an alternative to cleanup. Rlhuffine edited this article once (to add a citation), he did not create it, contra the deletion reason given. Jahaza (talk) 08:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would not be opposed to move/redirect to a new stub for Burton's Legal Thesaurus. --Jahaza (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The thesaurus appears to be used and recommended extensively at many universities which would mean that they meet WP:PROF #4. A few examples are available at [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20] and [21]. Also founding a notable award [22]. Gusfriend (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gusfriend: This is not an article about the Thesaurus. This is a biography of one of its authors who has not been known for anything else - he does not have an independent notability from the Thesaurus. Hence this nomination. — kashmīrī TALK 05:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the article is about the author and not the book but WP:PROF says The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
    I am making no comment about their meeting GNG but I believe that they meet WP:PROF as it is so widely recommended. Gusfriend (talk) 06:06, 4 September 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 Sportsnet. Liz Read! Talk! 04:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JZone[edit]

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

Could not find any evidence of notability. No in-depth discussion in any reliable sources. Most of what I found were Wikipedia mirrors. Fails GNG. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 19:28, 23 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! 20:50, 30 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 under WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Lou Zoback[edit]

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

Misusing Wikipedia as LinkedIn. Article fails WP:NACADEMIC – none of the subject's academic achievements warrant an encyclopaedia article. External links are used incorrectly and appear promotional.

This is one of a number of biographies of questionable notability added by Rlhuffine. — kashmīrī TALK 20:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Science. — kashmīrī TALK 20:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per WP:SK #3: "The nomination is completely erroneous. No accurate deletion rationale has been provided". National Academy member is a very clear pass of WP:PROF#C3 and AGU fellow and GSA fellow also likely give passes themselves. Arthur L. Day Medal is a likely pass of #C2. Heavy citations on Google Scholar pass #C1. Nominator's WP:VAGUEWAVE at WP:PROF, in the face of these obvious passes, make clear the superficiality of the nomination and lack of WP:BEFORE performed by the nominator. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    SK#3 refers to situations when no rationale has been provided, and not when you disagree with the rationale provided. SK does not apply here. Also, per WP:PROF, An article's assertion that the subject passes this guideline is not sufficient. As you can see, the subject's claimed Academy membership is unsourced, and anyway the vast majority of quoted sources are her employers' websites while we need good sources independent from the subject. — kashmīrī TALK 21:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    SK3 applies when no accurate deletion rationale has been provided. There is nothing in its wording about only applying when there is no rationale at all. And there is nothing in any notability guideline, PROF included, about requiring the sources to already be in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but the rationale here is pretty accurate – you just happen to disagree with it (which is fine). — kashmīrī TALK 21:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    there is nothing in any notability guideline, PROF included, about requiring the sources to already be in the article Poor me, I thought that WP:V is a core policy. — kashmīrī TALK 21:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Does this mean that you don't understand the distinction between notability and verifiability? Also, WP:DINC. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Does this mean that you attempted and failed to verify her membership in the National Academy of Sciences? pburka (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not believe that the nomination for possible deletion is superficial/VAGUEWAVE. WP:BEFORE was met, but apologies for not explicitly listing all justifications in the tag. Note that the Talk page for this article includes further explanation of the nomination. Also see discussion by other authors on this page in support of deletion. Article is strongly embellished/promotional and some of the main justifications for Wikipedia:Notability are unverifiable or no longer valid (subject is not listed as a Stanford professor; subject stopped serving on U.S. NWTRB several years ago, despite prior article text implying active participation; others). Tensorsum (talk) 04:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tensorum: Are you the nominator? I'm curious how you know that WP:BEFORE was met. pburka (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. National Academy of Sciences satisfies WP:NPROF#3 and the Day Medal may satisfy WP:ANYBIO#1. pburka (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just so there's no question: despite the nominator's doubts, the subject is an elected member of the Academy.[23] pburka (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets NACADEMIC as member of the National Academy of Sciences. Cullen328 (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Per member of National Academy of Sciences, in many scientific encyclopedias, many publications, many interviews, etc. See GEOPHYSICIST HONORED BY NATIONAL ACADEMY: [Manatee Edition] GREER, BUBBLES. Sarasota Herald Tribune; Sarasota, Fla. [Sarasota, Fla]. 18 Aug 1996: 2.B. [24] for news article about her election to NAS. Also the number of genuine ebsco hits [25] by her/about her is about the highest I've ever seen in a AFD. Feels like missing some WP:BEFORE (besides the existing cites in article--bad formatting isn't a criteria for deletion.). Skynxnex (talk) 23:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Andre🚐 02:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete. Agree that article does have credible claim of significancy for reasons given by @David Eppstein; therefore, article is not proposed for speedy deletion per Wikipedia:A7. However, does not appear to meet Wikipedia:BIO, thus warranting deletion. First, much of subject's notability is temporary/transient/not sustained (Wikipedia:NTEMP and Wikipedia:NSUSTAINED), including prior participation on U.S. NWTRB. Subject appears mostly or completely inactive in research for several years per Google Scholar (aside from conference abstracts a few years ago), which would be the source of subject's notoriety. Second, I do not agree with the implication above (@David Eppstein, @Skynxnex) that any NAS member warrants an encyclopedia entry. Per Wikipedia:ANYBIO, "...meeting one or more [of the notability criteria such as having won an award] does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Some prominence in field, especially temporary prominence from years ago, is not sufficient notoriety on its own to warrant a bio page, especially one written like an autobiography. Tensorsum (talk) 03:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's surprisingly badly reasoned for someone who has been here for more than a few days. Albert Einstein and Alan Turing have been mostly or completely inactive in research for several years. And you may not agree that the night sky is dark, but the fact remains that WP:PROF does not depend on WP:BIO or WP:ANYBIO and explicitly lists membership in the National Academy of Sciences as a sufficient reason by itself to declare someone notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • If we accepted Tensorum's reasoning, we would also be debating the deletion of Isaac Newton who hasn't published a scientific paper in 500 years. Don't get me started on that Archimedes guy. It is too late at night to count the centuries. Cullen328 (talk) 06:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Nope. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST is not a valid argument in a deletion discussion, and I hope I don't have to explain you the difference between famous scholars of ancient Greece and today's minor academics with few independent sources and little in terms of published work. — kashmīrī TALK 08:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @David Eppstein, @Cullen328: I think you've missed my point. The point is that subject is not Isaac Newton. Moreover, whether you agree with them or not, WP:NTEMP and WP:NSUSTAINED are established Wikipedia criteria for determining notoriety. I of course agree with you that not having written a paper in 300 years does not matter for someone whose work is as significant to present thought as Newton's. But these Wikipedia guidelines are meant to allow us to determine which subjects have only transient importance, and that is absolutely relevant here. I don't have especially strong opinions about whether subject is notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia article. I simply argue for the reasons above that subject does not achieve Wikipedia:BIO. If being a member of NAS and/or achieving professional awards are sufficient alone to warrant a bio page, then there would be a great number of pages to add, often for people whose contributions are of dubious impact for Wikipedia. I hope that the commenters who argue for Keep can address some of these issues to everyone's satisfaction, ideally without the unnecessary personal attacks and sarcasm. It's obviously not ideal practice (or helpful to the discussion) to dubiously accuse an editor of WP:VAGUEWAVE and not following WP:BEFORE but then attack their (and others') reasoning/justification. Tensorsum (talk) 14:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @David Eppstein Can you please stop commenting on contributors? Your repeated PA aren't at all helpful in the discussion. A person's edit count or account age are utterly irrelevant to the subject of this discussion. — kashmīrī TALK 08:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Kashmiri: Given that you immediately followed up this request by a PA on another contributor (Special:Diff/1107678513), I don't see why I should take your request to not participate seriously. But since you seem to have failed to understand, let me spell out more explicitly what I meant by the part about length of contributions. If such a comment had been left by a day-old contributor, I would have taken it as simple trolling and ignored it. Tensorsum's longer history here makes clear that the comment was intended in good faith and therefore more worthy of response. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        You are not expected to ridicule anyone's reasoning or length of editing. Try to comment on content, not on contributors, even when you disagree with them. — kashmīrī TALK 09:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        If you somehow believe that comments like "intended in good faith and therefore more worthy of response" are intended to ridicule, I don't see the point in continued engagement with you. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I still don't see any policy-based reason (or subjective reason) for deletion. If I'm not mistaken, WP:NTEMP is not about the meaning of temporary/transient notability but rather once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. The NAS membership meets to WP:PROF, as others have mentioned: Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. ... 3. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences .... (formatting in original).
    And even more so, I believe she would meet WP:GNG based on the sources in the article which are good and what I saw with my ebsco search. But here are some specific ones
    • A to Z of Earth Scientists, Facts On File, Gates, 2009, pp 303. Is a multi-paragraph bio. gbook link. (Relevant pull quote: Mary Lou Zoback's service to the profession is unparalleled for someone so early in his or her career.)
    • Encyclopedia of World Scientists, Facts on File, Oakes, 2007, pp 798. Same publisher but a different, distinct multi-paragraph bio. gbook link.
    • American Women of Science Since 1900 vol 1, ABC-CLIO, Wayne, 2011, pp 997-998. Another just over one page bio covering her career. gbook link. (Already in article but I think important to note.)
    • Uncovering Plate Tectonics, Teacher Created Materials, 2007, pp 26. A book aimed at school-age children but it devotes a page to photo/brief bio of her. gbook link.
    I think the totality of her memberships (NAS, president of Geological Society of America (which seems to meet WP:NACADEMIC#6, which is enough by itself as well), James B. Macelwane Medal of the AGU (which has an article so is not unnotable), Arthur L. Day Medal (likewise), and Public Service Award from the GSA) easily meets WP:ANYBIO 1 and NACADEMIC#2; coverage of her work on the World Stress Map project, additional publications, and she has been the primary person quoted in news articles about earth quakes in three distinct time periods, meets ANYBIO 2; and the fact she's in enough encyclopedias of science and other listings effectively meets ANYBIO 3.
    especially one written like an autobiography is not a reason to delete an article. unverifiable or no longer valid (subject is not listed as a Stanford professor; subject stopped serving on U.S. NWTRB several years ago, despite prior article text implying active participation; others) the things that are verifiable easily meet notability requirements and "no longer valid" is not a reason to support no notability because of WP:NTEMP. Skynxnex (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • These points are good (thank you for being civil). They and some above incline me more toward Keep. Will continue watching this page over the coming days for alternate views. Tensorsum (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Tensorsum FYI you should strike out your original !vote if you change your mind. (like this: <del>'''Delete'''</del>) Madeline (part of me) 18:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks, @Maddy from Celeste. I'll change to Keep as you suggested based on the general consensus of commenters here. I was waiting for more comments here before making up my mind. Keeping this article seems marginal to me from a more common-sense reading (what exactly has the subject contributed to science and society that merits an encyclopedia entry? Leadership many years ago on a world stress map?), but I am persuaded by several commenters (@Skynxnex, @David Eppstein, @Cullen328) that the subject clearly meets at least the letter of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, mostly because of citation counts, society awards and Academies membership. Tensorsum (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, an issue that continues to trouble me is that the reading of WP notability expressed on this page would seem to invite many more academic bio pages. There are a great many people who meet at least one of the WP:PROF criteria. Thoughts? Tensorsum (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Tensorsum, why would you be troubled by the fact that NPROF may invite many more academic bio pages? This is a project to build an encyclopedia after all, not to tear it down. Cullen328 (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cullen328 It's a philosophical question. While trying not to tear down an encyclopedia, how much noise drowns out the signal in WP pages? You make a good argument that the subject meets the letter of the notability guidelines (memberships, awards, citations), even though no one has made a strong case for subject's substantive, tangible contributions. Based on this discussion I'll probably add more WP bio pages. This discussion may be useful for adjudicating WP notability questions in the future more broadly. Tensorsum (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a large number of academic biographies on Wikipedia that would not pass the general WP:GNG that easily pass WP:PROF and at least one passes through AfC every day. This is a good thing because these academics are people who shape our lives through their research in untold ways. Gusfriend (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    More than farmers, drivers and businesspeople? — kashmīrī TALK 09:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you wish to challenge the long-established WP:PROF consensus you should choose a different venue. You've presented no reason this particular article should be an exception to the SNG. pburka (talk) 12:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: Easily meets WP:PROF. Gusfriend (talk) 08:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep. A member of the National Academy of Sciences is surely notable per WP:NPROF C3 -- indeed, this is one of the examples given of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society. (And there good reasons she was so elected; the citation record is a clear pass of WP:NPROF C1.) Would a passing administrator consider putting this discussion out of its misery? The only delete !vote is clearly contrary to our notability guidelines. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:31, 2 September 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 The Great Indian Laughter Challenge. Liz Read! Talk! 01:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Parizaad Kolah[edit]

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

No indication of notability - she hosted one season of a reality show and acted in one film. The only articles I can find about her are mentions here and there, but there are no significant discussions of her or her career. I checked both Parizaad Kolah and Parizad Kolah. Suggest redirect to The Great Indian Laughter Challenge. ... discospinster talk 20:04, 23 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! 20:46, 30 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! 05:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harvington School[edit]

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

This article on a primary school is sourced to two inspection reports and the school's own website. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and not found any independent sources to add. I do not think the article meets WP:GNG or WP:ORG. It has been tagged as needing more citations since January 2021. I cannot see any obvious merge candidates. Tacyarg (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the article is going to take some work, though: here's two reliable sources saying it was founded in 1893: [26][27] StAnselm (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The other school name variations to search for included "Harvington College", "Harvington Prep", and "Harvington Preparatory", and given that the school's history spanned over a century, it was absolutely essential to search across multiple databases and books (as StAnselm did). Cielquiparle (talk) 23:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another variation is "Harvington Girls' School" which seems to have been used briefly during the Fookes years. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are theese more than passing mentions? if so, i'd vote keep as well. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 14:47, 31 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! 20:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep in light of numerous in-depth sources found by StAnselm about this 132-year-old school, as well as others such as this 1940 article on Harvington School re-opening and changing leadership/direction following its WWII evacuation, and this 1959 obituary about the former headmistress, which includes extensive detail about the school's evolution over the 48 years she was headmistress. Harvington Prep also received extensive media coverage on its April 2022 announcement that it would merge with nearby Durston House in September 2023. I have now rewritten and expanded the article significantly, so that it no longer reads like an advertisement (which was a serious problem previously), and have also included enough historical detail to potentially justify keeping this article even after it merges with Durston and "disappears". Cielquiparle (talk) 23:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Found yet another in-depth article published in 1970 when the headmistress retired and the parents formed a trust to purchase the school, which includes a lot of rich historical detail now cited within article. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caddius Emmanuel[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:41, 30 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Hong-yon[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:12, 30 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.

Margaret Chase[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


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

The subject of this article was a Red Cross worker during WWII. She appears to be best known due to her diaries appearing in the Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library. But I don't believe this is enough on its own to grant notability.

While this person (or people with similar names) do appear to have some coverage, I can find nothing substantial. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. While having a diary published or writing memoirs isn't enough to confer Wikipedia notability, DaffodilOcean has conducted some excellent research and editing to prove the subject is indeed notable. Chase's writing received attention in contemporary press reports, which is enough for me. Therefore I'm withdrawing my nomination. --MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, and United States of America. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - She is also the author of her memoir [28] ("Never Too Late"). She is mentioned (unsurprisingly) in multiple documents from the US national archive (e.g. [29] which tells us there are papers in addition to the proofs and copy of her memoirs). She is a primary historical source. The nom.'s rationale is that she is best known for keeping a diary (deemed worthy of accession to a presidential library). Clearly keeping a diary - especially if the diary is published is enough to meet WP:GNG as few would argue that Anne Frank does not meet WP:GNG, and likewise Samuel Pepys, and no doubt others. Of course she is less well known than them (and they are the subject of secondary treatments), but her diary is an important primary historical source and notably accessioned. There should be no doubt that it, and therefore she is notable. I do see that the page is in a very poor state, but the existence of the memoir itself provides plenty of material (primary sourced). Whether she has attracted any biographers, I do not know. She gets a mention here [30] and is the kind of subject that may well attract the attention of historians. Sources do not need to be in the article to meet WP:GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:55, 30 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yaroslav Sychyov[edit]

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

Contested draftify. Part of a spree of badly sourced BLPs created in the past 7 days on Russian footballers who happened to have played a small number of games in the Russian third tier.

WP:SPORTBASIC clearly states that Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. which is not the case here. WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:FPL are both deprecated (for what it's worth, this would have failed NFOOTBALL anyway as only the top 2 tiers are FPL). Google News has one trivial mention and the other 3 hits are about namesakes (and are passing mentions anyway). Nothing found in a Russian search either. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:16, 30 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 Military patrol at the 1924 Winter Olympics. History under the redirect should sufficient sourcing eventually be IDed Star Mississippi 03:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Goffredo Lagger[edit]

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

Non-notable athlete. WP:BEFORE search didn't bring up third party sources to establish notability. With no medal record, doesn't meet WP:GNG. A redirect to Military patrol at the 1924 Winter Olympics would also make sense as an alternative to deletion. SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 18:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chrobek is now a redirect. Witkowski is less clear. In any event, see WP:WHATABOUT. Cbl62 (talk) 05:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I expanded the article. In any case, the biathlete has nothing less than the other biathletes participating in the olympic competition (this: Military patrol at the 1924 Winter Olympics), whose "beautifully" pages remain. In my opinion, it should also be considered that the article is present in three other Wikipedias, even if I will be answered that in these the only Olympic participation is a sufficient requirement for the encyclopedicity but with us, after 15 years, this is no longer the case from today. --Kasper2006 (talk) 04:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your expansion efforts. However, WP:SPORTBASIC expressly states: "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." In this case, the sources you have added represent database sources rather than do not constitute WP:SIGCOV. Also, the fact that stub articles may exist about Lagger on other Wikipedias (e.g., here) does not alter the need to establish notability. Cbl62 (talk) 05:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion you are wrong (you took a quick look and didn't stop). I added two authoritative sources, the first from a follow up site directed by an important journalist of Il Fatto Quotidiano (Clean Play - For those who really love sport) and the second even from the Fiamme Gialle website. --Kasper2006 (talk) 05:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, the two sources you are now highlighting may be significant coverage of the "military patrol" event (the proposed redirect target) but not of Lagger individually. They each contain only a single passing references to Lagger. Such passing references are the antithesis of WP:SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 05:29, 24 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! 18:28, 30 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! 04:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Atizaz Habib Khan[edit]

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

Does not meet notability requirements as it fails WP:NCRIC.  Hamza Ali Shah  Talk 14:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Cricket.  Hamza Ali Shah  Talk 14:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NCRIC with no notable matches in a notable league, and more importantly I'm not seeing anything to suggest a GNG pass either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: Do you think Central Punjab cricket team, Bagh Stallions, Lahore Qalandars and Kashmir Premier League (Pakistan) these leagues and teams are notable? Vicozico13 (talk) 01:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      He's not played a competitive FC/LA or T20 game for any of these sides, so would fail WP:NCRIC, however this is now irrelevant as he would need to pass GNG. I'm not seeing anything to suggest he does. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      As Rugbyfan22 as pointed out he has not played a competitive match. Bagh Stallions is a part of the Kashmir Premier League, and the matches played in it are not considered official matches. He has only played for Central Punjab’s second eleven and has not played a match for Lahore Qalandars.  Hamza Ali Shah  Talk 14:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Also he was never selected in Lahore Qalandars’ PSL side. He was selected for the Global T20 in Namibia which is a non-notable tournament.  Hamza Ali Shah  Talk 14:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he passes the GNG WP:NSPORT and I have added more references from reliable resources.Vicozico13 (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not seeing how any of those sources added would pass GNG. They're all database sources or squad announcements. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:00, 24 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! 18:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unfortunately, this article fails WP:GNG, and the sources the above editors provided do not seem to be enough. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Haven't played an official form of cricket, so it ultimately doesn't pass anything. Human (talk) 15:59, 31 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 07:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UrduPoint[edit]

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

non-notable media outlet, I checked under the urdu name/spelling (اردو پوائنٹ) and found even less sourcing, which indicates to me that this is a complete notability fail despite the many attempts to spam it crosswiki. PICKLEDICAE🥒 18:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unfortunately, not much evidence of notability. The previous AfD nomination was spammed by unexplained Keep votes, whose only rationale had to do with alexa rankings, and OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I highly suspect paid editing is involved here... Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Keep We have already discussed traffic and other things like Urdu point was among less than one dozen sites that are freely available in Pakistan on internet.org, in the previous nomination. After that now UrduPoint is the Official digital media partner of Multan Sultans in Pakistan Super League, the biggest sports event in Pakistan. There are 7.43 million subscribers and 2.29 billion video views of the UrduPoint Youtube channel. Facebook fans are also in millions. Here are some very credible links who source UrduPoint 1(Tribune), 2 (Dawn), 3 (rt.com) and 4 (unodc.org).--Ameen Akbar (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Facebook fans, traffic is worthless. PICKLEDICAE🥒 21:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I know, but it give you little idea of its popularity. Its notability is not completely based on social media. UrduPoint is among top website of Pakistan since 22 years. Ameen Akbar (talk) 07:52, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What we should not expect is a direct significant coverage of a news site on other rival news sites. Obviously, the competitors don't acknowledge each other's existence in the field. Therefore, we should look for separate criteria for a media outlet like UrduPoint. I have two points to make:
  • It is notable that the site is referenced as a reliable source in other national and international news media as mentioned by Ameen Akbar: 1(Tribune), 2 (Dawn), 3 (rt.com), and 4 (unodc.org)
  • Many Wikipedians (including me) find and cite UrduPoint as a reliable source while creating Pakistan-related articles. Deleting a news site's page will close the door to other content as well and this will definitely hurt the expansion of Wikipedia. There must be a tool to find out how often UrduPoint has been cited on Wikipedia and this should be seen as a consensus of the community over a news source.

Insight 3 (talk) 03:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, as per User:امین اکبر and User:Insight 3 above. USaamo (t@lk) 06:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I was not able to find anything significant on UrduPoint but Google Books points to a number of reliable books that cite it. I'm basing my weak keep argument on those high-level citations but I know this is not enough, and thus I don't have any problems with deletion either. Just adding my two cents, being considered a reliable source does not make any website a notable one on Wikipedia. However, I agree that there should be some considerations about notability criteria about news portals. Why would any news portal (independent) think to cover any different news portal? ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with the comment that "we should not expect direct significant coverage of a news site on rival news sites". It is one of the largest and oldest digital media site in Pakistan. Thanks Fifthapril (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Arndt[edit]

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

advertisement for alt med practitioner. (This may be the first I've seen-we usuallly get MDs) The refs are absurd. DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 30 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, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Exhibitors[edit]

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

Non notable production company. Imperfect Boy (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Beccaynr (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, India, and Kerala. Imperfect Boy (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unfortunately, the sources currently in the article seem to either be rotten or pointing to "invalid" pages. A fresh search yields nothing, so we can only assume from article text and current lack that this doesn't meat notability guidelines. If someone can read Malayalam, maybe they can find some sources – but then the company name isn't even given in Malayalam, which seems off. Just delete. --LordPeterII (talk) 17:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting as nom has been blocked as a sock
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 17:52, 30 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Howler (error)[edit]

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

This isn't an article at all, but a loose collection of anecdotes on the general concept of error, with nothing to unite them beyond the use of the synonym "howler". The issues were thoroughly documented a decade ago on the talk page by User:Jnestorius. Some sourced bits and pieces may be mergeable into various articles in Category:Error, but this collection as such should not be in mainspace in the meantime; it can be userfied if desired. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 17:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The claims in this proposal are supported with nothing more than flat statements of personal views, largely counterfactual. For example:
    • This isn't an article at all, but a loose collection of anecdotes on the general concept of error, with nothing to unite them beyond the use of the synonym "howler"
      Apart from the fact that the term is not used as a "synonym", which in any case does not in itself disqualify the material in the article, it is used as a term for a category. In context the term anecdotes as applied here, is nothing short of hand-waving denigration of relevant examples presented in appropriate contexts. Abuse is no substitute for criticism. Anyone claiming that there is nothing to unite them implicitly adopts the onus of demonstrating the lack, given that every example presented was shown in a particular context.
    • It also is wrong in claiming that there is nothing to unite them, and in the implied assertion that only one category of related items may be dealt with in any single article. The article in fact contains about nine distinct, but related, discussions of aspects of categories of howlers in the senses dealt with, each one thoroughly ref'd and with examples. Categorised illustrative items in context are quite distinct from a loose collection of anecdotes on the general concept... of anything. Granted that it takes a certain degree of comprehension to appreciate unifying themes, the lack of perception of the contexts only supports the attack if lack of the themes can be demonstrated; not necessarily in formal symbolic logic, but certainly in simple illustration.
    • The issues were thoroughly documented a decade ago on the talk page by User:Jnestorius
      They were nothing of the kind. Typical complaints were "original research", in response to correct references. If every reference to supporting material is to be regarded as OR, that would not leave much in WP. Then, given a reference, jn could do no better than carp: ...Hunt and Ash's books; this may prove that they wrote about howlers, but does not establish their prominence. How prominent do they have to be to be cited as references accessible to online users? jn cited the absence of the word "howler" in one dictionary, when it appears in others; that sort of thing is what we are to expect in "thorough documentation"???
    • Hardly any of jn's points survived refutation, and the remainder would not justify deletion of this article. If arbitrary sniping were to justify deletion, then hardly any valuable articles in WP would survive at all.
    • Some of jn's "issues" were simple incomprehension: where the text refers to Richard Feynman's "perfectly reasonable deviations from the beaten track", jn pointed out that RF never used the word "howler", when the quote had nothing to do with the context; RF was referring to the exact opposite.
    • In short jn's "documentation" were generally without merit, especially in context; most of them were dismissed out of hand, and the rest did nothing to justify deletion.
    • There have been a number of additions to the article since its first publication, and I have not checked them all; if it should be shown that some of them were indeed anecdotes with no substance worth discussion or adding anything to the readers' conception, then the appropriate response is a bit of editing, not deletion of the whole article.
    • The idea that the article could be included in a general article on "error" is perhaps worthy of discussion, but it is not as simple as it sounds. "Howler" is not a simile for "error": not every error is a howler; "howler" is a category of error with its own history and subtexts, as illustrated by the examples jn tried to dismiss as OR.
    • More relevantly, and possibly more validly, though this article does mention some related terms such as "boner", there are articles under similar terms. Error is not one such, and I suggest that its categories are so far removed from the sense of this article that it would be a disservice to the user to unite them. Blunder and Boner are not much better, though the idea of unification of some of them could possibly be discussed. I suggest however, that the user would be better served by hatnotes or links referring to the independent articles. The user might not want to wade through pages of discussion of different senses.
    • Please describe what exactly "userfied" means and implies. If it means anything like "made more useful and helpful to the user", I can only applaud, but justify how and why. JonRichfield (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Userfied" means moved into the User namespace, where it is not part of the encyclopedia and not indexed by search engines, but accessible to editors. —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 19:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Once you strip away all the WP:OR, this is a pure WP:DICDEF. There is no real topic here...it just boils down to "sometimes people make major errors...here are some times when people used this particular synonym to describe them", if even that. For just one example of the egregious OR, take the section on ghost words. Nowhere do any sources describe this in relation to any "howler" phenomenon. The entire article is essentially a personal reflection essay, trying to tie together unrelated ideas where people just happened to use a specific word to refer to the general concept of "big mistake". 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Userfication per my comments from 10 years ago. I didn't bother engaging further with JonRichfield way back then because I got the impression it would take much less effort to appeal to other editors than to try to change JR's mind. Other editors will be able to judge which of JR and me better refuted the other's points in 2012. As regards JR's points in 2022:
    • Anyone claiming that there is nothing to unite them implicitly adopts the onus of demonstrating the lack No, per WP:SYN it's up to you to find a WP:RS that does unite them. You can't offer original research and suggest that anyone with a degree of comprehension can appreciate unifying themes; you need to cite an external source that actually does the unifying.
    • Typical complaints were "original research", in response to correct references To take one of many such examples, the only reference given for It is very likely that such mock self-mockery gave rise to the term Irish bull (as opposed to just any bull), which is reflected in works such as Samuel Lover's novel Handy Andy. is publication info for Handy Andy, which is "correct" as far as it goes but does not offer any evidence for the primary assertion "It is very likely that such mock self-mockery gave rise to the term Irish bull". In statements of the form [sweeping statement], for example [specific instance]<ref>specific instance publication details</ref> there is no reference for [sweeping statement].
    • How prominent do they have to be to be cited as references accessible to online users? There is no problem using Hunt or Ash as references for claims about howlers, but there is a problem using Hunt as a reference for claims about Hunt, or Ash as a reference for claims about Ash. ("accessible to online users" is irrelevant per WP:OFFLINE.)
    • jn cited the absence of the word "howler" in one dictionary It was your article text that says This article deals with the slang term in a sense that does not appear explicitly in the third edition of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (reprinted as corrected by Charles Talbut Onions 1967). It does however appear in more recent dictionaries. All I did was point out that it is irrelevant to mention a dictionary which omits the term.
    • Hardly any of jn's points survived refutation. As you remark later, most of them were dismissed out of hand, which is not the same as refutation.
    • Some of jn's "issues" were simple incomprehension If a reader fails to understand something one has written, one possible response is "this reader is too stupid or lazy, so their incomprehension can be ignored". A more useful response is "I must try to express myself more clearly to avoid such incomprehension".
    • Please describe what exactly "userfied" means and implies. Wikipedia:Userfication
    jnestorius(talk) 20:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've changed my recommendation to Userfication. I think there is potential for an article restricted to "schoolboy howlers"; to get it started, JonRichfield may be the most knowledgeable on the topic. jnestorius(talk) 23:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for similar reasons to the soon-to-be-deleted Preparation (principle). Complete unsalvageable original-synthesis WP:FRANKENSTEIN of everything called a howler. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tejas Thackeray[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTINHERITED. Sources provided coverage to this person because of his father Uddhav Thackeray than the subject himself. Wareon (talk) 16:45, 30 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stella East[edit]

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

I am unable to find any coverage in reliable sources that indicates that WP:BIO or WP:NARTIST are met. SmartSE (talk) 14:53, 30 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Baseball League Championships[edit]

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

An incomplete article that would be better off as a list of champions. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Baseball, and Australia. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The subject can easily be covered in the main article about the league, and this article should be deleted rather than redirected because of the possibility of confusion with the current iteration of the ABL. Hatman31 (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnecessary list that whose content can be found in the Australian Baseball league article or the articles on the respective seasons. Carson Wentz (talk) 01:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tomás O'Maoldomhnaigh[edit]

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

I'm unable to find any coverage that would indicate that WP:NARTIST or WP:BIO are met. SmartSE (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: agree with nom; I can't anything either and the 2 online source are dead. ww2censor (talk) 10:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unfortunately, this article fails WP:GNG. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I find no references to major collection or exhibitions. I cannot find reliable references to listed exhibitions nor collections. Fails WP:NARTIST. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ignoring the apparent SPA/COI/PROMO overtones, I do not see how WP:NARTIST or WP:SIGCOV is met. On NARTIST, the text itself doesn't describe an artist who is "regarded as an important figure", is "known for originating a significant new concept", "created [..] a significant or well-known work" or is "represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries". Nor do the available refs seem to support a claim under any of these criteria. On SIGCOV, a search of the national news outlets in Ireland (like the Irish Times, the Irish Examiner or RTÉ) return nothing at all. Zero results. Not even a trivial passing mention. A search in local Clare newspapers, where the subject is based, (including the the Clare Champion and Clare Herald) return just TWO passing mentions. Two passing mentions in two local/regional newspapers is far below any reasonable SIGCOV threshold. Mine is a firm "delete" recommendation. Guliolopez (talk) 01:47, 3 September 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 2010–11 Australian Baseball League season. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2010–11 Australian Baseball League regular season[edit]

2010–11 Australian Baseball League regular season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No need to have a separate "regular season" article on top of 2010–11 Australian Baseball League season. Merge any information deemed valuable and delete page. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per nom, unfortunately not good enough to stand on its own. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:19, 31 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. Seems that workable coverage is discoverable. What matters isn't whether suitable sources are in the article already, but rather what can be discovered. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marta Yanci[edit]

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

|BLP with the only reference her own website Rathfelder (talk) 10:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There just about seems to be enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. The article is in a poor state, but WP:DINC. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This academic text mentions that she has her own cooking show. Perhaps not the same Marta?
PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 13:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As per the old version cited by @Kj cheetham, that is the same Marta. PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 13:39, 30 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 Glass Harp (band). (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Pecchio[edit]

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

Violation of BLP. No significant coverage DavidEfraim (talk) 11:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC) struck confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:13, 30 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 01:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chris O'Dea[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Obscure filmmaker. More a hobbyist. Been on the cat:nn list for 10+ years. Never been updated. No coverage. Best documentary is a department prize at uni. Nothing of significance. scope_creepTalk 10:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nothing found for the artist, unless he works at Morgan Stanley; plenty of hits for an unrelated fellow there. Delete. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 30 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:51, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abhimanyu Tyagi[edit]

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

An article on a business person. As noted on the article Talk page, there have been multiple instances of previous articles being deleted, under this and a variant name. (The present instance was created by Wiki.server92911, as was a previous version, with subsequent editing by Wikiserver2022, with both accounts removing notability tags.) Such coverage as is provided in references and found in searches only mentions the subject in relation to his spouse's parents, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Given the history, including a previous AfD ceasing after a CSD deletion, it seems worth taking this to a full AfD decision as to whether the subject is biographically notable. AllyD (talk) 12:36, 30 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 disambiguate. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 12:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Touch the Sun[edit]

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

Per lack of notability. Found no sources covering the album. At the very least I doubt it's notable enough to not be disambiguated while the TV series and the song are. QuietHere (talk) 12:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Japan. QuietHere (talk) 12:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unfortunately, this article fails WP:GNG. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Show-Ya#Discography - The usual solution for an album that got little notice in its own right, but the band had a notable career otherwise. The band got notice in prior years but this particular album seemed to be after their glory days and was apparently ignored, unless anyone can dig up Japanese hard-copy sources from 1995. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, I also support this redirect (Am I supposed to specify that in my proposal? Always forget that part). QuietHere (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction: I misread this and specifically wanna throw my support behind Aoba47's proposal. QuietHere (talk) 01:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate to cover both the TV series, song, and this album that all have the same title. Jumpytoo Talk 18:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate: I agree that this should be a disambiguation page since there are multiple items with this title. I think Touch the Sun (album) should be the redirect to Show-Ya#Discography. Aoba47 (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 02:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was the first to suggest redirecting above, but I missed the disambig issue so we should fix that too. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:23, 3 September 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 12:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actors Movement Studio[edit]

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

I'm unable to find any coverage which indicates that WP:ORG is met. The article was seemingly created by an employee and most of the content has been unsourced for the last 13 years. SmartSE (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn't appear to have been any significant cleanup/change since the Template:COI tag was added over a decade ago which is never a great sign to me. QuietHere (talk) 03:59, 31 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 12:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Hoff[edit]

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

Actor BLP doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO- lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nominator. Also, he seems to have made the article himself. NytharT.C 10:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Washington. Shellwood (talk) 11:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Also, too many words "successful" for such a small page. --Suitskvarts (talk) 11:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Headlining at the Lawrence Welk theater isn't Broadway. Nothing notable about this fellow, few if any, sources. Oaktree b (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the two RS that mention him do exactly that: mention him. Once each, that is. So, we've got zero nontrivial, independent RS coverage. I'm sure he's talented, I'm also sure that there's no evidence he should have a Wikipedia article at this time, selfpromo and COI interests entirely aside. Jclemens (talk) 07:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete PR article which really serves no purpose. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:25, 31 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 12:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bear Smart Initiative[edit]

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

I was reviewing this article and removing advertisement-like and primary-sourced sections when I saw that was how most of it was written. After a clean-up, it seems to fail WP:GNG, minor mentions in references online. NytharT.C 10:52, 30 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! 06:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Camaquito[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, promotional article, minimal sources I could find. NytharT.C 08:57, 30 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! 06:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Telecommunications in Martinique[edit]

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

On the question of whether any article is possible on Telecoms here, the jury is out. I expect a wider article is possible, although perhaps taking a broader view of the issue, or as a paragraph in an article of the place. However this article is not that. Entirely unsourced, even if the figures were right, they are clearly out of date and what is presented is of limited significance. There is no curated information, no lead, just numbers that are all wrong. This must surely be a case where WP:TNT is required. I would suggest merge is not appropriate here as there is simply no mergeable content. Any attempt to merge would damage the merge target. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I suspect I've never agreed with a TNT nomination before. If there is an unreferenced, unmaintained exclusively statistical article then it probably does more harm than good. The only importent item of interest, the telephone dialling code, is actually better described in the main Martinique article and a redirect seems purposeless. Thincat (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. External links are also useless, so there is no salvation. --Suitskvarts (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article appears to have been sourced to the CIA World Factbook (compare the information style found here, for example). However, it appears that the CIA World Factbook no longer includes a separate article about Martinique, perhaps because it is a full-fledged department of France and not a dependency. Thus, we don't have a convenient way to update this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, alsmost impossible to update, and not a good redirect. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:28, 31 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! 06:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cachet Raynor[edit]

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

Fails WP:BLP1E; although the subject has multiple reliable sources, most originate from a single, non-notable, social media event. NytharT.C 07:49, 30 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 Blue Dragon Children's Foundation. ✗plicit 05:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Brosowski[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Not independently notable from Blue Dragon Children's Foundation, which he founded. Loksmythe (talk) 05:32, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:04, 30 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. BD2412 T 02:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yuhanon Mar Meletius[edit]

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

Couldn't find sources to meet WP:GNG. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, India, and Kerala. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources on Malankara Syrian Orthodox Christians can be difficult to locate due to different spellings of names, orders of titles (the article might need to be moved as "Mar" is an epithet and is often transliterated "Mor"), and general linguistic barriers. However, I found this from the Times of India and this from The Telegraph (the Indian one). These alone are sufficient for GNG alongside the profile from MSOC, and a tad more can be gleaned from this, which is a source self-published by the article's subject (which is kosher for some info). Besides reliable source specific coverage grounds, I also am in the keep camp as bishops of a church like the MSOC have an inherent claim to notability. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I found those sources too, but none of them are in-depth AND independent. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The first couple sources are both fairly in-depth and establish a verified notability. Beyond that, here are a few more sources that are, like the previously cited articles, provide independent and in-depth coverage. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess we disagree in our interpretations of 'in-depth'. That's ok. We'll wait for other AfD participants. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @MPGuy2824: Ignoring disagreement here, would you mind doing a pass on the information I added to the article and just double-checking that what I added was appropriate for the source? Thanks! ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it seems appropriate, except for the budget paragraph which doesn't seem relevant. Thanks for improving the stub. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Bishops of this sort of denomination (not just the Roman Catholic Church) are generally notable - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Notability guide#Bishops and WP:CLERGY. This is not because of inherited notability, but we can safely assume they will have significant coverage in multiple sources. In this case, we might expect the coverage to be offline, in another language, or hard to find because of spelling variants. In any case, at least three of the references Pbritti has rpoduced would qualify as "in-depth" in my eyes. StAnselm (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And this has now become a classic WP:HEY article. StAnselm (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course Keep -- As a diocesan bishop of a major denomination, he is certainly notable. Difficulties in providing sources do not alter that. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:46, 4 September 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 lunar eclipses in the 21st century. Liz Read! Talk! 04:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2057 lunar eclipse[edit]

June 2057 lunar eclipse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON. Needs significant in-depth secondary coverage. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:33, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:55, 30 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 lunar eclipses in the 21st century. ✗plicit 05:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2056 lunar eclipse[edit]

February 2056 lunar eclipse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON. No secondary independent in-depth coverage, only data related to the prediction. Best to merge into a list. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:27, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This page was made because if I didn't create it, nobody would have for years. I added an external link. Eric Nelson27 (talk) 01:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/May 2086 lunar eclipse will give you an idea of why this has been nominated. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:29, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Eric Nelson27:, your argument is precisely what the essay WP:TOOSOON is about: If nobody would create it for years, and nobody read it for years, then at present we have no need for a standalone article about it. I personally hope and am optimistic that Wikipedia will continue to exist for decades to come; so when in let's say 2050 people start to become interested in the next lunar eclipses, and some newspaper reports that "in 2056 there will be one" – then, but only then, will this article here make sense to be created, as it has nothing else notable about it (as opposed to, say, the Heat death of the universe, which also lies (even further!) in the future but is actively being talked about already). I am aware you meant well, and it's a shame that your hard work should be gone for now (to be ressurected in 2050?), but it's better for the encyclopedia.
@Rsjaffe: Since you pointed to the other deletion discussion which was about an article nearly identical to this one, and ended in a merge, why did you not consider merging this as well? I don't think you have to go through AfD for that, and I don't see why you would expect this one here to go any different from the other one. Not that I'm angry, I'm just curious about why you chose this path. --LordPeterII (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I might have made a mistake. However, I did this because the author probably would have objected to merge, and we would have ended up here anyway. This seemed quicker. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, yeah, if you put it that way it seems reasonable. I hope we can get some sort of "precedent" here, so maybe for the other "non-imminent future lunar eclipses" (I think there are some more around) a regular merge would suffice. --LordPeterII (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't even tried working on articles already in Wikipedia, just new articles. There's lots on future eclipses, e.g., May 2170 lunar eclipse. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:55, 30 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 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines national football team#Coaching history. Liz Read! Talk! 05:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Gurley[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect per Govvy. I found no sources that could establish notability. —Danre98(talk^contribs) 22:23, 30 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 source analyses are persuasive. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kendall Velox[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, some coverage that IMO is significant on top of his 65 international caps: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The second, third and fourth sources are all trivial mentions of the subject. The fifth one is not even a source, rather a tag of the person on a website. The first one is passable imo, but not enough for SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree - source 1 is good, the rest insufficient. GiantSnowman 08:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Per @Ortizesp:. Clearly significant figure in St Vincent and the Grenadines football (confirmed by 6), 2nd most capped Saint Vincent and the Grenadines international ever with 63 appearances and 6th highest Saint Vincent and the Grenadines international scorer ever and definitely has offline sources, having consistently scored during an extensive pro career abroad and played 16 years for national team with double digit caps and been only Vincentian to ever play in Middle East. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 02:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Your source is a database, which cannot be used to gauge WP:SIGCOV Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets wp:anybio by 63 international appearances for the national team which is fully recognised by FIFA for 34 years. Few info on the Internet but there should be option to find and create significant coverage per WP:Hey. Few years ago ENwiki was lenient for footballers who played few matches for national team not recognised by FIFA.Dawid2009 (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NFOOTBALL has been phased out. Your rationale is no longer valid. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One non-trivial source is not enough for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 01:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per JoelleJay. BilledMammal (talk) 05:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How about this google books source? Velox is also mentioned in some English books and broadly covered in LAtimes [31], I think all those books and sources are better than news coverage (suggested above, partly reliable). What I can see "keep" is reasonable option, eventually redirect to national team to keep content in history but certainly not delte. I recently supported deletion of many footballers at Afd but I have really too serious doubts to remove soccer player with (!) 63 official international appearances! Dawid2009 (talk) 06:47, 4 September 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! 05:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oryan Velox[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - @GiantSnowman: Per @Ortizesp:. Besides the sources Ortizesp found, I found 4. Also keep in mind he has decent coverage despite Saint Vincent and the Grenadines having incredibly little online media. He is a young internationally capped player with an ongoing career. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 02:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    THe first is possibly passable but the other three sources are all trivial and do not pass GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree the sources located are insufficient. GiantSnowman 18:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Local coverage of high school-age athletes fails YOUNGATH, so we most certainly do not have GNG here. JoelleJay (talk) 01:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not seeing the significant coverage to warrant an article. The sources provided aren't enough. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 09:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:YOUNGATH (the coverage of his schoolboy football endeavours is fairly superficial) and also WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. Subject is only 17 so potentially may be notable in the future at which point I would not object to the article being created again but, until then, it's not our place to make an article on someone on the off-chance that they might meet GNG later. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:21, 4 September 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 newspapers in Bangladesh. Selecting Redirect as an ATD in case more reliable sourcing becomes available in the future. Liz Read! Talk! 06:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Tribunal[edit]

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

The Daily Tribunal which has received no independent coverage in reliable sources. If you look at the "newspaper" it is a collection of plagiarized articles presented as their own. The claim that it is the 5th highest circulating English language newspaper in Bangladesh could not be verified and is inaccurate according to the List of newspapers in Bangladesh. Bangladesh is a Bengali-speaking nation as such, the largest circulated Bengali newspaper sells more than half a million copies, while the largest circulated English newspaper, The Daily Star, sells a little over 40 thousand.

The creator has been trying to write an article on the newspaper and its editor for over a year. Both are non-notables. The persistence shows clear evidence of conflict of interest. Not a single independent reliable source has been shown to mention this "newspaper" let alone provide the significant coverage needed to pass notability guidelines. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, most of the newspapers in Bangladesh do not want to write anything about other newspapers. As a result, it is usually difficult to find reference. In addition, it is jointly the 5th largest English newspaper in Bangladesh as per the government list. However, the article can be kept. Sakib214 (talk) 07:50, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Difficulty in finding references is not an argument in favor of keeping an article. Even if the other newspapers don't write about this newspaper, there might be magazines, books, or independent reliable websites that do. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:26, 30 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! 05:33, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to List_of_newspapers in Bangladesh. The UNB reference, which gives the circulation numbers used in the article, shows that it's the ninth largest. It can't be both the fifth largest and the ninth largest, although it's likely the two sources refer to the circulation at different points in time. Without qualifying that in the article text it seems to contain information that contradicts its sources, and in any case there isn't really enough reliable information to justify a standalone article at this time in my opinion. WaggersTALK 11:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The circulation numbers of The Financial Express and The Daily Sun jointly bagged 2nd position (41,000). In this way The Independent, The Daily Observer and The Daily Bangladesh Post bagged 4th position (40,550). In the same way The Asian Age and The Daily Tribunal bagged 5th position (40,500). More than one newspaper bagged the same position according to the circulation numbers. That's why it creates confusion. But this happens for the newspapers. Sakib214 (talk) 15:34, 30 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 Poison Ivy (character)#In other media. Liz Read! Talk! 06:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Poison Ivy in other media[edit]

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

What makes this pass WP:NLIST? Nothing I can see. Why was it split off from Poison Ivy (character)? Length? The solution is to cut fancruft (note that Poison Ivy article doesn't even have a reception section, it's all plot summary and fanboy's OR). Also, effectively this is very similar to "Foo in popular culture", listing the character's appearances in various media, violating WP:IC/MOS:POPCULTURE. Quite a few articles in Category:Batman in other media are indentical, too. Sigh. The best I can say is that it should be merged back to Poison_Ivy_(character)#In_other_media, and if anyone has concerns about length, just delete crufty, unreferenced plot summary that abounds in both articles. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:25, 30 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. Nominated by a confirmed blocked sockpuppet with no remaining deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 22:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redveil[edit]

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

Unable to locate WP:THREE in the article. Fails GNG DavidEfraim (talk) 06:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 05:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Doomsdayer's list of sources, easily clears WP:SINGER. QuietHere (talk) 03:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's close, as a lot of the sources are of substandard quality, but I believe the combination of the BV and Pitchfork sources along with the Wonderland Magazine review are enough to showcase a GNG pass. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:42, 31 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! 06:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Murphy (Illinois politician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 05:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, and the article is very lacking in general. Liliana (UwU) 05:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, while minor in notablity i believe it still does meet notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TypicalJeww (talk • contribs) — TypicalJeww (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Illinois. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, an also-ran for Lieutenant Governor and not running for anything since. Can't see any significant coverage in RS, just the routine local coverage you'd expect for any candidate in a US state election. Storchy (talk) 11:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Failed politicians do not meet WP:NPOL. Bkissin (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. I searched and couldn't find any non-routine reliable secondary sourcing that would satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Sal2100 (talk) 19:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they didn't win, but this article doesn't even attempt to claim that she has other notability claims for other reasons besides that. Bearcat (talk) 16:51, 4 September 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 dams in Japan#Miyagi Prefecture. Liz Read! Talk! 06:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kamiohsawa Dam[edit]

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

No claim or evidence of notability that would satisfy GEOLAND or GNG. This appears to be a rather small and insignificant dam copied over from a database listing. –dlthewave ☎ 05:09, 30 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 dams in Japan#Miyagi Prefecture. Liz Read! Talk! 06:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yamanashi Dam[edit]

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

No claim or evidence of notability that would satisfy GEOLAND or GNG. This appears to be a rather small and insignificant dam copied over from a database listing. –dlthewave ☎ 05:07, 30 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! 06:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2022 This American Life episodes[edit]

List of 2022 This American Life episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
List of 2021 This American Life episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOT. This is nothing but a list of episodes with no encyclopedic value. MB 03:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep: I'm not seeing how this is different from the multitudes of season-by-season lists of television and podcast episodes – save for a clunkier formatting from an older time. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC) Neutral per Bearcat – recreations of this article should be properly formatted, instead of being a link farm. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Lists. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a strong argument. MB 13:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @MB: I'd counter with Wikipedia:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments – it's up to you to explain why these precedents make for an invalid argument. Podcast/television lists are firmly a part of the encyclopedia (not just one article, it's an established practice) – why shouldn't this? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The purpose of episode lists isn't to help drive traffic to TAL's website by providing offsite links to its own streaming copies of its own episodes — the purpose of episode lists is for content about the episodes to be contained and sourced within Wikipedia. Wikipedia lists exist to help people find Wikipedia articles, not to help people find off-Wikipedia content. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bearcat: That's a fair point – i'd be amenable to changing my vote to a neutral for that reason (WP:DINC) notwithstanding. I would like to emphasize to the closer, and any future editors considering recreating these articles post-deletion, that there should not be prejudice against recreation if the article is properly formatted to avoid the "link farm" problem. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These list articles don't serve much encyclopedic value. All they are, are weblinks to listen to the programmes online, nothing to back them up by use of independent sources. If 2021 and 2022 are deleted, then so too should the rest. Ajf773 (talk) 09:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this isn’t even a proper list article, it’s a link farm. Dronebogus (talk) 14:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do whatever you want - I'll never understand how destroying information is a benefit. You have to start somewhere, so if someone has the time to expand the article, there is a seed. But, go ahead, but also delete all the other episode list pages of TAL. Richard Zsigmondy (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Draftspace is a thing. Finish your pages rather than dumping them on others in a premature state. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Information cannot be destroyed but Wikipedia is under no obligation to contain every tidbit of it. Dronebogus (talk) 12:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not for creating directory lists to serve as finding aids to content on other websites — the value in an episode list, whether for a radio or television show, is not in providing outbound links to streaming copies of the episodes on their own websites, but in providing properly sourced content within Wikipedia about the episodes, such as descriptions of their content. But the other problem here is that these aren't the only two of these: similar directory lists, comprising offsite links to the show's own self-published website instead of reliably sourced episode descriptions, currently exist going all the way back to 1995, and are problematic for the exact same reasons. So really they need to all either get converted to a proper Wikipedia episode list format or go away, not just these two in isolation. I am, for the record, willing to reconsider this if somebody actually strips the offsite links. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bearcat. NytharT.C 18:20, 4 September 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! 05:59, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Essential Teachings[edit]

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

Although the Dalai Lama is notable, individual publications are not notable simply because he is the author. In this case there is little to say about this volume, which is why it remains a stub after 12 years. There is nothing that makes this book notable beyond being teachings of the notable figure. It is not widely cited or the subject of independent analysis. The book is already cited on the Dalai Lama page so there is nothing here to merge. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, I oppose merge or redirect in this case, and this is why I went to AFD and not a bold redirect. "Essential Teachings" is so generic a title that I don't think it is reasonable that the redirect goes to the Dalai Lama. That would seem to violate WP:NPOV because it could be read as Wikipedia saying that essential teachings are the property of the Dalai Lama specifically. I think it needs to be straight deletion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, surprisingly enough there does not seem to be any reviews of this publication. Publishers Weekly provides a list of reviews they have done of the Dalai Lama's publications here, and this one is not listed, suggesting that there has just not been much interest in it. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:59, 30 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. This is a great example of a case where it's not the number of !votes that count but the content and policy basis behind the discussion itself. At one point the discussion looked like it could have been closed as a WP:SNOW keep. However it is telling that 10 days after the carefully reasoned analysis from HighKing and others that challenges the basis of the previous keep !votes, there hasn't been a single argument put forward to counter the case for deletion. WaggersTALK 13:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UP Halcyon[edit]

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

A previous AfD was closed as redirect, but overturned and relisted at deletion review. I am filing this new AfD as a procedural nomination only; I offer no opinion on the notability of this article. Please see the linked AfD and DRV to review the discussions there. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fraternities and sororities and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Recreated with new sources. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:DDBB:5FD1:FCB9:EB0C (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The revised article now has nine references, none of which are owned or operated by the organization itself. These include university references and accolades, local media, and governmental websites to prove both the actual existence of the 17-year old organization and its notability. This satisfactorily addresses the previous AfD concern (reasonable, IMHO) that there had been no sources. We should leave the hatnote reminder that additional citations may still be added. Jax MN (talk) 18:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jax MN. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 09:29, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThe previous concern about citations has been fixed with credible sources.Rublamb (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Now meets WP:NORG with new sources added to the article. They're reliable enough, with some in-depth, IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The previous AfD's reasoning doesn't apply to this AfD anymore. In fact, the DRV was just a waste of time. Anyone can recreate the page with a new set of sources. SBKSPP (talk) 01:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey SBKSPP, just to clarify. At the DRV, some editors (who are much better versed in the minutae of Wiki processes that others) pointed out that the original argument for deletion (that there was no sourcing) as provided by the original nominator had been addressed - therefore the AfD should be closed. While I don't agree with that reasoning - an AfD evolves and develops and we had moved on to examining sourcing - it was decided to open a new AfD. The arguments at the previous AfD do apply to this one as you can see from my response below. Also, no, if this page ends up being deleted, attempts to recreate it will result in actions to prevent the page from being created and might also result in actions taken to prevent editors from recreating this topic, even under different article titles. HighKing++ 20:30, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have stood with my vote if only it was relisted. If this page ends up being deleted, anyone can create a redirect out of it anytime. But times have changed since it was re-nominated. I believe per above arguments it now meets NORG. You can never change my mind. SBKSPP (talk) 01:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above as already meets the criteria standards after a revision fixed. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging previous participants who may not be aware of the DRV and this relisting (which in my opinion should have been done when this new AfD was created. Whatever). Pinging Lenticel, Oaktree b, Dream Focus, MrsSnoozyTurtle, JWilz12345, Superastig HighKing++ 19:55, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO, the previous discussion should've been relisted. With that, the issues in the DelRev can be easily pointed out there. This discussion seems to lose steam after the article was renominated. ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 04:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment still not seeing notability. Sources are brief mentions. Could be a subsection in the College's article perhaps. Oaktree b (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In the previous AfD I provided a detailed analysis of why the sources (including the nine additional references) fail NORG criteria for establishing notability. At the end of the previous AfD, Rublamb said to "agree that more sources are needed to prove notability". Great! Yet I note that no additional references have been added since the previous AfD and there's a bunch of editors !voting to Keep and repeating the previous simplistic reasoning. Lets be clear, especially in light of the previous AfD. Reasoning such as "credible sources", "new sources", "now has nine references", "meets the criteria standards", etc, fail to address the elephant in the room from the previous AfD - that not a single reference meets NORG criteria for establishing notability. From the previous AfD, Rublamb put forward a number of arguments as to notability - it appears to me from the reasoning provided above that the Keep !voters have decided to simply parrot those reasons and other comments from DRV. I'll therefore address the arguments put forward by Rublamb previously (and to a lesser extent the previous arguments from Jax MN but which also applies to the Keep !voters above too).
    • When Rublamb says that the sources qualify as ;;"indepdendent and reliable";; and that those ;;"citations back much of the previously unsourced content of the article, and also document the work undertaken by the organization";;, that's an important part of writing any article and a good thing. But, that is mixing up the difference between references used to support content in the article and references used to establish notability. While just about any reliable source may be used for the former purpose, not all sources may be used to establish notability. For example, Rublamb says that two of the added sources (out of the nine that Jax MN mentions above) "prove that this group has partnered with" some organizations. Great. That's using sources to support content as per the former purpose, but that's not the same as saying the also fulfill the latter purpose. Establishing notability requires sources that meet certain additional and more stringent criteria.
    • Rublamb also said in the previous AfD that those sources "collectively builds a case for notability". That comment demonstrates a misunderstanding of NORG criteria - we don't examine sources collectively. In the previous AfD I posted the requirements from NORG but for convenience, here are some of the pertinent points again. WP:SIRS says that *each* source (for the purposes of notability) must meet *all* the criteria. Failing any one of the criteria (e.g. failing CORPDEPTH or ORGIND, etc) means that source does not help to establish notability.
    • Rublamb said that "a university and its student organizations are independent of each other". There's a couple of things to say about this. First, that's not exactly true in this case. The university itself decides which student organizations exist - the following appears on the university website: "Student organizations will only be considered by the college if it complies with and abides by the rules set by the university and the college". Can't therefore say that the two are independent much less unaffiliated which is important because the test established in WP:ORGIND requires specific content (which must be in-depth and significant) that is attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.
    • Rublamb previous said "UP Halcyon cannot control what the university PR office writes" which is true but shows that there is a misunderstanding of the criteria. The "importance" of the publisher is largely irrelevant - it is the content which is important. For example, you can have an article written by the New York Times but that doesn't automatically establish notability. We look at the content. If the article doesn't have the type of in-depth original and independent opinion/analysis/fact checking/investigation/etc we require, then the NYT article will not assist in establishing notability.
In summary, none of the arguments bear up to scrutiny. None of the Keep !voters can point to any specific reference which meets NORG criteria for establishing notability. Not one. The topic fails NORG. HighKing++ 20:26, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there is sufficient input here, @HighKing:'s note about a belated notification has merit, so making sure interested editors can weigh in.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:14, 30 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) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Melody Yeung (bowler)[edit]

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

No indication of notability - 19th is hardly a significant world cup ranking. No WP:SIGCOV located on a search. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
    1. "Tenpin Bowling: Yeung gives perfect reply". South China Morning Post. 1988-09-12. p. 37. ProQuest 1538686460.

      The article notes: "Banned kegler Melody Yeung dealt the Hongkong Ten-ping Bowling Congress (HKTBC) a slap in the face when she won the AMF World Cup selection competition at Kwai Fong Bowling Centre yesterday. The HKTBC banned Yeung and fellow national team member Norideen Kitchell from all international competitions, so it is unlikely that the Asian Amateur Championships' gold medalist will be flying Hongkong's flag in the finals in Mexico. ... Yeung was banned until the end of next year for accepting a television station's interview without informing HKTBC officials ... Yesterday, Yeung again proved she is the best woman bowler in the territory with a nine-game score of 1,862, including a 120 points bonus, to earn the top seed position for the step-ladder final."

    2. Dykes, John (1987-11-30). "Tenpin Bowling: Experience tells as Lau repels Pang's challenge". South China Morning Post. p. 38. ProQuest 1538325458.

      The article notes in a photo caption: "Melody Yeung on her way to retaining her women's title in the San Miguel Hongkong Open yesterday, where she beat second seed Carmen Tang." The article notes: "In the women's final, Melody Yeung demonstrated her current dominance of the sport by successfully defending her title. Yeung who earlier in the month came sixth in the World Cup in Kuala Lumpur, saw off second-seeded Carmen Tang in the final by 215 pins to 205. ... but Yeung, who had scored an impressive 2,263 total after six rounds, kept her form to lift the coveted trophy."

    3. Kitchell, Norideen (1987-05-16). "Tenpin Bowling: Gunderson grabs title". South China Morning Post. p. 20. ProQuest 1538233740.

      The article notes: "But she has yet to confront Melody Yeung, who together with Che is considered Hongkong's two most outstanding woman bowlers."

    4. Lakey, Chris (1988-08-11). "Bowling: National trio lose appeals". South China Morning Post. p. 30. ProQuest 1538659356.

      The article notes: "Hongkong's top woman player Melody Yeung, who captured a gold medal at the Asian tournament, was suspended until the end of 1989 for accepting media interviews without official consent following her singles victory. ... But Yeung and Cheung are not as lucky because they have been told that they cannot bowl at the Singapore International Open Championships or the Star Open in Bangkok this month. Yeung was scheduled to play in both tournaments ... The two, however, have indicated they will go ahead with their trips, although they cannot bowl."

    5. Sallay, Alvin (1994-10-11). "Melody right on song in bid for medal". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2022-08-28. Retrieved 2022-08-28.

      The article notes: "Melody Yeung Ka-ling yesterday kept alive Hong Kong's hopes of winning a medal at tenpin bowling when she finished in fourth place at the end of the first eight games of the women's Masters competition. ... Melody is the only Hong Kong competitor in the women's event to qualify for the Masters, by virtue of finishing among the top 16 bowlers after the total scores of each bowler in the singles, doubles, trios and fives had been added up. In other words, consistency is what matters, and so far Melody has been consistent, even if she has nothing to show for her efforts."

    6. Dykes, John (1988-08-12). "Banned Melody pins her hopes on legal alleys". South China Morning Post. p. 32. ProQuest 1538659307.

      The article notes: "Top international Melody Yeung is set to take her battle with the Hongkong Tenpin Bowling Congress (HKTBC) into the courtroom. The HKTBC on Sunday handed Yeung a 16-month ban from international competition for accepting media interviews without official consent during the FIQ Asian Amateur Championships in Hongkong last month."

    7. "Melody: Melody strikes winning chord". South China Morning Post. Agence France-Presse. 1987-11-10. p. 36. ProQuest 1538313205.

      The article notes: "Hongkong's Melody Yeung performed superbly in first-day action at the women's World Cup tenpin bowling championship in Kuala Lumpur yesterday. The 26-year-old sales clerk defied the hot conditions to end the day in second place after six games, just 35 pins behind unfancied Singaporean Narisa Prateep. Yeung claimed 1,132 pins in her six games and was well satisfied with her display. The Hongkong bowler said she found the conditions in the alley extremely hot."

    8. "Tenping Bowling: Yeung falters at last gasp in World Cup". South China Morning Post. 1987-11-15. p. 18. ProQuest 1538977659.

      The article notes: "Hongkong's Melody Yeung, who was the leader after the first round, failed in her bid for a medal when she finished sixth in the World Cup tenpin bowling final in Kuala Lumpur yesterday. Yeung missed the cut-off by just three points to end with 1,440. The Hongkong girl was prominent at all stages of the competition at all stages of the competition but failed by a whisker at the last gasp."

    9. "Bowling: HK glory bid still rests with Melody". South China Morning Post. Agence France-Presse. 1987-11-11. p. 36. ProQuest 1538313774.

      The article notes: "Hongkong's Melody Yeung slipped two places to fourth at the women's World Cup tenpin bowling championships in Kuala Lumpur yesterday. The 26-year-old Yeung finished the day's play with 2,207 pins and dropped two places from her first-day finish, but is still in a strong position with the final six games to be played today."

    10. "Bowling: Melody's on song for title". South China Morning Post. 1988-05-02. p. 40. ProQuest 1538625366.

      The article notes: "Melody Yeung outshone the men on her way to the women's Masters title at the SCAA Annual Championships yesterday, completing the 16-game rolloff with a creditable 203 average. Yeung was unchallenged in the first phase of the competition, topping the chart with an eight-game total of 1,597 and beating Asian Games gold medallist Cat Che into second place by 65 pins."

    11. "Yeung knocked out". South China Morning Post. 1999-08-31. p. 28. ProQuest 2026074213.

      The article notes: "Hong Kong Tenpin bowler Melody Yeung Ka-ling's title bid in the Women's Masters Cup at the Asian Tour (Hong Kong) tournament ended when she lost 213–199 to Chinese-Taipei's Wu Yu-ling in the semi-finals at the Mei Foo Super Fun Bowl. Yeung, who retired from the Hong Kong team a few years ago, was the only SAR bowler to make it into the top-14 Masters event."

    12. Kareem, Nazvi (1994-07-26). "Territory gambles on Sunny shining". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2022-08-28. Retrieved 2022-08-28.

      The article is about Bowling at the Asian Games in 1994. The article notes: "Fung was delighted with Hong Kong's performance last week with Franco Lau narrowly pipped for the gold medal in the men's Masters and Melody Yeung winning gold in the women's event with Cat Che finishing third."

    13. Lewis, Tommy (1995-05-02). "Top bowlers hurt in crash". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2022-08-28. Retrieved 2022-08-28.

      The article notes: "Four of Hong Kong's top ten-pin bowlers were injured when their taxi was involved in a head-on collision outside the AIA Building in Stubbs Road yesterday. Angela Lau, Melody Yeung and Cookie Lee, who are Hong Hong's three national representatives and Semon Cheung, who is in the national pool and the daughter of Hong Kong's gold medallist Catherine Che, were taken to the Tang Shiu Kin Hospital. Ms Lau, who suffered head injuries, Ms Yeung who lost a lower front tooth, and Ms Lee who was bruised, were treated and discharged."

    14. Sallay, Alvin (1994-10-12). "HK pair reach last eight". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2022-08-28. Retrieved 2022-08-28.

      The article notes: "Despite a brave attempt by Melody Yeung Ka-ling, the Hong Kong's tenpin bowlers will return home empty-handed. Melody, the only local woman in the last event, the masters, finished in sixth place and thus failed to qualify for the finals. Only the top three bowlers out of a field of 16 qualify for the masters final. Melody totalled 2,992 after 15 games. But that was not good enough to get her into the last three, as she was 61 pins off third-placed Irene Garcia of the Philippines."

    15. "Golden girl Che leads Asian bid". South China Morning Post. 1988-06-08. p. 34. ProQuest 1538638858.

      The article notes: "Backing Che in the women's team are twice World Cup player Melody Yeung, Anna Tong, Judy Lo, Sandy Fong and Carmen Tang. Yeung, who also performed at the Asian Games, should be the bowler to watch as she topped the Hongkong team's selection trials and only narrowly missed the cut for the step ladder final at the Hongkong Open." The image caption notes, "Hongkong's Melody Yeung, tipped to perform well at next month's FIQ Asian Zone Championships."

    16. "Tenpin Bowling: Melody ready take on the world". South China Morning Post. Agence France-Presse. 1987-11-14. p. 20. ProQuest 1538314471.

      The article notes: "Hongkong's Melody Yeung improved on her eighth position to finish fourth yesterday and qualify for the semi-finals of the women's World Cup in Kuala Lumpur."

    17. Kitchell, Norideen (1987-12-20). "Tenpin Talk: Franco captures Masters crown". South China Morning Post. p. 14. ProQuest 1538661645.

      The article notes: "Melody Yeung, Hongkong's hottest woman bowler, is expected to make a bid to rejoin the national party in which she was a member last year. She did not take part in the selection for the 1987 squad but has vowed to make a return because it will give her an opportunity to win a ticket to the Olympic Games."

    18. "港楊嘉玲獲女單金牌" [Hong Kong's Melody Yeung wins women's singles gold]. Ta Kung Pao (in Chinese). 1988-07-12. Retrieved 2022-08-28 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
    19. "卓伶保齡賽昨擧行，黃少偉楊嘉玲奪標" [Zhuo Ling bowling competition was held yesterday, Huang Shaowei and Melody Yeung won the championship]. Ta Kung Pao (in Chinese). 1987-07-13. Retrieved 2022-08-28 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Melody Yeung (traditional Chinese: 楊嘉玲; simplified Chinese: 杨嘉玲) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for time to review Cunard's sources since they were just added.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep, assuming good faith in Cunard's reproduction of the sources at hand (I can't access them). I would want to see some coverage from outside the South China Morning Post, but the fact that they're sometimes reprinting from Agence-France Presse is good enough. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks like a solid article on a notable subject. Moondragon21 (talk 19:53, 1 September 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) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Williams (organist)[edit]

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

Clean-up template has not seen better sourcing forthcoming over the last 7 years. Though Williams has clearly had a long and respectable career at the University of Aberdeen, and has had the occasional gushing article in the local Aberdeen press, I don't think he meets WP:GNG as a musician nor an academic. His biography is entirely unsourced and the Aberdeen University articles are, well, not independent of their employee. Sionk (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Wales. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - added 3 more citations. I'd point out that notability is not dependent on whether editors bother to update an article; and that it is normal to source basic facts of a career from CVs and similar employer-based websites, especially for academics where other sources for such information usually don't exist. Williams has certainly had a distinguished career; he has certainly been awarded an MBE; and he is both well-known for his many performances (at Aberdeen and elsewhere), and he has taken the unusual step of commissioning new organ works from numerous other composers. I've added some more facts and three new sources, have removed some uncited claims, and have cited several existing claims. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your efforts, but I raised the Afd on the basis of lack of notability, not lack of verification. Listings announcements from his employer(s), websites of non-journalistic organisations, don't prove notability. They simply prove he exists. Generally on Wikipedia not even OBE's confer notability, so well done to him for the MBE, but... Sionk (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment another fellow with a common name, all I can find are links to the university or yearbook-type items. Even searching with his full name doesn't pull up much. He's on Tidal and quite a few other streaming sites, but not much I can find for notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 18:34, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
His MBE designations isn't much help, it's the lowest order in the award and there are over 100,000 recipients. Certainly a respectable award, but hard to pull up information based on that alone. Oaktree b (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've searched using a selection of keywords including "organist", "Aberdeen", and the names of the various institutions mentioned. Seemed to work. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, please review article changes since the page was nominated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:07, 30 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. Sandstein 09:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Darkness in music[edit]

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

largely unsourced- there's no "darkness in film" article or anything similar HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 02:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete as it comes across as a bunch of shared name WP:OR. Mangoe (talk) 04:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, mostly per Mangoe. I don't see a clear scope for this article in terms of the history and significance of the pairing. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Justiyaya 06:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2006 this was a disambiguation page. Then it was linked with de:Schwarze Musik (aka Dark music) aka musical part of the Dark culture. This article still hosts redirects from: dark alternative music, dark music, dark pop, dark-pop, darkpop, noir pop. So in my opinion it's better to move and rework the content of this article into Dark culture#Music and leave redirect here. Solidest (talk)
  • Comment - Topic is notable now but too much original research. But the article can be adapted, I found this academic text on the topic, can also be expanded to include dark baroque music.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 13:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not yet notable Bruxton (talk) 03:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing but original research over every time a music genre has the term "dark" in its name. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:50, 7 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_August_30&oldid=1108994732"