Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 April 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 03	April 05 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Aoidh (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prosun Azad[edit]

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

No significant work and notable award. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 15:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Starred in multiple movies as the lead actress and received decent coverage from her spat with the Directors Guild before being blacklisted. FD I created the article.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NMODEL Tanbiruzzaman (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The banning controversy made her notable. Editorkamran (talk) 02:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:BIO1E // Timothy :: talk 05:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP Fails GNG and BIO: Appears at best to be BIO1E. Source eval:
1E source :: 1. "Prosun Azad banned from productions for one year". The Daily Star. 31 October 2016. Retrieved 6 February 2017.
Promo :: 2. ^ Jump up to:a b "Prosun Azad turns director". Prothom Alo. Archived from the original on 4 April 2016. Retrieved 6 February 2017.
Interview :: 3. ^ "Films are largely men-centric: Prosun Azad". Dhaka Tribune. Archived from the original on 6 February 2017. Retrieved 6 February 2017.
Mention in article about another subject, no SIGCOV :: 4. ^ ""Keno Megh Ashe" on ntv". The Daily Star. Retrieved 6 February 2017.
Mention in article about another subject, no SIGCOV :: 5. ^ "Prosun's Ochena Hridoy". The Daily Star. 23 May 2015. Retrieved 6 February 2017.
Mention in article about another subject, no SIGCOV :: 6. ^ "Shuvo begins filming Dhattiriki". The Daily Star. 9 January 2017. Retrieved 6 February 2017.
Mention in article about another subject, no SIGCOV :: 7. ^ "Oshomapto Script on Maasranga". The Daily Star. 11 February 2016. Retrieved 6 February 2017.
Mention in article about another subject, no SIGCOV :: 8. ^ "TV Industry celebrates Rabindra Jayanti". The Daily Star. 14 May 2016. Retrieved 6 February 2017.
Mention in article about another subject, no SIGCOV :: 9. ^ "Musafir: An action-packed affair". The Daily Star. 4 May 2016. Retrieved 6 February 2017.
Mention in article about another subject, no SIGCOV :: 10. ^ "Tele-film "Neelpori Neelanjona" on ntv". The Daily Star. 6 January 2017. Retrieved 6 February 2017.
1E source :: 11. ^ "Prosun Azad gets banned for a year". Dhaka Tribune. 31 October 2016. Retrieved 6 February 2017.
1E source :: 12. ^ "The year on Bangladeshi Television". The Daily Star. 28 December 2016. Retrieved 6 February 2017.
1E source :: 13. ^ "Prosun Azad banned for one year". Prothom Alo. Archived from the original on 7 February 2017. Retrieved 6 February 2017.
Mention in article about another subject, no SIGCOV :: 14. ^ "Emon-Prosun-Sumon in Ochena Hridoy". Dhaka Tribune. 15 March 2014.

BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.

BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 05:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACTRESS. The sources regarding the banning largely consist of interviews which lack independence from the subject, and/or are from media known for being paid news which are inherently unreliable. The reviews of her roles as an actress only mention her among a list of actors, or in passing and are entirely superficial. In short, this is a non-notable person.4meter4 (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2023 (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. $Salvio giuliano$ 22:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wrecked (British TV series)[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable, nothing found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2016.

Previous PROD in 2020 was removed with rationale "Aired on MTV (British and Irish TV channel) (national network) likely meets WP:NTV. WP:V is not a valid WP:DEL-REASON." But, nothing to address that likelihood has been added in the 3 years since." DonaldD23 talk to me 22:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, United Kingdom, and England. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - WP:NTV is an essay not a guideline. It has no relevance. And imo the notability guidelines for TV shows are far too lax with routine coverage being used to justify articles with no real value. But even that essay that states "a national television program might not be notable if it was cancelled too quickly to have garnered any media coverage or airs on a minor secondary cable channel". I'd say it qualifies for both of those, seemingly lasting 8 episodes only and MTV UK being a minor pay tv network rather than a free to air national channel. Page has no citations or references, any discussion is going to be Routine Coverage. It's had 7 years tagged for improvement. It's not going to happen. Delete. Macktheknifeau (talk) 10:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Due to multiple issues mentioned on the Main Page. Charsaddian (talk) 05:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No references in article and I'm struggling with a before to show WP:GNG. A Redirect to Dirty_Sanchez_(TV_series)#MTV Wrecked (2007) could be the way forward here - though there's no citation on the target article either. ResonantDis_tortion 10:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject to possible future re-creation, Right now, there are zero sources. This TV show only last one short season. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zoya Tsopei[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Created again for the umpteenth time. All of the sources are extremely promotional and clearly not independent of the subject. Does not pass WP:NACTOR or WP:NMUSICIAN. Pop Queen of Latvia is not enough for WP:ANYBIO, if it is even a real award at all. I would ask everyone to read the previous AfD before commenting here if they can; there was clear consensus that there is a real push for Tsopei to have an article here, hence why all of these promotional articles keep getting posted across all of these different sites. A lot of the articles duplicate each other too; BCI 24 News is basically the same as Fun Views Online (Wordpress blog). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Fashion, Greece, Latvia, and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - see also Draft:Zoya Tsopei and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Žoya Tsopei. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G4 and salt. Mccapra (talk) 23:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete + salt per nom. (Unless WP:Library proves otherwise.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 23:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with this assessment by the nominator. 66.207.184.34 (talk) 06:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete + salt. This person is not notable and will likely never be notable on English wikipedia. The continual recreation of this article suggests an astroturfed effort, which should be countered with SALT. Macktheknifeau (talk) 10:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt - Everyone in all previous deletion discussions is correct and this is clearly part of a concerted promotional campaign. Pre-emptively salt all imaginable variations of her name and do whatever is necessary to prevent more puppets from popping up. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree that we need to WP:SALT here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete + Salt - This is clearly an advertisement, and whoever is remaking this is clearly doing so from a promotional angle. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 07:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , Promotional, as explained above. Alex-h (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on clear consensus and stop it permanently. This is poorly written, and has zero reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2023 (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. $Salvio giuliano$ 22:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stories in the Room: Michael Jackson's Thriller Album Podcast[edit]

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

WP:NOPAGE, does not meet notability criteria for a Wikipedia article. This podcast has had only passing coverage in reliable secondary sources (stuff like "Check out this clip from this podcast"). Almost everything cited as a source currently is unreliable (such as IMDB or fan pages) or a primary source (the podcast itself). It also misrepresents the sources it cites — eg, it claims the podcast has had positive reviews, then cites a MusicRadar article that merely mentions that the podcast exists without offering any critical appraisal. Popcornfud (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG. Sources/BEFORE showed nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 01:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article appears to be an attempted promotion for a new podcast series that just got started. Unfortunately the series has not been noticed by any reliable media, at least not yet. Many of the sources in the article are actually about the Thriller album, and not this podcast that merely talks about the album. For now it is WP:TOOSOON, at least. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:27, 11 April 2023 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

World Uranium Hearing[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, a web search shows no mentions other than at advocacy organizations, no news stories about this that I could find. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 21:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, and Austria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of citations for the hearing's proceedings these https://www.google.com/books/edition/Nuclear_Non_Proliferation_in_Internation/XfosBAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22World+Uranium+Hearing%22+-wikipedia&pg=PA204&printsec=frontcover https://books.google.com/books?id=rL34DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA290&dq=%22World+Uranium+Hearing%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwio-pnh2JH-AhWHk4kEHZmQCGMQ6AF6BAgIEAI

Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The news is not the place to look for reliable secondary sources. I have cited a couple of academic books in the article, and there are plenty of papers available that give coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources added to the article by @Phil Bridger:. I think these show notability, hopefully someone will add a couple of the papers mentioned above to the article to remove any lingering doubt. // Timothy :: talk 09:57, 11 April 2023 (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 headcount was 7–4 in favour of keeping and with the debate largely consisting of assertions for and against coverage being routine, there isn't anything else to go on. – Joe (talk) 07:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Dewitte[edit]

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

This is one of those "point-and-laugh" small-time criminal articles that represent the very worst of what's possible on Wikipedia, serving only to attract BLP violations while presenting no encyclopedic benefit. On some occasions, we are forced to maintain such articles because they pass GNG, but that is not the case here. All of the coverage is routine local news articles, each consisting of "Man gets arrested/convicted" and then a summary of past routine coverage, with the sole exception of [1], which is mostly an interview and not stated in the source's own voice.

Every city in America has a number of career criminals who gain some modicum of local interest such that they're written up whenever they're arrested. This is particularly true in Florida where, famously, the media are notified of all arrests upon booking. That kind of routine local coverage is not what "significant coverage" refers to; it's the very reason we put "significant" there. An encyclopedia has better things to do than regurgitate tabloids and crime blotters. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Florida. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I initially agreed with your assessment when I looked at this months ago, but there is more than local coverage. In addition to what you mentioned above, there is national coverage. Not to mention he was featured on Dr. Phil.--CNMall41 (talk) 06:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as article creator) I don't understand/agree with the "point and laugh" comment. He's a registered sex offender, who has made English and Spanish language news many times, over many years. I think this provides encyclopaedic value, based on the hundreds of visitors who read the page daily. I think he passes WP:GNG. Obviously he's not likeable, but I think he is notable. I don't think any policies or guidelines, including WP:GNG discount local coverage, so I don't understand that part of the rationale either. I also note the national coverage above. A lot of the currently cited coverage is from WFTV which is media establishment with a 65 year history, I am not very familiar with it, but my assessment was that it was a reliable source. I urge people to search for him before !voting, because from my perspective, he seems not just notable, but very notable. CT55555(talk) 06:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with local coverage isn't that it's local; it's that it often tends to very routine stories that don't really indicate the significance of the topic at hand. For instance, any school superintendent will receive a considerable amount of local news coverage, but they usually won't be notable, because that coverage will all be routine, without any in-depth discussion of the superintendent themself. Is there in-depth discussion of Dewitte? Are there sources that say more than "Local man arrested again"? Even the two national sources (both from marginally reliable sources for BLPs, for what it's worth) don't say much more than that. What matters is depth, not volume. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent news on him is this. It's 628 words, all about him. That seems like significant coverage to me. Just to give one example. CT55555(talk) 06:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with User:CT55555 this is WP:GNG. Barely, but the repeat offences have garnered national coverage, and he's been on national media. I added a Daily Beast article to the page to bolster this. This is no superintendent getting periodic press mentions - he's notable for his repeated crimes and has gotten substantive coverage.Oblivy (talk) 06:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its states on the article "Posted by Osceola County Sheriff's Office". It is an affiliate news and is not indepedent coverage. It is generic and base. scope_creep^Talk 06:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misreading this - there is an embedded video and picture which were posted by the Sheriff's office. The article has a byline, "Matt Young" whose name appears on other articles on the site. Oblivy (talk) 07:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:SIGCOV - while there is national coverage, it's not significant. UtherSRG (talk) 12:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage is defined as something that "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material" - Can you tell me how the Fox News article or being the main focus of a nationally broadcast talk show would not be considered "significant" under that criteria? --CNMall41 (talk) 22:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not UtherSRG, but: Dr. Phil is not a reliable source (very very far from it), so it doesn't matter whether that coverage is significant. The Fox piece is routine coverage of an arrest. There's not nearly enough there to build a proper biography out of. When you write a BLP based only on arrest/conviction reports, you get something that is not fair under either WP:N nor WP:BLP. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Jeremy Dewitte is one of the worlds most famous police impersonators. Simple google search yields thousands of Dewitte focused webpages worldwide. He's been featured on multiple national programs including Fox, Dr. Phil, A&E Court Cam. There is a Facebook Group named "JEREMY DEWITTE / METRO STATE FAN CLUB" with 5,000 members and daily in-depth discussion. The story of Jeremy Dewitte is not a simple here today gone tomorrow character. While I can see how this may seem insignificant or local, it is my opinion that there is informational value to keeping with a significant international audience. 70.94.118.14 (talk) 00:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of those are reliable sources. There are YouTubers and other influencers with followings in the tens of millions whom we've ruled non-notable. All you're demonstrating is that the article is, as I said, of the "point-and-laugh" variety. We are here to document encyclopedically relevant information, not herd lolcows. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editor is a WP:SPA who has made few other edits to Wikipedia.

Delete Effectively a routine police report rebadged and represented as supposedely a significant and notable individual when there is not a single thing on the article that makes him notable. Registered sex offenders are 10 a penny and its not the job of WP to hold public notice on these folk. Generic and useless. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 06:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While the article definitely needs rewriting, a simple Google search found enough notable independent coverage regarding him on a national, state, and regional scale. NAADAAN (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on looking at the news for this person, I was surprised to see a little Wikipedia box in the google results. further surprise and dismay to see an actual article for a trivial and non-notable individual. This is a minor internet viral sensation with a smattering of coverage in local news, social media, and some news-of-the-weird coverage in real media. this qualifies IMO as a [WP:BIO1E]], a person only known for one thing, i.e. impersonating law enforcement. ValarianB (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One event does not mean one theme of events. He has done it many times over many years, so many events, surely? CT55555(talk) 16:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

no, we don't tally up each criminal act, the man has "gone viral" for his overall string of impersonations. that is singular in terms of notability, otherwise we'd have every two-bit Instagram influencer here with an article. ValarianB (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am tallying up the events that made the news to a total of more than one. If a "two-bit Instagram influencer" made local and national news various times, for various acts, on various years, I would probably also argue that they are notable for more than one event. If someone says "one event" it is logical that I will tally up the acts, or events.

Or let me put it a different way: when the did "one event" happen? Which year? CT55555(talk) 17:23, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not every two-bit Instagram influencer gets featured on a national talk show or in national press based on their continuous conduct. I understand the sentiment that this guy shouldn't be notable for being a low-level criminal. However, it is his repeated conduct over the decades as a reason why the media found him worthy of notice, hence notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources above. Meets GNG and BIO, IS RS with SIGCOV addresses the subject directly and indepth and the coverage is LASTING and far from ROUTINE. // Timothy :: talk 10:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm glad to find that I am finally in the majority here, which has not always been the consensus. I see nothing wrong with naming, blaming, and shaming notable living persons . Bearian (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2023 (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 per WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. – Joe (talk) 07:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arche-writing[edit]

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

WP:ESSAY, No sources cited. AtlasDuane (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Philosophy. AtlasDuane (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while it's unclear if this would be best as a standalone article or a part of a more general article on Derrida's philosophy, that's no justification for deletion. Other than the lack of citations, the material scans fine as potentially verifiable, appears to be encyclopedic content. - car chasm (talk) 04:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article needs sourcing work, but Google Scholar shows extensive references to this term (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Arche-writing%22), and many of them are specifically about the term, not about the creator. Jo7hs2 (talk) 03:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As noted above, the article needs sourcing but sufficient sources clearly exist for this philosophical concept to pass GNG. WJ94 (talk) 10:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or at least Draftify, as the article is a complete failure of WP:NOR. The "extensive" sources above don't seem to discuss the topic in-depth. The first ten I checked just name-drop the idea briefly without giving any actual discussion of it. Perhaps there's more out there, but until then, WP:TNT. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a source that largely seems to cover what's stated in the article, I don't think there's actually any original research here, just statements about what Derrida said. - car chasm (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this article should get a little bit more discussion and plans for how to improve it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist per Liz…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: The search term you want to use here is the original French, archi-écriture. A great deal of in-depth "actual discussion" of the concept, and these are just the English-language sources. AFD is not cleanup. Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Youth in Asia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is an obvious joke, a pun on "euthanasia" Mbarbier (talk) 01:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate this page should be a disambiguation page (for the two bands at the top of the page, plus Euthanasia). If somebody were to write a credible article similar to Youth in Africa, we could consider moving this to Youth in Asia (disambiguation) then. Walt Yoder (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a band with this name, I'm surprised they aren't listed under this page title. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Walt Yoder but I don't think disambiguate is a possible response here.Oblivy (talk) 06:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Social science and Asia. Skynxnex (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination is not serious or a clear fail of WP:BEFORE: [2]. This is a notable topic. Parent to Youth in Cambodia and sister to Youth in Africa, for example. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I want it on the record that I resent the allegation that this nomination was not serious. Mbarbier (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is pretty clearly just a pun with not even a stub's worth of information. A respectable article could theoretically be created, but would need to be significantly expanded and sourced. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 10:08, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, It is an ambiguation, Asia consists of different people and different youths. Alex-h (talk) 11:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, rv Move of band article and restore to this title: I don't think this was intended to be a pun. But the subject "Youth" in Asia is far too ambiguous and broad for an article subject; Japan, Russia, Mongolia, Vietnam and Uzbekistan’s only connection is physical geography and no RS with SIGCOV cover it as a single topic. Any common information wouldn't be defined by being in Asia, but would be shared by youth inside and outside Asia. Population stats are not enough for a stand alone article. I agree with above, don't think disambiguate is a good option. // Timothy :: talk 10:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the current article is both a bad pun and likely to be confusing to our core readers, who are probably looking for the band rather than this synthesis. Bearian (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2023 (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. – Joe (talk) 07:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suite über 6 schweizerische Volkslieder[edit]

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

I can’t find any in-depth coverage in RIS for this work in either English or German. Mccapra (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Switzerland. Mccapra (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I assume you mean RISM. Well, AFAICS they list two works by Liebermann, so their coverage is patchy. Liebermann is clearly not one of the pillars of 20th-century music, and this is a minor work, but it has been published by Universal Edition, and been performed in Europe and the US. It's mentioned in the reference book Daniels' Orchestral Music, in Grove, and in Swiss musical journals. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should have a article about this work. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant “reliable independent sources’. We need in-depth coverage of the work to sustain a stand-alone article. Without this it should simply be in a list of compositions in the composer’s bio. Mccapra (talk) 06:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The publication by Universal is a reliable independent, secondary source (the primary source is the unedited raw manuscript, score publications are edited by an independent score editor, they are not the writing of the composer himself.) There are also two known recordings, which are also to be considered reliable, independent secondary sources.

Although the information in the article is minimal, it still provides far more information than a simple list on the composers page. As an alternative, this work could be expanded on on the composer page, but I think listing the different folksongs Liebermann incorporated in this work is already too much information for this.

Moreover, being recorded by a very notable orchestra & conductor and the recording being published by Deutsche Grammophon, makes a work notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia.

It may be a short article (at this moment), but it already does contain more information than a simple listing can provide.

Additionally, I contacted RISM for inclusion of this composition. This way we help people find information more easily, instead of having to do the same research as I needed to do to find the info I needed about this work. Aszazin (talk) 12:22, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michael. Published work by notable composer, with several recordings. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I’m afraid “it was published” and “it has been recorded” don’t make it notable. I looked for any reviews or discussion of this work but found nothing. Mccapra (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a disconnect between our notability standards and classical music scholarship standards that I'm honestly surprised hasn't created a massive row before a la sports biographies. The views expressed by keep !voters above are consistent with scholarly views in classical music scholarship and performance; works often are considered significant purely due to the existence of arrangements and performances, even in the absence of additional materials. While we could squint and consider such materials "secondary sources" in a way, they nevertheless bring us no closer to having prose material with which we could draft an article, which is what GNG tries to establish. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Classical music and jazz have a hard time on Wikipedia because they don’t have the same publicity-crazed culture as popular music, so I’m always inclined to allow them extra leeway. But in this instance there is quite literally nothing I can find to support notability. Mccapra (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in WP:NOT that overrides WP:5P1 (encyclopedia) for this article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"It has been recorded" might not be enough to make it notable, but being recorded by a prominent orchestra (RIAS Berlin) conducted by a prominent conductor (Ferenc Fricsay) and released by a prominent classical label (Deutsche Grammophon), do make it notable. Moreover, within a month, it needed a repress because it was sold out, as can be seen in the referenced link to the recording.

Same with "it has been published" might not make it notable, but being published by a very prominent publisher of classical music do make it notable.

This is not to be compared with a recording by some local orchestra or ensemble, released in a small edition for a limited audience. Or a self-published score by a beginning composer trying to promote him/herself. (To give examples of scenarios where a recording or score publication do not make the work notable on its own.)

Additionally, one of the two recordings contain liner notes by Katrin Dubach about the composition, but these are only accessible for those owning the CD. We don't have access to any review, but it does exist.

Actually: a composition selected by Deutsche Grammophon & Ferenc Fricsay for recording simply can't be called "not notable". The work and amount of people required to make such a recording is just too much to ignore.

GNG does nowhere rule out prominent recordings as valid source to show something is notable, and that's a good thing.

The work is also included in „1000 Jahre Musikgeschichte In Klingenden Beispielen · Allgemeine Europäische Musikgeschichte Von 1917 Bis Zur Gegenwart” (see https://www.discogs.com/release/8456868 ) An audio document published by ETERNA (East German state label) documenting milestones in European music history from 1917 until publication of the recording in 1983.

The Deutsche Grammophon recording by Fricsay was also included in a compilation of his recorded orchestral works in 2016 (see https://www.discogs.com/release/9636940 ). And it was also issued again in a 2003 compilation bringing together the most notable old 7" issues by Deutsche Grammophon (see https://www.discogs.com/master/1009653 ), where the 2nd disc started with the 2 Liebermann compositions featured on the original 7".

There is no doubt that this composition is regarded as notable by one of the oldest record labels in existence. Who are we to question them? Aszazin (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional resources to show notability:

-swissinfo.ch (a site dedicated to people from outside Switzerland interested in Swiss culture and a branch of Swiss Broadcasting Corporation SRG SSR) included the 6 Swiss Folk Songs from the suite on their site: see https://www.swissinfo.ch/service/search/eng/45808844?query=rolf+liebermann

-They also have a review of the composition online (when searching for this composition, don't forget to include the English title "Suite on Six Folk Swiss Songs", see: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/multimedia/swiss-ethnophony---folk-meets-classic/31819768 Aszazin (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added some information from the mentioned resources to the article. (I'm very inexperienced, any suggestions for improvement are always welcome, I'm still reading through the guidelines.)

I notice that currently there aren't any criteria set specific for musical compositions. I made a remark with some propositions: WT:MUSIC Aszazin (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2023 (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. – Joe (talk) 07:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah H. Quazzo[edit]

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

No significant coverage. There are some mentions and interviews but nothing significant to meet WP:ANYBIO. CNMall41 (talk) 02:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CNMall41 (talk) 02:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I am seeing some in-depth coverage, or at least multiple references that can be combined to demonstrate notability, although not for her business career.

https://marketbrief.edweek.org/marketplace-k-12/chicago_school_board_member_faces_scrutiny_over_ed_investments/

https://marketbrief.edweek.org/marketplace-k-12/chicago_board_member_deborah_quazzo_to_step_down_at_end_of_term/

https://inthesetimes.com/article/how-to-sell-off-a-city

I am unable to access it for some reason, but there’s also apparently a Chicago Sun Times on that financial controversy.

Combined with the business career (which has even resulted in the occasional cite of publications she’s listed as an author on, per Google Scholar), I think the coverage of that controversy is probably enough to just squeak her over the edge. Jo7hs2 (talk) 03:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep in line with what Jo7hs2 to say.Historyday01 (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see two articles in an industry publication and another in a Chicago publication. Can you help me understand how this would be seen as significant coverage? Maybe I am not looking at this correctly but if we use these three references as a model, I could pretty much create a Wikipedia page on most educators. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Market Brief is not a reliable source (it's an industry publication with no editorial oversight). Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. And with a high citation count of 4, clearly doesn't not meet WP:NSCHOLAR.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 20:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage is all press-releases. No coverage of this individual we can use. What's given above isn't much either. Oaktree b (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Nothing in article or BEFORE showed IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth

Source eval:

Bloomberg database bio page :: 1. "Deborah H. Quazzo: Executive Profile & Biography - Bloomberg". www.bloomberg.com. Retrieved 2019-05-09.
ROUTINE :: 2. ^ Jump up to:a b Editor, Sean Cavanagh Senior (2015-06-02). "Chicago Board Member Deborah Quazzo to Step Down at End of Term". Market Brief. Retrieved 2019-05-10. {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help): |last= has generic name (help)
Mention, not SIGCOV :: 3. ^ "BrightCHAMPS establishes Global Curriculum Advisory Board". Financialexpress. Retrieved 2023-01-06.
Our Team page, not IS RS :: 4. ^ "Our Team". GSV Ventures. Retrieved 2023-01-25.
Mention, not SIGCOV :: 5. ^ Desk, Outlook Start-Up (2022-08-26). "BrightCHAMPS acquires English-learning platform Schola". startup.outlookindia.com/. Retrieved 2023-02-08.

The above mentioned sources are two from Marketwatch (not IS RS with SIGCOV), and a mention in an article about Rahm Emanuel.

WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Cerna[edit]

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

Warning: the article contains a graphic video. Please see WP:BIO1E. This article focusses entirely on Mr Cerna's death; he is not otherwise notable. WP:NEVENT requires in-depth, sustained coverage of an event to demonstrate its lasting significance. The sources currently cited are:

1 (Los Angeles Times): Local news reporting from around the time of the incident.
2 (Deseret News) and 5 (St. Petersburg Times): Brief syndicated news items.
3 (San Bernardino Sun) A mostly unrelated article with a short paragraph of background information about the police officer wounded by Cerna.
4 (Alex O'Meara) A work of fiction.

A contributor to the previous AfD suggested a few other sources: the KESQ one is another contemporaneous local news report and the Press-Enterprise ones are permanent deadlinks. I looked for additional sources and found a brief mention (2 sentences) in the book Dying in Full Detail: Mortality and Digital Documentary.[3] gnu 57 01:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Guatemala and California. gnu 57 01:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while it’s the sort of thing I’d have initially suspected notability, I ultimately must concur with the above review of existing sources. I did my own search and did not uncover anything that would suggest in-depth, sustained coverage or subsequent coverage of the event, and the event is his only hint at notability. The only subsequent coverage I see is on websites that cater to folks wishing to see somebody get shot, certainly no reliable sourcing. He and event fail both Wikipedia:BIO1E and Wikipedia:Notability (events). Jo7hs2 (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Events. gnu 57 12:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, highly unusual and well covered event. Clearly passes WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 20:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable, man takes his own life while in police custody. I don't find any discussions of the event, beyond explanation of what happened. Oaktree b (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. BIO1E, fails LASTING, EVENT, NOTNEWS. // Timothy :: talk 02:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No ay notable beyond a WP:BLP1E situation. Sad to say, but Suicide by cop could be a redirect for this one. If this stub were kept, it would have to be moved to Death of .... Bearian (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Walker[edit]

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

An IP editor has twice tried to get this article deleted via PROD. Looking into this myself, I was unable to find any decent coverage in newspapers for Dean Walker, despite the fact that he played a game in the 4th tier of English football. I also searched his name in conjunction with 'Burnley' and 'Scunthorpe' and found nothing other than one trivial mention in the Newcastle Evening Chronicle - this can be found as the second result in this search. No evidence of passing WP:SPORTBASIC from that alone. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What a travesty it is that we have ever allowed articles like this. Completely non-notable. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He has made only 1 appearance. Not notable. Charsaddian (talk) 04:43, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article comprehensively fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. ResonantDis_tortion 11:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Fazel Bratyan[edit]

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

His cap for Afghanistan would be enough for a PROD to be removed but not enough for actual notability. We know almost nothing about this person other than their name and the fact that they have one cap. Searches of "Mohammad Fazel Bratyan" and "محمدفاضل براتیان" did not yield anything that would pass WP:SPORTBASIC standards. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Afghanistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. A single appearance in a soccer game is not enough to pass WP:GNG. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No information is provided in this very short article. Not notable. Charsaddian (talk) 04:46, 5 April 2023 (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. $Salvio giuliano$ 22:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola Harding[edit]

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

Played in the semi-pro era, when coverage was, unfortunately, not what it is today. I can't see any evidence of passing WP:SPORTBASIC in newspaper searches or internet searches. She is mentioned as a goalscorer in These Football Times, has a trivial mention in Liverpool Echo and another in the same newspaper. The four sources already in the article are also inadequate for establishing notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:03, 4 April 2023 (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. $Salvio giuliano$ 22:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Sheen[edit]

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

Can't find any decent coverage in a WP:BEFORE search. The references in the article appear to be the best available. Two of the Liverpool Echo sources are obviously trivial mentions and Blackburn Rovers is not an independent source per WP:SPORTBASIC (team sites are generally not regarded as independent of the subject), being a website for her former employer. Lastly, Danielle clinches it and Sparkling Sheen both fail WP:YOUNGATH per the guidance on local coverage in clause 2; The second clause excludes the majority of local coverage in both news sources and sports specific publications. It especially excludes using game play summaries, statistical results, or routine interviews as sources to establish notability. A match summary for a local under-16 fixture clearly violates the criteria, so cannot be used to support notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola Twohig[edit]

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

No significant coverage found when searching "Nicola Twohig", "Nikki Twohig" or "Nicky Twohig". "Nicky Twohig" gets the best results but all, without exceptions, are just trivial mentions. WP:SPORTBASIC requires significant in-depth coverage from multiple independent WP:RS. Source analysis to follow. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Ireland, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.rovers.co.uk/page/LadiesProfiles/0,,10303~1155237,00.html	Her employer	? Cannot be retrieved but clearly would not have been SIGCOV	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20071114163853/http://www.clitheroeadvertiser.co.uk/rovers/Lakeland-runs-rule-over-new.3412764.jp		One brief quote	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20100902062742/http://www.rovers.co.uk/page/LadiesNews/0,,10303~2132840,00.html	Her employer	Basic match report coverage	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20120916231018/http://www.rovers.co.uk/page/LadiesNews/0,,10303~2283369,00.html	Her employer	? Not retrievable but seems unlikely to have been SIGCOV. The title implies that it's a match report.	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20090115102420/http://www.munsterspride.com/defaultarticle.php?cArticlePath=150_166		Two trivial mentions in the texts and mentioned in the squad list	✘ No
https://www.proquest.com/docview/426807095/1526176A2E4E41A2PQ/1?accountid=196403		Trivial mention	✘ No
https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/1969505.blackburn-rovers-ladies-3-doncaster-belles-2/		Mentioned once	✘ No
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/19079006		Mentioned once	✘ No
https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/11823325.blackburn-rovers-ladies-lancashire-fa-womens-challenge-trophy-final/		Mentioned once	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:SPORTBASIC. Spleodrach (talk) 10:37, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of fastest-selling products[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This list is a coatrack for WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Unlike the family of "highest-grossing" lists, where the superlative is a concrete measure, speed is by definition a relative measure. There is no such thing as an objective speed. This definition is cruelly tortured in this list, which includes sales "speeds" at a variety of unconstrained time points/time intervals and compares them across a variety of unconstrained sales domains (e.g. comparing sales of an album across markets in countries with wildly different populations). There is no assurance that any of the items in this list are actually the fastest-selling anything, since purported record holders are listed alongside (purported) previous record holders with alternate time scales, and there is no reliable third party tracking authority to confirm that an unlisted entry is the true record holder.

The video games section is its own SYNTH horrorshow. It does the classic OR trick of multiplying sales with MSRP to arrive at "gross revenue" and then further subdivides speed by a dozen different time scales into a nightmare table that is legitimately impossible to glean any meaning out of.

Some of the domain specific lists (e.g. Lists of fastest-selling albums) have more concrete and well-defined criteria. This one does not. If there's the heart of a wikipedia-acceptable list in here, I'm not seeing it. This is a WP:TNT situation at the very least (and replace with domain-specific lists) and I don't see a domain-general version of this list ever being appropriate. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Post-nom addition: Ah, it appears that this list has been nominated twice before, but those AFDs were not linked on the talk page. The 2nd nom was a procedural close because it was nominated just hours after the first nom's close. The 1st nom was more substantive, ending in "no consensus", but highlighting many of the same problems that this list still suffers from, 10 years later, namely untenable and potentially limitless inclusion criteria and disordered apples-to-oranges comparisons which are inherent to the nature of this list. The previous result was no consensus, but by a hair, as noted in the closer's comment. I think 10 years of accumulating coatracking have not improved any of these core deficiencies. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Film, Music, Video games, Products, and Lists. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination. As the template at the top of the article suggests this list is the work of Maestro2016 who was known for misusing sources. I actually thought about cleanup this page in the future but after looking at the page further this is too much of a headache even for me. Timur9008 (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Split Lists of fastest-selling albums makes sense since it shows the albums that sold the most copies their first week of release. List of fastest-grossing films has specific criteria as well. This article has a lot of things that shouldn't be there. In the vehicle section, the first entry makes sense. Bestselling car of all times by pre-order or first week, that'd be something to list. The other three entries there don't show the actual sales figures or time period counted. The video game section could be its own article just like the one for albums is. List of video games that sold the most preorders. A game selling 30,000,000 copies from preorders is quite impressive. Listing which video games sold the most copies their first week would make sense also. List_of_fastest-selling_products#Home_media has information that should go somewhere. If not enough things to make their own article yet, this would be the place to have it. Just need to eliminate all the bad entries in the article. Dream Focus 19:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problem with narrowly defined sublists on this topic in fields where data is plentiful and verifiable. The music industry is perhaps one of them since it publishes detailed sales data. The video game industry is absolutely not, since sales data is often deliberately obfuscated, misrepresented, and selectively distributed, preferentially shared when it's positive. Pre-order data is very rarely shared. It's hard enough sorting through the sales data for the best-selling games list. I think trying to maintain a verifiable list on "fastest selling" games, which is just an ever so slightly different take on best-selling games (they're both about essentially the same topic), is not a good use of time and energy. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 19:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Worth noting most of this article was by Jagged 85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) / Maestro2016 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), so even if it was to stay, it'd require a full WP:TNT. JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 20:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. WP:INDISCRIMINATE, very hard to verify this information. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per excellent nominating rational from nom and TheJoebro64. Don't have anything to add to what they've said here. Nomader (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:SYNTH. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice to forking into other articles if they are well-sourced. "Products" is just too unwieldy. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clear-cut trivia. Azuredivay (talk) 06:49, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then Burn whatever remains. WP:INDISCRIMINATE. A coatrack for WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. RS do not define what "fastest selling" means, and "products" could only be more INDISCRIMINATE if it was changed from "products" to "things". Without meaningfully defined criteria, it is impossible to tell if this meets LISTN. // Timothy :: talk 11:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am afraid to !vote that way, because so much work appears have been done, but it's still a mess. Bearian (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2023 (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 mooted by the blocking of the article creator and reversion of edits pursuant to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cambridge Guys _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Richard Stringini[edit]

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

Artist only notable for their work in one band, US5, should be redirected back to US5 per WP:MUSICBIO. While Stringini has launched a solo career, significant coverage in secondary sources of his efforts outside US5 are lacking. I was unable to find any additional coverage in a web search. Bringing to AfD rather than performing a WP:BLAR as BLARs by other editors have been challenged, but the underlying notability issues remain unaddressed. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Germany, and Illinois. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to US5 permanently and protect against reversion. The nominator is correct about the singer's lack of independent notability outside the band. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:54, 5 April 2023 (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doon Public School[edit]

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

Utterly fails WP:GNG. Unreferenced since 2016. I tried looking in all major Indian reliable sources, newspapers, magazines, journals and found nothing. Only links found were for the iconic The Doon School, which this page and many other 'Doon' pages (like Doon International School) ride on. This is not a notable school by any measure. BiblioFreedom (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Delhi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I conducted a search for references on the web and was unable to find any reliable sources to support the notability of the school. Additionally, the article appears to be written like an advertisement, lacking any references to back up its claims. Macrobreed2 (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2023 (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trevon Lane[edit]

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

A minor figure in Tupac Shakur's entourage, Lane's name gets precisely 59 Google search results and none of them are significant coverage and none of them in RS. Sourcing in the article reflects this - a minor gang member with no notability in his own right. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, Crime, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP Fails GNG and BIO. Sources in the article do not show N. BEFORE didn't show anything that is IS RS with SIGCOV showing N. N is NOTINHERITED.

BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 18:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 13:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most articles are passing mentions. Kakara69 (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2023 (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. Canley (talk) 12:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ògbójú Ọdẹ nínú Igbó Irúnmọlẹ̀[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 14:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Nigeria. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 14:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Can the nominator explain in more detail how this classic novel fails GNG? It was translated into English by Wole Soyinka! That alone probably satisfies WP:NBOOK#3. Anyway, here are three reliable sources to demonstrate notability: Journal of the African Literature Association (2014), "The Self and the Other in Fagunwa's Forest of a Thousand Daemons" (2017), and International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature (2012). pburka (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe them sources should be incorporated into the article (at the very least into external links) because when I did a google search I couldn't find anything that showed evidence of WP:SIGCOV. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 00:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of the first novels ever published in the Yorùbá language and was hugely influential because of that. It has never gone of out print. The lack of sources on Google speaks to how little international interest and investment there can be in literature written in indigenous African languages - even classics like this. You'll probably find more sources if you google the title of Soyinka's translation but it's more accurate to keep the wikipedia page name as the original Yorùbá title. Also if you look at the wiki page for the author Fágúnwà, you'll get a sense of his importance. Clarenicheall (talk) 11:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's also helpful to search for the title without diacritics. Please be diligent about your research before nominating articles for deletion in subject areas with which you're unfamiliar. Our goal should be to improve the encyclopedia. pburka (talk) 03:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by Pburka. Mccapra (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For the nom, a tip: if a book has been translated, that alone suggests it's likely to be notable and that you may want to look deeper than a google search if nothing comes up for you. Even if it isn't translated by someone who won the Nobel Prize for literature. -- asilvering (talk) 02:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - just in case there is any questions. First books published in a major language almost by definition notable. Apart from the Nobel prize Elinruby (talk) 03:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 United Microelectronics Corporation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

United Semiconductor Japan[edit]

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

Created by what looks to me to be a clear-cut SPA, this is an article dedicated to a silicon wafer fabrication plant. It clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. At best redirect to parent company UMC, but arguably also delete this COI/UPE. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Japan. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to create an English version by add language of United Semiconducto Japan on the Japanese version of Wikipedia, but I couldn't.

So, I created an English version of United Semiconductor Japan in Sandbox and moved it to Wikipedia.

Currently, it seems that a language link has been made from the Japanese version to the English version.

(United Semiconducto Japan on the Japanese version of Wikipedia) https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%A6%E3%83%8A%E3%82%A4%E3%83%86%E3%83%83%E3%83%89%E3%83%BB%E3%82%BB%E3%83%9F%E3%82%B3%E3%83%B3%E3%83%80%E3%82%AF%E3%82%BF%E3%83%BC%E3%83%BB%E3%82%B8%E3%83%A3%E3%83%91%E3%83%B3 118.151.184.91 (talk) 08:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect: An article on what began as a joint venture between United Microelectronics Corporation and Fujitsu, fully owned by the former since 2019. No evidence of attained WP:NCORP as this or as Mie Fujitsu Semiconductor Ltd. A redirect to the article on the parent firm is plausible, as the acquisition is referenced (albeit to press releases) in the History section. AllyD (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2023 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Baca[edit]

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

Subject clearly fails WP:GNG, sourcing in article inadequate, WP:BEFORE shows nothing out there. Sent to draft and returned to mainspace, the only loss to Wikipedia in this deletion is saying goodbye to the timeless prose, "Lawrence Baca would get his first camera after he graduated from Harvard and would use that camera to take photos of landscapes all across the United States. One of the pictures he took were in the State of Utah, sites that had huge red figures or sites that had many holes." Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It sounds like this person could be notable if we dig around and find some sources. Also lets try to be mindful that this article was written as part of the Student Program and give this fella some grace. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 09:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Went though and added much better sources, the subject of the article is one of the first Native American civil rights lawyers and appears to be notable. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 10:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: based on new sources I would say it is notable.Pershkoviski (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to meet WP:GNG (with credit to Dr vulpes). -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and my own standards for notable lawyers. Specifically, "trying a notable case ... [and] being recognized as an expert in a specialized area of law." Bearian (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IndiaCo[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:NCORP. All the reliable sources on this article relate to the Mall of India (Naperville), which this company does not own. The owner (Vinoz Chanamolu) of the Mall of India differs from the CEO of this company (Anand Pabari).

This article talks about the Food Court of the Mall of India but the Mall of India itself is a separate company. Sources 6, 8, 20, 21, 22 and 23 are about a separate company that operates the Mall of India (this company is not mentioned). 8 sources are just the company's website. DareshMohan (talk) 07:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, Georgia (U.S. state), Illinois, and Texas. Skynxnex (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on a firm operating a small number of specialist grocery stores. Aside from the references provided, searches find a podcast interview in association with the opening of a store, but neither that nor anything else demonstrates attained notability. AllyD (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2023 (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 Mizo people. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lusei people[edit]

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

Contested redirect - neither of the sources mentions the subject (the second mentions a dialect by this name (as s synonym for the Duhlian dialect), but neither talk about an ethnic group by this name. Normally I would restore the redirect, but that is no longer an option, so to AfD we come. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Ethnic groups, India, and Mizoram. Skynxnex (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mizo people. The Lusei exist, there appears to be some confusion about the British naming the Mizo (Zo) Lusei while the Lusei are a subset of the Mizo in actuality. That notwithstanding, I cannot see an argument for treating them as independently notable and they should form part of the Mizo People article until such time as someone finds academic/anthropological discussion that places them as somehow notably distinct as a tribe rather than as one of a number of tribes who together combine to form the Mizo. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom unless anyone can find adequate sources. Mccapra (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Priya Shah the matchmaker[edit]

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

Company doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP - coverage is largely based on press-releases or interviews. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good Coverage from the sources. there are many other similar articles existing in Wikipedia with less or equal coverage Mokshalini (talk) 11:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For match-makers that pay to have themselves featured in a magazine? I should hope not. Oaktree b (talk) 13:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Forbes India piece says it's not written by Forbes, so it's advertising. The rest are basically as bad... This is promo. Oaktree b (talk) 13:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Sexuality and gender, and India. Skynxnex (talk) 17:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article about a company, moved from draft to mainspace on the 13th edit by the article creator. This article's text is supported by PR coverage plus a news report on a consumer complaint finding against the company. The 2021 BrandMedia item lists various awards to the company founder but none looks notable in itself, and I am not seeing evidence that the company has attained notability. AllyD (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dock Fogleman[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Had a brief baseball career in the low minor leagues and for a county club. Outside of his induction into his high school's hall of fame, the only reliable sources I were able to find were a handful of passing mentions in box scores on newspapers.com. Penale52 (talk) 12:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Baseball. Penale52 (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not finding evidence of notability. Rlendog (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. No significant coverage in Newspapers.com. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2023 (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. Star Mississippi 21:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fadi Nahas[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman, fails to meet WP:NBASIC, no in-depth presence in independent reliable sources, all are unreliable and non-independent, irrelevant and 404 error sources, few brief mention in reliable source due to honorary council general. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Lebanon. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Member of 10 boards all with links for verification and has 5 awards also each documented. 20 references for the article among them economist.com , consulate-info.com, lorientlejour.com, lecommercedulevant.com, washingtonlife.com. This person also ran for parliement in 2022 in Lebanon. Inkinmotion (talk) 10:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks notability, awards are not significant as per WP:ANYBIO, Cited economist pages only provide passing reference to him so fails WP:BASIC which requires "significant coverage in multiple published sources" MetricMaster (talk) 10:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)This user has made 47 edits to Wikipedia. Their contribution history shows that 38 of these were to AFD discussions. The account exists for votestacking and has been blocked.[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 12:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP and WP:POLOUTCOMES. I don't see how he's done anything notable. I don't see any notable awards. Political candidates are not automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2023 (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Education Ecosystem[edit]

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

Non-notable company, sourced with spammy sources. Routine coverage, fails WP:NCORP. US-Verified (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 13:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable. References are non-significant coverage and so fails GNG. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The company is known among coders. I believe we can save the page by improving it. The main issue is that the company is known by multiple names: Education Ecosystem, LiveEdu, Livecoding.tv. There are articles available about it in other languages too. I recently added an article by Wired about it - https://www.wired.com/2015/08/the-strange-appeal-of-watching-coders-code/. Shakycatto (talk) 06:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete Article fails WP:NCORP also referenced UK Company Listing shows 1 employee and total assets of 250K as of Feb 2023 which further supports not WP:NCORP~~ MetricMaster (talk) 10:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)This user has made 47 edits to Wikipedia. Their contribution history shows that 38 of these were to AFD discussions. The account exists for votestacking and has been blocked.[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding search for Livecoding.tv: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. AllyD (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and United Kingdom. AllyD (talk) 12:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Originally a WP:SPA article on a start-up. The article has subsequently been curated as the company has renamed and changed its proposition (coin offering, etc.) and recently shorn of its most obviously PR-based content. For the purposes of this AfD, it may be worth considering earlier versions and their references here [4] (though it does look predominantly announcement-based coverage)? AllyD (talk) 07:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 12:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If the article doesn't *clearly* contain independent content then it fails ORGIND. Here, the references are simply regurgitating company announcements and have no "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. Even the Wired article mentioned above has no "independent content" which is in-depth and about the company, either commenting on users of the website (not the topic of this article) or relying on comments from the founders. I'm unable to locate a single reference that meets our criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:06, 8 April 2023 (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 14:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arushi Nishank[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Declined G4, wrongly in my humble opinion, this non-notable actress has featured in three music videos and two unreleased films. Sourcing is scrappy to say the least, passing mentions, puff pieces (too many about her efforts to 'clean rivers', which is not a claim for notability advanced in the article) and references to her famous father do not get us past WP:GNG. They didn't in 2021 and they don't now. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Dance, and Uttarakhand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete: per nom. SuperSharanya (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CU note SuperSharanya above is a sock of the blocked user. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP Fails GNG and BIO. Sources in the article do not show N. BEFORE didn't show anything that is IS RS with SIGCOV showing N. I started a source eval table, but they were all promo or insubstantial.

BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 11:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Citations are irrelevant for establishing notability here as routine/non-significant coverage or non-coverage of the subject. Fails GNG. Delete. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:21, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 21:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Texephyr[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Zero WP:RS even after searching. Arguably WP:A7 but I believe the article does indicate it's importance? It just doesn't have any references to prove it. Soni (talk) 14:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and India. Soni (talk) 14:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am now aware of the 1st AFD Nomination. Of the sources linked there, 1 is dead, 2 are not WP:RS and this one is reliable (though it might fall under WP:PRSOURCE, I am not sure yet). 1 RS is still not enough, though admittedly I did not find this one on my last set of searches Soni (talk) 14:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Zero indications of notability. Totally fails GNG. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:22, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Literally Zero independent reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 21:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pragyan editions[edit]

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

The base article Pragyan is notable. The list is not (Or rather, the list does not meet WP:LISTPURP sufficiently. Everything in this list could be summarised in the base article, and in fact, already has been done partially. Soni (talk) 14:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Lists, and India. Soni (talk) 14:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. This wall of text is a huge mess. Bearian (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2023 (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. UtherSRG (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clamores[edit]

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

NN music hall with NPOV issues. Author refused to allow AFC process to complete. UtherSRG (talk) 13:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - UtherSRG (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Spain. UtherSRG (talk) 13:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 21:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Worldfest India[edit]

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

One WP:RS and everything else is blogs, press releases, or similar. Arguably meets WP:G11 though that can be fixed if article is kept.

Does not meet WP:GNG at the moment based on my googling for resources. Soni (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Events, and India. Soni (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Currently, there are zero reelable sources on the page. Just to be sure I did a search of books and ephemera, and found a few potential sources, but they look like passing mentions. Ping me if you find a few good sources. Bearian (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2023 (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 12:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bitag characters[edit]

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

Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Rationale: BLAR was contested by Materialscientist. Currently the list fails WP:NLIST, WP:FANCRUFT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which is entirely unsourced for the over 14 years. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These are real people in a consumer advocacy/law enforcement program. They aren't characters! The caught criminals are in a very real prison and aren't taking off their makeup and going back home at the end of the day. What in the bleepity bleep is going on with this article that the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency is described as a 'character' in a real investigative television series?! Nuke this article from orbit, I'm embarassed I even have to vote on this at all to be removed. Nate • (chatter) 16:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also I don't think Materialscientist was contesting the nomination, just reverting the uncommented redirection per BLAR for clarity. Nate • (chatter) 20:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bitag, due to the fact, the rogue galllery of criminals have been mentioned in this program are been fall under WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BIO1E, when in fact the rogue gallery section including Baywalk Triads, Road Eye Towing Services and Maranaw Bus Posse, are real-life criminals and corrupt organizations, which the endtag in the segment says "The suspects have been saw are remained INNOCENT unless they have proven guilty in courts." The factions sections are the PDEA and PNP are law enforcement agencies while the Philippine Coast Guard is an agency attached by Philippine Transportation Department, to monitor maritime in the Philippines. So redirect to the TV program, which is per WP:ATD. 2600:1700:9BF3:220:F5BA:731B:AECA:EC01 (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doesn't matter. They're real people. They're not fictional characters. This is 100% unsourced natter and not only incorrectly named, but if there's a presumption of innocence for anyone arrested on this and they were exonerated, then this information describing them shouldn't be here at all and is an incredible violation of our WP:BLP policies. Nate • (chatter) 18:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete rather than redirect as this is a major case of BLP violations, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This was tagged for speedy deletion. I do not think it is a case where immediate WP:CSD#G10 deletion and overruling this AFD is necessary, so I have reverted the tag. However, I agree the page should be deleted (long time unsourced, possible BLP issues). —Kusma (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:INDISCRIMINATE. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 04:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the non-Filipinos out there: this article is just like an indiscriminate listing of every regular audience member in every Jerry Springer or Maury season. I don't think none of the persons named in this listicle would even be considered notable to the general Filipino public. --- Tito Pao (talk) 07:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's what I kind of got the gist of, that the show calls these 'characters' more than actual people like trash talk shows in the US and South American/Mexican variety shows (where the regular cast exaggerates certain characteristics). Still a really bad description of real people though on the show's part. Nate • (chatter) 15:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete & Salt: As per nom. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Horrible dehumanizing article. These are real people not some Pokemons or Batman villains. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not redirect, major BLP violations. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:58, 8 April 2023 (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 Amritpal Singh. Black Kite (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amritpal Singh manhunt[edit]

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

This is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Amritpal Singh. The person only derives any notability because of this manhunt. Hence, this cannot be counted as a WP:SPINOFF. Note that this article itself has less details than the Crackdown section on Amritpal Singh article. This needs to go. >>> Extorc.talk 09:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTNEWS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Amritpal Singh as the primary subject page already exists. Twinkle1990 (talk) 12:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and India. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Amritpal Singh#Crackdown by authorities, most of the information in this article exists in that section and a separate article is not needed, however it should be redirected as a valid search term. ColinBear (talk - contribs) 12:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While it may appear to be a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of the Amritpal Singh article, it provides valuable information about a specific event that occurred in the subject's life. Deleting the article would be a disservice to readers who are interested in learning about this particular incident. Furthermore, the article contains information that is not present in the Crackdown section of the Amritpal Singh article, which suggests that it is not entirely redundant, and is well-sourced, via reliable news articles.Ainty Painty (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Amritpal Singh derives 99% of his notability because of this crackdown as demonstrated by google trends. Having a page which is smaller than the subsection of such a person's page is redundant. Entirely redundant. >>> Extorc.talk 17:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article easily passes both WP:GNG and WP:NEVENTS as the topic has received a DIVERSE INDEPTH CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Closing admin is requested to keep in mind that this is WP:NOTVOTE and disregard any groundless comments made.
"Manhunt for fugitive Sikh separatist puts India's Punjab on edge". Financial Times. 4 April 2023.
"India Turned a Manhunt Into Mass Repression". Time. 29 March 2023.
"India can't find a Sikh separatist leader, but its manhunt has the world's attention". NBC News. 28 March 2023. - Oriental Aristocrat (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The topic is not notable on its own. It is not exceptional to see media providing coverage to a "manhunt". Capitals00 (talk) 09:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a significant event happening in Indian Punjab in recent times and deserves to have a standalone article. Muneebll (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This a pointless fork of Amritpal_Singh#Crackdown_by_authorities. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Amritpal Singh. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:29, 11 April 2023 (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. Aoidh (talk) 01:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Durham University History Society[edit]

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

A contested prod, and a lot of work was put into the article afterwards, unfortunately, there is still not a single in-depth reference from an independent, reliable, secondary source. And searches did not turn up enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Below is a version of my initial response once I was notified of this issue and thus also my reasoning for the maintenance of this site: I understand your first issue with the lack of secondary sources for the society. I have now added extra sources not affiliated to the History Society, including secondary sources, which together I hope resolve the issue – sources ranging from publications like Past & Present to the Durham University Journal to Harvard University’s Website to The Times and to other individual books and articles. The second issue regarding notability I must say I am more surprised about. The society has a near century-long history in which it has hosted some of the most prestigious historians from across the United Kingdom (those listed on the site being just a few) and represented the history student body of one of the top 3 history departments in the country (a position it has held pretty steadily since records began). Its importance has been recognised by major international firms with sponsors ranging from global accounting titan Ernst & Young (EY) to some of the largest UK-based law firms in the world, such as magic circle member Clifford Chance and others such as Simmons & Simmons, as well as one of the largest publishing houses in the world, Macmillan Publishing. The society’s publication (Critical Historical Studies) has similarly been publicised by some of the most prestigious universities, not least Durham (6th ranked in UK, 3rd for History), including Kings College London and Harvard University (https://history.fas.harvard.edu/call-papers-other-universities). Moreover, its notability is at a comparable, if not greater, degree than the societies listed at the bottom of the page, which all have Wikipedia pages. To demonstrate my point, I will go through them. Trinity Mathematical Society, though established by a notable mathematician, has otherwise only a list of prestigious speakers to vouch for it (and only one reference), a list that Durham University History Society (DUHS from now on) more than matches. Oxford University Democratic Socialist Club has but one reference and no clear evidence for its notability, and yet has only been flagged for the reliability of its sources. University College Players is a college-level club, hardly with a notability comparable to DUHS. Hysteron Proteron Club at Balliol College Oxford is similarly a college-level club with its notability resting on one mention in the house of commons, reflecting the pervasion of Oxbridge graduates in the British house of commons and the ‘Oxbridge boys club’ nature of that institution, particularly 20 years ago (see for example: https://www.varsity.co.uk/news/8279, https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/apr/19/oxford-union-created-ruling-political-class-boris-johnson-michael-gove-theresa-may-rees-mogg, https://www.ft.com/content/85fc694c-9222-11e9-b7ea-60e35ef678d2), rather than reflecting any notability. Oxford Socratic Club, a club that lasted less than a decade, also has a vast page and whose notability, as far as I can tell, is based on notable speakers and allegedly ‘Famous debates’ (that conspicuously lack a single citation) – once again a list of speakers that is comparable and notably less important to modern academic study than that of DUHS. Oxford University Wine Circle too has a page, yet its only notability stems from the extravagant wines the society's members could afford to purchase as well as a sponsorship from Pol Roger – a sponsorship arguably less prestigious than those DUHS have had. The Oxford University Archaeology Society is another student society whose history is similarly long to DUHS (though more chequered). Finally, the Durham University Christian Union has a lengthy page and yet one with no references and limited content of notability, including mentions of a ‘weekend House Party’! I hope this has suitably outlined my reasoning for the society’s Wikipedia page, and demonstrated that many comparably, if not less, notable societies have similar pages. --------------------------Links to talked about wikipedia pages: Trinity Mathematical Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_Mathematical_Society Oxford University Democratic Socialist Club https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_University_Democratic_Socialist_ClubUniversity College Players https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_College_Players Hysteron Proteron Club https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysteron_Proteron_Club Socratic Club https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_Club Oxford University Wine Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_University_Wine_Circle The Oxford Archaeological Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_University_Archaeological_Society Durham University Christian Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durham_Inter-Collegiate_Christian_Union Historian2003 (talk) 22:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Above is my reasoning for the maintenance of the page. However, if members still do not believe it meets the criteria for a full page I might suggest that part of it is included in the page 'List of social activities at Durham University', just like, for example, the 'Durham Revue'. (If it is of any relevance I think lists are subject to different notability guidelines, although I am not sure)Historian2003 (talk) 22:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Prob delete - it seems highly unlikely that a student society would meet the relevant notability criteria. As far as I am concerned, notability would only be considered to have been unquestionably met if there was significant third-party media about. It is possible that someone has published a book about the history of the society, but I haven't been able to find it and it isn't currently on the page. Until or unless this kind of RS is found (or written), the subject is not notable and therefore the page should be deleted. JMWt (talk) 11:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JMWt, thank you for your comment - all contributions to this discussion help us reach a sensible conclusion. I would just like to flag up that Wikipedia is populated by many student societies, including many much less notable than the Durham University History Society. It being a student society is therefore not, I believe, grounds enough for the deletion of the page. Below I have flagged multiple student societies with lesser or similar notability. Trinity Mathematical Society, though established by a notable mathematician, has otherwise only a list of prestigious speakers to vouch for it (and only one reference), a list that Durham University History Society (DUHS from now on) more than matches. Oxford University Democratic Socialist Club has but one reference and no clear evidence for its notability, and yet has only been flagged for the reliability of its sources. University College Players is a college-level club, hardly with a notability comparable to DUHS. Hysteron Proteron Club at Balliol College Oxford is similarly a college-level club with its notability resting on one mention in the house of commons, reflecting the pervasion of Oxbridge graduates in the British house of commons and the ‘Oxbridge boys club’ nature of that institution, particularly 20 years ago (see for example: https://www.varsity.co.uk/news/8279, https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/apr/19/oxford-union-created-ruling-political-class-boris-johnson-michael-gove-theresa-may-rees-mogg, https://www.ft.com/content/85fc694c-9222-11e9-b7ea-60e35ef678d2), rather than reflecting any notability. Oxford Socratic Club, a club that lasted less than a decade, also has a vast page and whose notability, as far as I can tell, is based on notable speakers and allegedly ‘Famous debates’ (that conspicuously lack a single citation) – once again a list of speakers that is comparable and notably less important to modern academic study than that of DUHS. Oxford University Wine Circle too has a page, yet its only notability stems from the extravagant wines the society's members could afford to purchase as well as a sponsorship from Pol Roger – a sponsorship arguably less prestigious than those DUHS have had. The Oxford University Archaeology Society is another student society whose history is similarly long to DUHS (though more chequered). Finally, the Durham University Christian Union has a lengthy page and yet one with no references and limited content of notability, including mentions of a ‘weekend House Party’! Historian2003 (talk) 22:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care about other pages that exist, the fact is that we are supposed to be determining AfD nominations based on policy. Also I will not be responding to large walls of text that say nothing very much. JMWt (talk) 09:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JMWt, I fully understand your reply. Nonetheless, policy is (in every case, not just in the micro-universe of Wikipedia) determined as much by the written-down rules as it is by case studies that display how those rules are applied. My examples seek to provide such case studies.

As a bit of a side note, please maintain a pleasant tone and be appreciative of the time people may have put into engaging with this process and your comment, regardless of whether you agree with them. Historian2003 (talk) 09:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've nominated several of these other societies for deletion because of very dubious notability. JMWt (talk) 10:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I think regardless of the outcome of this conversation, consistency is ultimately best for Wikipedia. More than half of the societies listed with similar or less notability than Durham University History Society remain un-nominated (for those reading this conversation). Historian2003 (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and England. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Going through a search, I have found this^[1], this^[2] and this^[3], this^[4]. Further, there are some media coverages as this^[5], and this^[6]. I guess this AfD is really complicated. I am into my verse to @Beccaynr: can enlighten more as they are known as iron hand on such educational topics.

Well that was something else. Not only were some of those references mentions, one of them wasn't. Durham University has a history department, that's not the same as a student history society. To be honest, that's the lamest !keep vote I think I've ever seen. JMWt (talk) 13:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't voted. Twinkle1990 (talk) 09:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ Rollason, David (19 July 2016). The Power of Place: Rulers and Their Palaces, Landscapes, Cities, and Holy Places. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-16762-6.
^ Knight, Frances (8 April 2016). Religion, Identity and Conflict in Britain: From the Restoration to the Twentieth Century: Essays in Honour of Keith Robbins. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-06724-5.
^ Jones, Michael (24 September 2015). 24 Hours at Agincourt. Random House. ISBN 978-0-7535-5049-6.
^ Jones, Michael K. (2005). Agincourt 1415: Battlefield Guide. Pen & Sword Military. ISBN 978-1-84415-251-3.
^ "Boston College ranked 10th worldwide in theology, divinity, and religious studies". www.bc.edu.
^ https://history.fas.harvard.edu/sites/projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/history/files/critical_historical_studies_durham_university.pdf. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Durham is a distinguished university, which no doubt teaches history. However, like most student societies, this one will be utterly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC) -- Hi Peterkingiron, thank you for your comment - all contributions to this discussion help us reach a sensible conclusion. I would just like to flag up that Wikipedia is populated by many student societies, including many much less notable than the Durham University History Society. It being a student society is therefore not, I believe (as perhaps you do too), grounds enough for the deletion of the page. Indeed, below I have flagged multiple student societies with lesser or similar notability - I find it very hard to agree that the society's page is 'utterly NN' if these are considered acceptable. Trinity Mathematical Society, though established by a notable mathematician, has otherwise only a list of prestigious speakers to vouch for it (and only one reference), a list that Durham University History Society (DUHS from now on) more than matches. Oxford University Democratic Socialist Club has but one reference and no clear evidence for its notability, and yet has only been flagged for the reliability of its sources. University College Players is a college-level club, hardly with a notability comparable to DUHS. Hysteron Proteron Club at Balliol College Oxford is similarly a college-level club with its notability resting on one mention in the house of commons, reflecting the pervasion of Oxbridge graduates in the British house of commons and the ‘Oxbridge boys club’ nature of that institution, particularly 20 years ago (see for example: https://www.varsity.co.uk/news/8279, https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/apr/19/oxford-union-created-ruling-political-class-boris-johnson-michael-gove-theresa-may-rees-mogg, https://www.ft.com/content/85fc694c-9222-11e9-b7ea-60e35ef678d2), rather than reflecting any notability. Oxford Socratic Club, a club that lasted less than a decade, also has a vast page and whose notability, as far as I can tell, is based on notable speakers and allegedly ‘Famous debates’ (that conspicuously lack a single citation) – once again a list of speakers that is comparable and notably less important to modern academic study than that of DUHS. Oxford University Wine Circle too has a page, yet its only notability stems from the extravagant wines the society's members could afford to purchase as well as a sponsorship from Pol Roger – a sponsorship arguably less prestigious than those DUHS have had. The Oxford University Archaeology Society is another student society whose history is similarly long to DUHS (though more chequered). Finally, the Durham University Christian Union has a lengthy page and yet one with no references and limited content of notability, including mentions of a ‘weekend House Party’! Historian2003 (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Request - mainly due to the walls of text - can the keep voters please list the top 3 secondary references which indicate notability? ResonantDis_tortion 22:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The fundamental question for notability is significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Of the sources presented in this AfD, the first four are passing mentions, one is not about the society, and one is not independent. Looking through the sources in the article, all are either passing mentions, primary sources, or not about the society at all. Arguments about the existence of other student societies are irrelevant, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - if significant reliable independent sourcing can't be found for those articles, then they should also be deleted. WJ94 (talk) 09:47, 11 April 2023 (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 12:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket at the Arafura Games[edit]

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

For the same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Netball at the Arafura Games, non notable tournament with very little coverage. Ajf773 (talk) 09:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Australia and Cricket. Ajf773 (talk) 09:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 09:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Maybe redirect to Arafura Games per WP:ATD. 206.83.103.190 (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, merge content if anyone cares enough to do it. As per nom. Content can be moved over to main page assuming anyone cares. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. StickyWicket (talk) 13:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hap Palmer[edit]

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

Possibly redirect to Baby Songs, but there is zero coverage in RS out there for this children's entertainer - and none in the article, either. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, Education, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NN Musician. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. UtherSRG (talk) 10:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NMUSICIAN and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy and Strong Keep Article content may not establish notability, but the artist was exceptionally popular in earlier days, Most coverage for the artist is from an era before the internet was around, so lack of readily available sources is inevitable....as WP policy states "Notability is not temporary"

Evidence of notability:

1. Almost a thousand listings in Worldcat with some of his individual albums being in the collections of hundreds of libraries. (we have articles on here for musicians :who don't come close to this figure)
2. His recordings part of the Smithsonian Folkways collection. I can't think of a much larger prestige for an artist to have their work sold by the United States' national museum.

Article obviously could use some cleanup, but it is clearly salvageable.--T1980 (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then those references need to be found. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: T1980's comment is entirely based on an WP:Argument to avoid in deletion discussions as UtherSRG alluded to. Toddst1 (talk) 13:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Allmusic have a biography of Palmer - I have added the reference to the article; this should count as an independent reliable source with sig cov. When I have time I will look for more.ResonantDis_tortion 07:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added more citations to reliable sources including from Smithsonian Folkways and a full page article from the LA Times. ResonantDis_tortion 08:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous reviews of Palmers work in the School Library Journal over several years - which is further independent sourcing - several of these are now referenced in the article. E2A: With the LA Times article and Allmusic bio (which is reliable per WP:RSMUSIC) this article has multiple sources thus meeting WP:SINGER#1.ResonantDis_tortion 14:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore the Smithsonian Folkways label has 36 albums by Palmer. Unless I am missing something - this massively exceeds WP:SINGER#5 which requires Has released two or more albums on a major record label. ResonantDis_tortion 07:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Smithsonian Folkways "reference" is merely a catalog entry. The LA Times article is a reliable source but GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources, not just one. Not even close on WP:NMUSICIAN. Toddst1 (talk) 13:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the AllMusic entry confirms the winning of at least one notable award and the LA Times article is significant content, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Created a body of work that is noted by childhood educators (one e.g. Gilbert, A. G. (2015). Creative Dance for All Ages. United Kingdom: Human Kinetics.) so passes WP:CREATIVE and won a notable award, therefore arguable pass at WP:ANYBIO criterion 1. CT55555(talk) 17:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question: If he is so noted, why is Gilbert's book not a reference to the article? What is the note? Toddst1 (talk) 01:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking me why nobody has yet added the reference to the article? If so, then I cannot speak on behalf of others, or spectate about their priorities during their volunteer work. If you want to read what is said, check out google books. CT55555(talk) 01:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. In addition to the LA Times article, there are two book authors who assert notability:

Jill Jarlow in All Ears (Viking, 1991) called him one of America's most prolific children's song writers, who makes innovative and award-winning recordings.^[1]
Sonia Taitz in Mothering Heights (William Morrow, 1992) said he is "famous for his [song] videos".^[2]

References

^ Jarnow, Jill (1991). "Hap Palmer". All Ears: How to Choose and Use Recorded Music for Children. New York: Viking. p. 139. ISBN 9780670823130.
^ Taitz, Sonia (1992). Mothering Heights: Reclaiming Motherhood From the Experts. New York: William Morrow. p. 111. ISBN 9780688105884.

-- GreenC 02:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG. Article has been improved during AfD. Lightburst (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2023 (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 13:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolás D'Agostino[edit]

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

Non-notable actor, zero references, there's been a tag regarding lack of reliable references on the page for 14 years with no improvement. Macktheknifeau (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Argentina. Macktheknifeau (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2023 (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 and redirect. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 05:31, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Grimes[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOLY and WP:BIO. Oppose redirect to Field hockey at the 2008 Summer Olympics as this article only names medallists. LibStar (talk) 05:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 05:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lynne McNamara[edit]

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:NACTOR for merely being a film extra. LibStar (talk) 05:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and Canada. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Citations are non-significant and/or routine coverage. Fails GNG. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As always, neither journalists nor actors are "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to show that their work has garnered third party media coverage and analysis about it which would satisfy WP:GNG. But the sourcing here isn't cutting it: three of the footnotes are primary sources that aren't support for notability at all (i.e. journalists do not qualify for Wikipedia articles just because they have or had staff profiles on the self-published websites of their own employers); one is a dead link from a small community hyperlocal that can't be recovered in order to verify how much it did or didn't actually say about her; and the two acceptable live footnotes are both just glancing namechecks of her existence, one in the context of providing soundbite in an article on a subject that isn't her, and the other in the context of winning a minor local award that isn't prominent enough to confer an instant inclusion freebie in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2023 (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 Purge (Godflesh album). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nero (song)[edit]

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

Self published song. Fails GNG and NSONG. Sources are mentions in promo.

Source eval:

Promo tour annoucement, mentions subject, not SIGCOV :: Kennelty, Greg. "Godflesh Streams New Single, Announces US Tour Dates". Metal Injection. Retrieved 3 April 2023.
Promo for album, lists subject, not SIGCOV :: Rettig, James. "Godflesh Share New Single "Nero"". Stereogum. Retrieved 3 April 2023.
Promo tour annoucement, mentions subject, not SIGCOV :: Minsker, Evan. "Godflesh Announce North American Tour, Share New Song "Nero": Listen". Pitchfork. Retrieved 3 April 2023.
Promo tour annoucement, mentions subject, not SIGCOV :: Pearis, Bill. "Godflesh Share "Nero" from New Album, Announce North American Tour". BrooklynVegan. Retrieved 3 April 2023.
Promo tour annoucement, mentions subject, not SIGCOV :: Slingerland, Calum. "Godflesh Map Out North American Tour, Share New Song "Nero"". Exclaim!. Retrieved 3 April 2023.
Promo tour annoucement, mentions subject, not SIGCOV :: Navidson, Will. "Hear Godflesh's Crushing New Song "Nero"". Revolver. Retrieved 3 April 2023.
Promo for album, lists subject, not SIGCOV :: Keenan, Hesher. "Godflesh Dropped the First Single of Their Upcoming Album "Purge"". MetalSucks. Retrieved 3 April 2023.
Bandcamp :: "Nero". Bandcamp. Retrieved 3 April 2023.

In addition to failing N, NSONG states: "Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Information already exists at Purge (Godflesh album), nothing to merge. No objection to a redirect. // Timothy :: talk 04:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and England. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Purge (Godflesh album). All coverage, whether in the article or not, is restating the same basic information which is clearly drawn directly from a press release. Aside from issues I have with calling this a "self published" song (artists running their own record labels and releasing notable singles from them is far from new), I agree with the nomination. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. The album's not even released yet, but it's the only alternative to deletion. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Citations are non-significant and/or routine coverage. Fails GNG. IMO the song being released or not is irrelevant because there's no requirement an article about a piece of media needs to be "published" to have a wikipage about it, but that doesn't take away from the irrelevance of the subject itself. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:30, 5 April 2023 (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 05:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SilverStone Technology[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. 4 of the 5 sources are its own website. Coverage seems mainly limited to product reviews. LibStar (talk) 04:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Taiwan. AllyD (talk) 06:27, 4 April 2023 (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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 07:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alleycat's Pizza[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. Only 2 restaurants in the chain, which may explain the lack of coverage. LibStar (talk) 04:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Taiwan. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Buchan, Noah (2010-01-29). "Restaurants: Alleycat's". Taipei Times. Archived from the original on 2023-04-04. Retrieved 2023-04-04.
  The article notes: "I must confess that I broke a vow made a few years back never to step foot again into Alleycat’s. My last experience in the claustrophobic and crypt-like atmosphere of its branch located a stone’s throw from Yongkang Street (永康街) saw an angry chef repeatedly berating a server over some indiscretion — one that was perhaps deserved because the service was terrible (though the food was excellent). ... The expansive interior, with its vaulted ceilings and open-spaced concept, consists of two rooms separated by a long bar. The walls are painted mustard yellow with patches of exposed brick, and the windows are ideal for watching the hustle and bustle of the open market (on weekends) outside."
2. Woodworth, Max (2004-03-19). "Restaurant: Alleycat's". Taipei Times. Archived from the original on 2023-04-04. Retrieved 2023-04-04.
  The review notes: "Even though Alleycat's is hidden in a small basement off bustling Yongkang Street, it would be hard to overlook this new pizzeria for the buzz it's been generating since it opened at the end of January. It's the brainchild of South African transplant Alan Pontes, who wanted to make a living without having a boss, and he could have done far worse than deciding upon opening this pleasant eatery. ... The Spartan decor is Alleycat's only downside. The soft-toned red walls are a start, but some flowers, perhaps a few pictures of Tuscany, a space divider and more attractive place mats would go a long way."
3. Yang, Olga 楊關雯 (2006). 型男主廚 [Fashionable male chefs] (in Chinese). Taipei: 宏碩文化事業股份有限公司. pp. 66–70. ISBN 978-9-8671-4315-0. Retrieved 2023-04-04 – via Google Books.
4. 愛玩咖 2015-03-18 貴賓蒞臨本土天團來帶路. Taiwan Television. 2015-03-18. Event occurs at 17 minutes and 41 seconds. Archived from the original on 2023-04-04. Retrieved 2023-04-04 – via YouTube.
  Alleycat was reviewed by Taiwan Television's food and travel television show zh:愛玩咖. There is more information about the episode here^{Internet Archive}.
5. Snippet-view sources from Google Books:
  1. "Taiwan Review article". Taiwan Review. Vol. 54. 2004. p. 13. Retrieved 2023-04-04 – via Google Books.
    The book notes: "Meanwhile, next door, a new pizza place, Alleycat's has become a hit among the foreign community. South African Alan S. Pontes, after spending time in the UK and the US, came to Taiwan at the invitation of a friend. Later, he made a brick oven in a basement, and transformed the basement into a place where "people come to relax and have good food." Pizza restaurants are ubiquitous in Taipei, with chains such as Pizza Hut and Domino's flooding primetime TV with up- ... Alleycat's, a new pizza restaurant, seeks to establish a niche in the market with its entirely handmade pizza.
  2. Swier, Susan M. (2016). Come in and See the Cats: 這裡有貓，歡迎光臨: 老外帶路，探訪62間貓店長私藏地圖. Taichung: 晨星出版. ISBN 978-986-443-173-1. Retrieved 2023-04-04 – via Google Books.
    The book notes: "3.3 巷貓披薩 Alleycat's Pizza [four stars out of five] The Lishui Street Alleycat's is the original of a chain of pizza places around Taipei. It is still home to the original namesake cat, Alley. There are also two cats at the Tianmu branch and at least one at the Huashan branch. I've had the garlic bread (NT$100), which comes ...
6. Less significant coverage:
  1. "La recette du succès" [The recipe for success]. Taiwan Info (in French). 2004-09-01. Archived from the original on 2023-04-04. Retrieved 2023-04-04.
    The article notes from Google Translate: "Not far from there, stands a new pizzeria, Alleycat's, which is very popular with the foreign community of the capital. Its owner, Alan Pontes, a South African, who rolled his bump in Great Britain then in the United States, visited the island at the invitation of a friend. Seduced, he settled in Taipei where he had a brick oven built in a cellar and transformed it into “a pleasant place where you can relax and enjoy a good meal”."
  2. Gardner, Dinah (2017). Pocket Taipei: Top Sights, Local Life, Made Easy. Singapore: Lonely Planet. p. 35. ISBN 978-1-78657-524-1. Retrieved 2023-04-04 – via Internet Archive.
    The book notes: "With its rustic-chic setting inside a former brick warehouse and perfected stone-oven recipes, this is one of the top spots for pizza in Taipei. You can sit indoors under a soaring vaulted ceiling, or outdoors in a garden zone. Calzoni, panini and appetisers are available, as is a good selection of beer on tap. Salads are poor value."
  3. Foster, Simon; Keeling, Stephen (2015). Milton, Matt; Graham, Melissa; McQuillian, Neil (eds.). The Rough Guide to Taiwan (3 ed.). New Delhi: Rough Guides. p. 91. ISBN 978-0-24118-683-1. Retrieved 2023-04-04 – via Internet Archive.
    The book notes: "The best pizza in town, impressing even NYC aficionados with their gooey mozzarella, crispy crust and refined toppings (such as goat's cheese, Italian chorizo and artichoke). Large (12in) NT$430–NT$530. Check the website for other branches."
  4. Marcinkowska, Katarzyna (2015). Clark, Sarah (ed.). Insight Guides Taipei City Guide. London: Insight Guides. p. 189. ISBN 978-178-005-807-8. Retrieved 2023-04-04 – via Internet Archive.
    The book notes: "Perhaps best described as a "pizza bar," has an extensive bar list, and good cocktails. Serves thick, inexpensive stone oven-baked pizzas, one of Taipei's few spots with "real" pizza outside the big international chains. With expat owners, this is a favorite late-night expat hangout."
  5. Crook, Steven (2014). Taiwan: The Bradt Travel Guide. Guilford, Connecticut: Bradt Travel Guides. p. 96. ISBN 978-1-84162-497-6. Retrieved 2023-04-04 – via Internet Archive.
    The book notes: "Alleycat's reputation was built on its stone-oven-baked pizzas, but the menu also lists crocante, insalata & calzoni. You may think the music's a bit loud or the crowd a bit young but you're unlikely to find fault with the food. EM. Details of other branches inc Ximending are on the bilingual website."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Alleycat's Pizza (traditional Chinese: 巷貓披薩; simplified Chinese: 巷猫披萨) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 05:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sasika Herath[edit]

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

BLP Fails GNG and BIO: Source eval:

Interview, not IS RS with SIGCOV :: Sasika Herath's interview on Sarasaviya Newspaper
IMDB :: Sasika Herath at IMDb
Name listed, nothing more :: Newspaper article on Mawbima newspaper
Youtube :: Making of Sihina Sameekarana on Youtube
Youtube :: This is how dream conditioning work ends on Youtube
IMDB :: Sihina Sameekarana on IMDB
Interview, not IS RS with SIGCOV :: Dream equations recorded on the silver screen
Name listed in credits, nothing more :: A Boy's Journey Through Upheavals - Dream Equations
Facebook :: "Dream Equations" directed by Sasika Herath | Facebook
Database type listing, Name listed, nothing more :: 1. ^ "Modara Wasp Coming Soon" . www.lankadeepa.lk (in Sinhala) . Retrieved 2023-04-03 .
Name listed, nothing more :: 2. ^ "A teledrama to promote the agriculture sector in Sri Lanka | Daily FT". www.ft.lk. Retrieved 2023-04-03.
Name listed, nothing more :: 3. ^ "The '72 Act has yet to be changed... Anuruddha Jayasinghe Divaina" . divaina.lk . Retrieved 2023-04-03 .
Name listed, nothing more :: 4. ^ "Lalith Rathnayake - Nepal International Film Festival" . 2020-01-31 . Retrieved 2023-04-03 .
Interview, not IS RS with SIGCOV, duplicate ref :: 5. ^ "Dream Equations on the Silver Screen" . University . 2020-11-25 . Retrieved 2023-04-03 .
Failed V, doesn't seem to exist :: 6. ^ 9755f62e9a74a55e9c90f7fa7e2774db.pdf (ceylontoday.lk)
Name listed, nothing more :: 7. ^ Mawbima (2023-03-24). "A boy's journey through twists and turns - Dream Equations" . Motherland (in Sinhala) . Retrieved 2023-04-03 .
Name listed, nothing more :: 8. ^ "I want to sing to the heart  Nelka Thilini" . date _ Retrieved 2023-04-03 .

BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth

Metadata on image strongly suggests author is either the subject or connected to subject.[5]

BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 04:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's virtually nothing out there about Herath and as noted, the sourcing in the article is insufficient. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Sri Lanka. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I don't fond any trivial coverage per WP:THREE. Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Couldn't find any WP:RSs in a search, hence fails WP:NBASIC. Chanaka L (talk) 13:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I requested clarification from the author on the image and its origins and copyright, there response is here User talk:Rushan Kodikara#Copyright question. Yes. I took this photo during the trip to Gerandiella (Gerandiella waterfall) near Palmadulla, Rathnapura, Sri Lanka in October 2018. The subject, mr. Sasika Herath was aware that I were photographing him and requested to take a photo. He was a member of our crew which was shooting a documentary. Appears to be no problem with copyright, but other issues obviously remain. // Timothy :: talk 18:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I have searched for any Sinhalese references and all that I cane come with is a number of mentions in passing (where is attributed as an assistant director) however there is no significant coverage that I can find in any reliable secondary sources. Potentially a case of WP:TOOSOON. Dan arndt (talk) 05:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, thanks everyone on reviewing this article, 'Sasika Herath'.

Sasika Herath is an debutant director who works in some time as an assistant director in the industry. I also wrote about his movie 'Sihina Sameekarana' here. It may seem that I have not provided enough evidence on this, but hence he is still not among the popular names, those few articles are the only references I have right now.

But as a newbie contributor to the Wikipedia community, I understand that I have done few mistakes in this article. Some references I have given are in Sinhala language (on Mawbima) so I know that most of you can not read but as a Sri Lankan Chanaka L can read and clarify those. at. you can read the article in Sinhala (on Mawbima). Other article in Sarasaviya weekly newspaper which is published by the government owned Lakehouse is currently closed and unfortunately their website got down hence the link is not accessible. But I can provide the image version of the article via email if you are interested. The only article which wrote in English was on Ceylontoday newspaper (25 October 2020 - ECHO tabloid - Page 06 and 07) has no direct link and only a PDF link to that magazine issue (https://uploads.ceylontoday.lk/epapers/files/9755f62e9a74a55e9c90f7fa7e2774db.pdf). Please find and read the articles. I appreciate your willingness to engage in a dialogue on this topic and look forward to hearing back from you. Best regards, Rushan

Rushan Kodikara (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I usually search in both English and Sinhala before an AfD discussion involving a Sri Lankan topic. I did the same in this instance as well. Because I didn't see much in either language search results, I did !vote delete here. I will leave a few comments regarding the sources, however.

Mawbima article: Mentions Sasika Herath's name twice. Says he is the director of Sihina Samaeekarana and this is his first directing credit. I am sorry this fails WP:SIGCOV.
Ceylon Today article: This didn't come in the search. However, this article mentions Sasika Herath a couple of times. Therefore, can be considered it satisfies WP:SIGCOV.
Sarasaviya interview: I am afraid this is not considered WP:RS because it is an WP:INTERVIEW.

Looks like Sasika Herath is a promising director. However, at this moment I see only the Ceylon Today article as the only worthwhile article. Seems like a classic case of WP:TOOSOON. If Sasika garners more media coverage in a couple of years' time, I am sure we will see an article about him on English Wikipedia. Until then, I am terribly sorry, I have to stick with my opinion. Chanaka L (talk) 07:18, 8 April 2023 (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 OpenText#Acquisitions. Consensus is unclear as to whether a merger is helpful, but the history is under the redirect if someone wants to selectively merge Star Mississippi 21:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zix Corp[edit]

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

Article has no indication of notability. Ebbedlila (talk) 02:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and Texas. AllyD (talk) 05:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment when a company was listed on NASDAQ and then acquired for $860 million, I am inclined to presume the company has sufficient coverage to meet GNG. But looking at the references, some (such as ref#11 [6]) don't even mention Zix, while others are obviously promotional, are press releases, or bare links to stock-price databases. I don't see sourcing that would support a Keep vote. Walt Yoder (talk) 04:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to OpenText#Acquisitions. I note by the way that there are a lot of lines there that will be utterly meaningless to the reader because they just say that OpenText acquired company foo and company bar with no hint of what these acquisitions signify. BD2412 T 01:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I see on the OpenText talk page that there were two others merged there pursuant to discussion (possibly others per BOLD). As far as Zix, the references do not meet WP:ORGCRIT so there is nothing to save under that name. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:43, 8 April 2023 (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 02:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soph (YouTuber)[edit]

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

This article is about a person with questionable notability, it mostly seems to be uncited cruft about YouTuber drama. Di (they-them) (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Internet. Di (they-them) (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are other pages just as this one. See LeafyIsHere . I believe it is fine. Rock19238 (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The LeafyIsHere page has citations and notability. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.Di (they-them) (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is that more notable Rock19238 (talk) 02:31, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has 15 secondary sources establishing notability. Also, it's pretty much irrelevant. The notability of Leafy has nothing to do with the notability of Soph. Again, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Di (they-them) (talk) 02:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forget the leafy thing, you are right with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. However, you are literally saying that my article deserves deletion because it is not notable, yet cannot give concrete reasoning as to why it is not notable. Notability is subjective anyways. Let people enjoy things. Rock19238 (talk) 02:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is established by significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources. The majority of sources provided for Soph were YouTube (self published, so is unreliable; many of the videos were by Soph so are considered to be dependent primary sources), Reddit (again, self published) and Twitter (again, self published and dependent primary sources). While WP:ABOUTSELF allows for these types of sources for factual information, they cannot be used for establishing notability. That is how she is not notable CiphriusKane (talk) 02:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. If that is how it shall be defined, so be it. I will add independent secondary reliable sources later. Rock19238 (talk) 02:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also why were my twitter and socialblade links removed. Twitter is on a pay to verify system now, making verification meaningless. Additionally, socialblade is literally just statistics. That sources exists on many other pages. Rock19238 (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Twitter is good for a primary source but does not provide notability, and so far as I know SocialBlade is not known to be reliable for the stats it reports on. Reliable coverage I can find is limited to just her removal from YouTube which makes me suspect this falls under WP:SINGLEEVENT. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If notability is being removed from YouTube, or being obnoxious, then go at it. But it's not. Lack of independent, significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obnoxious preteen gets banned on YouTube for being obnoxious. Really notable guys! Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 22:11, 4 April 2023 (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. Comments are equally divided by Keep and Delete, but the Delete side has made the very good point that there is little evidence that this is not simply a new story (NOTNEWS/ONEEVENT). (Comment aside from closing remarks) I am not from the USA, but based on this article I could probably write an article about pretty much every murder in my home country. Black Kite (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Lubunga Lumenge[edit]

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

Tragic, but no more notable than any of the thousands of gun deaths reported on every year. Nswix (talk) 01:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Democratic Republic of the Congo and Tennessee. Nswix (talk) 01:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a well sourced article about an event with WP:SIGCOV. The WP:RECENT guideline is simply a reminder to give equal weight to recently occuring events, not a prohibition on covering them, provided they meet notability guidelines, which this article appears to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patr2016 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's WP:REFBOMB'd. They found every single local and Christian article mentioning this and just added them all. Nswix (talk) 02:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Events. Skynxnex (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There does not seem any valid reason to delete this article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see any reason to delete this, and other users have mentioned its significance, and I have copy edited it so it has good grammar and spelling. Although I did feel it was WP:REFBOMBd, the amount of references seemed way too much for me.Vamsi20 (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS/ROUTINE. A man who worked as a pastor was murdered in a major American city, and this was reported on by local media and various Christian-oriented outlets of dubious churnalistic unoriginal quality. All we know is who he was and where his body was found. Is this really worthy of an encyclopedia article? Is there any lasting significance to this killing? -Indy beetle (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A regrettable event. WP:ONEEVENT, NOTNEWS and refbombed with involved local/special interest media and generally spotty sources as noted above by others. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 21:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Falls, Arizona[edit]

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

Could not find coverage to confirm that this place was notable or even existed. Searches of Arizona papers returned articles about Twin Falls, Idaho but not Arizona. –dlthewave ☎ 01:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. –dlthewave ☎ 01:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We should delete this. According to KEZJ "It pretty much looks like a dirt road in the middle of, well... a bunch of dirt." A dirt road in the middle of a bunch of dirt is not important enough for Wikipedia. Maine 🦞 14:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:NPLACE this is a named place that was once populated and even though it might not have people living there now that doesn't make it not notable as per WP:NTEMP. Looking over some maps from USGS I see that there are a few markers for buildings in maps from 1953, a map in 1959 notes the name of the place, and an 1892 map shows that there was a used road in that area. Looking at some information from the Navajo Nation it appears that the area is now a trail and at one time was used for hearing animals. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dr vulpes, currently the article is sourced only to GNIS and its mirror, Hometown Locator; NPLACE specifically excludes GNIS from satisfying its "officially recognized" and "populated place" criteria. The other source you provided doesn't mention a populated place at Twin Falls, it only mentions a hike that leads to two (or possibly three) waterfalls. And buildings on a map are not proof that this was a notable place, that type of thing often turns out to just be someone's ranch or homestead. I would suggest finding more sources that establish either GNG or a "legally recognized populated place" if you'd like your !vote to be counted. –dlthewave ☎ 15:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a place that is significant to the Navajo Nation then it should either be kept or redirected to Navajo Nation, or the appropriate chapterhouse if it has an article. Or Teec Nos Pos, Arizona, even. Also Navajo Times is as RS as it gets in that area. Local newspaper of record. Elinruby (talk) 23:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Navajo Times has a single sentence describing this as a waterfall that one can hike to. Do you think that's sufficient to meet GNG? –dlthewave ☎ 12:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete I can find no text evidence for this place, though it is heavily masked in searching by the place in Idaho. It's also unclear why the topos show a couple of buildings here, because the aerials show almost no change over the years except for the growth of vegetation, and there's no trace of buildings. At any rate there's no decent evidence for a town here or whatever it might have been. Mangoe (talk) 04:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 21:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haripur Dimukhi Girls High School[edit]

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

Contested prod. Fails WP:GNG - not enough in-depth coverage about this non-secondary school to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I PRODed this because the only sources are indiscriminate listings on the local government/school board websites. Searches in English and Bengali found no significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. I couldn't identify a good merge/redirect target, but am open to suggestions. If an editor would like the page userfied or draftified while they hunt for sources, I would be fine with that, but unless it can be shown to meet WP:NSCHOOL, it should not be in main space. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Haripur Upazila. PamD 14:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should the upazila article name all 9 of the girls high schools in the area, or all 33 of the high schools? My gut says no, but I'm not sure how to define the line. At what point does listing things that exist, without context or explanation, become an indiscriminate collection? --Worldbruce (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable school. ImperialMajority (talk) 14:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Worldbruce (talk) 04:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable, any coverage is going to be routine and thus irrelevant for wikipedia notability. Delete. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. It is almost certain that this subject will meet GNG at some future point, but that point does not appear to have been met yet. As pointed out by a number of commenters, many of the sources are not really up to point. Black Kite (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

André Alsanati[edit]

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

Since WP:NFOOTY is no longer a valid SNG, GNG must be met. This doesn't come close. Was draftified for improvement, but returned without any improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Found some routine transfer coverage on him but nothing significant. Alvaldi (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], and [21], and [22], among many many more Swedish sources. Clearly sginicanf figure in Swedish league football with ongoing career in Swedish top flight, which receives lots of media coverage. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. 1 is entirely quotes N. #2 is an interview of the "summarize what the subject says before quoting him" type with little independent commentary N. #3 is a 404. #4 is an utterly routine transfer announcement with mostly quotes N. #5 is more routine transfer coverage N. If you didn't have evidence of SIGCOV in your first 5 links then I will assume the rest of them are garbage as well. JoelleJay (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 19:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG as per sources above.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not going to review past the first 5 sources in a refdump if there's nothing beyond routine transfers and interviews. My own search for "اندريه السناطي" yielded transfer announcements, pure interviews, and his name listed in match reports, as did searches in Swedish media. JoelleJay (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify (again). Alsanati just made his debut in the Allsvenskan (scored a goal on his debut), and recently received his first call-up to the Iraq national team. I'm not finding much useful coverage at the moment (the blog fotbollskanalen.se has an interview with some prose, but I can't determine if the blog is written by an expert or just a fan). Some newspapers have done match reports on his debut, but nothing appears to be in-depth yet. That said, I expect we will see in-depth coverage soon if he continues to be part of Sirius' Allsvenskan starting lineup. Jogurney (talk) 02:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I checked and the Gabriel Melke who posted the fotbollskanalen.se blog is a TV4 sports reporter, so I think that source counts toward SIGCOV (there is a fair amount of prose describing his career despite being a Q&A interview) and as such draftication is preferrable to deletion. Jogurney (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SPS can't be used in BLPs even when it's by an expert: Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. JoelleJay (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's inconsistent with my reading of WP:NEWSBLOG (as we're talking about a blog hosted by TV4). I'm not sure what to think. Jogurney (talk) 01:54, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's not super clear but I think the fact that NEWSBLOG says they should be used "with caution" in general suggests it's especially inadvisable to use them for BLPs. JoelleJay (talk) 05:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fotbollskanalen is a football news website that also have blogs. It is used in these articles: [23]. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 07:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP Fails GNG and BIO. Sources in the article do not show N. BEFORE didn't show anything that is IS RS with SIGCOV showing N, stats, database, interviews, ROUTINE. Agree with JoelleJay assessment of the sources above, I looked at the rest and its more of the same, no SIGCOV.

WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 02:07, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources go into his background quite a bit, and the coverage is not routine. On top of that, as I pointed out before, he is a young clearly significant figure in Swedish league football with ongoing career in fully pro Swedish Allsvenskan, which receives lots of media coverage, and already has scored on his first appearance, which has led to more immediate coverage like [24] and [25]. Artivcle needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 08:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have just spent an hour and a half doing a WP:HEY and vastly expanded the article with the sources. WP:HEY states that it can be "invoked during deletion discussions to point out that an article has been significantly improved since it was nominated for deletion". Clearly sginicanf figure in Swedish league football. On top of that, as I pointed out before, he is a young clearly significant figure in Swedish league football with ongoing career in fully pro Swedish Allsvenskan, which receives lots of media coverage, and already has scored on his first appearance, which has led to more immediate coverage like [26] and [27]. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 11:28, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first link is paywalled but looks to be a routine match recap, the second is a routine match recap/interview. Not SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 15:23, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone should look at the sources above, they are by far the best examples of these "sources". // Timothy :: talk 03:39, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as encyclopedic topic per WP:GNG, and also because expansion (in light of recent IRL events, no less) renders the above WP:WIKILAWYERING a moot point. Geschichte (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources meet GNG? JoelleJay (talk) 00:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More Source eval: JoelleJay did a great job evaluating the spam Keep links above. Two more were mentioned since then:

Promo about a game, mentions subject but no SIGCOV about the subject. :: https://ekuriren.se/bli-prenumerant/artikel/lz346gqj/ek-2m2kr_s_22
A few words, not SIGCOV "André Alsanati scored the first goal of the match at the beginning of the first half. ... Alsanati sat on the bench for Hammarby 20119, but was not allowed to play." :: https://omni.se/lika-i-norrkoping-efter-mal-av-allsvenska-debutanter/a/APJ6mr

Nothing here comes close to SIGCOV, the desperation above of claiming this is SIGCOV and shows notability is an indication of the quality of the Keep spam above. // Timothy :: talk 03:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Responding to TimothyBlue, Firstly, your most recent article (made in March 2023) is about a current Ukrainian photographer whose birth date is unknown and basically only has primary sources online... (which I am fine with, but trying to delete others articles with much more sources of any kind while creating those kinds of articles truly boggles the mind, the double standard makes no sense whatsoever). Secondly, the sources do have secondary coverage (e.g. "André Alsanati was predicted a bright future in Swedish football. As a 16-year-old, he signed for Hammarby and was praised by then sports manager Mats Jingblad. He moved from his hometown of Eskilstuna to Stockholm and Jingblad compared him to Messi. Expectations were sky high and Hammarby thought he had a golden nugget. But now he has instead signed for AFC Eskilstuna, after an unsuccessful loan to IK Frej", "André Alsanati left AFC Eskilstuna before this year's season and now represents Sirius. It was a total of two seasons at the club for the 23-year-old, who, among other things, also has a past in Hammarby. The midfielder, who can also play on the wing, has now been rewarded with a national team place - in Iraq. He has chosen to accept", "Alsanati was a great talent as a youngster, and made his debut for Sweden's U17 national team already when he was 15 years old. In the U17 national team, there were... seven international matches and one goal, and when he was 16, he was recruited from Eskilstuna City to Hammarby. There were games in... Frej but never in Hammarby's A-team, and after a few years he moved to AFC Eskilstuna. He did well there, and for this year's season, Sirius has signed him" etc etc), Thirdly, every deletion editor's entire arguments is basically repeating "everything is routine" (clearly not true) or "deletion because the "law" said so" (Wikipedia:Wikilawyering) without thinking about why the "law" exists in the first place... the reason the secondary source "law" exists is objectivity, which this article does anyways... if a fair amount of independent, reliable sources, primary or secondary, can produce an objective factual decent sized article about a clear topic of interest, there's no logical reason it should be deleted at all (Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of knowledge, and this article is a "yes" to Wikipedia:The one question). Fourthly,, Alsanati has an ongoing career as a important figure in a team in the Swedish Allsvenskan, a league that receives lots of media coverage. Lastly, For some backwards reason the focus is always on deletion rather than improvement, (but, I hear you say, isn't the whole point of editing Wikipedia to delete others articles?) but I spent hours doing a WP:HEY and vastly expanded the article with the sources. WP:HEY states that it can be "invoked during deletion discussions to point out that an article has been significantly improved since it was nominated for deletion". As one user stated above, "expansion... renders the above WP:WIKILAWYERING a moot point". Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG Lightburst (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per source analysis by Timothy and JoelleJay. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:12, 11 April 2023 (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) CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hattie and the Wild Waves[edit]

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

Unsourced and fails the WP:GNG Finlan Bendbow-Rendeck (talk) 01:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United States of America. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NBOOK as it's been reviewed many times, e.g. Kirkus, PW, New York Times, and The Reading Teacher. The nominator should review WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:BEFORE. pburka (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per pburka MRN2electricboogaloo (talk) 02:22, 5 April 2023 (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) CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanor (book)[edit]

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

Fails GNG Finlan Bendbow-Rendeck (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the author, Barbara Cooney, or keep after we find at least three reviews. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 02:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has reviews up at both Kirkus Reviews and Publishers Weekly. Neither are particularly long, but I've seen other AFD discussions consider similar coverage as being sufficient for passing WP:NBOOK. Rorshacma (talk) 05:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The short reviews I noted above and the little blurbs mentioned below should be just enough to pass WP:NBOOK. Merging to Barbara Cooney is a possibility if there is any thought that the information would be better suited there than as a stand alone, but at this point, there is no reason for deletion. Rorshacma (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Two reviews are sufficient, but there are several more easily found on gscholar, e.g. [28]. Notable book by a notable author. pburka (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2023 (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) CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Fatio[edit]

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

Fails GNG Finlan Bendbow-Rendeck (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and New Jersey. AllyD (talk) 06:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Author of award-winning book, noted in The Wee Web: appears notable. PamD 07:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Switzerland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CREATIVE#3. The Happy Lion series is a significant and well known body of work. pburka (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am convinced by the argument made by User:PamD CT55555(talk) 18:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Happy Lion is a well-known work by Fatio. She easily passes WP:AUTHOR. Thilsebatti (talk) 18:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The scope and breadth of sources here and the nature of the books she published demonstrate that the notability standard has been met. Alansohn (talk) 19:42, 9 April 2023 (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 01:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Climenhaga[edit]

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

Non-notable columnist. No WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:JOURNALIST. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Journalism. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He writes for Rabble and Alberta Politics. There is no coverage for this journalist that we can use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, the notability of a journalist doesn't vest in the extent to which he's been the author of coverage of other things, it vests in the extent to which he's been the subject of coverage written by other people. But he just doesn't have the kind of sourcing that's required: I certainly get a lot of hits on his name in a ProQuest search, but they're all (a) pieces of his own bylined writing about other things, (b) glancing namechecks of his existence as a provider of soundbite in articles that aren't about him, or (c) coincidental name matches to a different person entirely (or at least not a person who can be verified as the same David Climenhaga due to a lack of any claim in this article that this one was ever also an ophthalmologist), and absolutely none of them represent WP:GNG-building coverage of him as a subject. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Laserfiche[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article is written like an advertisement and has not been significantly improved since the last time it was nominated. The sources are mostly from their own website. A WP:BEFORE search could not find any WP:SIGCOV. Also fails WP:NCORP. Lightoil (talk) 00:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Products, and California. Lightoil (talk) 00:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete five AfD! New record. I don't find sourcing that we can use, it's all PR stuff. Oaktree b (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Company is incredible at marketing itself, PR newswires for about 6 hits, BR newswire for about as many, and a story in the Financial Post which is a PR news article reprint. Utterly non-notable. I'd suggest SALT at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 01:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt FIVE AfDs? Enough is enough - we have clearly been skirting WP:NCORP for years now, dining off low participation and no consensus. PR, routine announcements, it doesn't belong here. The 2nd Nomination discussion will make your head blow up. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete, per the absence of independent reliable sources providing in-depth coverage of the subject. BD2412 T 01:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Rollason, David (19 July 2016). The Power of Place: Rulers and Their Palaces, Landscapes, Cities, and Holy Places. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-16762-6.

[2] Knight, Frances (8 April 2016). Religion, Identity and Conflict in Britain: From the Restoration to the Twentieth Century: Essays in Honour of Keith Robbins. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-06724-5.

[3] Jones, Michael (24 September 2015). 24 Hours at Agincourt. Random House. ISBN 978-0-7535-5049-6.

[4] Jones, Michael K. (2005). Agincourt 1415: Battlefield Guide. Pen & Sword Military. ISBN 978-1-84415-251-3.

[5] "Boston College ranked 10th worldwide in theology, divinity, and religious studies". www.bc.edu.

[6] ttps://history.fas.harvard.edu/sites/projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/history/files/critical_historical_studies_durham_university.pdf. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[7] Jarnow, Jill (1991). "Hap Palmer". All Ears: How to Choose and Use Recorded Music for Children. New York: Viking. p. 139. ISBN 9780670823130.

[8] Taitz, Sonia (1992). Mothering Heights: Reclaiming Motherhood From the Experts. New York: William Morrow. p. 111. ISBN 9780688105884.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]