Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 April 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 28 April 30 >

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. Given the socking and unrefuted hoax allegations I’m going to go with delete but if there are proper sources than a non sock user is free to find somewhere to write about this. Spartaz Humbug! 10:36, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pak-Bangla language

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

There is no such language called "Pak-Bangla language" (when searching, don't get confused with Pak-Bangla as in Pakistan-Bangladesh). A mention in a book doesn't make it a language. Most of sources cited in the article doesn't even mention it. There is no significant coverage. The article seems like WP:OR. At best we can move relevant part to Bengali language movement#Early stages of the movement.

(I have a strong feeling that the article was created by a sock of User:Lazy-restless). আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

see here, google books english search and google books bengali search, at least it can be moved as Bangla writing in Arabic script, because it was a deliberately discussed topic in the field of bengali language movement and there is significant mention of the topic in reliable sources. See the recent edition, I have added some more references. And for your concern to know that, I am not any sockpuppet of anyone. Lavito principa (talk) 06:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC) sock[reply]
No, no such writing system exists. At best we can move relevant part to Bengali language movement#Early stages of the movement (or below suggestion). আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 10:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mansoureh Shojaee

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Sources are highly promotional or do not mention the subject beyond superficial levels. De-prodded because "there's enough". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 10:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Armando Rodríguez Ruidíaz

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

Sources are WP:PRIMARY or tangential. Couldn't find anything better. De-prodded without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the article has a distinctly promotional tone, but it seems possible at a glance that some SNG would be met. However, the main reference used is a self-published work. I don't see independent sourcing to verify that any SNG is met. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mahendra Sukhdeo

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

Non-notable. Tagged for sources since 2010 with no improvement. Current sources are only passing mentions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Lewisham

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

Incomplete list of non-notable ceremonial mayors. Fails WP:NLIST. AusLondonder (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 17:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The source analysis by Jacona, which shows that there is not substantial coverage of the topic, and that it therefore fails WP:GNG, has remained unrebutted. Sandstein 07:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pghbridges.com

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

Completing nomination by IP 209.82.165.136: Pghbridges.com, only has one source, should be deleted. SN54129 17:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Since this has been relisted, I decided to look back at the previous nomination for deletion. The only criteria they had for keeping it was this [1] and this now-dead url [2]. Both of these articles do nothing more than mention the existence of the site; neither gives it a complete paragraph, they are both local to the subject. Since then, there is also another miniscule mention here [3]. These are at best WP:TRIVIA, and definitely not significant coverage. This article fails WP:GNG. Jacona (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Lots of other websites reference this site: some make use of the images or the history, a wide range (schools, gov, reports,…) link to Bridge Basics for its educational value. StrayBolt (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, but the argument there is that the reference value of the site to WP could be preserved by moving the article into a subpage of the Bridge project. (that's an argument made in earlier discussions.... it happens to be one I don't personally agree with but I would be remiss not to mention it....) ... and the fact that other sites reference it for valuable resources doesn't itself make a site notable (again, not something I personally agree with, but ...) ++Lar: t/c 13:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 10:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arunita Kanjilal

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

GNG not met. The subject comes after Pawandeep Rajan, which was recently redirected to Indian Idol 12 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pawandeep Rajan. Suggesting a redirect but inviting community discussion for more clarity. ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP : Fixed encyclopedic references and multiple references. This article was clean earlier, removed unecessary references. Musicwikilover (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP : Added notable e-Patrika (newspaper) publication inviting the subject as guest editor on their e-paper. https://epaper.patrika.com/imageview_535372_1763729408_4_78_17-04-2022_4_i_1_sf.html
Significant independent published work of the subject meeting the notability (music) criteria of "to include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries" Musicwikilover (talk) 18:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources is helpful in establishing notability. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please check the e-Patrika (newspaper publication). It is a significant independent publication. Hope this source has been checked before the claim that none of sources establish notability. Musicwikilover (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: I don't think it was necessary to open this discussion. She is notable and source are reliable. Montubhai (talk) 2:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
    Montubhai, How do you feel she is notable? Most of the sources cited are unreliable and puff, others don't have significant coverage. ─ The Aafī (talk) 12:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    She is notable , the sources are reliable Indian publications including the independent e-newspapers where she was invited as guest editor. Musicwikilover (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    being invited as a guest editor doesn't make someone notable. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sir -
    As per below - The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search.
    I would suggest to search for sources rather than just propose for deletion as indicated above.
    Also , as I said the independent e-newspaper publication from a State of India asked the subject to be their editor for a day is surely notable for me. There is no affiliation of the subject with the said publication. Musicwikilover (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In order to be notable, one needs to either pass the WP:GNG criteria or any WP:SNG criteria and the subject passes none of these. I agree a plenty of coverage exists but it doesn't meet the guidelines such as WP:SIGCOV, WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:RS. That's to say, someone doesn't become notable if they receive some advertorial and routine coverage. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Software manufacturing

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

Not sure if this is a real practice. No sources, stub page, and most likely already covered by other pages. User known for self-advertising and copyright violations as well as possibly vote stuffing on the previous nomination. - Skynorth/Starfrostmy talk page 22:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aje Filmworks

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

Fails WP:NCORP. This is a deceptive article. The awards that appear to have been received by Aje Filmworks have been received by individual directors, so its claim to notability is tenuous at best. More than half of the prose is about a person whose work is unreferenced. This is a WP:BLP failure. The whole is WP:ADMASQ for a production company Sailing at full speed...churning out exceptional work. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:07, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sailing at full speed, for failing to meet WP:NCORP. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Resort (Australian TV series)

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

Article about a television series, not reliably sourced as passing WP:TVSHOW. As always, TV shows don't get an automatic inclusion freebie just because they purportedly existed -- the notability test requires the reception of reliable source coverage about the show in media independent of itself, in order to establish some credible claim of significance, but this has no references at all and has existed for almost two decades without ever having any proper references added.
And for added bonus, this article is decidedly non-neutral, expressing value judgements about "the biggest problems" with the show in Wikipedia's own editorial voice without sourcing them anywhere.
As I don't have access to any databases in which I could retrieve 18-year-old Australian media coverage, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can actually find enough proper sourcing to salvage it -- but after this long, it can't just stick around in an unsourced state anymore. Bearcat (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of late spring flowers

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

unreferenced listified stub since 2007; neither "late spring" nor "late spring flower" are definable terms; list would be far too broad in scope to be useful to anyone Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 19:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of women inventors

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

The purpose of articles is not to simply duplicate categories, but this list adds exactly zero information not provided by the articles in question already being in Category:Women inventors. There is no lead, no history of the subject, no references, just "binders full of women". Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Invoking WP:SNOW here. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Megatron

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

Per WP:TNT: if the article's content is useless (including all the versions in history) but the title might be useful, then delete the content to help encourage a new article. That is very much the case with this article, which is entirely FANDOM style plot summary and little that would be relevant to non-fans. In its current state, the article is very much unencyclopedic and as long as it stays as-is, it is unlikely to see improvement (much less anyone willing to even touch the article to fix it due to its sheer length). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: WP:TNT is an essay, and while I agree with the concern that the bulk of the article is documenting in-universe appearances of the character, the character is also one of the most significant in the Transformers franchise. As such, deletion seems a bit extremist to me, versus making an effort to focus on more real-world content and probably trim down the in-universe material. DonIago (talk) 19:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The proverbial can has been kicked down the road ever since 2004, 18 years ago. Saying that it could potentially be fixed does not merit a blatantly WP:NOT article remaining there for what will soon be 2 decades. Transformers does give enough info about Megatron for most to understand his importance as the villain of the series. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You've been here since late 2004, roughly the last 17.5 of those 18 years, and you haven't fixed this article. Why not? You edited a category in late 2017, so you've presumably been aware of this problem for 4.5 years. Are you assuming zero ownership of helping to clean up articles? Jclemens (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See also WP:SOLVE and WP:VOLUNTEER. I am not employed by Wikipedia so if an article doesn't interest me in fixing it just doesn't, although I still feel obligated to call attention to seriously problematic articles. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you feel obligated to call attention to seriously problematic articles, it seems odd to me that you haven't said anything at the article's Talk page, nor to the best of my awareness at the projects listed at the article's Talk page. AfD seems an unusual first stop for claling attention to an article.You may want to review WP:BEFORE. DonIago (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Film, and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article contains plenty of references from IGN, MTV and USA Today that establish notability. The sheer length of the article is a problem that can be fixed outside of AFD.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The OP's argument and rejection of the notion the article could potentially be fixed, citing the lack of improvements by competent editors from the past 20 years as a reason, directly contradicts their own statement that deletion of the article "could help encourage a new article". Not only is it pure speculation as well as an unreasonable expectation of other editors to make the proposed improvements instead of the OP doing it themselves, the nomination's rationale also does not follow Wikipedia's deletion policy. WP:TNT is an essay that provides advice about how to deal with problematic or poorly framed content, including the editorial method of bolding removing or blanking prose and reducing the article to a stub-length as a way of "starting over". WP:ARTN and WP:NEXIST however, are extensions of Wikipedia's basic notability guideline. Because article content does not determine notability and notability is based on the existence of suitable sources as opposed to the state of sourcing in an article, this nomination has failed to argue a case on why the article itself should be deleted. There is clear evidence of significant coverage from sources like this Indonesian academic journal article or this book which has devoted significant pages to discussing Megatron. By all means, reduce the plot-heavy article to a stub and start over with better sources, but that is purely an editorial concern and not relevant for an AfD discussion. Haleth (talk) 00:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Feel free to go ahead and edit out the excessive plot, but the fictional element is clearly notable. TNT is neither a policy nor guideline, so this is borderline speedy keep territory: if the problem can be fixed by editing, to include vicious excision of useless or overly detailed information, deletion is not appropriate. Anyone who seriously questions the notability of the main antagonist in Transformers is runs afoul of either WP:NOTHERE or WP:CIR--not saying the nom makes this argument, but noting that it is--correctly--not even remotely in play. Jclemens (talk) 01:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and close. Not a great nom. Take a flamethrower to the text but AFD is no place for it. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This has apropriate sourcing. //Julle (talk) 07:27, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Decepticon. This is a major fancruft mess, with 98% being uneferenced, and no reception section. The cultural legacy is a WP:NOTTVTROPES-style list. This might be notable, but WP:TNT applies. That said, rather than hard delete I think a redirect is sufficient, since if/when this is rewritten in a way that complies with our core policies (GNG, V, etc.) a few tidbits might be reused. But we cannot keep it in the current shape, since the article totally fails to estabilish it's notability (and nobody has done so here citing proper sources that discuss this in a WP:SIGCOV way and are independent). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't be serious with your redirection suggestion. Have you seen the state of the Decepticon article, or how it cites barely five secondary sources? I would have expected that articles like these would be sent to AfD well before articles which are poorly written but are still supported with plenty of cited sources. Haleth (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, given the indeed terrible state of the Decepticon article, I am changing my preferred redirect format to the generic article about this series/franchise. And I'll try to remember to review that other article and maybe bring it here if the sourcing doesn't check out. Happy? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. TNT is an essay, WP:PRESERVE is a policy. "delete the content to help encourage a new article", "as long as it stays as-is, it is unlikely to see improvement", these arguments are never true. Improvements come not because an absence of content. 182.1.72.196 (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As far as I'm concerned, a page for the primary antagonist of a long-running and successful franchise is automatically exempt from deletion, no matter how badly the page itself is written. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Closing admin is well-advised to consider the "quality" of arguments used here, and remember that WP:AFDNOTAVOTE. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: TNT only applies to articles that can't be fixed through simple editing. This one can. See the counter-argument essay WP:TNTTNT. Someone as iconic as Megatron is bound to have tons of coverage, and Haleth has provided some above. MoonJet (talk) 00:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per above. Megatron is easily one of the most notable transformers, and I don't see a reason to throw the whole article out when more selective text removals can be done. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, WP:THEREISNORUSH, etc. I've supported deletions based on TNT before, but those were short articles with POV/COI/advertising issues. "There's too much here" is the opposite kind of problem. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the posts above. The article badly needs improvement, not deletion. BOZ (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable topic per WP:GNG. I have no problem with distilling the article down to a list of appearances, but deletion is not needed. Looking for sources...
  • The book Transformers and Philosophy shows Megatron in its index for many pages: 35, 81, 100-01, 111-12, 127, 133, 162, 167, 171, 182, 193-197, 201-05, 208-09, 231; leadership, 90, 148-49, 156-58, 171-72, 179, 197-200. One chapter in the book is, "Megatron, Fascist Philosopher".
  • It also looks like Megatron is mentioned on ten clustered pages in a chapter about Transformers in the book The Galaxy Is Rated G: Essays on Children's Science Fiction Film and Television as seen here.
  • The book Robots That Kill Deadly Machines and Their Precursors in Myth, Folklore, Literature, Popular Culture and Reality has mentions of Megatron on pages 28, 110-111, 114, 141 here.
  • Comic Book Resources has numerous articles with Megatron in the headline here, like the article "Transformers: How More than Meets the Eye Changed Megatron", which is an example of a secondary source that tracks how the character has changed over the years.
Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RK Prajapati

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

Self-written promo article, dubious notability Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Tijani Fahie

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

Prod removed citing now-defunct WP:NFOOTY. Subject does not have sufficient (or, indeed, really any) coverage in reliable sources to be considered notable per WP:GNG. There's only mentions as part of routine coverage of the team: [4] [5]. agtx 16:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Magnus Olsson (programmer)

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

Unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this WP:BLP. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. J04n(talk page) 16:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Sargent Primary School

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

A primary school which fails WP:NSCHOOL and lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Two routine sources from the local newspaper exist; both relate to the Covid pandemic. One is about the school re-opening after a lockdown, the second about a student testing positive in 2020. A third source is a trivial mention in a book by a YouTuber who attended the school. AusLondonder (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to World Association of Wrestling. Liz Read! Talk! 06:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WAW World Heavyweight Championship

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

This seems like a very minor title, where it is hard to even be certain what the current name is (apparently, since 2016 it was the "Undisputed World Heavyweight Championship", but it looks to have reverted to the old one now?) or the current title holder (the article cites a 2019 source, but it seems as if it has been held by 2 other wrestlers since). Searching with the current title gives very few news hits[6] and rather few general hits[7] for a type of event which normally generates lots of nearly identical wrestling database and fansite hits. Looking for the shorter title doesn't really give much better results[8][9]. Fram (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There appear to be several much less prestigious titles with full pages[1][2]
The current title holder citation was added by someone else, who seems to have quoted an outdated article. I've added the list of champions and a few reference articles that verify the primary sources. DJ Nash (talk) 09:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. After two relists, participants are all over the map here, Keep, Delete, Redirect, Merge. No penalty against a future AFD or changing the article through editing work. Liz Read! Talk! 23:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Three Chords and the Truth (song)

[edit]
Three Chords and the Truth (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources fail to establish independent notability. Previous PROD was removed by User:Ficaia claiming the article "seems to have been reviewed and commented upon" without linking to any such review (which I could not find myself), pinging here to hear a full explanation of that/potential counterargument to deletion. Similar PROD for Shame About That was also removed but that article was converted to a redirect to the album, I would support that move here as well. QuietHere (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote: Shame About That has been unredirected, will be starting an AFD for that momentarily. QuietHere (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, charted on Billboard, sources discuss the song at length. WP:SIGCOV is passed here. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I removed the sources that I reflected on and found questionable. Found two sources from Billboard magazine itself saying that it "was ranked among Billboard's "Most-Played Video Clips" in August 1997." In a separate article I discovered, "It was nominated by the Music Video Production Association for Country Video of the Year, according to Billboard." Like I said with Sara's other singles, this song exemplifies her early career persona as a traditionally-minded country vocalist. The reader needs examples of notable songs that further explain this to better understand her career. It also one of Evans's self-penned tracks. This is an important descriptor to her as an artist indicating that she has several skill sets adding to her credibility as an artist. ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The two sources you added both only mention the music video (not even the song itself) in rankings or in passing in prose. Those aren't focused on the subject matter and still don't resolve the issue of notability. And this argument you've made on all of these makes no sense to me; why can't these things be discussed on the album article? That one's just barely hanging on at the moment as is (I only didn't PROD it because I found that two-sentence Entertainment Weekly review that I added), but if you've got all this info about the songs on the album why can't those be there? Surely with their powers combined we can make one notable album article. This "the reader needs examples" bit doesn't preclude that. QuietHere (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Billboard charted single with reviews. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets notability with chart appearance on Billboard. Seems to be enough independent sources. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 03:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote: I've posed a query about this song's chart run at WT:SONGS, hoping to clear up my own apparent confusion at some of the policy in question. I'd prefer to see a consensus established there before this closes, if that's allowed, as it may have a significant effect on this AFD's outcome. Thank you for your patience. QuietHere (talk) 05:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While the song itself charted, I see no detailed coverage of the song itself in any of the supplied sources and because it carries the name of the album, finding coverage of it was more difficult. Unless the previous !voters can show some of those sources that discuss the song's coverage, their opinions should be discounted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not finding significant sources for this song, and having checked the sources in the article many did not verify the statements in the article, and two are dead links. If there is SIGCOV for the album then a redirect to the article for the album would make sense, although the name of the album and this song are close enough that that might not be necessary. However, the sources mentioned above are not in that article, and it definitely needs them. p.s. The Allmusic link in this article is to a search on the song title, and it turns up a whole host of other songs and albums with this or a similar title. If you are searching you may need to dig down to make sure that you've hit the Sara Evans song. Lamona (talk) 02:17, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Three Chords and the Truth (Sara Evans album)/Delete. No automatic notability without significant sources – sources are about the album as a whole. Reywas92Talk 14:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 14:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to the parent album page. About.com was deemed not a reliable source at WP:RSN at the discussion here. References to about.com have generally been removed from the majority of music articles particularly those at GA-level. While charting can indicate notability, WP:NSONGS does state "probably" but it must be backed up by other coverage. At this stage merge to the album page is a better option. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 00:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Australian_Film_Institute_Awards_2005

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Australian Film Institute Awards 2005 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is already an identical article on the same topic - [[10]] Ward-draW (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Curry's Unanimous MVP Season

[edit]
Stephen Curry's Unanimous MVP Season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK of Stephen Curry#Unanimous MVP and historic season (2015–2016). I don't see the potential for WP:SUMMARYSTYLE here. Details can also be placed at his team's season page, 2015–16 Golden State Warriors season. —Bagumba (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Katietalk 13:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Otis T. Carr

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

This article relies too much on prmary sources. That is a problem for any article, but especially one on someone who was clearly a fringe figure John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some additional books in which he's mentioned on the jacket: The Way Out World: UFOs, ESP, Aliens, Reincarnation, and More!, Nikola Tesla: Free Energy and the White Dove, UFO-related phenomena : Hollow Earth, Men in Black, Crop circle, Alien abduction, Cattle mutilation, Planetary objects proposed in religion, astrology and ufology, Glenn Dennis, Contactee, UFO religion, Unexplained disappearances, Ley line, Star jelly. In addition, there's JOYLAND, ALIENS AND THE MEN in BLACK BEHIND OTIS T. CARR'S FLYING SAUCER which includes him in the title. Jacona (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aliyaanwar

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

No evidence of any notability at all could be found. We don't have a speedy deletion criterion for books, so here we are. Fram (talk) 12:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete under G11 per Bbb23. (non-admin closure) agtx 16:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

O Beto de Cascais

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

Largely unverifiable. I can't find good info on the iPOP award, he doesn't seem to be included in the first source (Be Art), and so on. His youtube parody exists[15] but is not notable, this is a blog and doesn't mention him (at least not his "beto" nickname, perhaps it is using his real name but no way to match this with any certainty): in either case, the iPOP website[16] used as a source here gives no results for either that other name nor for Beto. And don't get me started on the royal heritage claims... Fram (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to AOL. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 12:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sessions@AOL

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

Non-notable TV show and album. Zero sourcing besides one AllMusic article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrschimpf: All of the entries on that disambiguation page that weren't redirects have been deleted via WP:PROD. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:22, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. I ignored the sockpuppet !vote. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timo Preece

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

Lengthy (apparently self) promotional article. No hint of notability per guidelines. agtx 12:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to International Socialist Tendency#Affiliate organisations. Liz Read! Talk! 06:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linkswende

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

Seems to be non-notable. The corresponding article on dewiki was deleted in 2009 for being non-notable. The article content hasn't changed much since then and I think the same still holds. I found plenty of news coverage for a lawsuit against this organisation by Strache e.g. [17], but that's not enough for WP:ORG. HTinC23 (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or one might consider redirect to International Socialist Tendency#Affiliate organisations, if appropriate. de:Linkswende is a disamb page with a link to International Socialist Tendency. HTinC23 (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Consensus is unclear after 3 weeks, with the only expressions leaning to keep but without much conviction. (non-admin closure) Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Qalb (programming language)

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

Not notable; only one reputable source (The Register). elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - we have two sources providing SIGCOV. While I don't think there is all that much more interesting to be said about the language, now apparently a dormant project, the interaction between programming languages and human languages is an interesting and underdocumented one, and the article seems to be doing no harm. — Charles Stewart (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michał Lewandowski

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

Prod deleted on the basis that subject meets the now-obsolete football notability criteria. 98 appearances in a 3rd-level national league with no substantial media coverage is insufficient to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. agtx 11:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was. Playing for a third-level team in any country is not, by itself, an indication notability. The question isn't whether the article could be expanded. The question is whether there is significant coverage in reliable sources of this person. There is one, single full length article about the subject in a reliable source. Then there's an article and a one paragraph blurb on a local sports website, a routine game write up on another local sports website, and offhand routine mentions elsewhere. That is not enough to establish notability. agtx 16:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, WP:NFOOTY now redirects to WP:NSPORT as no special rules for football were needed. Said opinions closely follow WP:SPORTCRIT and the WP:GNG, hence are much better rooted in policy and guidelines than this comment. Also, prodding an article where opposition to deletion is to be expected is a clear violation of WP:PROD. There is not even the beginning of a case here for deletion, let alone for prodding! gidonb (talk) 14:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't expecting opposition and am frankly surprised to find it. This is a clear deletion. agtx 15:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There seems to be disagreement over whether this article satisfies WP:NSONG but the general consensus here is to Keep the article. Liz Read! Talk! 06:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shame About That

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

Sources don't prove notability independent of the album the song comes from. Previous PROD was removed by User:GB_fan in favor of redirecting to the album article (which is my preferred solution), but the redirect was subsequently undone by User:Donaldd23 and now the article is back where it started, without any other subsequent changes to address my original issue. QuietHere (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Three Chords and the Truth (Sara Evans album) per nom. XtraJovial (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote: I've posed a query about this song's chart run at WT:SONGS, hoping to clear up my own apparent confusion at some of the policy in question. I'd prefer to see a consensus established there before this closes, if that's allowed, as it may have a significant effect on this AFD's outcome. Thank you for your patience. QuietHere (talk) 05:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:55, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 10:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Lysyuk

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

Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 09:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. There does seem to be in-depth coverage here (1).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy-deleted by User:Muboshgu as a blatant hoax. Stifle (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine Reconquisita

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

While there are sources about a Byzantine Reconquista (not a "Reconquisita" though), these mostly apply to the 10th or 11th century, and none seem to be about a post-1453 reconquista. The Nicol 2002 source doesn't use the term Reconquista, the Simon David Phillips source only mentions an "Iberian reconquista" once, but not the one treated in this article. While the article purports to be about battles from 1453-1492, the quote about the 15,000 to 50,000 Ottoman dead is about the 1522 siege of Rhodes against the Knights Hospitaller, who aren't even mentioned as belligerents in the infobox. So, a hoax or at best a completely misunderstood and mangled retelling of the Nicol source? Fram (talk) 09:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. 1 (film series)

[edit]
No. 1 (film series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article of a supposed film series is nothing but WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. The films listed have nothing in common except the lead actor and "No. 1" title. Not a single source discusses topic as a "film series" as whole, thus failing WP:GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 09:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Neither of the keep votes present even a single source to suggest even passing coverage that could be considered to be substantial enough to suggest GNG. The first keep vote rests solely on the premise that paying in the Egyptian Premier League is sufficient for notability when no league carries that presumption. The second keep vote makes no sense as an argument at all. I presume it is trying to accuse the nominator of not carrying out a decent search for sources prior to nomination but presents nothing to suggest there are sources. AfD is not a vote and with not a single source is presented to suggest GNG, the consensus is to delete Fenix down (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Basem Abdel Aziz

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

Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 08:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I trust the closer will ignore this non-argument. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the benefit of the closer and other editors, please explain in detail how the above is a "non-argument". And, for the record, accusing another editor of deliberately presenting a non-argument is a breach of WP:AGF and very close to a breach of WP:NPA. Do NOT write anything like that again about me or anyone else. If the closer is a sysop, they may wish to give due consideration to the breach of AGF. NGS Shakin' All Over 12:59, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. I don't see anything wrong with the nomination itself, there is no inherent notability from playing in Egypt and no indication that the nominator did not perform a WP:BEFORE. I did a search, both in English in Egyptian sources and while there are several routine transfer articles on him, didn't find anything that I found substantial enough for him to pass GNG. If anybody has better luck in finding sources, I'm more than happy to change my !vote. Alvaldi (talk) 13:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 11:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes notability on BEFORE.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Boland representative cricketers. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clifford Prinsloo

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

Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 08:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • At worst this is a redirect to List of Boland representative cricketers - an obvious ATD exists, there are various reasons for redirecting, the name is clearly unusual etc... The subject would have met the version of NCRIC which previously existed: there are some passing mentions I could immediately find in internet news sources, but nothing particularly in depth that's obvious and he falls into that awkward era where it's not generally possible to easily access news archives but when online news sources are rarely archived, especially from South Africa - he's known to have played for Brackenfell CC which has tweeted something about him in Afrikaans, so it's also possible that sources may be in that language. On the whole I would suggest that sources will probably exist, but are unlikely to be found easily without access of hard copy archives. Right now I'd struggle to argue keep, but I honestly can see no reason whatsoever that I would ever argue delete - this is as clear a redirect candidate as I can recall and I'm struggling to understand why this has come to AfD when such an obvious ATD exists. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per the above. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Boland representative cricketers I'm also on redirect for this one. Obviously the guy exists and played for a few years for Boland, but as BST says this was a period where coverage for cricketers of this level in SA was more limited, and with Afrikaans likely being the dominant language for sources if they were to exist it makes them more difficult to find. Redirect is perfect in this situation as it recognises that he played a bit, and would have passed old notability guidelines, but there's currently not enough there, but also gives us the opportunity to re-add the article is suitable sourcing emerges. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Boland representative cricketers per WP:PRESERVE which is editing policy whereas SIGCOV is merely a guideline. As BST rightly says, there is an obvious ATD here when the guy played in SIXTEEN top-class matches and therefore has notability potential. This is the second bad nomination by Ficaia that I've found in the last few minutes. There is absolutely nothing to stop Ficaia from doing a straight redirect themselves if they really can't find anything, instead of bringing it here and wasting other people's time. If the guy had played in only a Boland state competition, assuming such is not top-class, then the article should of course be deleted, but that is not the case. I have actually voted redirect because the consensus is heading that way but, if I had been the first to find this AfD, I would have recommended keep with a refimprove tag. NGS Shakin' All Over 11:06, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Played 3 first-class and 13 List A matches; in one of his List A matches he made a century. Meets WP:GNG, and sources likely exist in Afrikaans (we are not an English language sourced only encyclopedia). StickyWicket (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No penalty against creating a draft should better sources appear as his career progresses. Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shah Emtiaj

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

No evidence of notability. Subject has had significant roles in only one film. Sources are generally passing mentions , adverts and listings. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   08:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. The nominator was a sock but there is still a vote to Delete and no support for keeping this article. Liz Read! Talk! 06:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj Basnet

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

Non-notable film producer. Lacking significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject. Thus failed WP:FILMMAKER. DMySon (talk) 05:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Bbb23: CSD A7: No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events). Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shaikh Sajid Ali

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

Nothing is notable about the topic. Repeatedly re-creation of a non-notable subject. Un-referenced article fails WP:GNG. And the subject must be salted.DMySon (talk) 05:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Hawkins

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

Dr. Hawkins seems awesome and everything I want in an amazing public servant. Unfortunately, after trying my best to prove otherwise, I don't think she presently meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. agtx 03:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Shellwood (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't access Washington Post articles, so can anyone say how much coverage the article cited gives her? Also this one 1 CT55555 (talk) 11:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The profile of 6 women atmospheric scientists devotes about 2-3 paragraphs to each, and 3 paragraphs to Hawkins. The other article is not mainly about her, but quotes her brief-ish-ly. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Two to three paragraphs in the Washington Post isn't very deep coverage, but it isn't trivial either, and it's the Washington Post. Her award likewise isn't a nobel prize, but nor is it a pay for play thing or something trivial at all. She is quoted a lot in media, not just in the Washington Post article mentioned above. Google scholar has articles she co-authored that have citation counts of 150, 123, 92 etc - not incredible, but also still something. Each of these factors alone would not establish notability, as I see it but combined add up to enough to create at least a start-level article and sufficiently notable to justify having an article. CT55555 (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lady in Scotland with the same name. I used her name and added "weather" and got a few hits in Gbooks [18]. Something in Forbes, which just looks like a rehash of the Washington Post article [19]. One mention in the Black Engineer magazine [20]. She's been a key-note speaker at a few conferences, one in Jstor. I think she's just barely notable. I see nothing wrong with keeping a high level woman in a government job to help counter gender bias on Wikipedia. Inclined to leave it/keep. Oaktree b (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep There isn't particularly deep coverage of her, however, she does hold a relatively high-level appointment and she appears to have a relatively solid publication record that would qualify her as WP:ACADEMIC anyway.00:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see little evidence of WP:NPROF -- the top-cited papers appear to have around 30 citations. (The similarly-named person in another field could cause a little confusion here.) This leaves WP:BASIC. I think that a couple paragraphs in the Washington Post is well short of WP:SIGCOV, and I don't see any other reliable sources that are beyond glancing mentions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. She's a government meteorologist, not an academic, so I think WP:PROF is the wrong criterion and we should evaluate her by WP:GNG. (Also, most of the citations in Google Scholar by "Michelle Hawkins" are by a different person, a British bird scientist; the American meteorologist's academic publications definitely are not enough for WP:PROF.) The coverage of Hawkins at [21], [22], and [23] is all I think reliable, and in-depth, but as government publications about a government employee maybe not independent enough. As well, we have a three-paragraph profile on her in the Washington Post (clearly in-depth, reliable, and independent), another profile from ArcGIS (in-depth and independent but of unclear reliability), US Black Engineer (reliable and independent but not in-depth), UMBC (reliable and independent but not in-depth). Really there's only one source that ticks all three boxes of reliability, depth, and independence but so many others come close that it pushes me towards the keep side. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to 1055 (disambiguation). Liz Read! Talk! 06:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of highways numbered 1055

[edit]
List of highways numbered 1055 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This fails WP:NLIST, as sources do not discuss the highways numbered 1055 as a group in a significant manner. As such, the list of highways numbered 1055 is non-notable. Along the lines of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highways numbered 1188, the article should be redirected to 1055 (disambiguation). — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 10:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Gray (politician)

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

The individual clearly fails WP:NPOL for de jure notability, so he'd have to pass some other notability guideline (such as WP:NBASIC) to be notable. To a bit of my surprise, I was unable to find significant coverage of Gray from his years in the Trump administration. There was lots of trivial coverage (a sentence or two in a few pieces, or a name-check in a few others), but I can't find any sources that cover him non-trivially in that context. There is coverage of him in the context of the special senate election in Oklahoma, but that appears to be the only subject in which he's discussed significantly by an independent reliable source. As such, the article appears to be a WP:BLP1E, with that one event being the individual's current campaign for Senate. As such, the article should be redirected to 2022 United States Senate special election in Oklahoma, where the article subject can be covered in sufficient death, or it should be deleted as non-notable. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom and John. Redirect doesn’t make sense to me as the article already includes him in that fashion, as a mention. NiklausGerard (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First, if the consensus is to remove this article, I recommend deletion instead of redirecting. He is one candidate in a 10+ primary, so I doubt the article will provide sufficient coverage to justify the redirect. Second, I do think Gray is notable for two things: serving in the Trump admin and running for Senate. I'm not convinced being notable for only two things is enough to justify keeping the article, but I don't think this is quiet WP:BLP1E.--TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    With the increased scrutiny on Trump Administration officials running for public office, it seems that this is an appropriate level of notoriety to warrant a wikipedia page. 104.0.117.129 (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)— 104.0.117.129 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Athletics at the 1984 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metres. Database entries are not considered significant coverage, as generally speaking they are mere lists of basic facts/statistics without elaboration. It is not unreasonable that the nom would not have mentioned the database entry in their nomination. Redirecting rather than deleting as WP:ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Yves Mallat

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

I can't find any significant coverage 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 03:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 21:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prajesh Sen

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. The sources are not valuable. Kadı Message 21:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prajesh_Sen should not be a candidate for deletion. Not sure what is the reason for selecting this page for the same. kindly remove the deletion notice from the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strangerqwer (talk • contribs) 15:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 21:22, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phi Beta Chi

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

It exists and apparently does some good work, but I am unable to find any evidence of notability. Borderline A7. Star Mississippi 15:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete web search shows no notable coverage. At best, there are some mentions in listings and directories, not enough to establish notability. Rlink2 (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. CT55555 (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep I've provided some additional cleanup, a comprehensive table of chapters and a number of references since the article was tagged with this unnecessary AfD. It's far more helpful to FIX apparent gaps in references versus rush to delete, as we are not running out of space on our servers. I just did so. About notability: Fraternal and Sorority groups normally reference the seminal reference on the subject, Baird's Manual, which over its 20 editions stretching back 150 years had adopted the rule that to be listed an organization must have formed at least three chapters, OR be a local that owns property, and exist for at least ten years. Phi Beta Chi clearly meets this standard. The Fraternity and Sorority Project has adopted that as a reasonable bar to meet for those articles we edit, create and monitor, in keeping with WP guidelines. There have been tens of thousands of non-notable local chapters that do not merit an article, and approximately 1,500 that do, which are tracked by our Project. This particular group has chartered 24 chapters and is almost 50 years old. It is extensively referenced in Baird's and noted on the official university portals where it has active chapters. It has a functional national headquarters and website. It certainly does not merit deletion. Jax MN (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    you're most certainly entitled to your opinion and I'm not going to debate your points, but absolutely none of that is in line with a speedy keep. Star Mississippi 20:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jax MN: I understand you may have strong feelings about keeping this article, but please see WP:SKCRIT for the speedy keep criteria. Also regarding the table I don't believe that is encyclopedic - please see WP:NOTDIRECTORY. AusLondonder (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment - Thank you, AusLondonder. I've had a helpful dialog with Star Mississippi regarding several pages, and believe they PRODed this page in good faith. They noted they understood the rationale I offered for use of the Speedy Keep in this situation, and failing that motion, I'd revert to a simple "Keep". Hence, I provided extensive edits to improve the page, along with references (see below, on RS). It was the timing or potential coordination that concerned me, regarding a succession of deletions of articles about small Christian-themed fraternities and sororities. These pages needed improvement, not deletion. Further, an article about an innocuous trade association for these groups, the United Council of Christian Fraternities and Sororities, was itself Swift Deleted without even an AfD process.
      I get it: These needed more citations, and needed cleanup. But they needed fixing, not deletion. I reject "Deletionism" versus the more helpful and comprehensive approach of "Inclusionism".
      To your point on WP:NOTDIRECTORY, I agree; but you may be misinterpreting what was added to the table. To explain, I included reference links to portal pages at universities, which we use to prove existence, and notability - not to provide mere contact info. These are NOT websites owned by individual chapters, but rather, university-owned pages where these groups undergo scrutiny to ensure they are valid, operating and approved student organizations. In practice, some of the newest fraternities and sororities are not yet tracked by our seminal reference, the Baird's Manual and online Archive, so we search for other proof of validity/notability. Important to their communities, these organizations hum along without generally being the targets of broad media attention.
      Wikipedia would be a far less helpful tool if we were to limit inclusion of fraternities and sororities only to those with extensive media coverage, major newspaper and journal articles. There are some ~100,000+ known groups, but only 1,473 of these are actively tracked by our project, the F&S Project, and of these, only about half have articles (plus 43 DABs). Removing all but those with a long list of external citations would leave us with only the largest, traditional groups, and those relative few that are notorious for some national scandal, or a few with historically-registered buildings. Wikipedia would thus suppress listing of many of the newer, multicultural or affinity groups -- resulting in a biased outcome. Yet these organizations exist, and are provable outside of their own websites and postings. They are recognized by their colleges and universities, and serve significant populations and a continuing flow of members.
      Technical help request: I'd change my vote to "Keep" rather than speedy keep, as I do not believe Star had any ill-intent, whatsoever. But I don't know if I should edit my original vote or re-vote. Nor do I want to lose the text of this discussion. Jax MN (talk) 16:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd have been happy to provide you United Council of Christian Fraternities and Sororities in Draft @Jax MN as I have no doubt you'd improve it, but it was an exact copy of their site and was from inception so while it was deleted as a G11, it could well have been a G12. You'll do best to start over on that one. My only concern re: These are NOT websites owned by individual chapters, but rather, university-owned pages where these groups undergo scrutiny to ensure they are valid, operating and approved student organizations is whether that's truly independent, but that's for someone who isn't the nominator to decide. Re: your last point, you can use <s> and </s> on either end of "speedy" or you can leave it as is with this discussion serving as background. It doesn't matter either way. Star Mississippi 17:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Done (strike "Speedy"), and yes, I'd like to work on the UCCFS page in draft form. I've also added another reference to Phi Beta Chi. Jax MN (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Go for it. If it hasn't been a copyright violation, there's no issue with that article existing. I've seen from the Christian sororities article you helped with that you'll leave the Council's in a good place. Thanks re: speedy. Have a great day. Star Mississippi 18:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Stifle, your rationale doesn't make sense to me. You state that "coverage is routine": yet there is coverage. This particular group moves along doing what it does, notable to its members and far exceeding the bar of notability with many more than just three chapters (24 to date) and existing for over 44 years where ten years is our standard. The adjective "Shallow" is subjective. The fact that the US-based Wikipedia is overweight on US-centric topics seems to be a feature, and not a detractor. --This isn't Wikipedia Italy. For the same reason that I don't comment on the thousands of articles about Australian rules football, leaving that area to others who have a closer affinity, I'd suggest that the detractor votes here are piling on out of a mistaken sense that Christian Fraternities and Sororities ought to be ignored by this resource, or that somehow, WP is running out of space, also a mistaken point of view. (No offense suggested to Australian rules football.) Jax MN (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    By "coverage is routine", I mean that the coverage shown is not of a depth that suggests notability is met. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific sources have been given and there's not exactly agreement on them. Achieving consensus might be assisted by a source-by-source analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mhawk10 (talk) 02:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:17, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Locke (actor)

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

per WP:NACTOR.  Bradford (Talk)  02:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 08:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because his representation not only as an actor but as an activist for LGBTQ+ is notable. And Joe Locke does appear to meet basic notability guidelines due to the relatively extensive coverage he's received from independent sources, and there's a lot of them. It can be reliable and be pondered that he fit's partially in the categories such as WP:NACTOR, and is about to fulfill it. (Luisedavis) — Preceding undated comment added 17:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete actor notability guidelines require multiple significant roles in notable productions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As Joe Locke is starring in a recently released series, he is likely to get additional roles later in his career. Deleting the page now would only require adding it again later. Cyber 94 (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify I think there is scope for a potential article here in future, but as the person who initially added a notability tag to his article, I agree that he does not meet NACTOR in the slightest yet. – DarkGlow • 19:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify The article is still actively improved with lots of contributions recently. I agree that it hasn't meet NACTOR yet but it would be a shame to just remove the page while it can still be worked on. Thariqziyad (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If basic notability guidelines are met by an individual, they do not necessarily need to meet the additional specific criteria laid out in the specific notability categories such as WP:NACTOR as long as the person in question is not part of an exclusion category. Joe Locke does appear to meet basic notability guidelines due to the relatively extensive coverage he's received from independent sources, although it could potentially be argued he could fall under the "single event" exclusion category, it also doesn't appear as though it would be appropriate to list information about his career, which did arguably become notable over Heartstopper under that page instead. - At time same time, it would appear incredibly unlikely that, events that will continue to make this person notable will stop, meaning this page will likely develop more into the future. The alternative to keeping the page here would be draftify the page, in which case we would just basically be making relevant information about Joe Locke that is currently on the page, either unavailable on wikipedia entirely, or accessible in a place where it really isn't obvious or suitable on a basis that is going to be very temporary in nature. I really only see this provide downsides to wikipedia users in this specific instance. In the end, Joe Locke's page appears to be right on the knife's edge between being able to have/not have their own page under wikipedia's guidelines, but I am seeing a clear downside to draftifying or removing the page at this point, thus (perhaps controversially) I am voting to keep the page. Wilburg22 - The insufferable potato! (Click here for my talk page!) 15:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is extensive coverage of the subject by reliable sources, which meets WP:BASIC and passes WP:NACTOR. For these reasons, and per points made Wilburg22, this article should remain. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @AuthorAuthor: WP:BASIC states that "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published states" [...] and General notability guideline (WP:N) states that "presumed" means that "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article" [...] The subject has just made his debut as an actor with this series, I don't think he has enough encyclopedic relevance yet to merit a wiki.
    Could it not be redirected to the series page until he achieves true/greater notability? (more roles and important projects for example, awards/nominations etc.) --Miaow 22:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This person passes the notability guidelines, thus I don't support deletion. Auror Andrachome (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with AuthorAuthor. In addition, notability can be established by this article getting on average 30,000 pageviews each day since it was created. --- FULBERT (talk) 15:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, you can save the information in the Sandbox of the user who created the article. But definitely the actor is not remarkable. The article has been created since May 2021. Were you waiting for the series to come out to promote the actor here on Wikipedia? Bradford (Talk)  22:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bradford, The issue is not if the actor is remarkable, the issue is he is notable, which he appears to be based on the external evidence in the news, his critical reception in this Netflix role, and the amount of traffic to this article each day. I have no idea about the intentions of the original drafter of the article. FULBERT (talk) 00:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    FULBERT Please see WP:POPULARPAGE. Actually the article don't say anything about "his critical reception in this Netflix role". --Miaow (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's been having a lot of media coverage and is speaking out about LGBTQIA+ issues. This page will surely be developed soon enough, seeing as it's going now. 185.26.88.44 (talk) 11:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:03, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Rake

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

For almost 10 years this has languished as a barely sourced, thinly-veiled resume. Obvious COI creator, and just the other day I removed an attempt to puff this up even more. Nothing of note here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flag lists that should have been on Commons

[edit]
List of Brazilian municipal flags (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
These pages should be been moved to Commons except the Brazilian one since too long that it had to be split into states on Commons. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the lists (that looked like galleries) looked like Commons gallery pages that should be (or already had been) transferred to Commons:

Who's with me on this nom? SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 00:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Riju Jhunjhunwala

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

Biography of living person who does not satisfy general notability or political notability. Both a draft and an article have been created, possibly to prevent moving the article into draft space. None of the references in the article are independent significant coverage. They include passing mentions, an interview, and profiles of his company and his foundation. It has not been necessary to check reliability of sources, but many of them are in the Times of India, which is not considered reliable, but it has not been necessary to check reliability of sources, because they do not pass the independent secondary significant coverage test.

Number Reference Remarks Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 Myneta.info A profile of political candidate information Yes No Probably No
2 EconomicTimes of Times of India Long story, but did not find mention of subject Yes No, might be a passing mention Probably not No
3 WSJ.com Company profile listing subject as chairman Yes No Yes No
4 EconomicTimes of Times of India Did not find mention of subject Yes No, might be a passing mention Probably not No
5 Indianexpress.com Story about Panama Papers, passing mention of subject Yes No, passing mention Yes Yes
6 EconomicTimes of Times of India Passing mention of subject in long story Yes No, passing mention Probably not No
7 EconomicTimes of Times of India 404 error No
8 Business Standard Profile of subject's company Yes No Yes No
9 EconomicTimes of Times of India Another corporate profile Yes No Probably not No
10 EconomicTimes of Times of India An interview with the subject No Yes Probably not No
11 DaijiWorld Profile of foundation established by subject Yes Not of subject ? No
12 Jawahar Foundation Web site of subject's foundation No Not of subject No
13 The Times of India News story about an election which the subject ran in and lost Yes No Mostly not Yes
14 The Times of India Story about his wedding Yes Not with respect to GNG Probably not No
15 News.abplive.com Story about his wedding Yes Not with respect to GNG ? No

The draft has 8 footnotes, which are mostly the same as in the article, and a URL dump, which has not been checked.

Either the article can be simply deleted, or the draft can be deleted and the article moved into draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://myneta.info/loksabha2019/candidate.php?candidate_id=11147 https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/markets/stocks/news/stocks-that-may-not-have-achche-din/articleshow/69464219.cms https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/IN/XNSE/RSWM/company-people/executive-profile/86357100 https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/elections/lok-sabha/india/13-of-25-seats-in-rajasthan-to-go-to-polls-on-monday-115-candidates-in-fray/articleshow/69083194.cms https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/cons-products/garments-/-textiles/pli-for-man-made-fibre-technical-textile-to-boost-sectors-growth-says-rswm-cmd/articleshow/83430692.cms https://www.business-standard.com/company/heg-251/info https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/panama-papers-bhilwara-group-panama-papers-india-list-mossack-fonseca-bhilwara-group-of-companies-2785032/ https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/heg-ltd/infocompanymanagement/companyid-13630.cms https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ground-level-problems-can-enable-development/articleshow/74795027.cms https://www.daijiworld.com/news/newsDisplay?newsID=936764 https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/elections/lok-sabha-elections-2019/rajasthan/news/songs-music-dance-to-woo-voters-in-ajmer/articleshow/68772828.cms https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/events/delhi/A-grand-wedding-reception/articleshow/6002713.cms https://news.abplive.com/movies/salman-khan-in-bina-kaks-daughter-amritas-wedding-throwback-pics-is-something-you-cant-miss-1001809 https://www.newsnationtv.com/india/news/jawahar-foundation-empowering-women-in-rajathan-for-a-brighter-future-258168.html
Thefinaldestiny (talk) 08:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Dong-Eui University. (non-admin closure) Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dong-eui Medical Center

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

Fails WP:GNG. Marked for notability concerns since 2014. Could not find significant coverage in English. I would reconsider if something is found in Korean. Note there is no Korean wiki article. LibStar (talk) 00:01, 29 April 2022 (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 delete. The two "keep" opinions do not address the detailed analysis of the sources undertaken by the nominator and Agricolae. Sandstein 07:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Randal McDonnell, 10th Earl of Antrim

[edit]
Randal McDonnell, 10th Earl of Antrim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fairly run-of-the-mill businessperson who is also a nobleman, but who never sat in the House of Lords because they inherited their title after the House of Lords Act 1999. The sources on this person do not help confirm that the person is notable; only genealogy websites pop up, and the rest is not significant coverage, reliable, or independent from the subject.

Source assessment follows:

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Peter W. Hammond, ed., The Complete Peerage or a History of the House of Lords and All its Members From the Earliest Times, Volume XIV: Addenda & Corrigenda (Stroud: Sutton Publishing, 1998), page 31 ? No consensus at WP:RSN on this issue. Certainly better than self-published peerage websites. ? ? Unknown
Marie Louise McConville, Earl of Antrim's funeral to take place in Glenarm next week , The Irish News, 6 August 2021, accessed 17 August 2021 No Passing mention ✘ No
Burke's Peerage, vol. 1 (1999), p. 90 ~ Only reliable for genealogy, per WP:RSP. However, family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic, per WP:NOTGENEALOGY. ? Unknown
The Earl of Antrim, highcouncilofclandonald.com, accessed 17 August 2021 No Subject of the article is part of the council and the publication is therefore not independent No self-published website ✘ No
"New Members appointed to the board of The Royal Parks". DCMS. Retrieved 28 August 2021. No No mention ✘ 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}}.

Pilaz (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given the fact that some editors seem confused about the deletion rationale, I'd like to make the last sentence explicit: it fails WP:BASIC. Pilaz (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Debrett's People of Today No WP:RSP - "There is consensus that Debrett's is reliable for genealogical information. However, their defunct "People of Today" section is considered to be not adequately independent as the details were solicited from the subjects. Editors have also raised concerns that this section included paid coverage." ✘ No
Agriland No Passing mention ✘ 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}}.
Agricolae (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on peerage sources that seem the primary coverage for this individual. By their nature these are prosopographical, an attempt to give information on everyone belonging to a specified class, with the only inclusion criteria being whether someone falls within the Venn diagram defining that class (an analogy would be a school yearbook or membership directory). The lack of editorial judgment determining inclusion renders such sources (Burke's and Hammond in this case) less weighty in contributing to WP:GNG than a source where an editor or author has selected a specific individual as more worthy of personal coverage than other individuals. Agricolae (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that analogy necessarily stands. If the category of people is notable in and of itself, there is no reason why a book about all of them shouldn't contribute to notability. For instance, a lot of French political biographies use the standard biographical dictionary of French legislators as a source, biographies of US judges commonly use material from the biographical dictionary of US judges, and so on. You get the idea. Atchom (talk) 02:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As a previous editor has said, not having a seat in the Lords is not the one-step test to deletion. The article as it stands is sources to the requisite level for notability to be established. Some of the previous votes (including the editor who suggested deleting an article about a man who has an ODNB entry) do not seem to be based on policy as much as a certain sort of politics. Atchom (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In the deletion rationale, when I wrote The sources on this person do not help confirm that the person is notable; only genealogy websites pop up, and the rest is not significant coverage, reliable, or independent from the subject., I was referencing WP:BIO. I thought that was obvious, but I'm glad you brought it up, and I have added a subsequent comment to my nomination to reflect that it wasn't. Pilaz (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the fact that they never sat in the House of Lords, I referenced it because it avoids people incorrectly claiming that it meets WP:NPOL as member of a national legislature. See this list for post-1999 AfD on British noblemen who never sat in the House of Lords. Pilaz (talk) 21:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Pilaz, I agree with you about WP:NPOL, but that is simply a policy which overrides WP:N when the GNG is not complied with, which it is here. All the sources seem reliable and independent, with a slight blur about highcouncilofclandonald.com, which has an editor called Macdonald who may well turn out to be a tenth cousin of the subject. When you say “only genealogy websites pop up”, I see none. If you mean The Complete Peerage, that is a huge printed source with editors. May I ask which other sources you are challenging? Moonraker (talk) 00:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My source assessment is in the nomination; and you haven't addressed the lack of significant coverage, which is integral to the GNG, for the two news articles. As for the The Complete Peerage, it is likely a tertiary source (a compilation anthology) and therefore probably can't satisfy the GNG (due to secondary source requirements). I also wonder if this Earl gets more than a passing mention in there. highcouncilofclandonald.com is definitely not independent from the subject, and is a WP:SPS, hence not reliable. And Burke's is insufficient, since Wikipedia is not a genealogy website. Pilaz (talk) 01:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_April_29&oldid=1086707821"