Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 June 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 17	June 19 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigo Banzer[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NTENNIS. JTtheOG (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Tennis, and Bolivia. JTtheOG (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have found some Spanish language sources that I think show that this player meets GNG [1] [2]. I also found some passing mentions about his college career, including one in the NYT, which suggests there could be more coverage in other sources, but this is what I was able to find with a quick Google search. Iffy★Chat -- 09:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The first source is six sentences long with one mention of Banzer while the second source mentions his name twice. If this is the NYT source, it's only a passing mention as well. Nothing that constitutes SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google News going back to 2014 has nothing beyond passing mentions in routine match reports. The 20minutos source from above has half a sentence on him ("so the match ended with victory for the Bolivian tennis player Rodrigo Banzer"). ✘ Página Siete from above is also a standard tournament recap and only mentions him twice. ✘ The NYT article literally only says "Christian Sigsgaard, Colin Markes and Rodrigo Banzer also won their singles matches to lead Texas to the title." ✘ The rest of the coverage I found was just more trivial mentions in regular sports reporting: [3], [4], [5], [6]. ✘ Unambiguous GNG fail. JoelleJay (talk) 23:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per JoelleJay. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BethAnn Bonner[edit]

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

Lacks notability; one role on One Life to Live is the only role of significance, and has since retired from acting. Bgsu98 (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bgsu98 (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Oklahoma. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bonner does not appear to have retired from acting, e.g. multiple reports at Broadway World that describe her ongoing career in 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2021. Beccaynr (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 2021 appearance seems to be solely as part of a Q&A panel with fans. She is no longer acting. Bgsu98 (talk) 03:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hoping for a few more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes criteria 1 of WP:NACTOR as a main cast member of One Life to Live from 2006-2009, and with recurring roles in Guiding Light and All My Children. In addition to the Broadwayworld.com source above and references cited in the article, I found two pieces of quality significant coverage in EBSCO where she is the primary subject in two non-interview articles and is addressed "directly and in detail" (I have now added them to the article). So passes WP:BASIC as well. See below.4meter4 (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy M. Reichardt (October 28, 2007). "Plus-size romances, regular faces no strangers to daytime: Final Edition". Edmonton Journal. p. B7.

Salomon, Andrew (May 8, 2008). "America's Next Top Broadway Star". Back Stage West. 14 (19): 1-5.

Keep per 4meter4 and the Broadway World coverage noted in my comment above. Beccaynr (talk) 23:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raffaello Degruttola[edit]

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

i fail to see how Degruttola meets WP:NACTOR or any other film related criteria - yes, he was involved in some films that were nominated or appeared in festivals, but it was through his production company (which may or may not be notable).

Almost all of his roles are minor roles that are barely even mentioned anywhere outside of listings like imdb and BFI. Aside from his marriage to a notable actress, there is a total dearth of in depth, meaningful coverage of him. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Entering Bastard Helper From Hell mode:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120717063055/http://www.simonelahbib.net/biography.html is useless for notability (too sparse, connexion to subject). Barely discusses Degruttola, and is on his SO's official website in any event.
We can't use https://www.blowoutmagazine.com/other-stuff/2020/10/28/raffaello-degruttola (Unknown provenance, connexion to subject). Interview with no byline.
We can't use https://raindance.org/2014-moet-british-independent-film-awards-nominations/ (Unknown provenance, too sparse). This is a list of nominations for an award which is likely not notability-granting in and of itself, film festival awards are obscenely common.
We can't use https://mentalideas.org/portfolio/ambassador-raffaello-degruttola/ (unknown provenance, no editorial oversight). No byline or any listed editor-in-chief or editorial policy. This applies to all other Mental Ideas cites as well.
We can't use https://www2.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/4ce2bbc49677c (too sparse). Content-free listing.
https://balance.media/raffaello-degruttola/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). He wrote the source in question.
http://film-directory.britishcouncil.org/no-way-home is useless for notability (too sparse). Film listings are, as a rule, absolutely worthless as notability sources.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/transference_a_love_story is useless for this article (wrong subject). This is just a bare RT metaranking.
We can't use http://www.filmfestivalarizona.com/film-detail.php?id=890 (too sparse). Even if we don't discount the director's blurb, this is far too short to cite.
https://www.ok.co.uk/lifestyle/eastenders-katy-simone-husband-famous-23110242 is useless for notability (too sparse) and I strongly suspect, being unfamiliar with British magazines, that this is a gossip mag (no editorial oversight).
We can't use https://www.tvguide.com/celebrities/raffaello-degruttola/credits/3030398545/ (too sparse). Content-free listing of his films.
We can't use https://www.fandango.com/diana-165668/cast-and-crew (too sparse). Credits listings do not help a whit for notability.
We can't use https://www.dvdlocker.com/movies/movie.php?mid=0096679 (too sparse). Same issues as the British Council Film Directory.
We can't use https://www.comedy.co.uk/people/raffaello-degruttola/ (too sparse). Yet Another Fucking Content-Free Listing (YAFCFL).
We can't use https://www.tvmaze.com/episodes/46512/the-borgias-2x10-the-confession/cast (too sparse). YAFCFL.
https://www.npr.org/2021/07/30/1022210711/ted-lasso-recap-season-2-the-prodigal-beefcake?t=1651165745500 is useless for notability (too sparse). Name-drop.
https://www.memorabletv.com/episodes/father-brown-the-final-devotion-s9ep5-abc-tv-sat-23-april-2022/ is useless for notability (too sparse). Name-drop.

Nothing I see here is in any way, shape, or form usable. No comment on the print source other than to say that even if it were acceptable it cannot itself save the article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 01:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Italy, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 07:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Degruttola is the lead actor in House of 9 (just added), and Citizen Verdict, as well as supporting roles in many large movies.

- Film festival awards maybe obscenely common, but some are considered to be prestigious - including the British Film Festival, and Raindance and nominations are considered prestigious too.

- Will look for more citations.

Otherwise, should this be a stub? Rafffan (talk) 00:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations in and of themselves do not help for notability unless there are a LOT of them. Just two nominations are no good notability-wise. House of 9 has absolutely abysmal sourcing (and it, too, seems like it would be a perfect AfD candidate barring more professional film reviews). Supporting roles are irrelevant. There is no chance this becomes a stub - once again, at best we only have one plausible source, which means WP:Notability has not been met (since the subject doesn't meet WP:NACTOR so far as I can tell otherwise). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was involved at an early stage when I had to ask the author to stop canvassing editors in favour of their latest draft. I was convinced at the time that this SPA was writing an autobiography. I was surprised to see it elevated into mainspace since I can see no evidence that the subject is in any way notable. Fails WP:GNG. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:43, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty Tree Foundation for the Democratic Revolution[edit]

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

No significant coverage. The only references are to its now deleted website. The creator of this 2005 article has a conflict of interest. SL93 (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. SL93 (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. No significant coverage whatsoever. Decidedly non-notable.A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 02:18, 25 June 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Ockershausen[edit]

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

Not notable local radio personality. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Washington, D.C.. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a one-market radio personality with nothing to indicate notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He was a bit more than "just" a local radio personality. He was, at times, an executive vice president and general manager of WMAL and member of D.C. Baseball Commission, as the LA Times reported in 1985 (he gets a few significant mentions in this): Major League Baseball’s Decision on Expansion Moves at Snail’s Pace. His hiring of Jurgensens is talked about in Critics questioned Sonny Jurgensen’s addition to Redskins’ radio booth. It worked out okay.. He was the vice president and general manager of WFTY (now WDCW), Laurel, Pimlico Action Returning to Television (and his involvement in figuring TV deals is featured in that article. He and his wife had a pretty big feature piece written about their house and his life A cozy haven in Shady Side; Couple enjoys 'spectacular' sunsets on south county creek. His retirement from WMAL was written up in several places: Ockershausen Weighs His Options in Wake of WMAL Departure, Does Cap Cities Plan to Change WMAL's Tune?. When he started a podcast at 87 John Kelly at the WaPo wrote a feature piece about it/him: A long-ago voice from Washington radio is resurrected on a biweekly podcast. This is all from just the first page of results on Ebsco and Proquest, by the way. Oh and Washingtonian has a decent summary of his career. There's widespread, near continuous coverage of his career from major local/regional media and occasional coverage from other regions and general trade-focused publications. Skynxnex (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV per the the sources provided by Skynxnex.4meter4 (talk) 07:55, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:BIO with sources presented by Skynxnex. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 09:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due to sources highlighted by Skynxnex. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:40, 26 June 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vezham[edit]

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

Promotional sources. Does not satisfy WP:NFF. Proposing draftification until the notability of the film can be established. – robertsky (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. – robertsky (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : There are a number of news articles that mentions the movie has already started shooting and is set to release in few days - June 2022. Its from a major production as well. Thus WP:NFF wont stand. Moreover other significant news articles are also furnished. So this is an unwanted AFD. Jehowahyereh (talk) 12:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The film has been released in theatres on 24 June 2022 and we can close this discussion. Kannan.529 (talk) 05:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kannan.529 being released does not mean it is notable. I rather have this kept up until someone inserts in a reception/review section with 2 or more in-depth reviews per point 1 of WP:NFO, assuming that the movie has been widely released. – robertsky (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NFILM. A simple google search pulls up plenty of independent reviews. For example, [7], [8], [9] , etc.4meter4 (talk) 01:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources show that WP:NFILM is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:39, 26 June 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 Brian Trenchard-Smith#First American films. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Day of the Assassin[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and nothing in Newspapers.com. The Film Creator (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete: The first two sentences of the blockquote that comprises the content of this article could be salvaged and included in the Brian Trenchard-Smith article, as an example of his idiosyncratic point of view on directing films. But as is, this article itself fails to meet WP:SIGCOV or and the other criteria cited by the nominator. Matuko (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brian Trenchard-Smith#Filmography - I am finding nothing but very brief mentions of the movie, and no full length reviews or significant coverage. It is already listed on the filmography of the director, though, so a Redirect to that section seems reasonable. Rorshacma (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Brian Trenchard-Smith#First American films (technically, merge with the entire page and redirect to said location): there is currently a single uncited sentence about Day of the Assassin in that section, which can be slightly expanded with text from this article (namely, just a statement about how it was a "crazy experience"). As for the target of the eventual redirect, it is more useful as a reader to be redirect to a section with text than a list entry with almost no additional information. As people above have said, fails SIGCOV. House Blaster^talk 19:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion includes a proposal for merger to Brian Trenchard-Smith, and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to that page on June 22. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from that page.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 06:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found only newspaper listings at Newspapers.com and newspaper listings are insufficient to fully establish notability per NFSOURCES. I found no sources or reviews reliable or suitable enough to pass WP:NEXIST. The Film Creator (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I kind of get the impression that there's probably more out there coverage-wise, but I couldn't really find much other than what I added to the article. I think a good compromise would be to merge some of the content to the article for Ronnie Apteker, as this film was pretty much his baby and sort of his first foray into film production as far as I can tell. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion includes a proposal for merger to Ronnie Apteker, and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to that page on June 22. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from that page.

Keep - I'd say passes WP:GNG with sources added into article now. Other source found inBusiness Day (South Africa), and Bauer, Charlotte (November 3, 2002). "A geek with purpose". Sunday Times. Johannesburg, South Africa.. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has reliable sources reviews in South African newspapers such as The Mail and Guardian (in the article) and the above mentioned Business Day and Sunday Times so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw this nomination per consensus. The Film Creator (talk) 13:48, 24 June 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Literary hope theory[edit]

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

Reviewed during new page patrol. I hope that the author saves a copy of this before it gets deleted because it would make a nice paper/essay/article somewhere other than in Wikipedia. It is purely an original work / essay and uses cites/sources only in the way that an original work / essay does. It is not a summary of what is in the sources. The reference section text does not mention the article topic even once. I thank the author for their excellent work but per numerous policies and guidelines (starting with wp:nor, then moving on to wp:v, wp:not and wp:notability) Wikipedia is not the venue for this type of work. North8000 (talk) 23:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What I posted on the article's talk page on 7 June: "Searches on Google Scholar, Jstor, Ebsco, and Project Muse find no results for literary hope theory. The article creator appears to have written a paper full of original research about "hope in literature" and given it a title that is not used anywhere." I believe it's a student/EDU article and the creator hasn't been back to edit since 28 April. Schazjmd (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:48, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Appears this article was written for the WikiEd course: Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/School of Arts and Sciences/ENG 372 Comparative and World Literature (Spring 2022). Natg 19 (talk) 08:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above: an impressive and interesting piece of work, but not a notable concept, apparently not a concept that exists in any published work, and not an encyclopaedia article. While hope in literature could very well be a notable topic, this doesn't really provide anything that could be the basis for an article on it: the essayistic tone here could probably only be overcome with significant further work by the original author, which is very unlikely to happen. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... sadly. A well written essay that probably could be published in an academic journal with some minor modifications. However, it is an original concept and as such fails WP:OR and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 08:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 23:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Best (Ariana Grande album)[edit]

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

Albums which are little beyond a track listing are not notable per WP:NALBUMS. Although charting is indicative of notability, it alone does not mean that albums are guaranteed a standalone article. There was no marketing, no singles, no new music and it was a limited market release. Also fails WP:GNG on the grounds of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The album reached number two on the charts and I guarantee the album did receive marketing (Japanese labels generally do a lot of marketing), it's just that it's not present on the article, likely because editors would have to go through Japanese-language sources to find said marketing and it's likely they don't speak the language or didn't bother to look. Japan is the second-biggest music market in the world; saying this album was confined to one market when that market is huge really makes that not a concern or contributing factor. (We're not talking about a European country with a population of ~5 million here.) If this is not considered a notable compilation or compilation albums need to have new music on them to help their notability(?) I worry what kind of precedent this sets. Ss112 23:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate what you're saying about the size of the Japanese market size however, we don't need an article for an album that has very little information beyond a track listing and chart position. Unless there is coverage beyond its existence (which there doesn't seem to be) then its not notable for wikipedia. There was no new material recorded or promoted in advance of the album. Just because something charted in a notable market doesn't make it notable. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 23:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not all I said. I also said based on what I know of the Japanese market, I'm certain there is Japanese-language sources covering this out there that are not present on the article. Perhaps somebody more well versed in the areas to look for Japanese coverage will come along. Also, a compilation really doesn't need to have new material on it to be notable. Ss112 01:09, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While, yes, charting in a general sense isn't enough to claim notability, I refuse to believe that an album that hit number 2 on an all-format national chart doesn't scrounge up a handful sources to meet the GNG. The logistics of that that are exceedingly unlikely. Sergecross73 msg me 23:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree... if you know anything about the Japanese music market then you'll know that often Western artist releases will have Japan-exclusive versions of albums that will have bonus tracks especially for the market. This release was unremarkable in the sense that it was a compilation of already released music and there was no single promoting the album. Grande didn't travel abroad to promote it. No doubt it might have receive some coverage in a limited form e.g. marketing about the actual album e.g. press release, its notability is not inherited from Grande being a notable artist, it charting or Japan being a large music market. Given that record-label led and induced releases for the Japanese market are very prevalent, claiming "you refuse to believe something hit number two without coverage" doesn't wash per WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. We can't keep a page on the "off chance" that coverage exists, even we feel certain it does. If the coverage doesn't exist then an article isn't warranted. If it was any other music market then this type of thing wouldn't happen. I think this belongs in the discography. If other coverage exists fair enough, but given that no new music is featured on the compilation, there was no supporting tour, no performances and no singles I doubt this will be the case. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 00:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well informed of the music industry and Japan. The scenario you're proposing is ridiculous. Please focus on more productive areas of Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 00:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1) Assume good faith, 2) It is productive in my eyes, and for what I edit on Wikipedia, to improve articles and try to establish notability. If that can't be done then redirect, merge or deletion discussions might be appropriate. I will of course follow consensus and there is ignore all rules for a reason but nevertheless I'm just applying WP:NALBUMS. Sorry you disagree ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 10:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the English language Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia, so irrespective that it was a limited market album, it topped that chart, was a top 100 of the year, and is a part of her discography all the same, no matter how little Grande actually marketed it. Nate • (chatter) 03:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Irrespective of chart position, WP:NALBUMS says that charting indicates notability but alone is not enough for an article to exist. We don't normally create articles just for a track listing and chart position. The state of coverage centres on the existence of the album - this doesn't meet the requirements of WP:NALBUMS. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 09:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ss112. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it has been addressed above, meets notability. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article definitely could use expansion, but it is a notable topic, and meets the WP:SONG and WP:GNG Rylesbourne (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NALBUM per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 09:01, 25 June 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ikhtiyor Rakhman[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. The sources given are not adequate for Wikipedia's notability criterias. Kadı Message 22:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Uzbekistan. Kadı Message 22:49, 18 June 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) 4meter4 (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ROSE Online[edit]

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

Had a look at WP:NVG - this article does not feature:

sources that are newspapers, magazines, books, documentaries, websites, and consumer reports. Questionable reliability of the sources used in the article - much of the article is synopsis not supported by sources.
independent sources
Significant commentary should report more than basic game data (such as its title, platform, publisher, and creative staff). Commentary should be critical and detailed.

Also missing awards or information that goes beyond its existence. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note it was previously nominated for deletion twice - an extended number of years ago. The article has been targeted as not-notable since Dec 21. Previous discussions said it was notable because it was played a lot in the East and did not get traction in the west. Although reliable sources were mentioned in a previous deletion discussion - the quality of the coverage was not written or analysed.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources raised in previous discussions, which is convincing enough for me. Even if not currently on the article, the coverage is out there (and we don't have to have the sources presently on the article to see a topic is notable). Ss112 22:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gravity (Korean company)#ROSE Online Previous Keep outcomes were predicated on unreliable sources. The only reliable source I can find that is a review is the GameZone one, which is not enough to pass the bar of GNG. If it cannot even pass that low bar of 3 reliable reviews, I don't believe it should be a standalone article. Redirect as WP:ATD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Zxcvbnm. Searching the expanded name finds some other hits. Gry-Online has 4 articles about the game. That said, I otherwise could only find English press releases and directory entries. I don't believe the bar is met. There's very likely some Korean coverage, but our vetted list of Korean reliable sources is nearly non-existent. If reliable sources can be found, I may re-evaluate, but we can't assume they are out there. NEXIST doesn't require sources to be in the article, but it does require them to be found and noted, not simply assumed. Most of the sources in the 2nd AFD are either unreliable or non-secondary (Interviews). -- ferret (talk) 01:12, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I think Jovanmilic97 has dug up enough, along with the Gry Online articles, to meet GNG. I'd be more strongly keep if we had better vetting on the Korean sources, but I cannot vouch for their reliability at this time. -- ferret (talk) 17:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are some good sources in 4Gamer [10] and [11], and previous AFD uncovered two decently sized reviews in GameDaily [12] and GameZone [13] (all three reliable in WP:VG/RS). Also some reviews and open beta coverage in Korean, [14], [15], [16], [17]. While the state of the sourcing in the article is pretty poor, the game undoubtedly meets WP:GNG, and that's all it needs per WP:NEXIST. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While the 2nd 4Gamer article says "review" in the URL, the two articles are just previews, and as ferret said, the vetted Korean sources are nonexistent, so I would debate that it undoubtedly meets the criterions. My !vote for redirection still stands, especially as there is a valid target that can have what information exists on the game. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:25, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More an aside than anything, but I'd really like to see discussion of some Korean sites at WP:VG/S to see if we can't get some vetted. -- ferret (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:NVG is an essay. Merko (talk) 13:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is, and I'm not a huge fan of its use, but it doesn't mean it's wrong. It exists as an explanation of GNG applied to the specific context of video games, that's all. 95% of what it says is straight application of GNG. -- ferret (talk) 13:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Jovan's sources. Sergecross73 msg me 20:42, 19 June 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Islam Magdy[edit]

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

Stats stub on a footballer with an incredibly brief career and no apparent significant coverage. Even Arabic searches like this one appear to be fruitless with only namesakes popping up. No evidence of WP:GNG being met. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Egypt. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 09:43, 26 June 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) Kj cheetham (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Limo (How I Met Your Mother)[edit]

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

No significant coverage in independent reliable sources for this episode. Fails GNG and NFSOURCES. A certain editor appropriately changed this page into a redirect with the comment "not a single source" in the edit history [18].

Another editor then changed this back to a main space article with a comment to "AfD it" in the edit history [19]. I then prodded this article and the same editor removed the PROD tag and commented saying to send this to AfD [20] So here we are. Steve Quinn (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Fictional elements, and Television. Steve Quinn (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. The claim of an Emmy win is unsubstantiated, and insufficient if no other sources can be proven to exist for an article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Emmy win was easy to find and add to article (thanks Artw). Did you even try to confirm the win before registering your REDIRECT vote??? DonaldD23 talk to me 02:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep added some refs, seems to be a pretty popular show on the subject of New Years. Artw (talk) 22:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also confirmed the related Emmy. Artw (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, yes, AfD was absolutely the place to raise the deletion of this article. Probably a bit of a WP:BEFORE wouldn't have hurt. Artw (talk) 22:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a procedural matter, the nominator's PROD was improper: If anyone has objected to deletion at any point ever and no speedy deletion criteria are met, AfD, is the proper venue. Jclemens (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but Prod was done properly even if you don't think so. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prods are for simple uncontroversial deletes only. The Emmy alone means you are out on that count. Unless you were just hoping it would sort of slip through…? Artw (talk) 00:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources above. I was the one who removed the redirect and the PROD because deletionists would rather remove content from Wikipedia than search for sources themselves. I waste so much time reversing incorrect redirects that its very frustrating. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:14, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Artw and DonaldD23. A TV episode with an Emmy win in any category should be automatically eligible to have a standalone entry in English Wikipedia. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Unless there is a WP:SIGCOV discussion of this episde somewhere, it fails GNG. Winning an award is nice, but not sufficient to warrant a stand-alone article - a mention of this fact in the article about the show is sufficient. Common sense, most sources and people will remember that it was the TV show that won the award, not which episode was credited. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:15, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which aspect of SIGCOV do you feel is not covered by the current sources? Artw (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ArtW and DonaldD23. Notable because it won a significant award. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:48, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per all above.4meter4 (talk) 09:44, 26 June 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. Stifle (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Andreyev[edit]

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

no evidence of notability, WP:SOAP Acous mana 20:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Acous mana 20:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Ontario. Shellwood (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Scattered mentions of his compositions, nothing about him as a person. Oaktree b (talk) 23:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Aoyoigian (talk) 05:28, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough under WP:NMUSIC to guarantee him a Wikipedia article just because he exists, but with three primary source footnotes and absolutely no third-party coverage in reliable sources shown at all, the article is not referenced even remotely well enough to claim that he would pass WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It would seem that he meets WP:MUSICBIO due to his award of Grand Prix du concours Henri Dutilleux and I found a citation for and new article that I added here. Even tough it is an interview, the part that talks about the award is from the intro and not the interview itself, which is acceptable. The article still may need some trimming, but I am in support of keeping and improving. Zeddedm (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Ludwig van Toronto" is not a reliable or notability-supporting source. It's a blog, not real media, and even if it were acceptable a person would still need more than just one acceptable source. NMUSIC does not just extend an automatic notability freebie to every winner of just any music award that exists: we extend that only to notable major awards that get widespread media coverage, like Junos or Grammys, not just to every music competition on earth. Bearcat (talk) 12:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat It’s not an award, but a music competition for composers (there’s an article on the competition on the French wiki). He placed first which means he passes criteria 9 of WP:MUSICBIO.4meter4 (talk) 09:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even music competitions still require reliable source coverage, not blogs or the competitions' own self-published websites about themselves, to support the statement before they count as notability claims, and even winners of music competitions that can be properly supported by a GNG-worthy source still can't have that be the only GNG-worthy source they have. Bearcat (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An independent ref was just added by Zeddedm, so that is no longer an issue. I'll point out that most published sources on this person are likely to be in French language publications. As such, locating RS may be more challenging for those unfamiliar with searching in French language media and academic journals.4meter4 (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A better citation for his award and more indeth article is here, which I just added. Zeddedm (talk) 09:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks independent coverage establishing that WP:NBIO is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle
Keep. Passes criteria 9 of WP:MUSICBIO for placing first in the fr: Concours Dutilleux; which is a major international music competition for composers.4meter4 (talk) 09:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for the reasons set out above. (Though the sentence ending "... will be issued in the fall of 2021" needs attention, not only because that happened some time ago, but also because of WP:SEASON.) Tim riley talk 10:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Marginal keep per User:Tim riley.--Smerus (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He appears notable per the references cited. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:21, 27 June 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!} 19:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Boomtown Fun Center[edit]

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

non-notable family center, tried to redirect to the main article about the hotel/casino, but creator insists on keeping it as a standalone. There is no meaningful coverage to substantiate a standalone article. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced article, I find no sources that could be used for an article either. Oaktree b (talk) 23:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Other than it's own website, there is no source indicating notability for this stub. It completely lacks any reliable coverage and IMO should not be an article. VickKiang (talk) 10:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 08:07, 25 June 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!} 19:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Al-Jadani[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found in WP:BEFORE nor significant coverage in the sources given on the page, if reliable. Was previously G5'd as a creation of Tash-natasha, so salting might be in order. Note that NFOOTY is deprecated. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 19:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Shellwood (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:20, 19 June 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!} 19:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Akai CD3000XL[edit]

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

Reviewed during new page patrol. Product listing. Content is all self-described catalog and promotional type material. Of the 3 references, one is to an EBay type resale site listing, one is to their sales page and the other is a product review. The 3 external links are to their sales pages. Probably not promotional other than of Akai because the product appears to be defunct North8000 (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Products, and Technology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources found, although it's too narrow of a search to find much online other than sales listings as described. Also the item is from the pre-internet era, perhaps some paper sources can be found. Oaktree b (talk) 02:41, 19 June 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!} 19:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rizi Timane[edit]

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

non notable entertainer, no coverage in independent reliable sources PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I declined a speedy deletion request on this—this appears to be a good-faith attempt to write a neutral biography, not 'unambiguous spam'—but this is a textbook example of how not to source a BLP. ‑ Iridescent 17:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Sexuality and gender, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Press releases or the author's bio in Huff Post. No suitable sourcing found. Oaktree b (talk) 22:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Oddly, the article does not mention that the subject is the author of at least three books and appears to use the name "Rizi Xavier Timane" professionally. Under that name there is more info available online. Regardless, none of their work as an author, musician, or actor has attracted any reliable media notice. For their work as a therapist and activist, I found one reliable article: [21], but I don't think that one article adds up to "significant" coverage per WP:SIGCOV. Everything else to be found online is basic directory entries and promotions for their therapy practice, but promoting one's business and resume is not a function of Wikipedia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:08, 20 June 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. Consensus is for deletion. The article can be recreated but wait for in-depth coverage in high quality sources to emerge before doing so. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Malimooju[edit]

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

Reviewed under new page patrol. No indication of notability under GNG or SNG. In fact no indication that it even exists other than in the minds of the two students who made it up. The only "reference" is to a different actual cocktail which the editor claims is a "variant" of this probably-non-existent one. one. Since it has one "reference" I did not speedy it. North8000 (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, not every new cocktail that's been created will automatically have been entered in bartenders' guide books. These things come with time. I created the cocktail as it is gaining significant popularity and I am sure with time that more mentions of it will come about. Deleting it at such an early stage would be an extremely premature decision. I am happy to discuss any specific queries that you may have. Also, I suggest you try a Malimooju. It is genuinely delicious! Eagleye1001 (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The cocktail has been submitted for approval by the National Bartenders Association also. This will be added as a reference once it is approved. Eagleye1001 (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagleye1001: Thanks for the post and the idea. The AFD is not a reflection on your cocktail or it's prospects. Wikipedia articles are based on material that is in published sources, and more to the point here, stand-alone articles are for items which have received in-depth coverage in independent published sources. I'm just doing my job which is to implement that criteria. I wish you and your cocktail the best. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem mate. All I ask is that you hold off on any decision for a while. A "stay of execution" of sorts. As I've said, it's awaiting approval by the NBA so once that approval is gained it can be added as a source. Eagleye1001 (talk) 08:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, we aren't going to 'hold off' on the decision of whether to delete WP:A11 content. You have created an article that is pretending this cocktail you and a friend came up with from whatever was sitting around your dorm room is an actual thing. You've been playing around here on WP since you were a kid. You aren't a kid any more. Grow up. valereee (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With reference to the Introduction to the Deletion Process (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process) linked above, it states under the "Competence" heading that articles should not be deleted "if the content is still being built or improved." I believe this cocktail falls under that category. It just needs more time. Eagleye1001 (talk) 08:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the post. The way that 99% of deleted articles are deleted they can easily be recreated. If your new cocktail gains the coverage to meet wp:notability, you can easily recreate the article. If that time comes and you want help, guidance or support, ping me and I'd be happy to. The section that you refer to is really about where the topic meets wp:notability requirements but the articles is in bad shape. Such is not the case here. BTW I don't think that you understand this area of the Wikipedia alternate universe. If you'd like to do that, the decoder ring is at WP:Notability. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotion? No published sources. Can easily be re-created if the drink gains traction. Oaktree b (talk) 22:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unsourced, no credible claim to notability, and it appears to have been created this year by a couple of college students in their dorm? Dubious. Eagleye1001 this looks like a hoax or joke, which is vandalism. Do not do this again. Wikipedia is not a playground where you can show your roomies, "Look guys! I got our cocktail into Wikipedia!" Honestly this could probably have been speedied as obviously invented. JFC. valereee (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the situation should be taken at face value as explained. A couple folks invented a cocktail, are sincerely working to get it acknowledged / made more official, and mistakenly thought that creating a Wikipedia article would be a good way to pursue that. North8000 (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000, this person's talk is littered with warnings for unconstructive editing, almost none of which they ever bothered to respond to. They're an adult now. They need to stop wasting other people's time. valereee (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee Jesus Christ you need to learn some manners. Yeah I messed around a little when I was younger but I am an adult now, I'm mature and I'm trying damn hard to work with @North8000 (who, to their credit, has treated me politely and respectfully through this whole process and who I am happy to work with regardless of the outcome.) If you have some nonsense personal issue in your head regarding this vendetta against me, please by all means fantasise about it, but please stop with this character abuse that you've left both on my own talk page and here. Eagleye1001 (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And with regards to being "littered with warnings for unconstructive editing", I only see one situation there that was actually a screw-up. Almost everything else is true stuff that I've just been unable to cite properly, which is fair enough, but that's not vandalism that's just shoddy journalism or whatever you want to call it on my behalf. I have also been cited for creating pages that have been helpful to the community, so I resent your personal accusation that I treat Wikipedia as a playground. You need to chill out, because if you ASSUME stuff you only make an ASS of U and ME @Valereee. Eagleye1001 (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote about a friend liking hot sauce. Two months ago. Seriously. valereee (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He does, Aiden is a friend of mine and if you scrolled through his Instagram (CossackGundi) you'd see he's made numerous posts about it in the past. This is my friend who bravely defended Mariupol and is now under threat of execution in the so-called Donetsk People's Republic.

Side note, I was praised in the past for my creation of Giuseppe Sapeto. Eagleye1001 (talk) 22:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Content needs to be cited to WP:RS and not trivia. I'd rather have this discussion at your user talk, as it's gotten off-topic here. valereee (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per valereee. We cannot base a standalone article upon a single source which is just some dude's website. This probably should have been speedied but a closed AfD will prevent this from being written ever again. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the creator has said, "not every new cocktail that's been created will automatically have been entered in bartenders' guide books. These things come with time." Once that time comes, feel free to come back with it. Wikipedia is not a place to get your creations known and out there. Wikipedia is behind the curve, not leading the charge, in terms of the information presented. 331dot (talk) 22:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~and Salt~~: Topic is entirely original research. WP:BEFORE shows nothing notable related to it in any way. ––FormalDude talk 23:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is the difference between delete and delete and salt? Eagleye1001 (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Salting is creation protection, meaning it prevents the article from being created in the future under the same title. ––FormalDude talk 23:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why would that be done though? Okay with the points people have made I can see why it may need to be deleted currently but if I come back with a much stronger, better written and better referenced article, why shouldn't it be allowed on Wikipedia? Eagleye1001 (talk) 23:12, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It probably doesn't need to be done since it has never been recreated before. I'll remove that portion of my !vote. ––FormalDude talk 23:15, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also nothing's irreversible here. Just because a subject is salted doesn't mean it can't be unsalted. valereee (talk) 23:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to be more of re-discovered a drink that already exists. searching malibu rum and chocolate milk shows numerous recipes. anyway, fails WP:GNG as WP:TOOSOON even if factual.Slywriter (talk) 23:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Plain and simple, WP:TOOSOON. David notMD (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject is not notable. Maybe it will be one day; but that is not a reason to accept. Maproom (talk) 08:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete topic is clearly not notable. Theroadislong (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fahim Burney[edit]

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

Reviewed during new page patrol. No indication of notability under GNG or SNG . Previously deleted and this iteration has been tagged since April. The closest any of the sources come to in-depth is an interview of him in relation to making a trip. The one movie mentioned links to a Wikipedia article with zero sources which says that the movie was a commercial failure. North8000 (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to withdraw my nomination above. I did a more intense search and found a more GNG-suitable source and added it as an external link. North8000 (talk) 17:34, 18 June 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!} 19:43, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Erikson Llanes[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. Joeykai (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:25, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about footballer who appears to be non-notable. Llanes is part of a famous football family (father and uncle played professionally), but despite success with Monterrey's youth teams, he only played competitively for the club in the Copa MX. I can only find one online source that is in-depth (added to the article), with a few other potential sources behind paywalls. It appears that almost all coverage is routine and focused on his future rather than his exploits as a footballer. Jogurney (talk) 12:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom. problems with WP:BIO --ArcticSnowWind (talk) 09:55, 21 June 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!} 19:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Al-Bishi (footballer, born 2001)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found in WP:BEFORE nor significant coverage in the sources given on the page, if reliable. Was previously G5'd as a creation of Lilianasri, so salting might be in order. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 16:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Shellwood (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Energy efficient clay brick project[edit]

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

The article lacks independent sources, and a WP:before does not turn up any other sources indicating notability. Also some problems with neutrality. Femke (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and South Africa. Femke (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 June 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can find sources that are more distant from the project being documented – as per the verifiability and reliable sources rules, we should be basing articles on information from those (and it'd help to make it more of an encyclopedia entry and less of a press release). The cleanup tags currently on the article are accurate, listing a range of issues, and I fear that some of them may be fundamentally unfixable. --ais523 22:14, 19 June 2022 (U T C)
Keep and continue working on the issues per the cleanup tags - having tidied the original refs and found another it now stands at 3 independent (I am sure more could be found) vs 1 from SwissContact; toning down the advert-like phrasing should also be a priority. Yadsalohcin (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- None of these 3 have significant coverage, so they do not help to establish notability. They do not even mention the topic of this article. Femke (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  They do, on the other hand, expand on the context of the topic, which might help someone to find more specifically relevant referencing material. Yadsalohcin (talk) 08:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. The sources are either not independent or do not address the subject "directly and in detail" as described in our notability policy.4meter4 (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What, not even ref 6? I don't know whether there are others, perhaps someone else could have a look... Yadsalohcin (talk) 23:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 6 is from the clay brick.org website (which represents manufacturers of this product), and as such lacks independence from the subject and can not be considered RS per our guidelines at WP:Verifiability and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 01:52, 27 June 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. In coming to this decision, I have given lower weight to contributions by a number of seeming WP:SPAs. Stifle (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Maigeri Ede[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

vanity spam sourced entirely to sponsored pieces, non rs and press releases masquerading as news outlets. no indication this person is notable. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Football, Nigeria, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:40, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just trying to push non-notable person in wikipedia by multiple accounts on Draft & mainspace. DIVINE 📪 06:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article content on NPOV,subject represents and manage notable and verifiable subjects with Wikipedia pages. As a football agent as well as entrepreneur and has featured in notable newspapers, he is notable. Katobara Katobara 14:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)— Katobara (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
{{citation needed}}

You can say "he's notable" as much as you want but in the absence of in-depth, independent coverage, it means nothing. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I can see notability associates with this article. There are many articles that have no media coverage but there renowned work makes to be notable. For instance, Vice Chancellors of the universities and many more. My major concern here is that administrator have reviewed it and he is one of the core major Wikipedia contributor for sports. Though there is blatant media coverage but his renowned work in establishing notable players need to be considered can't be overlook. There are numerous players he lifted them up, he is also licensed intermediary of English Football Association. Gartuwaso (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)— Gartuwaso (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
administrators have not reviewed it and even if they did, administrators are not authority on content control or decisions. There isn't significant in depth coverage, independent of Ede. You're making an argument that isn't encyclopedic - "he's well liked and does good things!". Well good for him, but it's ultimately meaningless for an encyclopedia. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Alvaldi (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
article subject is not notable and doesn’t pass WP: GNG has not been proven beyond any reasonable doubts here. Google searches return reliable sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.119.177.11 (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Also per WP:PROMO.4meter4 (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources, no article. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 08:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject notable and as per Katobara, he represents notable and GNG Wikipedia verifiable footballers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afridialeena (talk • contribs) 20:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC) — Afridialeena (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. conforms to WP: SIGCOV and pass GNG. Quite interesting comments here about notability of the subject and article. The article has “Michael Maigeri Ede” who is still the same person as “Michael Ede”. Most of the notability falls under this name and Google news confirms some reliable sources on this subject.

Maybe we advise that this article be included with some narrative around “Michael Ede” as even the references left on the article can be a stand alone. The workaround can be achieved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burberryjzk89 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC) — Burberryjzk89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. Contradictory! Article definitely conforms to WP: SIGCOV and hence passes WP: GNG . As per Gartuwaso, I agree in same line of reasoning and understanding. According to Wikipedia: “Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries. Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives” This subject is notable with verifiable references. That most of you aren’t able to substantiate his notability doesn’t make the article lack in-depth independent coverage. Arguably, this single entity doesn’t fall under ‘rare historical source’ but notability fall under the name “Michael Ede” which I presume is same subject in the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahsankhan787 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)— Ahsankhan787 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note to closer. There are a large number of single-purpose accounts voting keep in this AFD. As such, WP:Sockpuppetry, Wp:Meatpuppetry, or WP:Canvasing may be impacting this discussion.4meter4 (talk) 03:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SPI CU has been requested here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was unable to locate any coverage in WP:RS independent of the subject. What I was able to locate was paid-for spam which does not meet requirements. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer. This is not an issue of SPA nor was anyone invited to participate in the voting here. This topic was added to “ Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Football, Nigeria, and United Kingdom.” above; And as such most of the editors commenting saw this from their respective areas.

Also, am sure every editor understands that this discussion is a consensus agreement based on merit of the agreement which all editors understands based on the terms of Wikipedia ethics.

From my perspective, I have made comments on other articles in light to the understanding of the discussion and understands the fact that it’s not a vote. Burberryjzk89 (talk) 06:48, 28 June 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!} 19:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Al-Shaikhi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found in WP:BEFORE nor coverage in the sources given on the page, if reliable, either in English or Arabic. Was previously G5'd as a creation of Dyalafamhi, so salting might be in order. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 16:24, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:19, 19 June 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!} 19:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fahad Majrashi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found in WP:BEFORE nor coverage in the sources given on the page, if reliable, either in English or Arabic. Was previously G5'd as a creation of Dyalafamhi, so salting might be in order. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 16:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:18, 19 June 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!} 19:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marzouq Al-Dossary[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found in WP:BEFORE nor coverage in the sources given on the page, if reliable, either in English or Arabic. Was previously G5'd as a creation of Dyalafamhi, so salting might be in order. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 16:22, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even searching in Arabic yields next to nothing Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:29, 25 June 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. Consensus is that enough sources have been found to show evidence of notability. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Fellipe[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found in WP:BEFORE nor coverage in the sources given on the page, if reliable. Was previously G5'd as a creation of Losail, so salting might be in order. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 16:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Brazil. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:24, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. I was expecting something given his career in Brazil and Portugal but could not find anything beyond stats databases. Giant Snowman 08:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by Robby. Giant Snowman 20:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This guy has played for top clubs around the world there are multiple sources to be found; per [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. There are frigging loads of hits, @GiantSnowman: I doubt Iseult did a real WP:BEFORE, and baring in mind the mass multiple nominations to AfD, might I suggest you should monitor this guy. Did you look at his career, there are a few big clubs in there. I highly doubt this would fail GNG. Govvy (talk) 09:40, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I show no significant sourcing within the first four pages of google search results. The last four sources you've cited are not significant coverage, topping out at two sentence-clauses maximum in the fifth. Youtube is not a good reference per WP:VIDEOREF. I might give you the first only, but I'd argue that even if it qualifies, one source regarding transfers is not enough to qualify under WP:GNG. Regarding mass nominations, see previous deletion logs of the page. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 10:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above sources are not significant coverage, they are transfer news etc. Giant Snowman 19:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've expanded the article, but seriously @GiantSnowman: the guy played in Portugal for CD Aves and was even part of the squad that won 2017–18 Taça de Portugal all be it a small part in the final. [28], this is a nice interview, [29] I seriously feel this AfD shouldn't be here for this journeyman, I am absolutely convinced that I am the only one doing the WP:BEFORE! Govvy (talk) 09:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These sources from Globo look decent: [30], [31] Robby.is.on (talk) 10:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I searched for online Portuguese-language sources, and almost everything is trivial (lots of transfer announcements and match reports, but very little coverage of his exploits). This interview is somewhat detailed, but it is with the subject of the article so has little value towards meeting WP:GNG. I'm generally only finding sources from the last 5-6 years, so perhaps his early career (e.g., at Santos) generated more in-depth coverage, but I haven't been able to locate it online. Jogurney (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I also found this interview which covers his exploits with Madureira (led to his signing with Atlético Paranaense). There are dozens of Portuguese-language articles like these, most with less substance, but I'm not convinced it all adds up to meeting the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 13:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reply @Jogurney: Multiple sources... Well they all add up if you ask me, the more there are the more he passes GNG. :/ Govvy (talk) 14:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: all of these sources are either database entries or interviews, which don't qualify under independence concerns or significance of coverage. No progress towards WP:GNG so far. I'm looking for Portuguese (country) sources; Globo is infamously unreliable, at least when I do post on r/soccer. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 17:56, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per sources found above.--Mvqr (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:05, 22 June 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!} 19:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Al-Khaibari[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found in WP:BEFORE nor coverage in the sources given on the page, if reliable. Was previously G5'd as a creation of Dyalafamhi, so salting might be in order. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 16:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:17, 19 June 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!} 19:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rayan Al-Marshoud[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found in WP:BEFORE nor coverage in the sources given on the page, if reliable. Was previously G5'd as a creation of Dyalafamhi, so salting might be in order. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 16:04, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find any substantial coverage in Arabic Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:34, 25 June 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!} 19:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saleh Al-Saeed[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found in WP:BEFORE nor coverage in the sources given on the page, if reliable. Was previously G5'd as a creation of Dyalafamhi, so salting might be in order. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 16:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:14, 19 June 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!} 19:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic Dreams (TV Series)[edit]

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

I found nothing whatsoever on ProQuest, Newspapers.com, or GNews. Deprodded with rationale "sources found on gSearch", but I found only uploads of the show, directories such as IMDb, or false positives. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I've added a first source from the Independent (in article now) that should contribute to notability. It's tricky because it's a difficult search term. Hopefully the deprodder can point out a second. matt91486 (talk) 00:31, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard's additional sources below. matt91486 (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I deprodded this - but I've made a mistake. I found sources, but now realize they were for a different Olympic Dreams. I found sources for Olympic Dreams Featuring Jonas Brothers, which is likely notable. This article is about a very similarly titled British series from around 2007. I did not find sources for the British series. Jacona (talk) 02:04, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage in reliable sources. SL93 (talk) 23:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep per Cunard below. SL93 (talk) 12:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Sutcliffe, Thomas (2008-07-16). "Last Night's TV: Olympic Dreams, BBC 1. True Stories, More4". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2022-06-21. Retrieved 2022-06-21.
  The article notes: "Having hope yourself is one thing. Being "a hope" for someone else is quite another, and Olympic Dreams effectively caught the queasy ambiguity of that condition, in its profile of three young hopes for the 2012 Olympics. "I feel that I probably could have been a champion at one time," said Tony Romaeo, a man whose time had now gone, and who as a result was pouring his undiminished ambition into his children."
2. Cook, Yvonne. (2008-07-01). "The making of a teenage Olympian" (pages 1 and 2). The Independent. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2022-06-21. Retrieved 2022-06-21 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "This month Olympic Dreams, a four-part BBC TV series co-produced with The Open University, tries to find out by following young athletes as they strive to make it into the British Olympic team for London 2012. For more than a year the cameras have been tracking Olympic hopefuls as they go about their daily routine. They include 14-year-old diving prodigy Tom Daley; 19-year-old BMX girl racer Shanaze Reade; and 18-year-old Darius Knight, who has emerged from a South London housing estate to become a rising star of table tennis. ... The series shows the sacrifices they and their families have to make, and delves into their personal lives and emotions, with the help of a video diary camera which each athlete carries to record their thoughts and feelings at crucial moments. Some of the young hopefuls are aiming to compete in the Beijing Olympics, a crucial milestone on the road to 2012. "
3. Chater, David (2007-12-15). "TV Choice". The Times. EBSCOhost 7EH2919837248.
  The article provides 129 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Five years to go before the 2012 London Olympics and already training is in full swing. All this week, Olympic Dreams follows hopefuls who are putting their lives on hold to qualify for a place on the British team. The men's rowing four destroy themselves on rowing machines at a high-altitude training camp in the Spanish mountains. Lee Pearson, the British paralympic dressage champion, discovers that his faithful old horse, Blue Circle Boy, is getting too long in the tooth to compete and his replacement is unpredictable. And teenage cyclist Ben Swift joins the British cycling team's training camp at the Manchester Velodrome."
4. Jamieson, Teddy (2010-04-13). "Missing out on top marks". The Herald. Archived from the original on 2022-06-21. Retrieved 2022-06-21.
  The article notes: "It must be terrible being Tom Daley the teenage diver, mustn't it? Always "performing under the gaze of an ever hungry media", as the narrator of Olympic Dreams reminds us as we watch Tom perform under the gaze of the makers of Olympic Dreams. ... There's an interesting programme to be made from the contrasting social and economic circumstances of Britain's Olympic hopefuls. Olympic Dreams isn't quite it. It's not quite a programme about the psychology of sportsmen and women, though that's in there, it's not quite about the triumph over adversity of heptathlete Jessica Ennis, though that's in there too. As far as it goes, it's fine. It just doesn't go very far."
5. Bathgate, Stuart (2008-08-09). "Faster, higher, younger and smaller". The Scotsman. Archived from the original on 2022-06-21. Retrieved 2022-06-21.
  The article notes: "Maybe over the coming days we'll opt for one of those, but watching the last part of Olympic Dreams on Tuesday it was easier to conclude that the thing which really made the young athlete stand out was that just about every other member of his family is a bit of a chub. ... Daley's was the most positive of the three strands to this last episode, which highlighted the fact that there are some Olympic dreams which die long before the actual competition starts. In both the others, there was bitter disappointment for someone."
6. Bathgate, Stuart (2010-04-17). "Ordinary kids, extraordinary dreams". The Scotsman. Archived from the original on 2022-06-21. Retrieved 2022-06-21.
  The article notes: "As his long-suffering but remarkably good-humoured mother recalled in this first of a new series of Olympic Dreams, the young Londoner has always had a short temper. ... The 20-year-old was the least well known of the four young athletes profiled in Olympic Dreams, now in its third year. Teenage diver Tom Daley and heptathlete Jessica Ennis, who both featured in previous series, are close to being household names by now, while sprinter Shaunna Thompson was a double gold medallist for England at the last Commonwealth Youth Games. ... The inclusion of people of the standing of Daley and Ennis may well be necessary for viewing figures, but McKenzie's story (granted, partly because of its unfamiliarity) was more fascinating."
7. Less significant coverage:
  1. Morgan, Clive (2008-07-22). "Tuesday's TV & radio choices". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2022-06-21. Retrieved 2022-06-21.
    The article provides 83 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "This year’s looming Olympics have been embroiled in controversy ever since they were awarded to Beijing in 2001. With weeks to go, this observational series profiles some of the athletes hoping to represent Great Britain. Tonight’s documentary follows Lee Pearson, Britain’s most successful Paralympic dressage rider, female BMX prodigy Shanaze Reade and rowers Annie Vernon and Elise Laverick as they battle against funding cuts, new training regimes and other athletes for GB selection and the chance to compete for their country in Beijing."
  2. Thomas, Ceri (2008-07-29). "Pick of the month". Evening Standard. Archived from the original on 2022-06-21. Retrieved 2022-06-21 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article provides 69 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes about Olympic Dreams: "The bits looking at two British teenaged table-tennis hopefuls are decent, but the chunks about the world of wheelchair ruby are just something else. The sport itself looks jarringly outlandish — all armoured wheelchairs and crunching collisions — but it's the human stories of the hopefuls battling for team places that hit home. The bit where the coaches tell one guy he hasn't made the cut is a shattering telly moment."
  3. Thomas, Ceri (2008-08-05). "Pick of the night". Evening Standard. Archived from the original on 2022-06-21. Retrieved 2022-06-21 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article provides 60 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes about Olympic Dreams: "The fly-one-the-wall series finishes by following the final preparations of three Beijing medal hopes, the coxless fours rowing team, diver Tom Daley and heptathlete Jessica Ennis. As always, it's a mix of triumph and disappointment — the joy on Bradley's face as he realises that he's going to the Olympics balanced against the shattering horror of Ennis who is ruled out."
  4. Gibbs, Tessa (2007-12-17). "Today's TV & radio choices". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2022-06-21. Retrieved 2022-06-21.
    The article provides 79 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "The 2012 London Olympics may be far off, but many British athletes have already set their sights on a gold medal. This series, running daily this week, follows the fortunes of some of these rising stars. Today’s episode concentrates on Lee Pearson’s progress in Paralympic dressage, Ben Swift in cycling and the hopefuls for rowing’s coxless four. As their trainer Jürgen Grobler says, “Even the richest person in the world can’t buy a gold medal. He has to train.”"
  5. Magnay, Jacquelin (2010-07-27). "London 2012 Olympics: the broadcaster". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2022-06-21. Retrieved 2022-06-21.
    The article notes: "Specifically, the broadcaster is showing 26 Olympic stories in its series World Olympic Dreams to whet the appetite for the growing numbers of fans already clamouring for Olympic content."
  6. Hogan, Michael (2010-04-17). "What to watch". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2022-06-21. Retrieved 2022-06-21 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article provides 75 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "This diverting diary-style documentary, co-produced with the Open University, gets intimate access to some of our Olympic hopefuls on the long road to London 2012. Elite sports stars including teenage prodigy diver Tom Daley and likeable heptathlete Jessica Ennis reveal their gruelling training regimes, daily sacrifices and injury problems. All the athletes here are determined to secure a place on Team GB, then ultimately win gold in front of their home crowd. No pressure, then."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Olympic Dreams to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by Cunard. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:51, 21 June 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 procedural keep. Consensus is that it is too difficult for the community to properly assess these articles in a bundled AFD. No prejudice against speedily re-nominating each article individually. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 03:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Historic baseball plays[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Appreciating the good faith here, I believe these articles to be unnecessary content forks. The first edit in each of these articles provides proper attribution for all of the content that these articles were copied from. None of them are so troublesome that a split is necessary. These events, the Buckner error, the Sid Bream slide, the bat flip, the call from the 1985 World Series, and famous home runs, are not independently notable of the playoff series they occurred in. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? There's already a separate article on Kirk Gibson's home run in Game 1 of the 1988 World Series. Why isn't that particular article for the matter, up for deletion in itself? What makes the Gibson home run independent notable enough to have its own article and yet not the other ones? To put things into some perspective, Bill Mazeroski and Joe Carter are the only players in MLB history to date, to hit a World Series clinching home run. Are you saying that one there own, they aren't independently notable enough when compared to what Kirk Gibson did in only the first game of the World Series? The fact that the World Series ended on a walk-off home run only twice in its 100 plus year history, should be default or design by notable within themselves. What is the criteria for a independently notable baseball play if by they are by rationale, are already covered in the playoff series that they occurred in. Also, who is to ultimately determine that said plays aren't in the greater shape of things notable enough on their own other than in your personal opinion and point of view? BornonJune8, (talk) 3:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Keep all with no prejudice toward renominating articles on an individual basis. The level of notability can vary from play to play so an WP:ALLORNOTHING nomination does not seem appropriate here. Some of these plays directly led to a team winning (or losing) a championship and precedent set in similar articles from other sports (e.g. The Block (basketball)) indicates that such plays are notable independently of their playoff series. Frank Anchor 03:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Frank Anchor I chose to nominate these all together because they were created by the same user with essentially the same style of forking. Reywas92 did a better job than I did of explaining the problems, so check out their rationale in case you haven't seen it yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Muboshgu your rationale is noted and understood. I just see a vast difference between the level of notability of, for example Bautista's bat flip (a somewhat common "show-off" move), and Buckner's error or Carter's home run (each of which literally decided a championship). I am admittedly not as familiar with the MLB Wikiproject than I am with the NBA and NFL projects, but well-sourced articles for championship-altering plays in those are routinely kept independently of the specific game or series in those sports. I agree the prose and sourcing could be improved on whichever articles are worth keeping. Frank Anchor 12:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete all Reviewing each one of these, I see no basis whatsoever for separate articles. It's honestly embarassing how little of these articles are about the plays themselves, as well as the duplication. Joe Carter's 1993 World Series home run begins with 597 words of background that have literally nothing to do about Carter or the article's subject and is more appriate at 1993 World Series. Then Joe_Carter's_1993_World_Series_home_run#The_setup is a copy-paste of 1993_World_Series#Game_6 and Joe_Carter's_1993_World_Series_home_run#The_calls is a copy-paste of 1993_World_Series#The_Joe_Carter_home_run_calls. Bill Buckner's 1986 World Series error again begins with a huge background that is not about the error, then a short description of the play that goes at 1986_World_Series#Game_6. I'm struggling to see how it's encyclopedic to quote verbatim lengthy calls by announcers: if what they said was notable, highlight selective quotes rather than assume this full description belongs. Then there's too much overly detailed play-by-plays in others. And what the hell does 90% of The_Slide_(Atlanta_Braves)#Aftermath actually have to do with the Slide?? Talk of division realignment and that it took 20 years to have another winning season are irrelevant to the play in particular and makes for bad writing. Carlton Fisk's 1975 World Series home run has, again, WAY too much irrelevant background and aftermath that has nothing to do with the nominal subject and another section that's a copy-paste of Carlton_Fisk#The_Fisk_Foul_Pole. Please don't give us this procedural keep crap: these are all related articles from the same author with the same huge, intrinsic problems – they can likewise be redirected without prejudice toward recreating on an individual basis, limited to directly relevant and original content. Reywas92^Talk 20:15, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reywas92 individual nominations of articles with vastly different levels of notability is not "procedural crap." I agree that the articles could use a makeover, but some are notable topics (independent of the playoff series they are a part of), so the answer is re-writing, not deletion. Frank Anchor 12:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, so we can have a procedural merge or perhaps direction to rewrite in drafts too. Procedural keeps merely when several similar articles are nominated together stifle discussion and paralyze the process when the volume of articles created is not possible to always address one at a time. Even if there is some coverage about the individual plays, much of that is copied and pasted from the main article or easily merged to the main articles and I give little weight to an argument that if one could be kept separate in some form, we can't still address these together. Reywas92^Talk 14:25, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The volume of articles created is not possible to always address one at a time" Seriously? This is only nine articles. That is not anywhere near a volume so high it would make these impossible to address one at a time. Frank Anchor 14:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all .. the notability of these individual plays is questionable.. Bautista's bat flip needs it's own article? Really? There have been lots of similar "bat flip" moments that have had social media attention.. none of them need an article.. that one was forgotten as soon as the playoffs moved to the next round. "The Call" ?? How would anyone even know from the article title that it referred to a bad call in a particular world series game? The World Series home runs are more notable but they are all covered within the particular world series articles. Spanneraol (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spanneraol You brought up Jose Bautista's bat flip and question why it needs an article. Why is that particular bat flip "notable" over similar ones? For starters, Bautista's "bat flip" happened during the postseason in a decisive fifth game, that the Toronto Blue Jays ultimately won. That bat flip sent the Blue Jays to the League Championship Series for the first time since 1993. By design, of something like that happens during the playoffs than any old regular season game, it's naturally going to get more coverage. And who is to say that Bautista's bat flip is forgotten? The fact that it had so much social media attention should make automatically make it notable in the first place much less get its own article. It should be noted that Jose Bautista's bat flip was the culmination of a 53 minute long seventh inning. So it wasn't just some regular old bat flip that we've already seen, do to the context leading up to that particular moment. As for the call in the 1985 World Series, well the fact that it happened during the World Series and depending on your point of view, it may have been a key factor in why the St. Louis Cardinals not only lost Game 6, but Game 7 the next night makes it stand out. Again, it's very rare that a championship series or game is likely decided in no small part to an official's poor judgement during a key moment. I must stress that Don Denkinger's call happened during the World Series and it in all likelihood, provided Kansas City a momentum swing that they needed to come back and win not only Game 6 but Game 7 (keep in mind that Denkinger in Game 7, was now the home plate umpire). Again, everything needs to be understood and looked at in the proper context. BornonJune8 (talk) 02:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reywas92 The slide on its own, is symbolic or significant because it simply put, marked the end of the Pittsburgh Pirates' relevance for over 20 years. The Pirates from 1992, when Sid Bream had his slide to defeat them in the NLCS, to 2012, they didn't finish the season with a winning record. Also, that was the end of the line of the core that included Barry Bonds, Doug Drabek, etc. that won three consecutive divisional titles dating back to 1990. It's hard not to talk about the Pirates loss in the 1992 NLCS, without acknowledging that 1992 would be the last time that they would field a competitive team in over two decades. If you have an issue with the way that the articles are written, then why can't you add (if not rewrite/rearrange) additional information to supplement what was already presented. It should also be noted that absolutely little if any of the content in the article on Joe Carter's 1993 World Series home run was taken directly from the 1993 World Series article, simply in hopes of avoiding further redundancy. I also don't exactly understand what your issue is with quoting what the broadcasters of said games said during the particular plays. Are you for example, implying that Tom Cheek's "Touch 'em all Joe..." call in the 1993 World Series or Skip Caray's "Braves win, Braves win, Braves win!!!" calls aren't relevant or are insignificant? What is and isn't a "notable" sportscasting call them? BornonJune8 (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the Slide is part of the Pirates' history, it seems like good content for History_of_the_Pittsburgh_Pirates#Uncertain_future_in_Pittsburgh_(1985-2000) then! And the copy-paste source 1992_National_League_Championship_Series#Game_7 also already describes this part of their history. Okay, if "Touch 'em all Joe" is important, show and discuss why it's important! All you did is blockquote it. What makes Scully's call and Kalas's call and McDonough's call important too? "Braves win": so what? You don't show what makes this call significant beyond merely quoting it. McDonough's call above that merely cites the primary source of a clip of the play and its announcing, so what makes it so relevant? Reywas92^Talk 04:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muboshgu With all due respect, your main rationale behind deletion appears to be that all of those articles were created by me and used essentially the same style of forking. If I only made one or two of those articles, would you have the same sort of complaint? They were always meant to be modified and hopefully improved upon over time through editing. I also still don't understand why you personally feel those particular plays aren't independently notable enough in the greater shape of things. Why do you and Reywas92 choose deletion as an immediate first option instead of rewriting (or if you want to call it that, "fixing/correcting/improving/building upon") the article when that other option is at your disposal? BornonJune8 (talk) 03:25, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reywas92 Tom Cheek's "Touch e'm all Joe" is among the first things that's listed on Tom Cheek's Wikipedia article. The calls are already important because they concern the very rare occurrence of a World Series concluding on a walk-off home run (only the second time in history). What else does there need to be to explain beyond that. Sean McDonough's call is important as it is because he did the network television broadcast of Game 6 of the 1993 on CBS. The McDounough call was even more significant since that was literally, the very last Major League Baseball game that CBS would televise. And Vin Scully likewise, did the national radio broadcast for CBS Radio. Most people would've presumably heard their calls first. And even the Scully call is considerably more "obscure" than the Tom Cheek or Sean McDonough call. And Harry Kalas' call of the Carter home run is important within itself, since it comes from the Phillies' (the losing side) broadcast. The Kalas call isn't as talked about or replayed as much as say the Tom Cheek or Sean McDonough home run calls. So there's within reason to assume and believe that not a lot of people are aware of what the Phillies broadcasters said and reacted to the home run. So why do you need to pick and choose what is or isn't important in regards to broadcasting calls, when they're all a part of detailing the event's history? And just because the article were or may have been copied and pasted for the most part, doesn't mean that the article can't at all be improved or clarified beyond that starting point. And while we're at it, shouldn't Sid Bream's slide in the 1992 NLCS be just as important to the history of the Atlanta Braves? There were two teams involved after-all, and Atlanta was the one who came out on top in miraculous fashion in the bottom of the 9th in Game 7. BornonJune8 (talk) 05:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. Some of these are clearly notable and significant moments in baseball history that would easily meet WP:GNG. Bill Mazeroski, The Slide, Carlton Fisk, Joe Carter, and Bill Buckner come immediately to mind. Does Jose Bautista flipping a bat rise to that level of significance? Probably not, but that's something that should be hashed out at individual AfD's for these articles. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Procedural keep, as Ejgreen77 wrote. I came here through the Bautista Bat Flip article, and in that particular case it's got a lot of padding that repeats information that's in 2015 American League Division Series, and I would recommend merging the Bat Flip article into the Division Series article. But the Mazeroski and Carter home runs in particular deserve their own articles, for sure, due to their significance to the history of baseball. So, lumping all of the listed events into one AfD should not be the way to manage them. PK T(alk) 16:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is over-reaching. Grouping together by topic and commenting:
- Maz/Fisk/Freese/Carter/Puckett World Series home runs. These all seem to be based on Kirk Gibson's 1988 World Series home run. That article, as are these, is well written but, like Jones (third baseman), after you wipe away the content that has nothing to do with the actual home run, you have a one paragraph article. I believe all of these article might be sustainable if merged in to one WS HR article, but would suggest holding it's own discussion for that.
- Call/Slide/bat flip/error. Again, I believe these plays could be sustained in one "post-season plays" article, but on their own some could be deleted or redirected. One size does not fit all here.
- See also, the articles in Category:Historic baseball plays.
Procedural close and re-evaluate Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close with no prejudice against each article being individually nominated. Too much of a topical mishmash here. Likely to lead to a WP:TRAINWRECK if kept open. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:10, 26 June 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 Chad international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdinand Gassina[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Africa. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:35, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:14, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Chad international footballers per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. I'm guessing Chadian press coverage isn't the best, but there could be something, somewhere...! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:49, 19 June 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!} 19:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chandni Wattley[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:35, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Drafity.--MonFrontieres (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:14, 19 June 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!} 19:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sione Tovo (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:14, 19 June 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!} 19:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Petueli Tokotaha[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:13, 19 June 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) 15:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Godot Waits For Homeland Security[edit]

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

I found nothing that shows this play is notable. The only source in the article is an external link to a Geocities page. SL93 (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Politics. SL93 (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also note that the author is still red link. GenuineArt (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot find any reviews or reliable sources regarding this play. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hardly any sources cover this play. --StellarNerd (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and others. Fails WP:GNG, appears to be completely devoid of any WP:RS-compliant sourcing. Sal2100 (talk) 19:17, 24 June 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!} 19:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lotima Taufo'ou[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:13, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find anything better than weak match report mentions like this Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lokoua Taufahema[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources [32], [33], and [34] seem to give him significant coverage (albeit for the wrong reason), and indicate his lengthy career as a player and coach. EternalNomad (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient sourcing to justify notability. Giant Snowman 08:13, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. EternalNomad's sources are routine coverage almost every trial gets in the press. Even if the footballer and the killer are the same person (there's an inconsistency with the birthdates) Taufahema still fails WP:CRIME. Dougal18 (talk) 11:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - have found additional references of the manslaughter he committed.--IdiotSavant (talk) 01:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:22, 25 June 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 /nomination withdrawn. I was clearly off on this. Star Mississippi 13:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Organ Historical Trust of Australia[edit]

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

Contested PROD. While I definitely appreciate the work @Doug butler: put in, I do not believe it meets N:ORG.

Information is limited to what the organization self publishes and otherwise reports about itself. I have been unable to find evidence of others taking note of their work. While I'm not sure organizations can pass notability via citations of their consistuents' work as academics might, I also am unable to find indication that Maidment or Newton's works are highly cited as most have fewer than five citations. Star Mississippi 14:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Organizations, and Australia. Star Mississippi 14:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has an entry in The Organ: An Encyclopedia [35], The Dictionary of Music Education [36], and a few others I found from a simple Google Books search. The journal itself seems to be fairly reputable in historical music circles too, and I will try to find more sources on my downtime. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per references cited by User:Why? I Ask? Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Long-established and significant organisation in its field. I was able to find evidence of others taking note of their work very easily; the only challenging thing about this is that it's a niche field of interest. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per The Drover's Wife. Deus et lex (talk) 10:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Bond[edit]

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

The chief claim to notability that is made in the lede of this article is that the subject is wealthy. The sources are passing mentions of humdrum events in the main, with one or two weak sources presented, the 'Who's Who' entry isn't actually one, for instance - it does rather feel like Mr Bond has shelled out a few of his many hundreds of millions of dollars and had a page made for him. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Australia. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are 17 sources cited, including international publications the Wall St Journal, CNBC, Fox News, both of Australia's major national newspapers, and numerous major metropolitan newspapers. There might be a couple of references in there to events you've deemed "humdrum", but they don't detract from the major. independent, national and international news coverage the subject has received. Surely the subject is notable based on that coverage? Further the subject also fulfills the additional criteria for notabliity in being included in a national dictionary of biography. He happens to be wealthy as a result of his contributions to the business world, science, and his leadership of major companies. I'll update the intro so it's not so focused on wealth if you prefer, but I also don't see why being wealthy somehow negates the subject fulfilling Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Theronswanson (talk) 02:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with Theronswanson. While the article is written in a somewhat promotional tone and should be wikified, there is ample material on the page supporting WP:ANYBIO. Cabrils (talk) 01:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His coverage seems to be significant. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I started checking the sources and three of the first six cited sources were articles from national Australian dailies and were substantially about the subject. The sixth was a feature on CNBC about him. Bond clearly meets WP:GNG. Fiachra10003 (talk) 19:22, 22 June 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. CSD G5 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ella’s Fine Food and Drink[edit]

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

Non-notable restaurant with a purely local draw. None of the sources support the notability of the restaurant at all. valereee (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Rhode Island. valereee (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there's a case for moving redirecting to Jeanie Roland and refocusing. In addition to coverage of her restaurant, she "Beat Bobby Flay", the coverage of her relationship with Taylor Swift looks to focus more on her than the restaurant, and she was on one of the Iron Chef shows. The coverage is from multiple places in New England as well as Florida. Moving away from the restaurant also makes it easier to trim some of the more promotional content from the article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Updated. Missed that her article already exists. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites, FWIW, some 150 people have "Beat Bobby Flay." And that's just one cooking reality show. There are hundreds of food reality shows, some with dozens of seasons and thousands of winners. Winning an episode of a cooking reality show cannot be taken as evidence of notability. It would be absolutely nuts. Just in the US, the Chopped franchise has twelve different series over 52 seasons with a winner a week in each of those series. And there are multiple other versions in other countries. valereee (talk) 22:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not claiming "beating Bobby Flay" is auto-notability. It is a source of coverage, though, and contributes to her notability. We could also say "there are also hundreds of newspapers which write about thousands of people, and one person being written about in one of them doesn't make them notable". That would be true, too, but it we bring together a few of those it's a different story. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Jeanie Roland has been nominated for deletion as well. ––FormalDude talk 14:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That was me, too. See this COIN thread. Clear case of UPE with attempts to actively hide the fact. valereee (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And, it turns out, creator is a sock of an LTA. valereee (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~I don't see any notability independent of Jeanie Roland. This should be either deleted or redirected to Jeanie Roland.~~ Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G5. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Native advertising, brochure article. scope_creep^Talk 17:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:G5. MarioGom (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G5 - sock creation — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:28, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: G5. ––FormalDude talk 22:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G5, open and shut case. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G5. The writer of the article appears to have been evading a block to conduct undisclosed paid editing. The only contributions to the prose of the article by other editors were copyedits or edits that have been self-reverted, so it’s true that the only substantial edits to this article have been made by a then-banned user. It’s also native advertising, as scope creep points out above, but advertising-specific concerns are moot since it's a clear G5 at the moment. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 17:24, 21 June 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rami Hanash[edit]

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

Does not appear notable and no evidence is given in the article. The fact that he has written several papers is not necessarily an indication of notability.

It was previously deleted as an expired PROD. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 05:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 07:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Objection: The parameters against which "notability" is measured are not clear. Is "notability" measured within parameters that include the entire general public or the whole of society, or can it be limited to a relatively significant "subset" of the public, such as the legal or medical profession? In this case, the subject is well-known within a particular, identifiable, and vocal segment of his profession, including readers of his commercially published works. On that basis, I would argue that notability has been established. Cbreeze2 (talk) 19:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is measured as here: WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Happy to discuss if something is unclear. Oaktree b (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as noted before, complete non-notable vanity spam. Impressive career, sure, but nothing that meets any n criteria. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Objection: The parameters against which "notability" is measured are not clear. Is "notability" measured within parameters that include the entire general public or the whole of society, or can it be limited to a relatively significant "subset" of the public, such as the legal or medical profession? In this case, the subject is well-known within a particular, identifiable, and vocal segment of his profession, including readers of his commercially published works. On that basis, I would argue that notability has been established. Cbreeze2 (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, notability is measured by coverage in independent reliable sources. It's not rocket science. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the criteria Wikipedia has chosen to apply, but it seems arbitrary. There are other objective measures that can be used to assess notability, and I would imagine that a commercially published author is notable, at least to a subset of the population. Cbreeze2 (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't arbitrary and it's our policy. If you want to change it, AFD isn't the place to do it, you'll need to start an RFC. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not arbitrary, very well documented in fact. Please see WP:GNG for example. We've followed these directions for years now. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the most recent modifications address some of the criticisms that support deletion. Notwithstanding, I continue to believe that notability within a particular profession, or another subset of the general population, should not be ignored. A commercially published author is notable to his or her readers. In this case, the subject writes for members of the legal profession, and his work has been acknowledged by large commercial publishing companies as being as worthy of publication. That is notable. Cbreeze2 (talk) 05:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can also point to the various independent organizations that have chosen to publish materials (including a book) authored by the subject as evidence of notability. These companies (identified in the "references" section of the article) are "independent reliable sources" who have invested resources in the subject to generate a financial return. They are in the same business (or perform the same function) as Wikipedia. They publish information. If not for the act of publication (by these large, independent, reliable sources), I would agree with you that the notability threshold has not been met. In this case, however, the Bureau of National Affairs (a division of the Bloomberg Industry Group), the Environmental Law Institute, and others in the publishing industry have already said yes to notability, albeit within a specific subset of the general population. Cbreeze2 (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a biography section for a publication of some sort. Nothing notable for our purposes. No sources found. Oaktree b (talk) 15:29, 18 June 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

International School of Moscow[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 10:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and uncontroversially so, per nom. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:40, 18 June 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Puranchandra Vidyaniketan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 10:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. We live in a world where a newspaper headline is 'exams conducted peacefully'. Grief. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:40, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 05:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Domrakandi High School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 12:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 12:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searches of the usual types, in English and Bengali, found no coverage deeper than a passing mention.[37] If there's a strong desire to redirect it to Faridpur Sadar Upazila (the enclosing community), I could accede to that, but there's nothing remarkable about the school that sets it apart from the 40 other secondary schools there. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 04:18, 27 June 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. Stifle (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Munavvar Ali Shihab Thangal[edit]

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

BLP of a youth leader who does not pass WP:NPOL. It is possible that he is a GNG pass but I don’t think so. The sources provided are all churnslism and I didn’t see anything better. Mccapra (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Islam, and Kerala. Mccapra (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Munavvar Ali Shihab Thangal Not only youth leader He also Islamic scholar, Politician & Community leader, member of the Pukkoya family son of Syed Muhammedali Shihab Thangal and he also kerala state president Muslim Youth League-Indian Union Muslim League

WP:BIOFAMILY , WP:POLITICIAN are possible

Jerrypeton11:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Isn't 40+ too old to be a youth leader ? I don't see sources demonstrating significance. --StellarNerd (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How to measure youth by age, the article says, is a man who holds the top position in a youth organization of the Indian political party. This does not mean that this person should be considered notable The article describes him as a Notable Family, Writer, and Community Leader. So my opinion is that it should be maintained --Jerrypeton (Jerrypeton) 16:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems notable political figure Onmyway22 talk 04:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.He has never held elected office.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the coverage is made up entirely of churnalism and establish a WP:GNG pass. The subject also fails WP:NPOL and per WP:POLOUTCOMES political party functionaries, particularly at a sub-national level, are not generally not considered notable. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NPOL.4meter4 (talk) 04:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. WP:BIOFAMILY , WP:POLITICIAN & WP:BIORELATED are possible,User:TheRainManl you know Munavvar Ali Shihab Thangal better than I. Your thoughts? Jerrypeton(talk) 18:05, 27 june 2022 (UTC)

You can comment as much as you would like (within reason, see WP:BLUDGEON), but you can only vote one time. WP:BIORELATED & WP:BIOFAMILY literally state that being from the same family as notable people does not confer notability. WP:POLITICIAN does not apply to political party officials and the subject therefore does not pass that SNG. Additionally, your ping could be seen as WP:CANVASsing for votes to keep. GPL93 (talk) 16:00, 27 June 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peter J. Wacks[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR at "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" - no significant coverage, reviews - no mainstream media cited and none found on search. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : fails GNG and WP:Author as nominator stated. Samanthany (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! New editor here, not really sure how things work, please be patient with me, I provided more references that I think are og higher value, (IMDb, good reads and even a .org website, I hope this is enough for you to at least delay the deleting while I'm getting more relevant references, he's my favourite writer, I allways go to get his signatures when he's on a convention, and it's my favourite IP, not having him on wikipedia, especially when there are many other wiki pages pointing to his page doesn't make much sense to me, if anytinhg needs to be changed I would love to do it with your guidance. Emanuelrodriguez232 (talk) 06:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Hi Emanuelrodriguez232! Unfortunately sites like IMDb aren't considered reliable, because anyone can add information. Goodreads also isn't a good indicator of notability, because anyone can add a book if they have an account. You should check out WP:Reliable sources which might help you figure out what sources to look for. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have rewritten this article and included a review of a short story and an interview. There are also articles about him and his Cyberpunk CCG in Inquest (2004), Games Quarterly (2004), and Scrye (2003). I am trying to find copies of these magazines in order to add sources to the article. Guinness323 (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I may lean Keep based on Guinness323's finds, but failing that I think we can give a new editor working in good faith another chance and move to draft so that they can have another chance to work on it. BOZ (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree that moving it to Draft for now would be a good step until further sources can be found.Guinness323 (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd support that outcome. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello again! I have also rewritten this article, found some sources from the WP:GREL list, like the TVGuide.com website, removed some pararaphs that could not be proven by a reliable source and did other small changes, I really hope is up to standards, If it's not please direct me to the unsupported claims and refferences and I'll delete them and peraps just keep the most reliable parts. Emanuelrodriguez232 (talk) 07:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again! I have also rewritten this article, found some sources from the WP:GREL list, like the TVGuide.com website, removed some pararaphs that could not be proven by a reliable source and did other small changes, I really hope is up to standards, If it's not please direct me to the unsupported claims and refferences and I'll delete them and peraps just keep the most reliable parts Emanuelrodriguez232 (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow feedback based on the rewrites.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Article badly needs a rewrite. I find this source that seems reliable [38] and a few listings on tor.com (science fiction tor, not Tor the onion router). With some of the sources used, I think it's just barely above notable. Oaktree b (talk) 23:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I included the sources you presented, hope it heps somehow... Quick Question... I'm not versed on how thigns work around here, should only one editor be in responsible for the rewriting or improoving on a given page? Emanuelrodriguez232 (talk) 23:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Emanuelrodriguez232: no, every aspect of Wikipedia is collaborative. Even in draft-space, an article can be edited by any editor who feels they can make a useful contribution. If you are busy working on an article and someone else working at the same time would be disruptive, you can add the template {{under construction}} while you're working. This will display a message that the article is currently being edited. Elemimele (talk) 11:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
oh, and if you get stuck on any aspect of editing, the Wikipedia:Teahouse is a very friendly place to ask. Elemimele (talk) 11:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't know that! Thank you! For the moment I would like for people to vote, I think the page is definitely in a better shape than in the beginning in terms of complying with GNG and WP: Author, I could be wrong tho. And if so I would love to keep receiving feedback as I received before Emanuelrodriguez232 (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:15, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I have to argue for Delete but hope that the original contributor will keep a copy and possibly keep working on it. I looked up this author in various places, like Publishers Weekly, Worldcat, etc. I didn't go through the entire bibliography, but without more than a title it is hard to evaluate his oeurve. Some works that I did find appeared to be self-published (e.g. Smashwords) or "buddy published" like the Fiction River magazine works (which do not seem to have either ISBNs nor ISSNs, which leaves them outside of publishing as we define it). The Heroes Reborn ebook/audio series does have an ISBN but I can't find any trace of it other than records in 2 German libraries - no reviews. That he was a finalist for an award obviously is interesting but is of much less notability than having won an award. I looked up some books on Amazon (audio books) and the reviews were almost all ones that were provided in exchange for a free copy of the book. My analysis is that this is an active author whose work I would call "indie". If someone can find independent reviews (in journals, newspapers, magazines) then he could be worthy of a Wikipedia page. Lamona (talk) 01:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there! Thank you so much for the feedback, been waiting for more people to join the conversation, I'm a beginner and this comment gave me a lot of information on what I can do now.

First, In my opinion as a beginner contributor, I think there's still grounds to keep the article after modifications, It's true that finding ISBNs or ISSNs for all of his work is hard but with a bit more research is easily findable, personally, I did not knew that ISBNs and/or ISSNs were required, That is why sources containing these numbers are not listed in the article, I'll add the sources I found for them in a few moments, and the ones that prove to be hard to find the ISBNs and ISSNs, will be deleted from the page.

Once this being corrected and adding reviews from magazines I hope there should not be a probleem to keep.

Secondly, I think that there is the whole aspect of him being a game developer, and his work earning it's own notability and earning also it's own Wikipedia page, that was not mentioned in your argument for deletion.

I really don't know much how to do some of these things right or how more versed editors think about these thigs tho, it seems to fulfill the requirements for some, and not for others. Emanuelrodriguez232 (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article updated

Hey people here is an update on the content:

- I placed every ISBN I could find, so every book in the new bibliography is properly numbered.

- I found and included new references from more reputable sources like TV insider

- also added references from magazines like, Locus Magazine, and the RPG-Focused magazine: GMS Magazine

- And I also found some new references for more award finalist spots earned and award wins.

Happily waiting for your Feedback :D Emanuelrodriguez232 (talk) 23:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:SIGCOV. The article is entirely sourced to either primary sources or to sources that lack independence from the subject such as vendor or publisher websites with a financial interest in selling Wacks's books. The one review we have is from a non-notable blog/podcast without any clear editorial oversight. As such, not a single source used in the article counts as independent significant coverage. A search for coverage likewise came up empty, aside from the one source from Inverse magazine from above. However, we require a minimum of three sources to meet our notability standards. 4meter4 (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per 4meter4. Almost all of sourcing provided is just not reliable enough to establish notability. It would also appear that articles on this subject have previously been deleted under Peter Wacks, which is now WP:SALTed and I guess this namespace should be as well if the outcome is ultimately a deletion. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per A7 by Bbb23. Non-admin closure. --MuZemike 14:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aswin Madhu[edit]

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

Unreferenced stub on a non-notable actor/filmmaker. Search finds nothing beyond the usual social media etc. listings. Declined twice at AfC, but the creator insists on moving it to main space. Fails WP:GNG and even just basic WP:V. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless anyone is able to find RIS in Malayalam. Mccapra (talk) 10:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment now A7 speedied. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SMP Negeri 1 Kemangkon[edit]

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

Just a standard Indonesian equivalent of a US middle school, which we don't generally have articles about. I don't think redirecting to the city is useful here. Also nominating the article about the associated elementary school, created by the same editor, a single-purpose account: SD Negeri 1 Pegandekan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Graham87 09:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Indonesia. Shellwood (talk) 09:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support JarrahTree 10:22, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 10:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, just another school that have no special notability. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 08:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see any reason why we should have this article, fails notability. NMasiha (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sekolah Katolik Eka Prasetia[edit]

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

Article that has been unreferenced and orphaned for ten years about an Indonesian school that is a US elementary/middle school equivalent. Articles about schools that don't cover senior high school generally get deleted or redirected, and there's no good redirect target, so here I am. Most importantly, I can't find a single source for the existence of a school with this name, and I've searched various combinations of Katolik/Catholic Eka Prasetia with the location its in Pamulang and its city of South Tangerang. I don't know any Indonesian but I haven't been able to turn up anything promising ... Graham87 08:35, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - the unreferenced school item is of no long term value, if there was any information in the article worth keeping - it should go to the most immediate locality article (if one exists) JarrahTree 08:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Christianity, and Indonesia. Shellwood (talk) 09:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I see are listings and Wikipedia mirrors. Mccapra (talk) 10:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a regular school that does not have any special notability. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 08:05, 23 June 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 Dospey Heights. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battenberg Hill[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND #4 due to the lack of information beyond statistics and coordinates. I would support a redirect to Dospey Heights. BilledMammal (talk) 06:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Antarctica. BilledMammal (talk) 06:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Zero substantive coverage warranting a stand-alone article, especially for a fairly small hill. Reywas92^Talk 20:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect This is interesting, but excepting for basic topographical data, there is no in-depth coverage. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 10:19, 24 June 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 Albanian Basketball Superleague. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2020–21 Albanian Basketball League[edit]

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

2020–21 Albanian Basketball League

No references and no explanation of why it is notable, but is not one of the subjects for which A7 is permitted. There is also a draft, so this unreferenced stub article should be deleted because it cannot be draftified. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, and Albania. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Redirect to Albanian_Basketball_Superleague until at least there is material to put here. Get consensus at the talk page before doing spinouts. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable topic. Expansion (to the level of other season pages for this league) is the answer here, not deletion. Frank Anchor 15:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per SmokeyJoe. XtraJovial (talk) 01:11, 19 June 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 Boston College. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jesuit Ivy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not appear to pass WP:GNG ElKevbo (talk) 06:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Massachusetts. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Boston College There is no evidence (all this time after an ancient AfD) in the article that the phrase is in any way notable outside of the cloistered confines of the institution. It's a nickname for a place, with no notability in itself and so fails WP:GNG. The original AfD consensus, although closed as 'no consensus' I would have read as 'Merge' and that was by WP 2006 standards! By today's standards a redirect is probably more appropriate. Many of the 3,400 Google hits, BTW, are derived from WP... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chityala Suhasini Reddy[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and the GNG. Party officials and unsuccessful candidates aren't presumed notable under NPOL or any other guideline, and the sources cited in the article, which merely quote Reddy or mention her in passing, don't provide significant coverage, in my view. My WP:BEFORE search in both English and Telugu didn't find any sigcov either, so Reddy does not appear to be notable at this time. (NPP action) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:24, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, India, and Telangana. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:24, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Doesn't meet NPOL or GNG yet. -- Ab207 (talk) 09:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsuccessful candidate who is not otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 10:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. unsuccessful candidate is not notable. NMasiha (talk) 21:07, 24 June 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 Ulrich Schnauss. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quicksand Memory EP[edit]

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

Tagged for zero sources for five years, similar records by same guy don't exist, no apparent way to justify tag removal. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 June 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Germany. ––FormalDude talk 06:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ulrich Schnauss where it is mentioned. Mccapra (talk) 10:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teyah Lindo[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, all sources are trivial and lack WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify.--MonFrontieres (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't agree, the references already on the page seem valid, such as this and this.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5. Ortizesp's first source is not independent, being published by a sports team she used to play for, and the second is not WP:SIGCOV, as the only independent coverage it contains is In the fifth in a series of profiles of football players who will be part of the team representing Bermuda at CONCACAF Caribbean Women’s Under-20 Qualifier that will take place on July 19, July 21, and July 23 at National Sports Center, we spotlight 16-year-old Teyah Lindo. BilledMammal (talk) 06:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kaleah Smith[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, all sources are trivial and lack WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify.--MonFrontieres (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:00, 18 June 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. Stifle (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leranja Wilkinson[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, all sources are trivial and lack WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding this article as well:

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify.--MonFrontieres (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Presidial keep, got reverted back to bio stacking, biographies should not be stacked at AfD. Govvy (talk) 18:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point where this listed or is this an opinion? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, can confirm WP:GNG failure, no sources other than database listings were available from a search. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSPORT.4meter4 (talk) 04:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - I found only passing mentions in match reports and stats database profile pages Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:00, 27 June 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. I do not see a settled consensus on where the article should be moved to, but that discussion may be taken up on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Jordan (gymnast)[edit]

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

Prodded with the justification Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5. Redirect is not suitable per WP:R#Delete #1, as there are multiple valid targets (Gymnastics_at_the_1912_Summer_Olympics_–_Men's_team, List of Olympic male artistic gymnasts for Germany, Germany men's national artistic gymnastics team, and as we cannot assume which one the reader is looking for the search function is more effective.

Prod removed by Lugnuts, without an edit summary or the addition of sources. BilledMammal (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 07:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, I added a source about him also being a professor of zoology, with six species of heteroptera named after him. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

::And if nothing more can be found on him, then redirect to Germany at the 1912 Summer Olympics#Gymnastics per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More about him and his insect-related antics can be found here [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], etc. I suspect someone who can speak/read German would unearth (chuckle) more about him too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You added content from an existing source, not a new source.

Regarding the coverage you found, it appears only the second counts towards WP:GNG; the first is from the same source as they second, and might not be independent of the subject. The third I cannot access; can you provide an extract of the relevant content? The fourth is a passing mention, and the fifth is a database entry. BilledMammal (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even with the additional sources we do not have multiple instances of significant coverage from indepdent, reliable secondary sources that we need to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming they're definitely the same person, keep, as in his professorial capacity he meets academic notability. This is going to need some untangling because of course Karl Jordan was also an entomologist, so we need to make sure we're always looking at the correct sources. If it turns out that Jordan-gymnast is notable as a professor rather than a gymnast, then we ought to move this article to a better name, but it has to distinguish between him and the other Jordan-entomologist. Elemimele (talk) 12:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The birth/death dates match the ones on the Olympedia source, but Olympedia isn't always the most reliable source - I note that the article Lugnuts found on his life and works makes no mention of gymnastics or the Olympics, despite providing a general overview of that period of his life, including mentioning his military service in 1909/1910. They might be the same person, but I would prefer a more reliable source than Olympedia to support that. However, the larger issue is that currently WP:GNG isn't met - if they are the same person, then we only have one source that counts towards GNG, not the multiple that we need. BilledMammal (talk) 12:24, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @BilledMammal: Lugnuts has found two good sources, the obituary (1972) and the piece by Klausnitzer written in 2014. The criteria we need to consider are WP:NACADEMIC. Criterion 1 is whether their work has had significant impact in their discipline. Having 5 species named after him, and being remembered sufficiently to get an article like the Klausnitzer piece written 42 years after his death indicates lasting significance. This is not considering his own publications, which can only strengthen the case. He also had a special edition of a journal ("Beitraeger zur Entomologie") dedicated to him on his 65th birthday, which is an honour that counts towards criterion 2. His directorship at Tharandt is probably near to C5 (or C6) given that named professorships weren't really a thing at his time and place. These are all debatable, but I'd argue that three borderlines adds up to a definite, especially given that we're judging a historical figure by modern measures. The bottom line is that there is no doubt we can write about him accurately - we have independent and reliable information - so our choice is whether Wikipedia is weaker or stronger for including him. This AfD has strayed a very long way from a barely-known gymnast from the mists of time, about whom nothing could be written. I would argue that Wikipedia would be much the weaker for excluding him. I will try to find time to add some information from the Klausnitzer ref., which contains a lot of detail. I agree with you about the Olympedia thing; I'd feel a lot happier if one of his academic biographies had thought to mention his gymnastics. Elemimele (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Rereading the sources, I see that I made a mistake; the first source is from a different publication that the second. If we can verify that they are the same people, then I would withdraw my nomination; if we cannot, however, then we should delete the article on the gymnast and create one on the epidemiologist. BilledMammal (talk) 00:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the same person to me. Both Olympedia and the PDF sources have his full name of "Karl Hermann Christian Jordan", with Olympedia's DOB/DOD matching the second PDF source too. If it helps, I can do a ton more insect-related puns... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question is do we trust Olympedia not to have messed up and conflated two people, attaching a professor's birthday to a barely-known gymnast? For the moment, I'm going to go and add some professorial information to the article on the assumption that they are the same person, and on the basis that the professor is in any case probably notable. I think that BilledMammal is basically right about the options. We should, in any case, move the article to a better name, since his notability turns out not to be connected to his gymnastics. Then, if they turn out to be different people, we can simply delete all reference to the gymnastics and we've got an article on an entomologist instead, a sort of legal hijacking. Elemimele (talk) 08:29, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to doubt the source. It has detail on when and where he studied, as well as the zoology bit of his life. The site is run and updated by a Olympic historians and statisticians, with many of them being members of the International Society of Olympic Historians. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:55, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The question is what their source is; did they find a Karl Jordan who was around the same age and lived in around the same area and assumed he was the correct Karl Jordan, or did they find a source that either directly connected the two together? The fact that neither his obituary nor the article covering his life and work mention his participation in the Olympics makes me concerned that it is the former. BilledMammal (talk) 10:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We should absolutely be requiring a corroborating reliable source, or at least the original source materials, in cases such as these. From experience looking through 1900 equestrian competitors, it's clear that some Olympedia contributors make huge leaps of faith when it comes to identifying early Olympians; these leaps are incorrect too often for comfort. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for futher input, but I see no reason wht they would have "assumed he was the correct Karl Jordan". Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As stated, coverage of this individual satisfies WP:N. Our job as editors is to report what the sources say; unless there is a conflicting source that states that they are not the same person, it is not our job to speculate. That's original research, as are claims like "it's clear that some Olympedia contributors make huge leaps of faith when it comes to identifying early Olympians". The New York Times issues corrections to its articles all the time, but we would never ask if the New York Times "got it right" in a deletion discussion and get them to show their work (unless there was a specific issue documented at WP:RSP). If there are questions about whether or not Olympedia is a reliable source, then those belong on the reliable source noticeboard, not here. Canadian Paul 20:35, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Canadian Paul: Are you able to identify the underlying references in this case? We don't need to go to WP:RSN to understand there are issues with Olympedia; it is a user-generated source, and individual articles do not identify the author or authors so we are not able to identify whether they are a subject matter expert. In addition, as Wjemather says, there have been issues in past; we cannot treat this source differently from other user-generated sources. BilledMammal (talk) 23:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but you are incorrect. Our job as editors is to always assess the reliability of sources on a case-by-case basis; as you note, even reliable sources can be unreliable at times. OR (a policy that only applies to content, not discussions) and WP:V do not require accepting sources (however reliable they are perceived to be) without question. As to the case at hand... we should all be demanding a confirmatory source when the only source we have is known to have made many identification errors for this era. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if so much effort and disagreement to question a source would be made in other AfDs. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If similar doubts were cast on the identification of the subject as possibly being two different individuals, then I'm sure it would. If correct, we really shouldn't have any problem cross-referencing such details with multiple reliable sources. If we cannot, then it throws up a red flag that should not be ignored or dismissed on blind faith. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to an appropriate zoology related disambiguation. Seems clear the zoologist meets inclusion standards. It is less clear if he is the same person as the gymnast. That issue can be discussed further on the talk page (if kept), and the resultant redirect from the current title targeted elsewhere if this link cannot be substantiated. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move, with "zoologist" as the suggested dab. The professor is notable and time will tell whether the professor is in fact the gymnast. Schwede 66 00:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Practical difficulty is how to disambiguate. The other Karl Jordan was also an entomologist! They had different initials, at any rate. Elemimele (talk) 05:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest the Karl Jordan be moved to Karl Jordan (zoologist, born 1861); make Karl Jordan a disambiguation page; and move this article to Karl Jordan (zoologist, born 1888). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also support moving Karl Jordan to be a DAB page with the individuals disambiguated as above, as the individual currently at Karl Jordan isn't exactly extraordinarily notable to occupy the primary topic, especially if the consensus is that we have two notable zoologists with the same name. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move per above.4meter4 (talk) 15:21, 27 June 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Morris Zimmerman[edit]

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

Nonnotable businessman. The single source is some strange publication which does not even have an ISBN. Probably a family genealogist. Loew Galitz (talk) 02:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, zero sources found. Appears to be an essay. Oaktree b (talk) 02:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Maryland. Shellwood (talk) 07:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to violate WP:NOR. I found a reference for Howard Luggage, but Zimmerman himself is only mentioned there in passing. This article also fails to explain why the company Zimmerman founded should be as well known as other notable luggage companies such as Louis Vuitton, Samsonite or Tumi Inc., and whether they were a manufacturer, retailer or both. StonyBrook _babble 06:54, 19 June 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 01:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Global Firepower Index[edit]

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

Fails GNG - this is a WP:COATRACK article, given that the only sources that discuss the subject are just examples of other publications copying its content, and neither the primary or secondary sources have anything to say about the Index itself - who made it, why, and how it actually calculates anything. Loafiewa (talk) 01:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Military. Loafiewa (talk) 01:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and lack of site credibility. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-entity, and certainly not notable in any respect. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:44, 24 June 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 01:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gurdwara Bibi Veero Sahib[edit]

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

This unsourced article was moved to Draft space and recreated it main space. It was PROD'd and de-PROD'd so I guess AFD is the next step for this local "holy place". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:34, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:34, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. BD2412 T 04:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per norm! Jamiebuba (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No references. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:20, 21 June 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 00:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Radhi Al-Otaibi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found in WP:BEFORE nor coverage in the sources given on the page, if reliable. Is a creation of Losail, a sock. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 00:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Shellwood (talk) 07:22, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:53, 18 June 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 00:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulaziz Asiri[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found in WP:BEFORE nor coverage in the sources given on the page, if reliable. Is a creation of Losail, a sock. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 00:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Shellwood (talk) 07:22, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:53, 18 June 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 00:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Al-Samti[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found in WP:BEFORE nor coverage in the sources given on the page, if reliable. Is a creation of Losail, a blocked sock. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 00:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Shellwood (talk) 07:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:54, 18 June 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.