Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 June 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 08 June 10 >

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 keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Gjergjaj[edit]

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

His record is good, but he doesn't meet WP:NBOX. Most of the coverage is about his fight with David Haye, a fight he lost in a second round knockout. I don't think the coverage shows the GNG is met and appears to be WP:BLP1E. Sandals2 (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, and Martial arts. Sandals2 (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I admit I participated in the prior discussions about the notability of this article. In the last one, there was strong sentiment that because Haye had been a highly ranked fighter, it meant Gjergjaj was notable. His titles are minor and do not meet WP:NBOX. I don't believe that WP:GNG is met because much of it is from interviews with him or his manager or is coverage of his fight with Haye. I didn't think he was notable before the Haye fight and its result (and his subsequent fights) did nothing to change my mind. Training as a sparring partner with top fighters does not show notability. Papaursa (talk) 23:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cunard's thoroughness, and my work on Stan Schmidt, has convinced me to change my vote to keep. Not all of the sources he mentioned were good, such as passing mentions and fight results, but there is enough to show WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria says:

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

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
    According to this article from Sky Sports, Arnold Gjergjaj's fight with David Haye was announced around 30 March 2016 and took place on 21 May 2016. Gjergjaj received significant coverage in reliable sources before 30 March 2016, which means WP:BLP1E does not apply. One of the articles about Gjergjaj is a 27 February 2015 article in Neue Zürcher Zeitung, the Swiss newspaper of record, which strongly establishes he is notable. He also received significant coverage in a 13 April 2022 article in Basler Zeitung which further contributes to notability.
    1. Articles from 2015:
      1. Coviello, Michele (2015-02-27). "Grosser Mann, kleine Schritte" [Big man, small steps]. Neue Zürcher Zeitung (in German). Archived from the original on 2016-04-25. Retrieved 2016-04-25.

        The article provides detailed biographical background about him. The article notes from Google Translate: "Meanwhile, the cobra is almost fully grown. Another amateur title was added, then was Gjergjaj professional, the most successful heavyweights that Switzerland has ever known. Last October flicked his left jab in the 9th round briefly lights when Bosnian Adnan Redzovic from. It was his 26th victory in 26 fight as a professional, the 20 by knock-out. Then he was allowed to put the belt as European champion of non-EU countries over the shoulder - it is not a particularly serious and coveted. Had he not won Yves Studer also at middleweight, you know this country hardly of its existence. [quote from Gallina] The giant Gjergjaj had in small steps the international ranking climb, first against building opponents, then, as in the last 14 fights against boxers with a positive balance. 2011 and 2012 yielded Gjergjaj from a total of 12 fights. Point by point, he has worked up in the current 50th place."

      2. Dutler, Alex (2015-06-01). "Arnold «The Cobra» Gjergjaj - Europameister mit 7-Tage-Woche". Basellandschaftliche Zeitung (in German). Archived from the original on 2016-04-24. Retrieved 2016-04-24.

        The Google Translate of the article notes: "Arnold "The Cobra" Gjergjaj slaves there for the defense of his European champion title on 6 June 2015. The best Swiss heavyweight boxer is 1.97 meters and 110 kilograms already a colossal appearance, but his top secret Scandinavian training partner with the Vikings Bart and the tattooed arms surmounted him again by a few centimeters. ... Even with the Ukrainian world number 1 Arnold Gjergjaj has already measured in sparring. ... The European champion belt, which Arnold Gergjaj has taken on 4 October 2014 in Basel before 2000 spectators against Bosnian Adnan Redzovic is awarded by the European Boxing Union (EBU), one of the oldest organizations in the world. However, the Swiss holding not the top EBU title, but those in the category EBU-EE - he is European champion of non-EU countries."

      3. Oppliger, Matthias (2015-07-06). "Hand gebrochen, Trommelfell geplatzt: Gjergjaj bleibt trotzdem Europameister" [Hand broken, burst eardrums: Gjergjaj remains nevertheless European champion]. TagesWoche (in German). Archived from the original on 2016-04-24. Retrieved 2016-04-24.

        The Google Translate of the article notes: "It was an evening of firsts: the first time a battle of Arnold "The Cobra" Gjergjaj was broadcast live on Kosovar television. For the first time the professional boxer from Pratteln had to defend his European title (EBU-EE). For the first time in his career Gjergjaj went down. Denis Bakhtov, called "Darth Vader", was without a doubt the toughest opponent for the cobra." The article goes beyond routine discussion of a sporting event by analyzing Gjergjaj's fighting techniques: "Although the decision in the end turned out clearly, all three judges saw in Gjergjaj the winner, could arise during the fight in the meantime, another impression. The early rounds were at least balanced, Bakhtov of active boxers. While Gjergjaj used his size advantage and kept his distance, Bakhtov knew only one direction: forward. So the prattler saw something too often pushed into a corner, where he tried to sit out the richly varied punch combinations of Russians in double coverage. Tactically and stylistically hardly two more different fighters could stand against. Gjergjaj fought cautiously, mostly over let the smaller Boxer the ring center and practiced in running work. [more discussion about technique]"

    2. Articles from 2016 about the his boxing fight with David Hayes:
      1. "Arnold Gjergjaj fordert Ex-Weltmeister David Haye". Neue Zürcher Zeitung (in German). 2016-03-30. Archived from the original on 2016-04-24. Retrieved 2016-04-24.

        The Google Translate of the article notes: "Arnold Gjergjaj stands before the most important fight of his career. The currently best Swiss professional boxer meets on May 21 in London on the Englishman David Haye. For the 31-year-old, 197 cm large Gjergjaj it is the biggest fight of his career. The as a professional unbeaten pugilist from Pratteln with Kosovar roots was far against anyone yet boxer on the format of "Heumachers", although Gjergjaj had already won the title of "European Champion of non-EU countries"."

      2. Müller, Tobias (2016-03-30). "«The Cobra» Arnold Gjergjaj steht vor seinem grössten Kampf". Basellandschaftliche Zeitung (in German). Archived from the original on 2016-04-24. Retrieved 2016-04-24.

        The Google Translate of the article notes: "Understandable. Today will be announced later in the day, what is clear is actually for days and is in social media as safe: Arnold Gjergjaj to deny the first big fight of his career. Against none other than the British David Haye. Of course there is little time for anything else at Angelo Gallina. Whether he was at the time of the message on the way to London to be at the press conference to local media Red and response to fight his protege against Haye today - this question remains open. ... Gjergjaj is currently classified in the BoxRec ranking ranked 29th To get further forward, he needs a victory against a large - like Haye is undoubtedly one."

      3. "Arnold Gjergjaj fordert David Haye: Es ist offiziell: «The Cobra» aus Pratteln bekommt es in seinem ersten ganz grossen Fight am 21. Mai mit dem «Hayemaker» zu tun". Basler Zeitung (in German). 2016-03-30. Archived from the original on 2016-04-24. Retrieved 2016-04-24.

        The article notes: "Arnold Gjergjaj stands before the most important fight of his career. The currently best Swiss professional boxer meets on May 21 in London on the Englishman David Haye (35). The duel was made official at a news conference in London. For the 31-year Gjergjaj it is the biggest fight of his career. The as a professional unbeaten pugilist from Pratteln with Kosovar roots was far against anyone yet boxer on the format of "Heumachers", although Gjergjaj already won the title of "European Champion of non-EU countries". ... For the rapidly beating Haye (27: 2 victory prematurely, 25) is Gjergjaj (29: 0, 21) be the last hurdle on the way to an IBF world title fight."

      4. Davies, Gareth A. (2016-03-30). "David Haye pledges to donate 10 per cent of ticket sales to Nick Blackwell". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2016-04-24. Retrieved 2016-04-24.

        The article notes: "Haye, whose forthcoming fight against Gjergjaj is expected to be shown on free-to-air television, made his comeback at a sold-out 02 Arena in January with three million viewers watching on the channel Dave when he defeated Australian Mark de Mori in 131 seconds. He faces an opponent in Gjergjaj who has won all 29 career fights. Since fleeing Kosovo as a war refugee, Gjergjaj has been based in Switzerland, where the 31-year-old heavyweight is a resident."

    3. Articles from 2022:
      1. Pauls, Tilman (2022-04-13). "Arnold Gjergjaj steigt wieder in den Ring: Am 10. Juni gibt das Basler Schwergewicht nach etwas mehr als drei Jahren ohne Kampf sein Comeback. Gjergjajs Gegner ist noch nicht bekannt" [Arnold Gjergjaj is located in the Ring: On 10 June, the Basel heavyweight will make its comeback after a little more than three years without a fight. Gjergjaj's opponent is not yet known.]. Basler Zeitung (in German). Archived from the original on 2022-05-07. Retrieved 2022-06-08.

        The article notes: "It's the end of November. Arnold Gjergjaj is standing in his empty boxing gym in Pratteln and is talking about his new life. From his son, who now and then puts on the gloves himself. From his work as a trainer with the boxers of the next - and after next - generation. And about the upcoming takeover of a gas station at Kannenfeldplatz, where Gjergjaj now works. ... We now know that the 37-year-old will make his comeback on June 10th. Three years after his last fight in May 2019 against Elvis Moyo from Zimbabwe. Gjergjaj's face is not yet visible on the poster for "Friday Night Boxing" in Uster. But the organizers are already advertising with the name of the heavyweight from Basel."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Arnold Gjergjaj to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Cunard; note that WP:NBOX is a set of guidelines, not of rules, and refer to not significance but probability of significance in reliable sources. Iseult Δx parlez moi 01:23, 10 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 01:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Brahms[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage. While the original Japanese voice roles might show notability for those people, I'm not seeing how the English dubs are significant without proof of those being significant. SL93 (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fade258 What do you mean? It can only be redirected to one article. SL93 (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SL93, I have updated my comment. Fade258 (talk) 03:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fade258 There is no specific article. SL93 (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 3 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! 23:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, No significant coverage in current sourcing. Searching found nothing helpful. Lacks the coverage needed for notability. Gab4gab (talk) 12:54, 10 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. MelanieN (talk) 02:04, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Monique Samuels[edit]

Hi there, Monique Samuels is not notable outside the show in which she gained some popularity. In addition to this, she is no longer on The Real Housewives of Potomac or apart of The Real Housewives franchise. Whilst I do not think that this article page should be deleted, I do recommend that the page is redirected to The Real Housewives of Potomac as that is what she is known from. Feel free to suggest alternatives. Thanks. Sf123456 (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, and New Jersey. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete/redirect. While most of it is tabloid/entertainment news dreck, there is a little coverage of her outside of the Real Housewives show, and she does have a show that has generated press coverage (though not much). It's pretty borderline. I don't think that means this article has to exist; given much of the coverage is still about her Real Housewives stuff or the new show, I think you can make a solid argument the relevant bits can go there. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly meets WP:GNG regardless of whether its content is also suitable in other places. KyleJoantalk 02:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 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! 23:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: note that a similar bio with just one extra notable achievement was closed as keep. Iseult Δx parlez moi 01:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Plenty of hits in People, E Online, about every other entertainment show online. Sustained coverage, should pass GNG Oaktree b (talk) 00:10, 12 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! 04:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis County Jane Doe[edit]

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

Topic fails WP:GNG. Entirely local news coverage with media performing a routine service of attempting to identify this individual. Wikipedia is not the news. Lacks WP:SUSTAINED coverage or coverage outside of what is routine. According to NAMUS, in the United States alone "it is estimated that 4,400 unidentified bodies are recovered each year, with approximately 1,000 of those bodies remaining unidentified after one year." In other words, this is not unusual in anyway. Wikipedia is not a database for unidentified bodies. (see [1]) 4meter4 (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Beccaynr, I don't think a merge is the best choice. Even if it were, the body has not been conclusively identified as a murder victim (just a suspicious death) as the cause of death is unknown. Further, that list needs to be curated so that it is encyclopedic. Entries within that list of unidentified murder victims need to demonstrate sustained significant coverage beyond the normal news cycle. (i.e. those which have secondary and tertiary sources beyond just the news and primary sources). Not doing so makes that list unwieldy, and opens up the criteria of inclusion to potentially tens of thousands of unidentified bodies both recently and historically which are in the NAMUS and law enforcement database of cold cases. It already needs some weeding of content as it is. Further, Lewis County has many "Jane Does" in its cold case files, so the naming/labeling of the content is problematic. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    These are all excellent points, 4meter4, and I was essentially thinking that whether and how the list should exist is a subject of a different discussion, either on that article's Talk page, or in a deletion discussion. I will continue thinking on this, and in the meantime, I appreciate your additional reasoning. Beccaynr (talk) 00:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am updating my !vote to delete after further review of the two reliable sources in the article [2] (2018, hints at the possibility of a homicide, but specifically disclaims details due to an ongoing investigation), [3] (2021, more about the forensic investigation process generally than this case, but describes an 'active investigation' into the cause of death). There does not appear to be any support in reliable sources for the unsourced claims and speculation in the article. While the list would probably benefit from a renaming because 'murder' is a very specific and limiting term, it does not appear that this article subject can be clearly considered a 'homicide' and merged into the list at this time, and there is insufficient WP:SUSTAINED coverage to support a standalone article, as further described in WP:NOTNEWS. Beccaynr (talk) 13:55, 5 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, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agree with assessment above. No sustained coverage, unsure if it's a murder. It's a body, could have died from natural causes. Oaktree b (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Beccaynr. Iseult Δx parlez moi 01:28, 10 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 Sandbag#Fortification. Liz Read! Talk! 23:49, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Antestature[edit]

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

This is the very definition of a dicdef. Perhaps merge to sandbag, but it really doesn't seem sufficiently noteworthy. BD2412 T 23:48, 9 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 03:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scoring (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:SIGCOV. I found no suitable or reliable sources or reviews to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 9 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. MelanieN (talk) 02:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Bagsby[edit]

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

Article been on the cat:nn list since 2010. Never really been referenced. No streaming, no social media, no coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:SINGER. WP:V. Current ref is passing mention. scope_creepTalk 19:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Went checking ProQuest, Ebsco, and Newspapers.com and didn't find anything but a stray mention of a mini-Moog he built in a keyboard magazine. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:49, 8 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! 23:43, 9 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. RL0919 (talk) 02:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kulthorn Kirby[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, fairly standard business, no indication of any notability in the references. P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is one of the world's largest manufacturers of reciprocating compressors for industrial refrigeration. Лобачев Владимир (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Appears to be a major listed company, though not really in the public spotlight. The pieces of in-depth coverage I found appear to be sponsored content (SCMP[8], Brand Inside[9]). Its business operations appear to be regularly covered by industry news sources though.[10][11][12] --Paul_012 (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 20:01, 2 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! 23:43, 9 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 Tuvalu A-Division. Liz Read! Talk! 04:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

F.C. Tofaga[edit]

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

Lack of suitable sources. Possibly merge to Tuvalu A-Division as part of a history section. Gusfriend (talk) 05:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 19:58, 2 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, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Tuvalu A-Division where it is mentioned. Lacks significant coverage needed for a separate article. Current external links listed in the article do not satisfy GNG, one has a brief mention and the other does not mention this F.C. at all. Gab4gab (talk) 13:11, 10 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. I, too, would like to settle this, once and for all, but after 3 relists, I don't think we are going to get any additional participation on this one. Liz Read! Talk! 03:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Angker Batu[edit]

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing significant was found in a WP:BEFORE. There were some reviews cited in the previous AfD, but it still concluded as no consensus, and I am not sure about their reliability. The notability tag therefore remains from July 2021.

Let's settle this once and for all, delete or keep? DonaldD23 talk to me 02:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 19:56, 2 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! 23:41, 9 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Jacobs[edit]

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

Search shows only overall stats, same as refs on page. Fails WP:NCURL and WP:SPORTBASIC. Needs significant personal coverage in multiple independent secondary sources, none seen. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:25, 2 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! 23:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No SIGCOV has been found. Mere participation is not a notability criterion. JoelleJay (talk) 22:45, 11 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 Anwar Pervez (musician). Liz Read! Talk! 23:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anwar Parvez discography[edit]

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

Like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Akram Shuvo discography, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amin Khan filmography there is no need for a separate discography page. Article also lacks references. Fails WP:GNG. (The main article is stub, has only 4 lines, i don't see a good reason to create a separate article. Maybe we can merge this article with Anwar Pervez (musician)). আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:30, 2 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! 23:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge. Should not be a separate article in the first place. SWinxy (talk) 04:21, 16 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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the Farthest Star (film)[edit]

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

No WP:SIGCOV in RS, no reviews in notable independent sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there are 3 critic reviews at Rotten Tomatoes [13]. Only 2 needed to pass WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 18:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    SPS and SPS, don't contribute to notability. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully disagree. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is also a relatively in-depth review here by Desert Dispatch, although I am unconvinced it is sufficient to demonstrate notability or sufficient coverage, especially if other similar material doesn't surface. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per The Desert Dispatch review linked above and the Commonsense Media review (linked at Rotten Tomatoes) which RSN determined was a reliable source for reviews, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is L.J. Gambone a nationally known critic? Per NFILM The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As per discussions at WikiProject Film nationally known critics refers to reviews in popular national publications. In any case the two reviews count towards WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Commonsense Media or Desert Dispatch are blogs Atlantic306 (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - correct. Excuse my phrasing. I'm saying they are "blog-like", with the Wordpress layout, links to free offers in the footer, etc. I'm devaluing them since the sites don't seem that impressive. It's just not enough IMHO. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:05, 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! 23:35, 9 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 23:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KIKS TYO[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, article only cites primary sources. A Google search did not reveal significant coverage in independent sources. Yeeno (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating Hobby:tech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the founder of KIKS TYO, which has the same issues noted above. Yeeno (talk) 23:40, 9 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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:24, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noorin Shereef[edit]

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

The actress clearly fails WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO and obviously WP:GNG and is also non-notable. A WP:BEFORE search gives not much info about her. The films that she has acted in are also not notable. All these makes are non notable. The article was also deleted previously. It could easily have been a CSD, but wasn't sure if the content was identical. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 11:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, India, and Kerala. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 11:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable model and beauty pageant titleholder who was crowned Miss Kerala Fitness 2017 with reliable sources. She acted in Telugu an Malayalam films which is Notable to Wikipedia, even you can check Oru Adaar Love, Velleppam, Chunkzz and Dhamaka (2020 film). She has a big fan following. Because of the acting, the news also remains an adornment. This page should not be speedily deleted, I think she is notable person for Wikipedia article. Even if you think it is not suitable for Wikipedia then you put it in the draft instead of deleting it and I will work on it and make it perfect.User talk: Zimi09 11:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment: You said Chunkzz is a Telegu film, but in the Wikipedia article it is said that it is a Malayalam article. Are you sure, she acted in the film? Also note, having a huge fan base, doesn't always make someone notable on Wikipedia. Please read this discussion so that you know why 'fan base' is not a criterion that helps in establishing notability. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 12:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment: I didn't say that Chunkzz is an Telugu film or novel. I said that She acted in Telugu and Malayalam films, below I mentioned some of them.User talk: Zimi09 12:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, obviously you mention "Chunkzz" as Telegu film. In the filmography table that you have created, it is stated that "Chunzz" is a telegu film. What about that? ItcouldbepossibleTalk 13:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I fixed it. This is not a big deal. This is an unintentional mistake. Whoever feels it will fix it. However, this is my fault and I will keep this in mind next time.User talk: Zimi09 13:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant roles in notable movies, enough independent coverage to pass GNG. Whilst her fame seems to be mostly carried by her performance in Oru Adaar Love, her roles in Oollalla Oollalla and Velleppam were also significant from what I could see. decltype (talk) 08:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Itcouldbepossible Talk 14:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Google hits on a youtuber with her name, how notable were her roles in the films listed? Leaning delete. 15:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oaktree b (talk • contribs)
Sorry, this has happened a few times, seems to be an error on my end. Oaktree b (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b Hmm, saw that from you talk page as well. Any guess what is going on? Isn't ~~~~ working? Itcouldbepossible Talk 15:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And instead of '''comment''', can you either write '''keep''' or '''delete'''? Itcouldbepossible Talk 15:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I comment if I'm not of fixed opinion but wanting to contribute to the decision. I've always understood it's not strictly a consensus vote (5 yes, 4 no) but a discussion of the whole picutre. Oaktree b (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I think the 4 tildes might not be working, strictly because of the crap quality of my keyboard, it doesn't always register when I hit the kay. Oaktree b (talk) 16:03, 2 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! 23:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • VERY Weak Keep: It's not the best article/stub out there with minimal information. The creator certainly could have helped out quite a bit by adding a Career section with some notes about the various roles. That said, it seems that Oru Adaar Love was a significant role (with some compliments in the reviews I read) and Velleppam will be a significant role. The last is the weak part of my keep. It's an upcoming film (WP:NFF obviously being ignored) so an option would be to have this as a draft until the film is released, but I know the creator doesn't have the patience for something like that. So weak keep for this stub. Ravensfire (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: As per nom Onmyway22 talk 09:57, 16 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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Makenna Kelly[edit]

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

Influencer. No evidence of notability. Does not pass WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:59, 2 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! 23:26, 9 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 deleted (WP:G4) and salted. This recreated page is not meaningfully different than the one from last year. To recreate this bio a third time will now require a WP:DRAFT that succeeds in passing the WP:AFC review process. Thank you. El_C 02:53, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J Coudrey[edit]

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

Recreation of an article that was previously deleted for failing WP:SIGCOV. Does not appear to have any new substantial sources from the first version of the article. Same issues apply. Also, editors should be aware that the first AFD had issues related to WP:MEATPUPPETRY and/or WP:SOCKPUPPETRY (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JalenPhotos2) and that this same account re-created the article. As such, administrators may need to carefully monitor the progress of this AFD. As always, any close of this AFD should be based on the strength of the arguments rather than a mere vote count per WP:NOTAVOTE. 4meter4 (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am copy pasting my detailed source analysis from the first AFD, as many of the sources are identical. I will add any new sources from this current version of the Coudrey article to this list in the next couple hours.4meter4 (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note . The source analysis below from the first AFD has some sources not included this version of the article. Many of the sources in this analysis are still in use. Editors should look at the sources for themselves and draw their own conclusions after reading the sources and the opinions expressed here.4meter4 (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis
Source Description Main Subject? Significant Coverage? Policy
Rosenberg, Matthew; Corasaniti, Nick (2019-11-10). "Close Election in Kentucky Was Ripe for Twitter, and an Omen for 2020". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2021-06-17. Article about a close election in Kentucky; Coudrey is mentioned briefly No No WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:SIGCOV
Tenbarge, Kat. "A QAnon conspiracy theory about Oprah Winfrey went so viral that it provoked her to respond, showing the scope of coronavirus misinformation". Insider. Retrieved 2021-06-17. Article about a QAnon conspiracy theory about Oprah Winfrey; Coudrey is quoted briefly No No WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:SIGCOV
Re, Gregg (2020-05-26). "Twitter puts warning label on a Trump tweet on mail-in ballots, despite experts backing up Trump's concerns". Fox News. Retrieved 2021-06-17. Article about Twitter and Trump; Coudrey is quoted briefly No No WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:SIGCOV
Palmer, Ewan (2020-08-28). "Why Kyle Rittenhouse, filmed fleeing armed attackers, was charged with murder". Newsweek. Retrieved 2021-06-17. Article about prosecution of Kyle Rittenhouse; Coudrey is quoted briefly No No WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:SIGCOV
"How a chance Twitter thread launched Trump's favorite coronavirus drug". POLITICO. Retrieved 2021-06-17. Article about Trump, hydroxychloroquine, and the Covid pandemic; Coudrey is quoted briefly No No WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:SIGCOV
"Dr. Laura Coudrey MD". US News. Retrieved June 17, 2021. Profile of Coudrey's mother; paid for section and therefore not independent; no mention of subject No No WP:SOURCE/ WP:SIGCOV
"Entrepreneur Michael Coudrey Discusses Business-Minded Childhood, Present Activities". CC Discovery. 2019-12-15. Retrieved 2021-06-18. Interview of Courdrey by Canyon Country Discovery Center; lacks independence and is too closely connected to the subject to count towards RS Yes No WP:SOURCE/ WP:SIGCOV
"Presenting the Class of 2011". Kings Park, NY Patch. 2011-06-23. Retrieved 2019-12-12. List of Kings Park High School graduates; verifies he graduated but is just one name among many No No WP:SIGCOV
"Virus consipracy-theory video shows challenges for big tech". AP NEWS. Retrieved 2021-06-17. Article on the 26-minute documentary-style video dubbed “Plandemic,”; Coudrey is briefly quoted No No WP:SIGCOV
Dwilson, Stephanie Dube (2019-08-10). "Jeffrey Epstein Camera Malfunction: Proof to Rumor Emerges Weeks Later". Heavy.com. Retrieved 2021-06-17. Article on Jeffrey Epstein Camera Malfunction; Coudrey is briefly quoted; tabloid quality source No No WP:NOTTABLOID/ WP:SIGCOV
Hines, Jan. "Behind the Growing Political Social Media Powerhouse Headed by Marketing CEO Michael Coudrey". Retrieved 2019-12-12. Interview of Michael Coudrey in Sweet Startups; source often interviews people for pay; lacks independence and is too closely connected to the subject to count towards RS Yes No WP:SIGCOV/ WP:SOURCE
"Trump Pushes Malaria Drug for Virus But Evidence Is Lacking". www.bloomberg.com. Retrieved 2021-06-17.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) Article about Trump, hydroxychloroquine, and the Covid pandemic; Coudrey is quoted briefly No No WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:SIGCOV
"Woman Allegedly Attacked In Austin For Wearing MAGA Cap". Austin, TX Patch. 2019-03-13. Retrieved 2019-12-12. Article about the alleged attack on Haley Maddox; Coudrey is quoted briefly No No WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:SIGCOV
Giller, Marc (2019-11-14). "Is impeachment just a cover for Obama era corruption?". Conservative Christian News. Retrieved 2019-12-12. Article on Adam Schiff’s impeachment “inquiry”; Coudrey is quoted briefly; source itself is questionable in quality No No WP:NOTNEWS/WP:SOURCE
Brigham, Bob. "'The backpedal begins': Trump backs off vaping crackdown — and he 'profited from the vape industry'". www.rawstory.com. Retrieved 2019-12-12. Article on Trump and vaping policy/agenda; Coudrey is quoted briefly No No WP:NOTNEWS
"Analysis | One America News's Ukraine-Rudy Giuliani exposé is a stunning piece of propaganda". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2021-06-17. Main subject is the America News Network and Rudy Guiliani's reporting on Joe Biden; Coudrey is mentioned briefly in one sentence No No WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:SIGCOV
"Coronavirus conspiracy-theory video 'Plandemic' shows challenges for big tech". timesfreepress.com. Retrieved 2021-06-17.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) Article on the "Plandemic" film; Coudrey briefly quoted No No WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:SIGCOV
"Marketing CEO Michael Coudrey Threatens Author Over Defamation". Beverly Hills, CA Patch. 2019-07-03. Retrieved 2021-06-18. Local News source covering a twitter fight in what's essentially tabloid type press; this is the local hometown paper of where Coudrey grew up and its independence is questionable Yes No WP:NOTTABLOID/ WP:SIGCOV/WP:SOURCE
Wessel, Lindzi (2020-06-22). "'It's a nightmare.' How Brazilian scientists became ensnared in chloroquine politics". Science | AAAS. Retrieved 2021-06-18. Article is about the use of chloroquine to treat Covid; Coudrey briefly quoted No No WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:SIGCOV
"Fact check: Wisconsin did not have more votes than people registered". Reuters. Reuters. 2020-11-04. Retrieved 2021-06-18. Article is about rumors surrounding the Wisconsin election. Article corrects wrong information spread by Coudrey and others No No WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:SIGCOV
Re, Gregg (2020-05-26). "Twitter puts warning label on a Trump tweet on mail-in ballots, despite experts backing up Trump's concerns". Fox News. Retrieved 2021-06-17. Article is about Twitter and Trump and mail-in ballots; Coudrey is briefly quoted No No WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:SIGCOV
Fichera, Angelo (2019-08-12). "Unproven Claim of 'Camera Malfunction' Before Epstein's Death". FactCheck.org. Retrieved 2021-06-18. Essentially a fact check of Coudrey's and others false claims on Twitter about camera malfunctions before Epstein's death; the rumor is the main subject not Coudrey himself No No WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:SIGCOV
"Michael Coudrey". IMDb. Retrieved 2021-06-17. IMDB/ unreliable source Yes No WP:IMDB

Comment :You have included a number of sources in the table that are not even mentioned in the article. By you not even looking at the article and realizing these sources aren't included, but still including them in your "source analysis", it coerces the opinions of the community under fraudulent pretenses. Further, if you did not review the article enough to realize your including analysis for sources not even mentioned in the Wikipedia article, how could you submit my article for deletion with any merit? If your actions truly are in good-faith, please also review new sources in your analysis and remove sources not included in the article. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @JalenPhotos2 I clearly stated that this was a copy paste from the first AFD and was completely transparent about that in my original post. Many of the sources are identical, and it's an important record of what transpired previously. As such it is pertinent to those evaluating this article. I am happy to go through and weed out the few that were not re-used. I stated earlier that I would be updating this and I still plan to. Lastly, it's the responsibility of each editor to review the article in its current state. Articles are often changed in the course of an AFD, so working on prior comments in never a good modus operandi. Everyone should take the time to form their own opinions. That's the responsible approach. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you intentionally manipulated the community based on fraudulent and manufactured pretenses, then included sources in the above table that were NOT included in the article in order to intentionally manipulate the community. 3 Delete nominations are based on your fraudulent analysis. You also nominated my account for sockpuppetry, to which was a despicable attempt to "get your way" in a previous dispute. You further nominated my article for deletion. This kind of behavior is unacceptable here and I will be appealing to reverse it. Further, I ask you to stop harassing me. Wikipedia is an inclusive community of many editors. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 4meter4's source analysis. Mooonswimmer 23:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the source analysis, most mentions are trivial and non-notable for sources. Oaktree b (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Internet, United States of America, and California. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per source analysis, and Salt. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am the original author of the article. This article was originally deleted due to lack of WP:SIGCOV, which arose from a hostile dispute between myself and another community member. Many in the community agreed with me and the discussion was fruitful, but ended in a debatable deletion. I have since addressed the deletion points, by adding a substantial amount of new sources, primarily in the fields of business and investment discussing the subject which satisfy WP:SOURCE, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:GNG. In the above Source Analysis table 4meter4 copied the source analysis from the previous article deletion inquiry but he included source links for sources not even included in this article, and did not include any of the new sources on the list above, which coerces the opinions of the community under fraudulent pretenses. He did not review the article enough to realize he's analyzing sources not even mentioned in the Wikipedia entry, so how could he submit for deletion with any merit? He was also active on the last article, and appears to be acting as a "gate-keeper" of information, which is in contradiction to What Wikipedia is not guidelines. I have added WP:SIGCOV articles whereas the subject is the main point of the article, including Yahoo News, Seeking Alpha, Bloomberg, Pitch Deck, many based on the subjects funding rounds and company creations. I have also added source material that passes WP:SIGCOV, whereas the subject is not the main topic but is included as much more than a trivial mention. Due to what appears to be a bad-faith effort for deletion, I encourage everyone to preview the article and conduct their own source analysis rather than use someone else's. The article may need some cleanup, which is debatable, however it should not be excluded from Wikipedia based on all applicable guidelines being met.
  • @JalenPhotos2 This is a gross mischaracterization of the history of the last AFD and related conversations. Multiple editors, including Celestina007, myself, and GeneralNotability, expressed concern over the use of single purpose accounts and the likelihood of WP:MEATPUPPETRY or WP:SOCKPUPPETRY. Likewise, multiple editors were making the same or agreeing with the policy based made comments made by myself and user Celestina007 in the last discussion. Misconstruing the last AFD as a conflict between yourself and a single other editor isn't reality, and claiming "community support" from many SPA accounts is doing nothing to lend you credibility. Lastly, copy pasting a relevant document into this AFD that is pertinent is not prejudicial but best practice. Having a record of a relevant argument made in a prior AFD is helpful and useful. Given that I identified that there were differences between the sources in this current article and that analysis, and stated outright that it would need to be updated, I don't see how you could claim anything like fraud or prejudice. Editors voting here should be looking at the article in its current state and the sources for themselves. It's their responsibility. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To clarify above WP:GNG notation. In regards to Presumed, these quoted pieces (which are more than a trivial mention) creates an assumption that a subject merits its own article because it is contradictory to 'what Wikipedia is not', particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Some of these news sources rely on the subjects 'expertise' in the fields of biotechnology or business, in which he is called upon to provide. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 10:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source analysis
Source Description + Excerpt Main Subject? Significant Coverage? Policy
"Marketing CEO Michael Coudrey Threatens Author Over Defamation". Beverly Hills, CA Patch. 2019-07-03. Retrieved 2022-06-09. Patch article discussing a lawsuit launched by Michael Coudrey over allegedly defamatory statements made by an author. Patch is one of the largest local news publications in the domestic United States. The "tabloid type" press comment above is baseless. Subject is the primary focus of the article and discusses his actions in detail. "Marketing CEO Michael Coudrey" Yes Yes PassesWP:Source / Passes WP:SIGCOV
Rosenberg, Matthew; Corasaniti, Nick (2019-11-10). "Close Election in Kentucky Was Ripe for Twitter, and an Omen for 2020". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2021-06-17. New York Times article about an election in Kentucky; Coudrey is mentioned briefly, but called upon for his expertise. The New York Times refers to the subject as: "Michael Coudrey, an entrepreneur and activist..." No No Fails WP:SIGCOV, passes WP:GNG
"Experts question malaria drug endorsed by Trump as COVID-19 cure but people stockpiling it". ThePrint. 2020-03-22. Retrieved 2022-06-09. Article about pharmaceutical repurposing drug types for off-label use; Coudrey is mentioned briefly, but called upon for his expertise. They refer to the subject as: "investor, entrepreneur and former biopharmaceutical analyst named Michael Coudrey" No Yes Passes WP:SIGCOV, whereas the subject is not the entire topic but is significantly more than a trivial mention, passes WP:GNG Presumed criteria.
"Tova Farms Company Profile: Valuation & Investors | PitchBook". pitchbook.com. Retrieved 2022-06-09. Largest market-research provider in Venture Capital industry, indicates subject is Founder & Chief Executive Officer of Tova Farms, and discusses large funding rounds of company's the subject controls/and/or founded. Yes Yes Passes WP:SIGCOV / Passes WP:GNG / Passes WP:Source, it is the largest valuation market-research company in VC Funding industry and typically quoted for media discussing subject companies.
"Mike Coudrey's Tova Farms Emerges from Stealth with $1M in Seed Funding to Disrupt the Global Avocado Industry". finance.yahoo.com. Retrieved 2022-06-09. Yahoo News Article about the subject raising $1 million in funding for a company he founded. Quotes subject extensively, and refer to the subject here: "Tova Farms is yet another venture spun out of Pharos Investment Group, the Puerto Rico-based venture capital firm founded by Mike Coudrey." Yes Yes Passes WP:SIGCOV / Passes WP:GNG / Passes WP:Source
"Mike Coudrey's Tova Farms Raises Nearly $1 Million In Funding, Adds Strategic Export Partners". finance.yahoo.com. Retrieved 2022-06-09. News Article discussing subjects fundraising round. Quotes subject extensively, and refer to the subject here: "Serving as Tova Farms Chief Executive Officer, Mike Coudrey said that the value" Yes Yes Passes WP:SIGCOV / Passes WP:GNG / Passes WP:Source
Dwilson, Stephanie Dube (2019-08-10). "Jeffrey Epstein Camera Malfunction: Proof to Rumor Emerges Weeks Later". Heavy.com. Retrieved 2021-06-17. News Article discussing Jeffrey Epstein's prison term. Subject is not the main topic, but is mentioned and quoted extensively, which satisfies WP:SIGCOV's guidance on more than a trivial mention. The article was created to discuss the subjects claims, which it proves as accurate. No Yes Passes WP:SIGCOV / Passes WP:GNG
"Tova Farms haalt €880.000 op aan startkapitaal om de avocadosector te hervormen". www.agf.nl (in Dutch). Retrieved 2022-06-09. German government site focusing on agriculture news. Subject is the main topic and discusses the subjects company financing rounds, and discuses the overall outlook of the subjects company and market. Yes Yes Passes WP:SIGCOV / Passes WP:GNG
"Mike Coudrey's Tova Farms Emerges from Stealth with $1M in Seed Funding to Disrupt the Global Avocado Industry | Seeking Alpha". seekingalpha.com. Retrieved 2022-06-09. Leading investment news outlet discusses the subject and his companies. Quotes subjects expertise extensively. Yes Yes Passes WP:SIGCOV / Passes WP:GNG
Wessel, Lindzi (2020-06-22). "'It's a nightmare.' How Brazilian scientists became ensnared in chloroquine politics". Science | AAAS. Retrieved 2021-06-18. Article from biotechnology news outlet Science Magazine. This one is a debatable one, yet highly interesting for discussion. Subject is not the main topic, but arguably a large cause in the articles creation. In my opinion it passes WP:SIGCOV for this reason, and mentions the subject in a substantial capacity. No Yes Passes WP:SIGCOV on 'more than a trivial mention' / Passes WP:GNG on 'Presumed criteria.'
Comment. @JalenPhotos2 You don't have an accurate understanding of what constitutes significant coverage. WP:SIGCOV state, "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail." This means merely being quoted or giving an expert opinion in a news article on a different subject is not significant coverage, no matter how much you want it to be. The source must be about Michael J. Coudrey to count towards WP:GNG. This also means that any evaluation of TovaFarms as notable does not extend to Coudrey because notability is not inherited. You can not use articles where Coudrey is giving an opinion on a different topic or content about Tova Farms's notability as evidence of Coudrey's notability. Likewise, significant coverage must be independent. For example, the Yahoo news article you list as significant coverage is a press release provided directly from Pharos Investment Group. (which it states at the bottom of the article) As such it lacks independence and can not be counted as SIGCOV. All of the sources you are claiming as SIGCOV above have issues with either independence, not addressing the topic directly (i.e. being about someone or something other than Coudrey), or have quality problems because of WP:TABLOID. The fact that you are not able to discern the poor quality of the content provided by Patch.com is concerning. The use of hyperlocal news content, which is how patch.com markets itself, is not encyclopedic. The covering of a essentially a twitter fight and a non-signicant legal dispute is tabloid fodder and should not be used per WP:NOTGOSSIP and policy at WP:BLPGOSSIP. 4meter4 (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You say this, yet ALL 3 nominations for deletion are based on your fraudulent analysis, which included sources that were not even mentioned in the article. Then to "escape blame", you say that it's "good practice" to do your own source analysis, but yet all 3 deletion votes are based on fraudulent and manufactured pretenses (IE. your fabricated "analysis"). These actions DO affect the community. These actions DO change opinion. If you are truly acting in 'good-faith', then you should remove the sources that were not included in the article in order to accurately represent the article. Further, you should make this very clear in the opening statements that you are including sources and article links that are not even in the Wikipedia article itself. Your actions have tarnished this deletion page under fraudulent pretenses, and I hope an admin can clearly notice and see this when making a determination for deletion. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
jalenPhotos2, providing a copy paste of a prior documented source analysis on an almost identical article hardly rises to a fraudulent analysis. Given the significant number of overlapping sources, its useful. Editors can easily view the current article, and see which sources are still being used and which arem't. I've already stated that I am happy to go back and trim this list to reflect the current article, but I am busy off wiki, and it may be later today before I am able to do that. In the meantime, please be patient and refrain from being uncivil, and resorting to personal attacks. I will be placing a note in at WP:ANI to keep an eye on this discussion.
I suggest you keep your comments targeted towards presenting what particular sources you feel make this subject meet WP:GNG, because that is really the only thing I and any other editor commenting here cares about. I will further add that every single time you make your argument about me instead of actually addressing the salient points I made about the sources that are in the article, it only weakens your argument. You still have not presented evidence of significant coverage where the source is "directly about the subject and in detail" (i.e. not a source with just a quote by Coudrey on another topic but a source about Coudret directly, and not a source about one of his companies or organizations but about Coudret directly), independent (ie not a press release and not a publication with ties to Coudrey or one of his companies), and from a reliable reference of quality (i.e. not a tabloid or hyperlocal news article). Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The source analysis by JalenPhotos2 omits part of the description of Coudrey in ThePrint, which actually describes him as a little-known investor, entrepreneur and former biopharmaceutical analyst named Michael Coudrey (nor is it SIGCOV). Schazjmd (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I made an edit simply because the article appeared on a CS1 maintenance page because of incorrectly formatted citations. I am not expressing an opinion about the merits of the article. Ira Leviton (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article sourcing and what is available in a BEFORE do not indicate that this person meets WP criteria for notability. The sourcing is weak, basically name-checks or trivial coverage; mentions that do not constitute SIGCOV. GNG Fail. Netherzone (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per a lack of support for WP:BASIC notability, and per WP:PROMO - the most recent source analysis includes press releases 1) Mike Coudrey’s Tova Farms Raises Nearly $1 Million In Funding, Adds Strategic Export Partners (Accesswire/YahooFinance), 2) Mike Coudrey's Tova Farms Emerges from Stealth with $1M in Seed Funding to Disrupt the Global Avocado Industry (PRNewswire/YahooFinance), 3) the second press release reprinted at SeekingAlpha. A company profile (Pitchbook) is not secondary support for notability, and his non-expert quotes are not independent support for notability (e.g. allegations, rumors, his Twitter profile, his Facebook description of his company), and being quoted as "a little-known investor, entrepreneur and former biopharmaceutical analyst" who was amplified because of a lack of expertise does not seem to add much secondary support. I have not been able to find much more in my own search, e.g. an MIT Technology Review mention of "right-wing campaigner Michael Coudrey" posting a rumor on Twitter, and what has been presented in this discussion does not appear sufficient to support notability at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 22:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doing my own simple run through current sourcing. I did remove a deprecated source that wasn't needed earlier today. I will remove/combine some more that I found were duplicate after I post this. Already started analysis so kept based on revision I was looking at. Looking through current sources based on this Revision:
  • Delete - Based on my above run though of current sources, and basic searches, I'm not seeing GNG passed based with mostly trivial sources. Tweets quoted/mentioned often seems to be common theme, and while most major publication mention his popularity amongst Trump and his supporters, article doesn't even touch on that. WikiVirusC(talk) 23:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • G4 and salt. Any fresh creation should henceforth go via AFC.—S Marshall T/C 23:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack of significant coverage to support WP:GNG. I found several cases of the article creator misrepresenting sources and making claims not supported by the sources; I think I've cleared them all out, but it makes me suspicious that the article has more misrepresentations that I overlooked. Schazjmd (talk) 00:06, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This appears to be "reference bombing", taking a lot of little mentions and trying to make it look like significant coverage. Zaathras (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Too many of the references just refer to the subject in passing. Would also be happy for article sent to draft and agree that requiring a RfC in future would be a good idea. Gusfriend (talk) 01:47, 11 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. RL0919 (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another Year (song)[edit]

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

This is a limited shelf-life release with very limited coverage. Does not pass WP:NSONGS due to not charting or receiving extensive coverage. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:49, 9 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. RL0919 (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sincine Film Festival[edit]

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

Sincine Film Festival

Non-notable run-of-the-mill film festival that does not satisfy event notability. There are at least two problems with this article. First, there is nothing in the article that implies any sort of third-party coverage of the film festival. An article should speak for itself, and this article does not. Second, there is an obvious conflict of interest, because the second sentence in the article says:

We are committed to bring the best of worldwide cinema

. Wikipedia is written in the formal third person, not in the first person. This article has been moved out of process into article space without review by a neutral editor. It was moved to draft space by User:Praxidicae, and should have remained in quarantine, but was moved back into article space by Mahakal17, not by a reviewer. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:57, 9 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 WP:CSD#G7. Kinu t/c 21:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Cadolorian Scale[edit]

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

This is a declined draft that was subsequently moved to the Article namespace by its creator. No reliable sources about this topic. Most of the references are tangential (e.g., about scales in general), and the only provided source that explicitly mentions this scale is attributed to the creator of the article, who is also (perhaps not coincidentally) the author of the only piece of work indicated in the article to use this scale. With zero academic sources to even show this scale exists (at least with this name), this fails WP:GNG and contravenes WP:V. Kinu t/c 20:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just delete the article. I don't even care. Thanks.

Aiden Seber 21:10, 9 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. RL0919 (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Perry-Folino[edit]

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

PROD rationale: No significant independent coverage of her located on a search.

DePROD rationale: Deprodding; no need for coverage of subject to meet WP:AUTHOR if works have been reviewed/received awards

This is not actually accurate. NAUTHOR pt. 3 grants that an author is likely to be notable "if the person has created...a significant or well-known work or collective body of work...such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."

I found no independent coverage of "The Silence of Bees". Awards are meaningless for notability of the film unless there is coverage about the film winning the award. I also found no coverage for "Within Reach" - and please don't try to claim that Los Angeles Eco Village is a significant reliable source, given that that link is an ad for the premiere of the short, at the Eco Village.

If both of her major works have zero coverage, and she has zero coverage, we can safely conclude that the subject is not notable under GNG, ANYBIO, NAUTHOR, or any other criteria. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, Theatre, and California. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I get exactly zero hits on 2 pages in Google above, only hitting on parts of her name. Trying a more general search, she gets hits on ratemyteacher.com and confirmation she works in California. One appearance at the Fringe festival a few years ago, entirely non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:TOOSOON, my online and WP Library (including ProQuest) searches did not find SIGCOV; I found verification of her work as the department head, i.e. "Los Medanos College's drama department's production of "Fences" earns a spot in a Kennedy Center regional theater festival in Boise, Idaho", Oakland Tribune Feb 12 2014, "Garcia took up the mantle to improve the department from Joanna Perry-Folino, who headed it from 1994 through 2008. During those years, she helped reinvigorate what had become a dormant program with the help of colleagues, administrators and friends." (via ProQuest) and a 2006 review of a play where she is listed as the dramaturg, via Gale. Beccaynr (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, lacks significant coverage. Pikavoom Talk 10:55, 14 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 House of Ham. Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eudes I, Lord of Ham[edit]

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

Entirely genealogical account of just another obscure minor medieval landholder, based on a single 17th century source written 600 years after the fact but prior to the development of modern scholarship, and hence non-WP:RS. The entire content, other than the name itself, is problematic, apparently muddling multiple men of the same name (compare to House of Ham, where the father of the same children attributed in this article is placed a half-century later, dating impossible with the parentage given him in this article). Should be Redirected to House of Ham without merge. Agricolae (talk) 19:20, 9 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: withdrawn by nominator. Drmies (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frans Kuijper[edit]

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

Kuijper was a non-medaling Olympian. In fact, per our article he was elimanated in the semi-final and did not even make it to the final. The only sources we have on him are sports stat pages that lack any prose. I tried to redirect this article, but it was reverted, so I have now brought it to a deletion discussion. This article clearly does not meet any of our inclusion criteria. I did searches on google, google books and google news archives and was unable to find any addtional sources. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert Would they be notable if they were, say, the coach of a national water polo team? Polycarpa aurata (talk) Polycarpa aurata (talk) 20:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you refering to this [18] which uses a different spelling? Is this normal variation in spelling for Dutch? We need several sources, but if we had enough sources to show the role as Water polo team coach actually got wide coverage in indepdent sources, than yes it would be enough. We also need to figure out what the right spelling is, or if both variants are equally acceptable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw It appears that this person was a notable coach, but that he is often refered to by an arternate spelling of his last name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:59, 9 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. "One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page" (non-admin closure) —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Amanda Clemons[edit]

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

I hate to nominate such a well-written article for deletion, but there seems to be nothing particularly notable about this grisly murder, one of the hundreds of thousands committed each year. Most of the references originate from local Kansas news agencies routinely reporting on the crime and the legal proceedings. Mooonswimmer 17:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think, based on the following sources that suggest to me this was a notable event that promoted significant coverage in reliable sources:
  1. https://www.cjonline.com/story/news/crime/2017/05/08/man-and-woman-sentenced-28-years-kidnapping-death-junction-city-woman/16544849007/
  2. https://www.cjonline.com/story/news/crime/2017/10/02/geary-county-man-sentenced-16-years-his-part-kidnapping-led/16526374007/
  3. https://www.kake.com/story/35382967/kansas-couple-sentenced-in-kidnapping-of-woman-who-was-slain
  4. https://www.junctioncityunion.com/news/two-suspects-in-amanda-clemons-murder-sentenced/article_c4346286-3758-11e7-a0a3-cfb433a84726.html
  5. https://www.kake.com/story/36562673/kansas-man-sentenced-in-kidnapping-of-woman-who-was-killed
  6. https://amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/9/kansas-couple-sentenced-in-kidnapping-of-woman-who/
  7. https://www.ksn.com/news/pair-sentenced-for-2014-kidnapping-and-murder-case/
I don't have statistics on this, but the abduction, violence against her, phone call to her son subsequent to a murder combination surely is not a common event, seems like quite a notable, newsworthy event. The article says an episode was made about this, I don't recognise the media that features the episode, but that to me also suggests notability.
On the negative side I have not found significant coverage since sentencing and that is important, we need to avoid run of the mill news. And ongoing coverage, or the crime causing something other to happen would enable me to say "strong keep". But I still fund the abduction-assault-phone call-murder combination anything but run of the mill news.
Reading this does leave me wondering how much more media attention this might have got if she was not a sex worker, if that makes it less newsworthy, the bias about that resulting in these extra ordinary circumstances not making national news. I'm slightly moving off topic, but I'm also keen not to perpetuate such inequity, perhaps I'm also being transparent about my own bias towards including articles about people who are systemically under reported on..... CT55555 (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CT55555's sources. Delete, nominator makes a good point, and given that the article's author has put it up for CSD G7, there's no reason to run it through the whole process IMO. Honestly it is unfortunate to see this one nominated for deletion because it is well written and - given CT's comment - appears to have fairly significant independent coverage. But it appears that the article's author has put it up for a speedy under G7, so this whole AFD might be moot. Sleddog116 (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The scope of the coverage for this crime is largely local (The Topeka Capital-Journal, KAKE News, KSN, JunctionCityUnion are all Kansas newspapers). Most murders in the United States and in the West in general tend to be reported on by local and even national sources. WP:EVENTCRIT states: "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." Nothing to demonstrate this tragic murder was of exceptional notability. No WP:LASTING effects, no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE.
    @Lightiggy did a great job writing the article, vividly illustrating the tragic series of events. But the grisly crime is nothing unusual. Many murders and kidnappings play out in a similar fashion. The harsh truth is that this was nothing more than a monetary dispute gone wrong. Mooonswimmer 18:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, as I said, Lightiggy blanked it and put it up for CSD G7, so this whole discussion could just be moot at this point, I think. Sleddog116 (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm.. I'm assuming reverting their requested deletion would be a major faux pas? Mooonswimmer 18:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if it would be a faux pas per se, but given your rationale in nominating and your comments since, I'd say it would likely be a waste of time, because you mainly make a good point. There is some national coverage (Washington Times isn't local), but you're probably right on lasting/continued. Sleddog116 (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can reinstate the post if you want. I have a note containing everything. Lightiggy (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would encourage you to keep it up and let the community decide. There is completely merit in the argument above that there is not lasting coverage. But I hope there is also merit in my argument that this is anything but a run-of-the-mill event. CT55555 (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree about the lack of lasting coverage. But I disagree about this is "routine". Death is on your list. Murder after violent abduction is not. To anyone who thinks this is "routine" please read about the event and consider the meaning of the word "routine". CT55555 (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would argue that murder is rarely ever committed gracefully. I believe the series of events here is routine for murders, not routine in general. Any unusual circumstances? Exceptional victim/offender relationship? Uncommonly used weapons? Is the victim notable? Are the perpetrators notable? Was the motive out of the ordinary?
    The motive was money-related, nothing unheard of. Pimp/sex worker is a unfortunately common victim/offender relationship, and most people are killed by someone they know. A knife was used, as is often the case.
    You might find some useful statistics and info here:
    https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/murder
    https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/198117.pdf Mooonswimmer 21:39, 9 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. RL0919 (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ARM express[edit]

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

Non-notable product line. The company also doesn't have an article. SL93 (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Technology. SL93 (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable discontinued product line, article cites zero sources (let alone independent sources), information is not reliable. (Also, for context, in real life, the most extensive discussion appears to be this forum, which questions basic claims made by the company about the product.) Cielquiparle (talk) 09:10, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This product line was not notable.TH1980 (talk) 01:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Blatant WP:CORP failure with no independent sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:25, 16 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 The Ink Spots. Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Swing High, Swing Low (album)[edit]

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

Generic, run-of-the-mill compilation released decades after the initial success of the group. According to Discogs, the group has at least 5 other comps with the same title. This one does not stand out versus any of the others. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:59, 9 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. RL0919 (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MC Abdul[edit]

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

Fails the notability guidelines and appears to have been WP:REFBOMBED. Sahaib (talk) 16:11, 9 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. RL0919 (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Axial Higgs boson[edit]

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

This is just bad PR from one not so significant paper that trolled for publicity. Peter Woit explains this better than I: [20]. Anyway, just because someone publishes an abstract with a buzzword no one else uses is not a reason for a Wikipedia article. No SIGCOV here. Mvqr (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Mvqr (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We need fewer articles based on churnalism, not more. A new kind of excitation in a condensed-matter system might be interesting, but given that the paper announcing it was published yesterday, we have nothing to write about: there simply aren't reliable, independent, secondary sources upon which we could build an article. XOR'easter (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too recent. A sensible entry, based on the Woit blog entry and one of the EurekAlert releases, has been added at 2022 in science. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and LaundryPizza03, though it might be worth considering a redirect to Quantum computing? Sleddog116 (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is far from being noteworthy enough to be included in a broad article like quantum computing, and a redirect to an article that does not mention the topic would just be confusing. Moreover, the potential application to quantum computing is based, so far, on nothing but hype. QC is hot stuff these days, so everybody claims that their work is relevant to it. That's just the typical level of background noise to be expected in press releases; a discerning ear tunes it out. XOR'easter (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep why rush to delete? The fact it has appeared on a notable physicist's critique-of-theories blog just makes it more notable, not less. The discoverers at least say they have a new phase of matter (see preprint), if that is not worth a Wikipedia article I don't know what is. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Cause there are no peer-reviewed sources for it. I doubt you'll find coverage of this elsewhere, bit outside of the mainstream media. Perhaps draftify for 6 mths to see what happens with the idea. Oaktree b (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Encyclopedia articles should be based on the scientific community's evaluation of a discovery, not the maximally-dramatic language of the original authors. That evaluation simply hasn't happened yet. ("New phase of matter" sounds impressive, "new quasiparticle" less so, and the community might well settle on the latter, for example.) The preprint, arXiv:2112.02454, has been available since last December and hasn't even been cited by another preprint yet. That's months of other scientists not caring. Really dramatic ideas get attention before the formal peer review. Every "news" source offered so far fails the "get a quote from someone not involved in the original study" scratch test. XOR'easter (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTNEWS. The churnalism hype doesn't count as secondary-source in-depth independent coverage, necessary for WP:GNG. Woit's coverage may count, but as a blog post its reliability is dubious. Anyway, if we based our coverage on Woit we'd have a story about an academic scandal of false hype rather than about particle physics, and stories about scandals require significantly better sourcing and evidence of lasting interest, not possible for such a new event. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS/WP:PROMOTION. This is about a particular excitation ("quasiparticle") in a class of condensed-matter systems, not some new fundamental particle. At this stage, the perceived hype about this is largely based on some crafty PR from the authors (no idea how the abstract intro made it past the reviewers and Nature editor), as well as some misguided university press release that would cause me to be embarassed had I been the PI for this. If this turns out to be widely used terminology in a whole subfield of condensed-matter physics some time down the road, a page could be added – so far it isn't, "axial Higgs boson" only gets 25 hits on Google Scholar –, but even then, the terminology might more appropriately introduced on a page describing the model(s) in which the quasiparticle appears. --Clickingban (talk) 00:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per numerous good reasons above. This is not recognized by the scientific community so we have no realiable sources to base an article on. --mikeu talk 02:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify I am not a deletionist by nature and I don't think churnalism/PR by itself is a good reason for deleting things, give it some time to pick itself up off the floor rather than outright deletion. Selfstudier (talk) 09:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Mqvr, XOR'easter, David Eppstein, and Clickingban. I would add that two recent comments at Peter Woit's blog, referring to one of the publicly available referee reports, suggest that the terminology "Higgs" for this particular phenomenon is controversial among experts in condensed matter physics. The Higgs mechanism was, of course, first recognized in condensed matter physics, and subsequently became crucial in high energy physics, but the use of the term for this particular condensed matter system may be a stretch or even an outright misuse. I don't see how Wikipedia can provide balanced coverage of the issues at this stage. Even if these issues eventually do get ironed out, a brief mention in a relevant place would be more appropriate that a standalone article. Will Orrick (talk) 12:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note for participants reviewing RS coverage: it should be noted that this revision has several sources that have been deleted during the deletion debate. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    All of which were thinly recycled PR. For example, HPC Wire just echoes this press release. XOR'easter (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – This amounts to the publication of a single paper on some phenomenon, without secondary coverage reviewing the topic content. I concur with many of the good arguments above. 172.82.47.49 (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it a noteworthy experiment. It is a condensed matter experiment, with what some may consider as written in the language of High Energy Physics. I'll read the paper again, and may add text that bridges the language barrier and makes some clarifications (if Wikipedia is happy with that I would appreciate an advice). But I strongly recommend to keep it and amplify it significantly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharam Vir Ahluwalia (talk • contribs) 08:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My advice would be not to do that. Clarification would, of course, be welcome in this discussion. But unless content is based on in-depth, reliable, secondary sources, it cannot be included in mainspace articles. At any rate the article Higgs mechanism already contains detailed discussion of the connection between the condensed matter application and the high energy application of the theory. Will Orrick (talk) 16:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:NOTNEWS. If the author wants to work on this material in draftspace, I would not be opposed to that. — Charles Stewart (talk) 00:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as Axial Higgs mode, the particle correct name. Dr. LooTalk to me 22:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not a particle, some misleading PR and a bad abstract made allusions to it being a particle.--Mvqr (talk) 10:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not clear to me that calling it a particle is wrong. Wikipedia's quasiparticle article begins, "In physics, quasiparticles and collective excitations are closely related emergent phenomena arising when a microscopically complicated system such as a solid behaves as if it contained different weakly interacting particles in vacuum." I don't understand enough about this particular measurement to say whether it's fair to call what they've measured a particle or not. Certainly it's not a particle of high-energy physics, which some articles in the press misleadingly suggested. It's also true that the paper in Nature never uses the term "axial Higgs boson", but always uses "axial Higgs mode". A Google Scholar search turns up a couple dozen references to "axial Higgs boson" from the 1990s and early 2000s, all in the context of high-energy physics, but the Nature paper doesn't refer to any of that literature. On the other hand, I haven't been able to find a single reference to "axial Higgs mode" outside of the Nature paper and the press surrounding it. Will Orrick (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definitely WP:TOOSOON. PianoDan (talk) 17:14, 16 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! 23:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Anthony[edit]

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

No notable wrestler. Only work for a few years on a regional level. He signed a develoment contract with WWE but was released soon after. Not enough coverage about him, most of the sources are results WP:ROUTINE. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:00, 9 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. RL0919 (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Lopes[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Outside of being a distant relative to British nobility, nothing I see suggests notability (and WP:NOTINHERITED). The 'no consensus' in 2008 and 20014 was based on weak arguments like "her article is created because of her relation to a famous person"... as our standards keep rising, this seems less and less sufficient. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. https://www.mylondon.news/news/royal-family-prince-william-prince-23929578
Rather a strange example for your case. The title says it all: "Royal Family: Prince William and Prince Harry's stepsister who most people won't have even heard of". Right on. Athel cb (talk) 21:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quantum entanglement is a notable topic, most people don't know about it. Notability is not the same as the majority of any given population knowing about it. This is not how the Wikipedia notability guidelines are written. And please don't put your answers in the middle of my replies, please put them at the end, you are going to make this confusing for people to follow who said what. CT55555 (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/reports/a39437283/laura-parker-bowles-lopes/
  2. https://www.womanandhome.com/life/royal-news/who-is-william-and-harrys-mysterious-stepsister-laura-lopes/
  3. https://www.scmp.com/magazines/style/celebrity/article/3171273/who-are-prince-harry-and-williams-step-siblings-meet
  4. More of a passing mention in this one https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-dorset-61464217
  5. May be tabloid? https://www.hellomagazine.com/homes/20220524141026/duchess-camilla-daughter-laura-lopes-future-homes/
  6. https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/a32389684/who-is-laura-lopes/ CT55555 (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I thought that there was a rule about notability not being inherited. Would anyone have heard of Laura Lopes if she had not had a famous mother? Come to that, would anyone have heard of her mother if she had not been the Prince of Wales's lover. So Laura Lopes's notability is inherited from her mother, who inherited it from the Prince of Wales -- a double inheritance, therefore. Athel cb (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Queen Elizabeth also is only famous and the Queen because her father was King. We should delete that article too? No. I think the rule means that you can't assume notability due to inheritance, but it doesn't rule out notability if it is proven. CT55555 (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The "rule" (actually an essay) says that someone isn't notable solely because they're related to a famous person: if your brother is Jeff Bezos you don't get a page just because your brother is rich. It doesn't mean that someone can't be famous through their relatives; just that it's not automatic. We don't care why reliable sources write about someone; just that they do. pburka (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a WP:BIO guideline that links to the essay: WP:INVALIDBIO includes, That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability. However, person A may be included in the related article on B. The WP:AADD essay links to WP:INVALIDBIO and includes: The fact of having a famous relative is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG. Beccaynr (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to be plenty of coverage. Easily meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notability established by sources provided by pburka and CT55555 Mujinga (talk) 10:32, 11 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. RL0919 (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Facciolo[edit]

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

The entire article is based on who he's related to, the brother of a more famous mob figure and the father of someone on Mob Wives. I did just remove BLP violating content, but I can find no sourcing on which to write an article, nor a viable AtD. Star Mississippi 15:32, 9 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 In My Memory. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 15:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas 4pm/Magik Journey[edit]

Dallas 4pm/Magik Journey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This is the second re-creation since the previous AfD, so WP:SALT will be applied. RL0919 (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Colclough[edit]

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

Previous discussion at AfD ended in delete. I don't see that much has changed: little sign of the kind of impact that we're looking for in WP:NPROF, nor of other notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Technology, and Denmark. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. Still no academic notability. Puffed-up reference list is packed with sources that appear to be primary, by her, or mentioning her without in-depth coverage; I don't see WP:GNG-level in-depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Rapid re-creation after the previous AfD suggests that salt is necessary. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Puffed-up reference list is packed with sources that appear to be primary, by her, or mentioning her without in-depth coverage" -- These references have been sourced without interference from Christina Colclough.
    Please confirm what you mean "salt" is necessary. I have come across this one from a colleague and have recently added it to Christina's page: https://direct.mit.edu/books/oa-edited-volume/5319/Digital-Work-in-the-Planetary-Market Hessiejones (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SALT means protecting the title so that it cannot be re-created without going through another discussion at WP:DRV first. It's a step that can be taken when there is evidence that some editors are not respecting the consensus of deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt as per nom. The publication record is unremarkable, and the whole thing sounds WP:PEACOCK-y. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as stated, not enough to meet WP:NPROF, and WP:TOOSOON at best even for WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:03, 12 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vivian Kubrick[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Most of the material here is sensationalism referenced to dubious sources, such as The Daily Beast, about which we say Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons. Assertions that she's a member of or supporter of fringe groups such the Church of Scientology, the Proud Boys, and QAnon clearly fit that description. Such statements would be OK in a WP:BLP, but only with better sourcing, and I can't find any.

There's some ostensibly WP:RS used, but they don't really say anything. The Newsweek article says nothing beyond noting that The Daily Beast did an expose with an arms-length statement: "The Daily Beast, which reported ..." Huff Post is a classic passing mention, saying no more than that she appeared in a cameo role in her father's 2001: A Space Odyssey. LA Times and LA Weekly, also passing mentions. The article in The Guardian has a bit more, but it's pretty thin, and all mentions of her in the context of her father.

You could strip out all the poorly sourced material, but I don't think there's enough left to justify an article. What little notability she has is largely from being her father's daughter. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that this isn't going to be deleted, so I'll save people additional work and withdraw my nomination. I still object to the use of The Daily Beast, but I'll continue that elsewhere. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Although I argued to keep, I share your concern about the state of the article and the sourcing. I hope I will find time to do some edits soon. I hope others will to. CT55555 (talk) 11:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17400309.2014.990284
  2. https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/11/the-shining-stanley-kubrick-great-horror-film-made-to-be-re-watched/
  3. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/scientology-looms-as-kubrick-daughter-scraps-shelley-duvall-crowdfunding-campaign-950012/
  4. This talks about how she did the score for a notable films https://www.papercitymag.com/arts/matthew-modine-stanley-kubrick-full-metal-jacket-diary-art/
Plus passing mentions here:
  1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2022/04/02/razzies-revoke-shining-award/
  2. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/feature/searching-for-shelley-duvall-the-reclusive-icon-on-fleeing-hollywood-and-the-scars-of-making-the-shining-4130256/
Two of the sources about are about her making the documentary "Making The Shining" which therefore I think gives her a pass at WP:CREATIVE not to mention doing the score for another notable movie that her father directed. There is also a ton of tabloid coverage about her, not flattering, so I'll not say more. CT55555 (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think care should be taken with the first Hollywood Reporter article, because it relies on "according to family members who have spoken with the media", "Kubrick’s widow Christiane told The Guardian in 2009", and "Vivian’s half-sister Katharina Kubrick told the Daily Beast" for some of the most contentious material that so far appears to be poorly-sourced. Beccaynr (talk) 22:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair comment about that source and I agree the article is currently in need of major work, in the context of including questionable content for a WP:BLP article. CT55555 (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She is somewhere between a WP:ENTERTAINER (due to her last name celebrity status) and a WP:CREATIVE but regardless the independent secondary sources are there for notability. Nweil (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I revised and expanded the article with sources identified here and a few more I found while trying to verify information, and I think the combined depth supporting WP:BASIC is now more clear. Information from The Daily Beast about her social media history could be discussed at the Biographies of living persons noticeboard - according to the article edit history, previous attempts to remove it have been challenged. Beccaynr (talk) 18:07, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I know that she is Stanley Kubrick's daughter, but she has done enough over the years to be notable in her own right. The article should be cleaned up rather than deleted outright.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:51, 14 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2021[edit]

Armenia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2021 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable; there is basically no info about Armenia's participation because it did not happen. This article has been repeatedly redirected and recreated. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 14:44, 9 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. Also noting that the nomination is withdrawn with no delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Ab207 (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Walking to the Waterline[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I did a WP:BEFORE and found one suitable and reliable review from TV Guide. Needs one more reliable and suitable review to pass NFO, NFSOURCES and WP:NEXIST. The link from Radio Times doesn’t count because it’s a capsule review which is considered insufficient enough to fully establish notability per NFSOURCES. The Film Creator (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This one is a bit tricky. The content is fairly light, but the film does seem to have ultimately led to the creation of a second, far more notable film. If it's not kept then I suppose an alternative would be to merge and redirect with history to Duane Hopwood. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment IMDB says it was apparently nominated for a Jury award at the Florida Film Festival, might have to go into paper archives to check, it's just before the net got big. Chicago Tribune mentions the film in relation to another file [22]. ONe link to a magazine article about the festival with a one paragraph review/mention of the film [23]. Oaktree b (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:52, 9 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! 04:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Siavash Esmaeili[edit]

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

Problematic article. For a start, there's no article in Farsi, which seems odd for a prominent academic and scientist. And there are no papers. And the sourcing/citation is odd and the sources are marginal and often questionable as to notability and just everything about this article is so very 'off' that it just screams AfD. Fails WP:GNG; WP:BASIC and, most tellingly, WP:NACADEMIC. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, and Iran. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: Changes were made to improve the article. Please consider these changes and reconsider deleting the article according to Siavash Esmaeili's awards and background.Afsane1369 (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Afsane1369 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
  • Delete most searches (news, books, etc.) return no results. Fails GNG and other guidelines as described by nom. --mikeu talk 21:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article claims that the subject is an academic, but no academic affiliation or details of any academic position are given. Do these exist, or is this word simply there to make the subject seem important? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No indication of importance. Can't find secondary sources in my non-article checks, even if in Farsi, though, to be fair, I'd have difficulties searching there. But I did find that the corresponding Farsi article has been the equivalent of A7'd: link. The only secondary source with significant coverage in the article is the second; I don't know about independence because of the language barrier. I don't think, in any case, that that source is enough. Iseult Δx parlez moi 14:25, 9 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 13:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Polcompballs[edit]

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

Non notable art style with no sources besides random social media posts. Gabe114 (talk) 13:50, 9 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 (G11) by Athaenara. Non-admin closure. --MuZemike 13:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LÀCRIMA DAIRY[edit]

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

rejected at afc stating This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia and then created in mainspace. Its references do not show that the company qualifies for a Wikipedia article per WP:NCORP Ninjastic Ninja (talk) 13:34, 9 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. Reading the discussion, the weight of the arguments are in favor of deleting. If one would like to start an RfC about the overarching topic, WT:N is probably a good place to go to. Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of Greece[edit]

List of people on the postage stamps of Greece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:LISTN. Also: unsourced since its creation in 2004, abandoned, little interest to readers (less than 1 pageview per day). Fram (talk) 13:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, here's at least one source https://greekreporter.com/2021/10/15/greek-post-office-issues-stamps-honoring-great-philhellenes/ CT55555 (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while we may be able to verify that these people were on stamps, there is no evidence that the subject of them being on stamps is a noteworthy topic per WP:SALAT. The consensus of other topically similar AFDs is more than strong enough by now. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we should focus on this topic, rather than similar, but also different topics. If the nominator wanted to propose multiple articles in one AfD, they could have done so. CT55555 (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We need sources that treat the entire topic as something that needs to be listed. That some of something is notable does not mean the full scope of it is worth having an article on that lists everything about it. Likelwise, if I can find a source on 2 buildings at a university it does not justify creating an article that lists every building at a university. The sourcing above is not enough on its own to justify this article and does not meet the various requirements of what we need to show that the overall subject of an article is other than trivial. A list like this belongs in Wikia, not Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If this means that the source must cover every person on every Greek stamp, it making an impossible bar, as stamps are issues so frequently that unless a source was published yesterday, it can only possible include a sub set of the subject. It's like the same analogy I recently made, if someone proposed to delete the article on any big topic, let's day for example USA, what source could possibly cover all of it. Inevitably, wide topics will be covered in multiple sources, each taking a slice of a big topic.
    Now, I've not said it is notable, I've just mentioned one possible source. But I think a source about people on the postage stamps of Greece is a valid thing to share, in this context. CT55555 (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • If we do not have sources that bother listing all the people on Greek postage stamps than yes, we do not have anything that shows that the set of all the people on Greek postage stamps is a notable topic. Sources that talk about in general who was on Greek postage stamps show that we could have an article on trends in who Greece chooses to put on their postage stamps, which is a seperate issue than listing the sum total of everyone who has ever been placed on a Greek postage stamp.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there should be a general discussion about these lists --Lupe (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a reason. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Unsourced", "abandoned", and "little interest to readers" are no reasons to delete an article. I agree with Lupe that the discussion must be about all the lists, as a whole, of this kind: either the subject (people on the postage stamps of the X country) is notable in general, or not. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 08:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close I agree with Lupe that there should be a general discussion about list of people on the postage stamps of {country}. Merko (talk) 09:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this comment. It would probably be easier to deal with thees as a wider discussion. CT55555 (talk) 12:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • A bit late, about 100 such lists have already been deleted. Doesn't really make sense to treat them as a group either, we may well have sources for the topic for one country, and not for another. Fram (talk) 12:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I think doing something late, if it is a good idea, is still better than not doing it. I see the reasons to do them together and separately. My hypothesis is that there are offline sources that would show interest in people on stamps for many countries. But maybe not all. Right now anyone with access to those sources will be overwhelmed. What would be sensible would be to pause and give the people who created these articles a bit of time respond in one place, rather than trying to have 100 odd separate debates while scrambling to find the offline sources. CT55555 (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The first one were slow. Worse, some had been Prod'ded already years ago, and nothing changed. Many were tagged as unsourced for years, and again nothing changed. For every list, again and again, it was clear that no one was interested in making it into something acceptable, that no one had any idea where the sources could be (hypothetically offline? For all of these lists?), and that no readers were actually interested in these articles either. But if one then, after 10 or 15 years, decides to get rid of them, then apparently first some discussion and more time is needed. Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to do the opposite, that those who are in favour of such lists try to create them one by one once they have good sources for the actual topic? Very little will be lost until then if these deletions proceed. Fram (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      In some ways, it seems easy to agree with you there. We could argue it either way. But then if we look at the guidance that should inform us, my reading of WP:PRESERVE is that deleting things is a last resort, that improving them should always be prioritised. So I think that does make it clear which path we should take, if in doubt or disagreement. CT55555 (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not really. "Preserve" lists possible options, but without good arguments they have no value: and a lack of sources for a topic is a good reason not to preserve content. Keeping a list because we should have a discussion for all these lists together somehow, because, well, who knows why, or because sources may exist even though no one can point to them here or on most of the other similar lists, is not really convincing. If most of the previous AfDs had resulted in unearthing such sources, then yes, the argument that these probably also exist for Greece would be at least believable. For now, it seems like wishful thinking. Fram (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        For what it's worth, I promise you I have zero enthusiasm to make AfD work more time consuming and am only making this argument because I think offline sources exist, although I also suspect they will not support notability for every country. CT55555 (talk) 14:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm relatively new to the english version of Wikipedia, so I didn't see these deletion requests earlier. I haven't read through all the deletion requests either (who has the time?). Was this ever discussed with the respective portal, because the answer seems to be no. One should have discussed the criteria in general and set a hard time limit for deletion or move them to the usernamespace in the meantime. Improvement should be prioritized and also it would have been much less time consuming and easier to agree on for everyone. Lupe (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are talking about an article that has existed since 2004 with no sources. AfD is an open forum and the proper place to discuss if articles belong. People in specific projects often myopically ignore the total lack of good sourcing because they believe somehow subjects are worthwhile keeping. A central requirement of Wikipedia is Verifiability. This means we have to source all articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • (ec)Most of these, before these general arguments were made, were not really time-consuming. One of the main creators of these posted early in these deletions to the talk page of the philately project, but got no reply for a long time. And there has been in most of these cases more than a decade to improve them, and no one cared. It's not as if the few that hadn't yet been improved have been singled out; the whole series, with perhaps one or two exceptions, was a disaster field of abandoned, unsourced, incomplete, and often simply wrong articles, which we finally started to get rid of more than a month ago. If it wasn't for one admin blindly rejecting all Prods on these (even after many deletions), it would have been even less time consuming, but here we are... Fram (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - With no sources that actually discuss the overall topic of people appearing on postage stamps in Greece as a group or set, this fails WP:LISTN. The fact that the individuals are, themselves, notable or that it can be verified that they appeared on a stamp in Greece does not actually confer notability to the overall list itself. Rorshacma (talk) 15:20, 16 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 13:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of Guatemala[edit]

List of people on the postage stamps of Guatemala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:LISTN. Also: abandoned list, unsourced since its creation in 2013, not of interest to our readers (less than 1 pageview per day). Fram (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Guatemala. Fram (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while we may be able to verify that these people were on stamps, there is no evidence that the subject of them being on stamps is a noteworthy topic per WP:SALAT. The consensus of other topically similar AFDs is more than strong enough by now. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sourcing suggests that this topic is notable. I actually reviewed every entry on this lists, which has probably never been done before. One was said to be a physician, but actually was a link to an article on a Peruvian economist. Another was actually a link on a place in Cuba. So this list is almost half people who seem to lack articles in Wikipedia, that is not a good start. Several of these people never were in Guatemala and have no clear connections to the country. We just have nothing suggesting that this is a list that meets Wikipedia guidelines. A list like this belongs on Wikia, not Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there should be a general discussion about these lists --Lupe (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a reason. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The list has no sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I believe sourcing is available offline; I have a good idea where to start looking, but unfortunately cannot commit the time to do so. I'm still undecided on whether such a list is worth keeping, but on the bright side I took note of a few subjects that meet WP:N but have no articles yet. As an aside, I have restored some of the links removed by Johnpacklambert since the articles do exist. –FlyingAce✈hello 18:13, 10 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 13:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of Gibraltar[edit]

List of people on the postage stamps of Gibraltar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:LISTN. Also: unsourced since creation in 2009, few additions done since then are haphazard (incomplete), and not of interest to readers (some 20 visits in the 90 days before the Prod). Fram (talk) 12:55, 9 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 13:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bulbulators[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage and the only reference is Facebook. The Polish article only has the Facebook page as well. SL93 (talk) 11:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:46, 9 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 06:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aryaan Arora[edit]

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

BLP doesn't seem to meet WP:NACTOR. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 12:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The References are not paid it has been taken from google itself from highly readable source new sites — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmpwork (talk • contribs) 14:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. "This article is part of a featured content programme", IWMBuzz is likely not reliable for notability purposes, this one is from "Brand Connect", this is an interview, this one is from "Brand Voice", and so on and so forth. The idea that "The References are not paid" is simply not correct, and my assessment is the same as Praxidicae's: the available sources don't cut it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:08, 16 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 07:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ekpe Okorafor[edit]

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

Subject does not possess significant covered thus fails the general notability guidelines Reading Beans Talk to the Beans? 07:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as fails WP:NACADEMIC. Point 7 is debatable/related to GNG, but I don't think that higher-ups in companies are inherently notable without sigcov, which this doesn't have. Iseult Δx parlez moi 14:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Little sign of WP:NPROF, nor of other notability criteria. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:43, 14 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! 04:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Swarna Mahal[edit]

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

Don't see how this article satisfies WP:NFP; four of the sources seem to just be listings in a database, one with summary; the last one is a list of songs from the soundtrack and as such is not an independent source. Otherwise, no coverage. Iseult Δx parlez moi 05:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Shellwood (talk) 08:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not shown to pass WP:NFILM. WP:BEFORE (I searched for "Swarna Mahal" -wikipedia movie)does not reveal anything useful to me or I would have suggested incubation in Draft space. It cannot be WP:TOOSOON since it was released in 1982 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article has references related to leading websites and significant coverage. Abbasulu (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As per my rationale, these references don't qualify for WP:RS or sources under WP:GNG. Iseult Δx parlez moi 02:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The nominator's characterization of the depth of the cited sources is spot on, none go beyond a summary-only description. Searches of the usual types in English and Bengali found nothing better. Wikipedia is not a database. We aim to put raw data in context by treating films in an encyclopedic manner, discussing their development, design, reception, significance, and influence in addition to providing concise summaries of them. In the absence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, we cannot do that. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:53, 11 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. Discounting likely sockpuppets/meatpuppets/canvassees, this is unanimous. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Garashov Farhad[edit]

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

Not notable by the relevant standard. Does not meet WP:GNG. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete promotional profile of non notable individual. Mccapra (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I see no good reason to remove the article, there are signs of encyclopedic significance as a manager of the agro-industrial complex and as a public figure.
He is the Founder and Chairman of the Board of Directors of International School LLC, invests in education, entrepreneurship. The school is included in the list of the most popular and highly paid educational institutions in Azerbaijan - proof. Garashov is also the chairman of the Public Council for the Development of Small and Medium Businesses - SMEs in Azerbaijan.--5.134.58.205 (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC) — 5.134.58.205 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • keep In addition to public and business activities, Garashov is also a member of interstate commissions, in particular, the Azerbaijan-Russian Business Council (www.ards.az) and the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Turkic Speaking States (http://ask.org.az/2019/08/ 01/ask-nin-vitse-prezidenti-guz-stli-kreditl-rl-bagli-t-klifl-r-verdi/). In addition, Garashov is a member of the board of the National Confederation of Entrepreneurs (Employers) of the Republic of Azerbaijan (http://ask.org.az/idare-heyeti/). As chairman of the Association of Pomegranate Producers and Exporters, Garashov also regularly sponsors scientific seminars.
All this indicates the degree of Farhad Garashov's involvement in the business and socio-political processes taking place in Azerbaijan, as well as the significance of his figure.--82.194.17.140 (talk) 08:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: given language concerns, more time might be of help
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A search brings up quite a few results, but none of it is really sigcov: we're dealing with brief articles, passing mentions, occasional quotations, and the like. There's not enough here to meet the GNG, in my view. In response to the keep !votes above, I would note that our guidelines don't give articles to people just because they have long résumés: notability requires independent reliable sources that discuss the individual in depth, and that seems to be missing here. A note for the closing admin: there's some monkey business going on with this article (likely related to this group of sockpuppets), and it's already been deleted twice at Farhad Garashov. If this AfD closes as delete, it might be worth applying some salt. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But these shortcomings do not prevent the existence of an article when the subject of the article is significant. I will say this, at the moment this retelling of the view of the article, presented from your position, did not satisfy me. I have a claim that this is your personal opinion. And what specific doubts do you have about Garashov's authority? Let's try it this way - independent reliable sources 1 independent reliable sources 2 independent reliable sources 3 independent reliable sources 4 independent reliable sources 5 BUSINESS TIME Magazine (Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan: Strategic Partnership - there is an article about this person on page 36-38.) / 2020 (in Russian) reliable sources 7 mir24.tv/news reliable sources 8 mir24.tv video reliable sources 9 Wikipedia does not care at all who is in it privately, and in general, although it sets the task to reveal the most prominent figures of humanity as widely as possible, it is not interested in including anyone, for more details, see WP:NOT. I am leading this to the fact that, in general, we have prescribed rules according to which this or that article can remain on Wikipedia. They are not specific, and this is their advantage - for example, you and I definitely do not know what is "outstanding" or we do not have clear criteria, for example, "global economy". All this, of course, means that you can try to argue to the community why you consider this or that figure significant, relying of course on the WP:NBIO. 89.219.156.117 (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC) — 89.219.156.117 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Of the sources you've listed: #1 is a list of people who have received an award; it doesn't provide significant coverage. #2 is a passing mention in a list of appointments. #3 simply quotes a statement he made without discussing him "directly and in detail". #4 is another passing mention. #5 quotes Garashov but doesn't provide him with significant coverage. There doesn't seem to be a link to #6, but there's no indication that it's reliable/independent of the subject. #7 only mentions him in passing. #8 merely quotes Garashov without providing him with significant coverage, and #9 does the same. I certainly agree with you that the notability guidelines are flexible, but guidelines like WP:NBIO ensure that we include articles about people because they are objectively significant according to independent reliable sources, not merely because you or I think they're notable. These sources don't support Mr. Garashov's notability, in my view. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Extraordinary Writ, being the founder and permanent chairman of the board of the most famous school in the republic, he can be considered an important owner of the most expensive and famous school in the republic.
    In my opinion, if this is a comprehensive school, then its founder is considered important and significant. (The school has developed an original method of education, which caused a resonance in the professional pedagogical community and in society as a whole)
    The article meets the criteria of significance for entrepreneurs. You can also try to consider him as a public figure. Creator of "Originar" brand (The ISNI International Agency)
    Garashov personal influence on the agricultural sector, as well as the economy, in my opinion meets the criteria of the rules of the WP:NBIO. He is an Honorary Consul of the Republic of the Philippines in Azerbaijan (Ambassador) and Public Council under the Small and Medium Business Development Agency. 89.219.156.117 (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC) — 89.219.156.117 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Relisting once more in hopes of more input about whether the coverage is significant.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 11:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I have reviewed the sources mentioned both here and within the article as well as conducted my own search and there is not sufficiently significant coverage from reliable and secondary sources. I urge all the passionate defenders of the subject to realise that deleting this article would not be an insult to the subject, or Azerbaijan, but rather in accordance with Wikipedia content guidelines. Specifically, I encourage those voting keep on what I consider spurious grounds to read up on what notability means on Wikipedia. I will respond to one specific comment: "In my opinion, if this is a comprehensive school, then its founder is considered important and significant. (The school has developed an original method of education, which caused a resonance in the professional pedagogical community and in society as a whole)" This is not a valid argument in the context of a deletion discussion on Wikipedia. Ones personal opinion on significance and importance is not at issue, it is whether or not the subject meets Wikipedia notability standards, which it patently does not. I fully agree with ExtraordinaryWrit that salt protection is needed should this article be deleted, given the repeat recreation of the subject with no improvement in sourcing. MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply If any points in significance are controversial or unclear, they should be discussed (If the article contains advertisements, nonsense, orissa or copy - they should be erased. You claim that none of the listed positions gives a person of significance, but how can you prove it? And what specific doubts do you have about Garashov's authority?) If there are unexplored points, you should discuss them rather than question the article.
    Are you not satisfied that the person was the honorary ambassador of the Philippine Republic to Azerbaijan? 89.219.156.117 (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC) — 89.219.156.117 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete per Maxna and Writ. WP:SIGCOV is clear on the matter, and these sources don't satisfy that standard; neither can I find some myself. The only real possible point of objection is point 1 of WP:ANYBIO (he's been awarded the state award of Azerbaijan, but per the lede to ANYBIO, meeting one or more [criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Otherwise, the IP involved has lately been making requests to prove a negative, which by definition is impossible. Iseult Δx parlez moi 15:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you not satisfied that this person is the Honorary Ambassador of the Republic of the Philippines to Azerbaijan? I believe that since there will be no evidence of these baseless statements, such as... "none of the listed positions gives a person of significance." I have the right to ask for a second consensus.
The content and text of the page do not contradict the rules of Wikipedia. I note that the page contains a link to the reflected information, this information does not violate anyone's copyright, all information is relevant to the page title.
  1. There are no spelling mistakes, long monologues, unstructured materials, flames, information published in another language, hoaxes, lies and slander on the page.
  2. The page is not intended for vandalism.
  3. The page is unique and is not a copy of another page.
  4. the content of the page is based only on facts.
As you can see, the page cannot be deleted by any of the above criteria.--89.219.156.117 (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC) — 89.219.156.117 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • We are not voting here, dear admin RL0919, please conclude that no consensus has been reached, let the discussion of the article begin again, let those who participated here not participate in the discussion again, let's make a decision transparently. The lack of an exhaustive biography of a person on the Internet does not mean that magazines do not provide extensive information about a person. On the contrary, the most extensive information in the form of biographies is published in business journals, and I cite this magazine as an example. - 1) BUSINESS TIME Magazine (Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan: Strategic Partnership - there is an article about this person on page 36-38.) / 2020 (in Russian) 2) International Scientific Journal: (PRIORITIES OF FORMATION OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ENTERPRISE) Garashov F.A. 3) Azerbaijan Intl magazine: publishing 21, about Garashov.F.A --89.219.156.117 (talk) 15:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC) — 89.219.156.117 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam. Not a good faith contribution to the encyclopedia; four sockpuppets (including the author and the account moving this to mainspace) blocked. MER-C 06:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The topic of discussion here is not the user who created the article or brought it to the main page. Man himself is an encyclopedic personality.
    Dear Star Mississippi, @RL0919 Please cancel the consensus, I think it was wrong to discuss this kind. Let the discussion be repeated, the title should ask whether the person is encyclopedic or not. 89.219.156.117 (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC) — 89.219.156.117 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      • The article was deleted because the article was created by a sock account. It was not deleted because the subject was not notable. I do not have any problem restoring the article to draft space or main space. This was salted because it has been repeatedly deleted, dear admins Hut 8.5, Robert McClenon and Cryptic please Unsalt this. Not a DRV issue. The reason notability - is that he is a well-known businessman and honorary ambassador of the Republic of the Philippines to Azerbaijan.--89.219.156.117 (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC) — 89.219.156.117 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment - I have not reviewed the article and do not have an opinion on the notability of the subject. I see that this AFD discussion is being disrupted by IP editors, and have made a recommendation at WP:ANI that this AFD discussion be semi-protected. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This article has not been deleted or salted at this time, and the requests to undelete or unsalt it are misinformed. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This article seems to have been deleted twice, but the reason for the deletion is not that the person is not encyclopedic. In this case, why delete the article, because the person is encyclopedic. The investigation shows that this person is a well-known and influential businessman in Azerbaijan. There are several chairs, First- the presidency of the association, Second- Chairman of the Public Council of the Small and Medium Business Agency, Third- Entrepreneur of the most famous private school in the republic, Fourth- Honorary Ambassador of the Republic of the Philippines to Azerbaijan 89.219.156.117 (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC) — 89.219.156.117 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • This is a product of the the Elshadiman sockfarm (compare the deleted version at the proper article title), so could be deleted as a G5, but should deleted nonspeedily on notability grounds instead so we can be rid of it forever. —Cryptic 18:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I say let's keep the article, you say let's ban one-time creation altogether. But if a person is an encyclopedic, if the article is removed from Wikipedia, his rights are not violated? 89.219.156.117 (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC) — 89.219.156.117 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    There is no right to be included on Wikipedia. Star Mississippi 19:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you delete the article, I ask the administrator @Robert McClenon to discuss the deleted article in DRV, to open the title that the article was deleted for other reasons, ie without taking into account the encyclopedic features of the person. 89.219.156.117 (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC) — 89.219.156.117 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete this article as the work of a blocked sockpuppet. Then SALT both as Garashov Farhad and Farhad Garashov due to recreation by sockpuppets. Recommend ECP protection so that a neutral editor can develop a real article, because the person may be notable, but the current article, which is the work of a sockpuppet, should go in the bit bucket. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The IPs are in the situation of the teenager who kills his parents and then pleads for the mercy of the court because he is an orphan. They are claiming that the article should not be deleted, because the only problem is that it was the work of sockpuppets, but they are sockpuppets. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just an honorary consul and doesn't have wide coverage. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If the article is kept, then it should be renamed, because it has been incorrectly named, reversing the name order, which has almost certainly been done in order to game the system by the gaming of names. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt per Cryptic's argument above. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 00:54, 14 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 12:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Wilkinson[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMMA notability guidelines. His highest ranking by FightMatrix is 63rd in the world LHW rankings far short of the top 10 requirement, also never previously ranked by Sherdog in their rankings. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 10:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, Martial arts, and Australia. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 10:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 10:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails to meet WP:NMMA as stated above. One minor fight is not enough to meet WP:NBOX. There are a lot of articles that mention him, but they are overwhelming fight results or promotions of upcoming fights--the kind of coverage you'd find for every pro fighter. I'm not seeing the significant independent coverage that shows WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 00:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incubate (move to the draft namespace for the original creator to improve the BLP and wait for the higher ranking results). Author had made a huge work, so I think in some cases it can be published later. Kalzonokkkk (talk) 09:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I made a draft page copy so that in the future it will be much more easily brought back.~~~ HeinzMaster (talk) 06:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think its likely this guy is coming back to the UFC. At least for now-Imcdc (talk) 11:21, 11 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. ✗plicit 12:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Parker Bowles[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. As far as I can tell, the most in-depth, reliable coverage is this article The Telegraph about, errr, "Tom Parker Bowles talks posh pork scratchings". Pretty much everything here is referenced from passing mentions (WP:SIGCOV fail), or sources published by him. The strongest claim to fame is that "in 2010, won the Guild of Food Writers 2010 award for his writings on British food" (verified). Is this enough to keep this? Seems rather borderline. Let's discuss. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Athel cb Good find, I started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Lopes (3rd nomination). I can imagine some folks defending the subject here due to his work as a food critic (although I'd like to see SIGCOV on his significance). She has nothing going for her outside some passing tabloid mentions that she married into nobility and wore a moderately expensive wedding dress... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; his cook-books sell widely and have been independently reviewed; two were reviewed in New York Times, here's the ref for the Fortnum and Mason one: [26]. He was interviewed by a staff writer for the Guardian [27] and although this is an interview, and therefore difficult to use factually, the fact he got chosen for an interview indicates some level of notability (the Guardian are rather selective in their interview subjects). Cosmopolitan have written about him [28]. He's got himself in a meet-the-author in Readers Digest [29], and he was invited to take part in the Edinburgh Book Festival. This, together with the success of his cookery books, I think meets the target for a notable author. Elemimele (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree this seems like a WP:AUTHOR pass. CT55555 (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to be plenty of coverage. Easily meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is plenty of coverage in independent reliable sources directly about the subject. For instance, [30], and [31], [32]. While I personally find this sort of reporting by Britain's media to be pretty fawning, coverage of Mr. Parker Bowles easily meets the basic criteria of notability for people. Fiachra10003 (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for all the reasons given by others. Tidy up discussion. --Bduke (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is zero reason to delete this article on a notable person. Keep, keep, keep.Utahredrock (talk) 04:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - @ User:Piotrus, I believe you made a mistake. The sources cited above, and the food award you noticed yourself, likely make him notable. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Et tu, Brute? :) Harrumph. I still think we are too friendly to gossip-level media, but oh well. It does appear most don't agree with this. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:19, 14 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 Paul Gosar. After reading through the discussion, it seems like the weight of the policy-based arguments are in favor of merging. I found the WP:CRYSTAL argument particularly unpersuasive. Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Gosar Twitter video incident[edit]

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

per WP:10YT and WP:NOPAGE. the article is about a minor Twitter tussle/controversy, that no one will care about in a few years. readers would be better served if it was merged/redirected to Paul Gosar's page, where it would be better contextualy situated. regards, TryKid [dubious – discuss] 09:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NOPAGE requires three questions to be answered:

  • Does other information provide needed context?
  • Do related topics provide needed context?
  • What sourcing is available now?

Let's start with the sourcing question. Almost all of the sources listed are (using a helper usermade script) shown to be considered generally reliable, or are not listed over at WP:RSP. That's a good start. Now, we have to tackle the remaining two questions regarding needed context. The first one "Does other information provide needed context?" basically asks if a notable topic would fit better on another page, as the other page has context and other details that are not in this article. That is not the case: the 'Background' section is good at giving us some context regarding the incident. The second one "Do related topics provide needed context?" is entirely irrelevant, as we are not referring to a bunch of different articles regarding hypothetically different anime attack videos posted to Twitter by Gosar and/or his team. In turn, both 10YT and NOPAGE are basically nullified, because the article fits both of those. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 20:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When merging, we can redirect as well; article history will be saved; also see WP:MAD. Iseult Δx parlez moi 03:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Paul Gosar: There are comments above saying this video had "impact" and stands on it's own. I don't see that. While entertaining, it seems very flash-in-a-pan. Nweil (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SIZE as the target article is already over 100 KB. I also agree with the notion of WP:CRYSTAL which is mentioned under the explanatory essay WP:10YT. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Paul Gosar I agree, not much to this flash in the news. Just mention it in the guy's article. Dream Focus 06:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SIZE and WP:EVENT. There have been a total of a mere 25 times since the time the Constitution of the United States became effective in 1789 that an individual has been censured in the U.S. House of Representatives. This is certainly not a routine event, given that it led to the censure of Paul Gosar. This is an event that has national geographic scope within the United States, and the fact that the incident sparked the censure of a sitting member of the House of Representatives shows that the incident clearly acted as a precedent or catalyst for something else with WP:LASTING implications. As such, the article subject meets WP:NEVENT's notability threshold of being an event that was significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. The proposed merge target is simply WP:TOOBIG at its current size to handle a substantial merge from this article. As such, the article is both notable and has no suitable merge target, so it should be kept at this time. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 00:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Mhawk10, Out of the 25 censures, only four, including the article under discussion, have related articles. The three of them, the caning of Charles Sumner, the Crédit Mobilier scandal and the 1983 congressional page sex scandal were all notable in their own right, unrelated to the censuring itself. This case is more like the other 21 censures due to unparliamentary language and other such offences that are better covered on the individual's page. Paul Gosar's page's arguably already covers the event in appropriate detail, and merging or redirecting isn't going increase the size by any appreciable amount. So it does have an appropriate merge/redirect target. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 04:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this was a flash in the pan, and should really only be covered proportionately in the main article. WP:NOTNEWS applies. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's see if WP:NOTNEWS actually does apply:
    • No original promoting: All of the article's paragraphs are properly cited and/or attributed to another source, so this point is moot.
    • News reports: This isn't a routine "makes the news" event, so this point is also moot
    • Who's who: Both parties (pun unintended) in this scenario are considered notable (one is the POTUS!)
    • Celebrity gossip: Per the 'Who's who' point, everyone involved is notable, AND the House voted to censure Gosar for this, using a Constitutional ability, transcending this beyond WP:10YT and into WP:LASTING.
    Turns out, NOTNEWS does not apply here. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Does not warrant a standalone article at this time. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looking at some of the sources (like the NYT and LA times), it appears that the coverage of this goes beyond simple routine coverage. Not to mention that some sources in the article are treating this controversy as not just unique to Paul Gosar as an individual, but treating it somewhat as a wider controversy of the GOP as a whole. HenryTemplo (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per others. I had almost forgotten about this by the time we ran this article on DYK. If it becomes long-term notable we can always break it out again. Daniel Case (talk) 03:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is reliably sourced and it's rare to censure a member of Congress so that makes it a notable event. Liz Read! Talk! 04:05, 16 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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Boy (upcoming film)[edit]

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

This unreleased film completed its shoot in 2019 but lacks significant coverage on production to meet WP:NFF. No scheduled release date and nothing substantial was found in a WP:BEFORE search. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Though no scheduled release date yet, but the article is covered by a good many articles. Casts & Crews are confirmed. I find no point to delete this article. And it is not a fictitious article. Hence the article should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImSonyR9 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    — Note to closing admin: ImSonyR9 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
    WP:ITEXISTS is not a sufficient keep rationale. Will be helpful if you elaborate on how it meets NFF requirements. -- Ab207 (talk) 08:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added two more references which elaborates that the film shooting has been completed. The film is only waiting for an appropriate release date. Sony R (talk) 09:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NFF DonaldD23 talk to me 11:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to have enough press coverage to show notability; would seem silly to delete it then have to re-create it if/when the film gets made. Oaktree b (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am seeing sources out there. Telangana Today, The New Indian Express - Indulge, The Hindu, The Times of India. What's out there is what I would expect for an unreleased film, but theres coverage of start of filming, end of filming, release of poster, along with interviews profiles on key people in regards to the movie. FHM India had a cover story with the two leads on it.(Oct. 2019). The story/interview[33] with them wasn't completely about the movie, but it did cover it. WikiVirusC(talk) 15:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • draftify is first option, delete is second: most of the coverage is from the "entertainment" sites/subdomains of news sites. In today's digital world, such coverage is not a big deal, and doesnt account for notability. For notability we require sustained coverage in reliable sources. In case the film is released, or gets sustained coverage till 2024-25, it can be brought back to mainspace. Until then, it fails WP:NFF. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom. Sajaypal007 (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Does delay/cancellation due to Covid makes a film/film production notable per WP:NFF failed films criteria? Do we have existing AfD precedents which are kept or deleted for such reason? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If a film's delay is covered by independent sources in the context of COVID or any other reasons, it can be considered. However, this film's production lacks significant coverage; citations are mostly interviews/press releases which don't contribute to notability. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:21, 11 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! 06:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aisea Muli[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Lack of WP:SIGCOV from independent sources. JTtheOG (talk) 06:57, 9 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! 06:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sinilau Taufa[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Lack of WP:SIGCOV from independent sources. JTtheOG (talk) 06:55, 9 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Braudy (art dealer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO by the looks of it. Couldn't find any relevant results for "Leo Braudy" + "Capital Art Advisory" or "art dealer". Searching his name alongside Stephen Sacklarian and found this [34] piece from the Armenian National Committee of America but it's probably not enough to meet SIGCOV. The sources in the article are linked to the subject.

Note: he shares the name with a USC professor. KH-1 (talk) 06:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Arts. KH-1 (talk) 06:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I found sources that state the subject, in the footsteps of his grandparents and through the company they founded, supports and promotes elite arts in the Washington, D.C. area as well as the Smithsonian. Reliable sources back up statements in the article. The article needs expanding - I did some work, but it needs more. But with its existing sources, notability has been shown and it meets guidelines for WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 10:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which source? You haven't added any other than the one I mentioned above from anca.org.-KH-1 (talk) 10:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Found and added additional source from Armenian Weekly (armenianweekly.com), which also covers the sale of Sacklarian's paintings in 2018 and references Braudy as "exclusive representative" of the artist's estate. I agree with User:AuthorAuthor, I believe the sources show Braudy appears to pass the guidelines for WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. - 20thCenturyArtEnthusiast (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that's the source that I've already mentioned. It's one potential evidence of secondary coverage, but it's not enough to meet NBIO.-KH-1 (talk) 23:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does appear he shares the same name as Leo Braudy (USC Professor). If Leo Braudy (art dealer) gets approved, should Leo Braudy be moved to a disambiguation page? And current Leo Braudy moved to Leo Braudy (professor)? 20thCenturyArtEnthusiast (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source summary
  1. Glass.net - official website. Not independent of subject or evidence of SIGCOV.
  2. Capitalartadvisory.com - official website. Not independent of subject or evidence of SIGCOV. .
  3. Hillel International News - Not independent (co-authored by subject)
  4. Glass.net - official website - Not independent of subject or evidence of SIGCOV.
  5. Heritage Florida Jewish News - Not independent (co-authored by subject)
  6. Capitalartadvisory.com - official website. Not independent of subject or evidence of SIGCOV.
  7. Anca.org - secondary coverage. Mentioned in 2 paragraphs as the representative of Sacklarian. Debatable whether this constitutes as SIGCOV
  8. Smithsonian - list of donors, not SIGCOV. Even if his family are significant donors, it doesn't confer notability to Leo.
  9. WaPo - obituary for his mother.

There is, as far as I can tell, little to no third party coverage of this person.-KH-1 (talk) 11:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete I thought Glass Art Gallery might be notable and a possible merger target if I created a stub, but it doesn't appear to be either and like the others I can't find in depth coverage. Star Mississippi 13:27, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. I assume you're referring to GlassArt.net? I was on the fence too, but couldn't find much coverage other than their website. It seems that Braudy himself is notable via his family and association with Sacklarian, but not Glass Art Gallery. Capital Art Advisory is redlinked, I thought and could be notable due to it's apparent relationship with Braudy and Stephen Sacklarian, but I could not find much third party info on that either. BigFish3387 (talk) 20:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. The sourcing that I found and even their own site are inconsistent in name/brand. I would assume that if Braudy is kept it would he helpful to the reader to discuss all three together since they're connected Star Mississippi 01:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a good point. Just added his ownership of GlassArt.net in the bio as well. 20thCenturyArtEnthusiast (talk) 17:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Found and added sources the arts philanthropy of Braudy's family, of Sacklarian artworks to various museums. Appears Braudy's notability comes from his association with the Furman family, which appears to be notable from their philanthropic art activities. And from his management of Sacklarian's works. Both appear to be documented with third party independent sources. Looks like Braudy passes WP:NBIO. After the additional sources, including recent ones from ANCA (Armenian National Committee of America) and Armenian Weekly, notability and SIGCOV seems pretty established. -BigFish3387 (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still no concrete evidence of SIGCOV. What's the best WP:THREE? Note that the ANCA ref is a reproduction of the Armenian Weekly article.-KH-1 (talk) 23:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that ANCA (Armenian National Committee of America) reposting the article would still count as SIGCOV? Because the Armenian Weekly article seemed to be noteworthy enough for ANCA to repost to their audience.
But for WP:THREE, I agree counting ANCA/Armenian Weekly as one source makes sense, since it is the same information. BigFish3387 (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This had me thinking: A lot of art publications are printed and widely circulated in the art world, but don't go online. I've noticed other artists, dealers, and galleries cite print sources. Like I see the Martin Lawrence Galleries (huge gallery chain with locations all over the U.S.) cite " Sarah Seamark, Art World News, November 2007." Going to the Art World News Website website I notice that their archive of publications only goes back to 2016, so MLG must be referencing a print version.
I live in NYC, this weekend I'm going to go to the NYPL (I'm in grad school so always in the library anyways lol) and will see if I can find any art publications referencing Leo Braudy specifically.
In addition to print magazine archives and auction records, there are books that come out yearly with notable galleries, dealers, and artists, meant mainly for industry professionals. I'm going to see if I find reference material in one of these sources to give Braudy a chance at a stronger case of WP:THREE. BigFish3387 (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added an additional article from an Armenian print publication about Braudy and the release of Sacklarian paintings in 2018. Seems like this event is now pretty well documented. BigFish3387, interested if you find anything else about Braudy in your library searching. Ideally about something besides the 2018 Sacklarian painting release event. 20thCenturyArtEnthusiast (talk) 06:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Print sources found - Found four print publications about Braudy:
  1. The Asbarez article, which I see got added recently.
  2. The Forward (Jewish publication) article, about young Jews in the arts. 18 young professionals are covered (in no apparent particular order), Braudy is number 14. He discusses his general background (birth year, university, his two art businesses, and being brought up Jewish in the DC area).
  3. Art In America article, about dealing art online during Covid. Braudy is one of four online dealers the writer mentions and quotes from. Braudy claims to have done more business in 2020 than 2019 due to being more “online ready” than his competitors, and believes 2021 will continue to be better.
  4. American Art Collector article, on art dealers and advisors, Braudy is quoted, saying “The Internet has allowed art advisors to flourish, because they are not longer restricted to clientele in their city of business. Anybody could advise anybody, in theory.”

Braudy might actually have a decent WP:THREE case. Personally, I would choose:

  1. ANCA.org (Armenian National Committee of America) article, repost about 2018 Sacklarian release from Armenian Weekly (I think ANCA.org repost is the most SIGCOV of all the articles I found on Sacklarian release, relatively wide reach to Armenian American community)
  2. The Forward print article. Widely circulated Jewish publication, and devotes 2 paragraphs exclusively to Braudy.
  3. Art In America article. It seems a tossup between American Art Collector and Art In America, because American Art Collector focuses on Braudy a bit more, but I would still say Art In America is a better WP:THREE source because it is a more widely read publication. - BigFish3387 (talk) 21:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a misunderstanding here. SIGCOV refers to the depth of the analysis, not the distribution/reach of the publication. I don't have access to any of those publications so I can't really make a comment either way. I'll leave it for others to decide.-KH-1 (talk) 07:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Above sources seem to show SIGCOV and WP:NBIO credibility for Braudy. The above WP:THREE from BigFish3387 looks good to me. -20thCenturyArtEnthusiast (talk) 23:35, 12 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. If formatting is at odds with MOS, that is an editing fix. Liz Read! Talk! 05:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Lewis bibliography[edit]

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

Formatting completely at odds with MOS; should be merged into Bernard Lewis, keeping the formatting therein. — Guarapiranga ☎ 05:22, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No objection on my part. Nataev talk 05:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Agree with nominator. CT55555 (talk) 05:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are already 33 books in the bibliography, in looking at WorldCat, there appear to be quite a few books that are not yet included. The solution for the formatting being wrong is to fix the formatting.--Jahaza (talk) 05:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the topic is notable and the content is substantial enough to warrant a stand alone article. Mccapra (talk) 07:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; merging would take up disproportionate space on the main article. Iseult Δx parlez moi 15:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preferably keep if not merge. He was clearly a prolific author. Sometimes it is appropriate in WP to have such an appendix as a free-standing article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; For that many books the topic is notable and can have its own article. NMasiha (talk) 15:14, 13 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) 05:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Manday[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. News articles about him are merely passing mentions and routine game reports. AFD'ed as creator objects draftifying Engr. Smitty Werben 05:19, 9 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! 05:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suzhal: The Vortex[edit]

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

Suzhal: The Vortex

Non-notable upcoming television series which is too soon. There is nothing in this article that indicates web notability, television notability, or general notability. There is not enough information to be encyclopedic, and no mention of what third parties have said. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Tamil Nadu. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Expanded it, added many RS, its very notable, will expand it more, its a stub now. Panda619 (talk) 05:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'd say GNG is passable with even enough English sources out there covering the trailer. Variety, Deadline, & Collider. Usually have to deep dive into foreign language news sites, but this was easy enough. Other sources are available in India and worldwide. [35] [36] [37] [38]. Releases in a week, too soon would be if it started filming in a week. WP:NODEADLINE so stub quantity of information doesn't make it unencyclopedic. I haven't gone through foreign language sources yet, so don't know what other information is out there. WikiVirusC(talk) 10:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The coverage in Variety and Deadline are particularly significant. Other coverage is continuing to grow, it is always a good sign when I google the subject and sources have been added as recently as 24 hours ago. It is not too soon, I agree with WikiVirusC, TOSOON does not prevent an article being written before media is released, there are just certain strings attached which this article clearly meets, the most obvious of which is notability and verifiability. MaxnaCarta (talk) 11:54, 9 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! 04:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PBS Kids Preschool Block[edit]

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

This was not notable 10 years ago, and it is still not notable today. There are no independent sources establishing independent notability of the programming block. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, programming blocks are not usually notable in and of themselves unless there is substantial coverage of the block as a whole. This seems to be sourced entirely to press releases and other primary content. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we do not have the level of sourcing on the block as a unit to justify having an article on the block as a unit. That a block contains notable shows does not make the block itself notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:37, 9 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! 03:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sitaleki Fisi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Lack of WP:SIGCOV and all references are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:47, 9 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 12:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Mansale[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Lack of WP:SIGCOV and all references are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:46, 9 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! 03:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pita Huni[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Lack of WP:SIGCOV and all references are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:45, 9 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! 03:49, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kava Huihahau[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Lack of WP:SIGCOV and all references are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:43, 9 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. WP:NOQUORUM applies. ✗plicit 12:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Amabile[edit]

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

Another D-list celebrity with no substantial coverage beyond trivial Bachelorette snippets. PK650 (talk) 01:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For evaluation of the newly added references.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Google searching Amabile while excluding the names of his partners comes up with a few things. He has a dedicated article in Us Weekly[1] and another in Cosmopolitan[2], along one or two other bits.[3]. He is indeed a B-lister, but he seems to have the coverage to demonstrate notability. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those two are web-only content that is wholly based off of Twitter comments. Hardly evidence of notability; quick gossip-type coverage these websites churn by the hour. PK650 (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/joe-the-grocer-to-appear-on-bachelor-in-pardaise-twitter-reacts/
  2. ^ https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/tv/a37347567/grocery-store-joe-nickname-bachelor-in-paradise/
  3. ^ https://www.realitytvworld.com/news/joe-amabile-6-things-know-about-bachelor-in-paradise-bachelor-joe-grocer-24448.php
  • Delete Nothing added supports inclusion on Wikipedia, non-notable subject in regards to here. The US Weekly piece is not in-depth in the way it would need to be for establishing WP:GNG. IrishOsita (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 12:36, 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! 02:33, 9 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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Technip Energies[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, specifically WP:SIRS.Chirota (talk) 08:48, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chirota,
I believe this article is a worthy contribution to Wikipedia for the following reasons:
Technip Energies is a global player in the energy industry and therefore of note to the public. It just started work on what is the largest LNG project in history.
The company, based in France, already has an article published so this is a translation of existing content for an English audience.
As an editor, I made improvements to the objectivity of the source material and added further references. Please keep in mind industrial companies do not get usual news coverage or magazine features for their business activites, it's completely normal that some references are trade publications, that's just the nature of trying to cite (somewhat boring) industrial activity.
As always, open to any edits you think would improve this article.
With regards,
Andrew Andrewkess (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In order to avoid confusion, a source analysis table is prepared as below:

Source assessment table: prepared by User:Chiro725
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.offshore-energy.biz/technipfmc-merger-complete/ No Entirely based on company information No Most probably non RS Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail ✘ No
https://www.reuters.com/article/qatar-petroleum-lng-int-idUSKBN2A81ST Yes Yes The source is a major newspaper No only mentions once ✘ No
https://www.offshore-mag.com/subsea/article/16770443/fmc-technologies-technip-to-merge No No non RS Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail ✘ No
https://www.hydrocarbons-technology.com/news/technipfmc-split-operations-two-companies/ No Entirely based on company information No non RS Yes The article discusses the subject directly and in detail ✘ No
https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/296506/technipfmc-separation-split-this-month/ No Entirely based on company information Yes Reliable trade magazine Yes The article discusses the subject directly and in detail ✘ No
https://www.reuters.com/article/technipenergies-stocks-idUSL1N2KM0IQ No Entirely based on company information Yes Yes The article discusses the subject directly and in detail ✘ No
https://www.offshore-technology.com/news/qatar-petroleum-makes-fid-on-28-7bn-north-field-east-project/ No Entirely based on another company (Qatar Petroleum) information No non RS No only mentions once ✘ No
https://www.compressortech2.com/news/qatar-s-giant-lng-ambitions-in-the-middle-east/8018755.article No Entirely based on another company (QatarEnergy) information No non RS No mentions a couple of times ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

The analysis suggests that the company doesn't pass criteria of WP:GNG- Chirota (talk) 00:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the helpful source assesment table, Chirota.
As shared in my initial comment, the standard for significant news coverage in industrial activity is quite high since mainstream news organizations do not generally cover this subject matter for a general public. In addition, the company is only one year old so coverage isn't yet as established as other longer-standing companies in this sector. This does not necessarily mean however that the subject itself is unnoteworthy or unworthy of an article however as there are researchers, students and other audiences who would benefit from Wikipedia having an entry on the subject given it is a major player in the world of liquified natural gas. For example, the world economy is currently experiencing a major energy crisis as a result of the Russia/Ukraine conflict, and Technip Energies is one of the largest liquified natural gas actors with a stake in determing the outcome. To that end, I was able to secure 2 recent Reuters articles covering this subject directly:
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/technip-energies-stops-working-future-business-opportunities-russia-2022-03-03/
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/technip-energies-beats-core-profit-estimates-q1-2022-04-25/
I hope you will agree that these recent sources will satisfy the SIRS criteria. Thank you for your review.
With regards,
Andrew Andrewkess (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nominator didn't check non-English newspaper sources for this French company WP:BEFORE nominating. There are many articles on this very large company in the French financial press. In any case, Reuters and the other sources in English are just about enough to meet WP:NCORP. Fiachra10003 (talk) 03:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a company/organization therefore we look at WP:NCORP guidelines to apply, not just GNG.
  • Since the topic is a company/organization, we therefore require references that discuss the *company* in detail. As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
  • "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.
None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company, they are all either entirely based on company announcements with no Independent Content or they're repeating financial results with very little CORPDEPTH or they're standard business listings. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 13:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've extended Chirota's source assessment table above to cover the citations that weren't in the article when Chirota referred it to AfD. Please see below:

Source assessment table: prepared by User:Fiachra10003
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/energie-environnement/porte-par-les-commandes-pour-la-transition-energetique-technip-energies-releve-sa-prevision-de-marge-d-exploitation-889482.html Yes Yes RS Yes Article is about the subject ✔ Yes
https://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-services/energie-environnement/technip-le-parapetrolier-qui-trace-son-avenir-dans-le-gaz-et-la-decarbonation-1374440 Yes Yes RS Yes Article is about the subject ✔ Yes
https://www.lefigaro.fr/societes/guerre-en-ukraine-un-coup-dur-pour-le-francais-technip-energies-20220406 Yes Yes RS Yes Article is about the subject ✔ Yes
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Putin-May-Have-Last-Laugh-Over-Western-Sanctions.html Yes ? No doesn't directly mention ✘ No
https://www.capital.fr/entreprises-marches/la-societe-francaise-technip-energies-renonce-a-toute-nouvelle-opportunite-commerciale-en-russie-1430059 Yes Yes RS Yes Article is about the subject ✔ Yes
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/technip-energies-stops-working-future-business-opportunities-russia-2022-03-03/ Yes Yes RS Yes mentions a couple of times ✔ Yes
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/technip-energies-beats-core-profit-estimates-q1-2022-04-25/ Yes Partially reporting the company's earnings, partially reporting analysts' reactions Yes RS Yes Article is about the subject ✔ Yes
https://www.lesechos.fr/idees-debats/crible/gnl-technip-energies-un-train-denfer-1402875 Yes Yes RS Yes Article is about the subject ✔ Yes
https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/TECHNIP-ENERGIES-N-V-118964900/company/ Yes Yes RS No Entirely based on company information or market information ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
This analysis is not right. lefigaro coverage are not independent of the subject. Also, It isn't clear how the reuters coverage appear independent to you where it says that the company stops operating in Russia which is based on company information only. Chirota (talk) 16:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we reconcile this contrasting source tables, one of which says no GNG and one that says that GNG is established?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. Le Figaro is the oldest national daily in France and one of the three French newspapers of record, along with Le Monde and Libération. See the wikipedia article on the paper.
2. It is editorially independent and doesn't have a discernable conflict of interest with respect to Technip Energies.
3. The article is written by Guillaume Guichard, a regular, career, economics journalist with Le Figaro. His current beat is energy. See his LinkedIn record. A newspaper of record such as Le Figaro can be taken as having policies in place requiring its reporters to avoid conflicts of interest with respect to organizations on which they may report.
4. The article itself is not "produced by interested parties" - see WP:IND. In fact, the article is far from positive about the company: "Technip Energies voit un de ses très gros chantiers gelé (ou à tout le moins retardé), un potentiel futur contrat tomber à l’eau avec la guerre en Ukraine et les sanctions qui ont suivi, et un de ses principaux marchés se fermer. L’action du groupe a perdu près de 30 % depuis la mi-février. La Russie contribuait à hauteur de 15 % de son Ebit (résultat avant intérêt et taxes)." Roughly translated, "Technip Energies has seen one of its largest projects frozen (or at the very least delayed), a potential future contract falling through due to the war in Ukraine and the sanctions that followed, and one of its main markets closing. The group's share price has fallen nearly 30% since mid-February. Russia contributed 15% of its EBIT (earnings before interest and taxes)." This is the opposite of what a company's public relations people might wish a reporter to write.
So I think we can take it that Le Figaro, the reporter, and the reporting are independent of the subject.
The Reuters piece is brief and reports on Technip Energies' earnings announcement, but it also reported on sell-side analysts' reaction to the Technip Energies' guidance as well as other companies such as Total, each of which are "attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject." - again, see WP:IND Fiachra10003 (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Source assessment table: prepared by User:Fiachra10003 is quite convincing, this clearly passes the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 22:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article has been significantly improved since nomination, reflected in the difference between two source assessment tables. Sepherino (talk) 04:23, 13 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 The Owl House. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah-Nicole Robles[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO and possibly WP:MUSICBIO. I applied an A7 to article. It was A7'd almost a year ago to the day. Only a single new role in that time. Non-notable. No new coverage. scope_creepTalk 16:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and New Jersey. Shellwood (talk) 16:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The lead voice role of the main protagonist in a Disney cartoon is a strong claim of notability and the sourcing meets the standards, with more available to be added.The lack of additional roles is not an argument for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete our guidelines says that we need multiple significant roles. We do not have enough coverage to disregard that. Keep in mind "disney cartoon" is not the same thing as "disney film". If it was the later, there might well be enough coverage to justify the article, but there is not. Also keep in mind that voice actors just do not get the same coverage as live role actors, and so we need to put more scuitiny on including articles on them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She's gained a significant amount of attention to at least have some higher recognition.Voicebox64 (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I found a report in Variety listing her as a 2021 nominee in the Best Voice-Over Actor – Television category of the Imagen Awards, a 2019 Deadline cast announcement, describing her as a lead in The Owl House and her as "Boss Baby‘s Sarah-Nicole Robles", and her BTVA profile, in addition to the interviews cited in the article. It appears to be WP:TOOSOON for WP:ANYBIO, WP:BASIC or WP:NACTOR notability to be supported by independent and reliable sources. Beccaynr (talk) 05:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC) - !vote struck Beccaynr (talk) 02:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She has a platform has a notable role, like Luz, a main character on Disney, itself. Not to mention all her other filmography. This should not be deleted. LB1230 (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no coverage and the fact it was A7'd a year ago and only one new role time, means she is non-notable. scope_creepTalk 10:24, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on A7. What A7 indicates is that it was speedy deleted without review from the community, just that one editor and one administrator agreed to delete the article. I can't see any policy-based reason to accept that as an iron-clad determination that there was no notability at that time. Jacona (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MaxnaCarter (talk) 01:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to the Owl show, rest are only bit parts. Coverage I find is mostly tabloid stuff, talking about her sexual orientation. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consider the option of a redirect...this would allow for the article to be reestablished should she receive more mainstream media coverage in the future.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to The Owl House - I had meant to return to revise my !vote to a redirect, and am now doing so, based on my comment above and the opportunity to continue developing the article in the future. Beccaynr (talk) 02:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Owl House I don't see enough to keep this bio as a stand-alone article --Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:11, 17 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. RL0919 (talk) 22:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dagfa House School[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Non-notable school. SL93 (talk) 02:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My only problem with merging is that only a half of a sentence is referenced. We can't merge unreferenced content. SL93 (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Djflem Your last statement has absolutely nothing to do with this AfD. The article made no mention of it being a Grade II listed building. SL93 (talk) 10:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it doesn't, but I have provided a reference above that it is. It's always a good idea to check whether older buildings are heritage-listed in all countries before nominating for deletion per WP:BEFORE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Necrothesp I know that you did. I did follow WP:BEFORE by completing multiple searches for the school so please don't point me to that. It's not like it or anything mentions searching for if older buildings are heritage-listed. I'm not sure what is with the unfair comments, especially when the article has no chance of being deleted. SL93 (talk) 11:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wasn't intended to be an unfair comment, just a friendly pointer for the future re potentially historic buildings, which is an area I work on. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine, but I was only referring to the clean-up comment from Djflem and the pointer to BEFORE in relation to such a search. SL93 (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there's Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup and Wikipedia:Using deletion as cleanup. The focus of the article (school) was the reason for the AfD. Since its nomination, other sources have to come to light (in this discussion) which might require "recasting" or rewriting (clean-up of) the article, but that would not be a reason for deletion. Find that a neutral statement of a fact which is fair enough if an AfD discussion. Djflem (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Djflem Well, what the heck is your problem? I wasn't trying to cleanup the article at all this entire time. FOR THE SECOND TIME, I KNOW THAT THERE ARE NOW SOURCES! I CAN'T withdraw this because of the merge votes. Why are you attacking me about sources that weren't originally present when I nominated the article for AfD? If you really think for some bs reason that I was trying to just clean up this article, you are very mistaken and assuming bad faith. DELETION IS NOT CLEANUP! AND I DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO WITHDRAW THIS NOMINATION PER POLICY. Why do you think I still want this deleted? I DON'T! SL93 (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I now see that you added Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup to your user page before you posted it here. I don't understand your poor comprehension of the situation. SL93 (talk) 22:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Djflem and Necrothesp. Passes WP:GEOFEAT, although emphasis in the article should probably be put towards the building instead of the school. HenryTemplo (talk) 10:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Since a certain editor seems to lack a basic understanding of what I'm saying and how an AfD can't be withdrawn when there are votes that aren't keep, I want to make it very clear that I would withdraw this if I could. SL93 (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have now requested a closure of keep per consensus on the AfD talk page. SL93 (talk) 22:24, 16 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! 02:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ayman Kaddoura[edit]

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

Non-notable entrepreneur. Sources are virtually all paid articles in unreliable sources. Mooonswimmer 01:14, 9 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! 02:49, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Japan–San Marino relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Relations with a very small country like San Marino are not much and not covered in third party sources. LibStar (talk) 00:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because there is very little mention of this topic on reliable sources beyond just trivial mentions and basic data, even on the official site of Japan's Foreign Affairs Ministry. Hemanth Nalluri 11 (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All coverage appears to be trivial mentions only, providing no evidence that GNG is satisfied. ComplexRational (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as San Marino is insignificant for Japan.Fulmard (talk) 19:16, 11 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_June_9&oldid=1093572922"