Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 April 13

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< April 12 April 14 >

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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pirtek

Pirtek (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)

None of the references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. A search for references reveals lots of mentions-in-passing or announcements//news relating to the subject's sponsorship in racing but no in-depth information on the company.

HighKing++ 20:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Hi
HighKing++ 11:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I would prefer to see the article deleted because it is frankly undeserving of encyclopaedic coverage, but I have struck my !vote because my core rationale (no significant coverage) is clearly no longer applicable. Whether the coverage is credible enough is a different matter all together and I am not so invested in its deletion to commit to that argument. 5225C (talk • contributions) 13:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So to be clear, I have not switch to a keep !vote, I struck my delete !vote because the reasoning for it no longer applies. 5225C (talk • contributions) 13:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to note that the page is currently rather promotional and could easily be tagged as such. Gusfriend (talk) 08:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you actually just done a proper search or just looked at the first few pages of a Google search? You need to look at company information sources, magazines, etc. Pirtek is well known and notable in Australia. Deus et lex (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're largely the same thing. A you would already know, it's impossible to prove a negative, but if you can show me some indication of what these sources are then I will reconsider my vote. Simply asserting there are sources does not do much to prove the subject is notable. 5225C (talk • contributions) 05:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Based on our guidelines, none of the references meet NCORP criteria.
HighKing++ 18:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment and note to closer - HighKing, I strongly disagree that the AFR articles are "puff pieces", and I really get tired of when editors malign articles to support their point of view. There is no indication whatsoever that the articles are paid advertising or anything like that (so comments like "obviously affiliated with the topic company" and "an ad masquerading as news" are unsupported claims and entirely unhelpful). There is no Wikipedia policy that interview type articles are not valid coverage of a company. The AFR has always had a significant business section and regularly profiles companies, and it's a reputable newspaper in Australia. These two articles provide independent coverage of the company, and the sponsorship of racing is also a relevant part of their work - there is enough here to support NCORP. Coming from Australia Pirtek is a notable company here and the AFR coverage shows that - something minor or insignificant would not be profiled. Please reconsider these comments (and your support of them too, 5225C and GhostofDanGurney). To whoever closes this, a discussion on sources should not be swayed by unspported claims about puff pieces and the like. There are articles where paid advertising is clear and is the only thing backing up notability, but that isn't the case here. The claim is not persuasive and it's not a good rationale for deletion. Deus et lex (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Nowhere have I associated "puff profiles" with "paid advertising" - that's a connection that might be true in some cases but I would say is not true in the vast majority of cases. Instead it is a label for articles which follow a well-worn structure and rely *entirely* on the company or their execs for the information within the article. Usually all positive (hence the "puff"). It also has nothing to do with the "reputation" of the publication. You say there is "no Wikipedia policy that interview type articles are not valid coverage of a company" and that is true. But, there's a big difference between using a reference to support information/content within an article (essentially, so long as it is
    HighKing++ 10:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the closure was reverted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • In response to Deus et lex, simply asserting notability doesn't really do it. The AFR articles, even if they aren't "puff pieces" still don't prove Pirtek's notability. Like you I am also Australian and I had only the vaguest idea Pirtek was a Supercars sponsor. So our experiences are contradictory and neither count for anything when considering Pirtek's notability.. 5225C (talk • contributions) 03:14, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Princeton, Indiana

List of mayors of Princeton, Indiana (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)

List of not notable local politicians. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. consensus is the sourcing is enough, when coupled with the roles to meet the bar. Star Mississippi 01:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meeno Peluce

Meeno Peluce (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:NACTOR. Non-notable former child actor who never had any significant roles. His half-sister is notable, but notability is not inherited. Originally prodded but the prod was removed by a brand new account with no other edits. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Biographies are timelines of things that people did and a bit beyond. It's exactly what it is supposed to be in a biography. Delete opinions disregarding the roles and sources of subjects should be read as
WP:IDONTLIKEIT. gidonb (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus that

(non-admin closure) Ganesha811 (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Cheyne Gallarde

Cheyne Gallarde (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)

Lacks independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of

WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Hello Edwardx, this article was a school project for my LGBTQ studies class at my universities. Most, if not all, the sources used were collected by my university's library. Wikipedia also allows for use of well established newspaper articles as resources. Therefore, the sources are reliable and are meeting the Wikipedia guidelines . NerdyAlo (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Photography, and Hawaii. Shellwood (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Another important thing to note is that, from my knowledge, Wikipedia has a minimum 3 source requirement. Of the sources I listed, there are at least 3 sources that go in-depth on the artist as they exclusively interview him and/or write about him (I'd recommend you take a look at the advocate article, and the star-advertiser articles titled "best face forward" and "MTV taps Hawaii artist to showcase Video of the Year Nominees" as examples). I do think there is room for improvement for the page and am willing to take suggestions as this is the first article I created. However, I do not think deletion is necessary. Cheers NerdyAlo (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Very sorry, NerdyAlo. I am sure it must be disheartening for you to have someone suddenly nominate your work for deletion. It really is nothing personal, and it did look rather "promotional". For example, the exhaustive "Bibliography" section. The good news is that the process takes a week, so there is plenty of time to properly consider things and to improve the article. Edwardx (talk)
    Honolulu Star-Advertiser only lets me see a tiny bit of those two articles (I am based in England, and don't want to pay $13 per month to subscribe!) BUT, I can see enough to see photos of Gallarde atop each article, so we can infer they are likely both primarily about him. Both are written by Nadine Kam, and she still works there, Pieces by Nadine Kam reviewing eateries. Is there any way to view The Advocate piece online? Perhaps I was too hasty in nominating this! Edwardx (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Meets GNG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Interviews as sources are not independent nor necessarily reliable, yet still meets GNG in regards to the rest. Article could be adjusted in tone. But also certainly suitable for the mainspace. NiklausGerard (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A
    WP:GNG criteria for notability. Netherzone (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don Thompson (racing)

Don Thompson (racing) (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:NSPORTS. Disputed draftification, so here we are at AfD. If I draftified this I would be move warring 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fit in or fuck off

Fit in or fuck off (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)

Dictionary definition of a neologism, don’t see how this is discretely different from what squares like me call bigotry or prejudice. Dronebogus (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, dicdef indeed. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree, solely a dictionary definition. Hgual (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC) 22:37, 13 April 2022 Ponyo blocked Hgual with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Long-term abuse: WP:BKFIP)[reply]
  • Delete might be notable if it's a catch phrase for some television character, this isn't. Oaktree b (talk) 01:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taking the article at hand, without yet getting to researching it independently, I went through all of the books, and none of them are actually discussions of a concept. There's a dictionary of slang, a reference to a letter that someone once wrote to a newspaper editor, and everything else is either a quotation, or worse a quotation within a quotation, with no explanatory content. The actual article sources are no better. The Sabotage Times does not appear to exist any more; the Barrett article is about sexual harrassment at a specific company; and the Saunders article is about
    sexual harrassment too, it's sole relation to this subject being that it uses the phrase in censored form as headlinese. Searching, then, I could not find anything that discusses a concept by this name, which is not unexpected since good sources will use an actual name for whatever they document and not slang, or a potential way to refactor that isn't something that we already have by a non-slang name. The best redirect target seems to be social norm, since it is pressure to conform to workplace norms that good sources discuss this subject as. Uncle G (talk) 09:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's
list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Hatting digression from the merits of whether the article should be deleted or not
Banks Irk (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment
Bowdlerizing and marking up the article so that a whole section and references do not show skews this whole discussion. Rigged game would be a fair characterization. Please take your thumb off the scale. The article and the question of notability ought to be decided on the merits. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
What are you talking about? Dronebogus (talk) 19:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF. Also, the edit was made before the AfD started. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry that you were confused about the timing. Thanks for answering
WP:AGF, too. That would be in better form, not griefing. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:53, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually the misunderstanding is at your end, since the commenting out was done before this AfD was created. Therefore would you like to retract your accusations above that it was done to rig the AfD?

WP:AGF means that I will consider that your reply was due to your misunderstanding, rather than an attempt to gaslight me.

What do you mean "the article is now restored", since it wasn't deleted in the first place? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Griefing Stop it! You are wasting everyone's time. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is that supposed to mean, the
Chewbacca Defense? Dronebogus (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My way or the highway

My way or the highway (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 original rationale (which I support until evidence is provided otherwise) was “just a dictionary definition. It was functionally contested at

WP:ARS by User:7&6=Thirteen or whatever their name is, meaning it can’t be prodded as non-controversial. Dronebogus (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Removed my previous "redirect" !vote. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like
    ISBN 9780198834304 page 52 which is an OUP book, for example) in hand and write the linkage into the article (as well as perhaps mention McGregor, too). Yes, the leadership style is the primary topic, and this page should not in my view go back to the redirect to My way or the highway (disambiguation) that it was in 2010 or to the Scrubs episode that it was in 2007. Uncle G (talk) 10:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • The idiom just means non-negotiable and it can be used to describe many things besides a leader. I linked to 8.500 sources, and most are reliable and many are not about leadership styles, though many are. They often refer to someone's personality generally, who is not in a position of leadership. If this article is deleted, the best way is to make the the article into a primary topic dab page and the first line says: "My way or the highway is an idiom describing a non-negotiable position, person or leadership style usually in a disparaging way. It can also mean:". This makes navigation clear because when someone searches this term we don't know if they are looking for meaning or song or album etc. GreenC 14:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • You didn't link to any sources. There, you linked to yet another quotation that isn't discussing this subject, it being a fruit picker quoted on xyr personal experience of unionization in 1973, which is not a source for anything at all, and below you linked to a search result. Search results are not sources. Phrase matching is not research. You are not finding sources, and you are not doing research, which involves reading what the searches turn up, which would have revealed that a fruit picker in Florida interviewed by a magazine for a piece about United Farm Workers in 1973 isn't anything about this subject. And etymologies are what lexicographers do. Try to find the concept denoted by the title. When you do, you'll find that it's a slang phrase and what people are really talking about, including expert sources in management (such as the OUP book which is written by a university assistant professor), is autocratic leadership as I said. Uncle G (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I encourage readers to look through those 8,500 sources linked and decide for yourself what they demonstrate as a whole. Uncle G's assertion they are all or mostly about leadership style doesn't hold up on inspection. Leadership style is one, but not the only. Redirecting this page to leadership style#Autocratic is a bad idea for a couple reasons. As noted the phrase has more meanings, and secondly it can refer to actual disambiguations as listed at the dab page. -- GreenC 17:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I spent a good hour skimming through 8,500 sources at archive.org (not all). The oldest I can find is from 1973. It's a hoard of sources. Disappointing could find no sources that discuss it directly. Given it's popularity, such sources likely exist in journals, such as Comments on Etymology, which has been a good source for Wikipedia etymology in the past. But its archives are offline. GreenC 13:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's
list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wunder (gamer)

AfDs for this article:
Wunder (gamer) (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 article was deleted on the 8th of April after

does quantity translate into quality? I propose the article be deleted and salted. For a forensic analysis of the sources, or, more accurately, the lack thereof, check the talk page. -The Gnome (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Strong Keep I fail to see how articles such as these[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] count as "trivial mentions", as all of them are focused on the player specifically. Having 9 All-Pros, 4 Championships, and an International title make him one of the best Western League of Legends players of all time, and I think some of the people voting don't realize the significance of some of these "passing mentions". In most major sports just appearing in a single regular season game qualifies a person as notable, so when you note that the the League World Championships have has more viewers then the NBA finals for the past 4 years in shows that there are clearly some criteria lacking in what makes any esports player notable. Wunder is a household name in the most popular esport in the world, and he has 2 ESPN articles exclusively focused on him. Not only should this article be kept, the Wikipedia policy for League of Legends players should be clarified, preferably by those who have some knowledge of the scene in general. Chaddude (talk) 22:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wunder is a household name in the most popular esport in the world": That is, essentially, the totality of the argument promoted by the Keep suggestions both here and in the previous AfD. An assertion using circular logic, precisely as described in
    WP:ASSERTN. -The Gnome (talk) 06:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

References

  1. ^ "Shout Out To Denmark | By Martin "Wunder" Hansen". The Players’ Lobby. 2018-03-16. Retrieved 2022-04-14.
  2. ^ Hester, Grey (2016-11-29). "Wunder Re-Signs With Splyce". Dot Esports. Retrieved 2022-04-14.
  3. ^ "Wunder: Splyce's strategic woes are 'easily solvable'". ESPN.com. 2017-03-09. Retrieved 2022-04-14.
  4. ^ "Wonderboy: the rise of G2's Wunder". ESPN.com. 2018-10-26. Retrieved 2022-04-14.
  5. ^ Suárez, Pablo (2021-11-16). "Sources: Fnatic signing Wunder as new LEC top laner". Dot Esports. Retrieved 2022-04-14.
  6. ^ "Wunder: "I'm showing what I stand for to my team"". Hotspawn. 2022-02-03. Retrieved 2022-04-14.
  7. ^ "YamatoCannon: "I think Wunder is GOATed. [...] His level of professionalism is exemplary"". InvenGlobal. 2022-02-11. Retrieved 2022-04-14.
  8. ^ "Watch Wunder's huge outplay in extraordinary 1v3 against Team Vitality | ONE Esports". www.oneesports.gg. 2022-01-17. Retrieved 2022-04-14.
  • Source 1: Doesn't aid
    WP:N as it's written by him. #2: Says he re-signed, and that's it. Routine coverage. #3 and #4 I agree (and posted in the last AFD) are pretty decently in-depth. These are the best sources about him. #5 is kinda routine coverage and doesn't really say much about him. #6 doesn't seem like a source generally used by Wikipedia and may not be reliable, but is also an interview which are given less weight for GNG, as they aren't independent. #7 Non-independent interview. #8 is less about him and more a play by play of a specific match. I don't think the specific source is one we'd consider reliable either. -- ferret (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Alright how about [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]? Also it's worth noting that although some of these are "kinda routine coverage" they have more info they just "he resigned", they talk about his accomplishements and statistics and his pllay. Chaddude (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Ciocchetti, Cecilia (2021-12-15). "Wunder thinks G2's LEC roster for 2022 is not 'looking that strong'". Dot Esports. Retrieved 2022-04-15.
  2. ^ "Report: Fnatic agree to buyout for Wunder as team's top laner for 2022". Upcomer. Retrieved 2022-04-15.
  3. ^ Vukobrat, Petar (2021-11-18). "Fnatic Have Reportedly Bought Out Wunder from G2". Esportstalk. Retrieved 2022-04-14.
  4. ^ Heath, Jerome (2021-04-06). "G2's Wunder changes username to 'NoWowFreeWin,' climbs to Masters in League solo queue". Dot Esports. Retrieved 2022-04-15.
  5. ^ "Splyce's Wunder: "In mid and late game, we're the best team in the league right now"". ESPN.com. 2016-07-09. Retrieved 2022-04-15.
  6. ^ Geddes, George (2019-09-16). "G2 Esports fined for showing Wunder playing WoW Classic". Dot Esports. Retrieved 2022-04-15.
  7. ^ Li, Xing (2019-06-16). "Wunder clowns Vitality in Pro View". Dot Esports. Retrieved 2022-04-15.
  • Source #5 is a repeat, you already used it above. #1 is covering a twitch stream of Wunder, so I'd treat it as semi-non-independent, almost self-interview. Just reporting what he said. #2 I'd like to see
    WP:VG/RS mull on for reliability, but they're also simply re-reporting Dotesports, as stated at the beginning. You already gave that source the first time above. #3 is re-reporting Esportstalk (#2), who as noted, is re-reporting Dotesports. This is just esports sites mimicking each other's news. #4 is a little better, but not much actual substance exists here from a weak source that while reliable, is dedicated to covering this very thing. #6 and #7... I mean. More routine Dotesports. Are you really arguing that the fact that Dotesports reported Wunder trolled another team mid-match is a seriously noteworthy event? This mostly boils down to two good ESPN sources, a lot of routine coverage by Dotesport, and a few sites reporting what Dotesports already reported (and crediting it to boot). -- ferret (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following are significant pieces (not routine, not non-noteworthy) from Dot Esports, which has been recently been discussed at WP:VGRS, and the consensus is that it is reliable:
The following are a bit less in-depth, but still pretty solid:
In addition, he has appeared on CNN, although the video does not seem to work anymore, so I can't really see what it is, so take it for what its worth (looks like just an interview though). – Pbrks (t • c) 03:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A constructive proposal this. It would be quite appropriate to Merge this (actually very weakly sourced) text into Splyce, the article about the team to which practically all sources are referring anyway. -The Gnome (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not going to strike my Delete at this time. The two ESPN sources, which I noted at the first AFD, are great. However I have a lot of concerns about Dotesports being used to judge notability. It's a weak source, which is regularly rejected at FAC, and wholly dedicated to reporting 'everything' esports. Additionally, I don't view Redbull as independent as they sponsor and host ESports. I'd really really like to see two more in-depth sources that aren't a specialist site or re-reporting Dotesports. I understand my position is likely stricter than others, but notability being decided on essentially the backs of two specialist sites (one general sports, one wholly esports) feels off to me. A merge or redirect is also a fine outcome. So much of the news is routine team updates. -- ferret (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope you'll reconsider your position on determining notability this way. For example, video games articles seem to be just fine when there are sources from reliable gaming sites, e.g., PCGamer, GameSpot, Eurogamer. I understand that this is a whataboutism, but I don't see why would we set a different bar for esports articles and reliable sports sites. I do agree that, as with just about every news outlet, a generally reliable site does not necessarily mean that every bit of its content is applicable when determining notability, but the Dot Esports articles that I provided are good, in-depth articles — not fluff pieces. Tag those along with the ESPN ones, and I just fail to see how this does not pass GNG. As a note, Dot Esports was questioned once at FAC (I double-checked with a search, but correct me if I am mistaken), which led to the discussion at VGRS, so "regularly" doesn't seem appropriate. – Pbrks (t • c) 14:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The minimum to demonstrate notability is generally two to three high quality sources. Pbrks has presented at least three, which I pointed out in my !vote. Whether Dot Esports is a "specialist site" is wholly unimportant, as it has been determined to be a reliable source. Mlb96 (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the bare minimum is (typically) three high quality sources. That doesn't mean that three demonstrates notability, simply that it's the bare minimum. A discussion can always determine otherwise. I don't feel the bar is met, especially for high quality, and I've explained my reasoning, is all. I'm well aware you disagree, that's fine. -- ferret (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe your position is in accord with policy. I feel that you are setting a much higher bar than
WP:GNG actually requires. Mlb96 (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Nope. We know where the bar is. Take as an example, one among many, the bar set for
reports about something else. Actually, ferret is trying here to keep the bar from hitting a very lowpoint. -The Gnome (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)lb96|Mlb96]] (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Please just stop, this is embarrassing. Not only did you not read any of the sources, you also don't seem to know the difference between GNG and SNGs. Mlb96 (talk) 04:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Minor nitpick, but WP:N and WP:GNG are a guideline, not a policy, and they set lines in the sand for presumed notability, very clearly stating that a discussion and review of sources may find otherwise. I believe this is an otherwise case, you don't. That's fine! I openly admit I set a higher bar than many do. -- ferret (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Pbrks and Mlb. I consider ESPN to be a very high quality source for it's subject area, so that & the Dot Esports which has be regarded as reliable per consensus I consider that good enough for GNG. Jumpytoo Talk 19:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all the ESPN reports are game reporta, series coverage, and the like. Same goes for most Dot Esports links. Why not vist the talk page and see the analysis? -The Gnome (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But they're not? That's just an objectively false statement. Did you click on any the 10 links provided by Pbrks? Not game reports, nor series coverage, they are pieces on Wunder as an individual. Same goes for the Dot Esports Links, the three listed in no way fall into the categories you claim they are a part of. Chaddude (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. consensus is the sourcing just isn't there for this school. If someone thinks they can ID more sources without the ticker of afD, happy to provide in draft space. Star Mississippi 01:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Houston Christian High School

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

This school has received barely any coverage and lacks significant notability. It also appears to be a magnet for OR in the past.

talk) 18:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 13:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

talk) 20:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Has anyone tried looking up "Northwest Academy"? That name gets more results.
talk) 20:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Half of the links went to a place in Ohio, and there were a few notable alumni. I could not find any alternative links but Google is still an option (I use an alternative browser)
talk) 13:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Anything on Newspapers.com? I will refrain from changing my !vote until a specific editor tries to salvage the article. However, I concede that it is not looking good.
talk) 15:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Apologies for my absence, as I had some major schoolwork to do. I wasn't able to get on Newspapers.com because it charges a subscription service, but there might be some secondary sources talking about the school on its official website. I will check there.
talk) 22:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
You can get to Newspapers.com free free via the Wikipedia Library.
talk) 19:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Found one source [12]. I'll deposit in into the article
talk) 13:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Newspapers.com has a TON of sources just like that one. However, I am not sure if they count because they are local.
talk) 23:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
It does not have any Houston city newspapers. Most of the nphits are sports roundups. I have access to NewsBank of the Chronicle post-1985, and most of the hits are sports-related there as well. I have a very long 1999 Houston Press article titled "Winning in the Wrong Way: Rock Knapp transformed little Northwest Academy from gridiron patsy to playoff powerhouse. So why are some parents calling for his head?" After the name change, there are some 2000s articles of note: "Houston Christian opens new campus - Area churches collaborate for high school" from the Chronicle in 2000 and "Christian High sees increase in students" from 2001. If you'd like me to put up excerpts of any of those, let me know. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to add them to the article or link them. If they don't count, I am willing to change my !vote.
talk) 20:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Battle of Hürtgen Forest. History is under the redirect if someone wants to merge. Star Mississippi 01:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hill 400, Bergstein

Hill 400, Bergstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am not sure if this mess is rescuable (

WP:OR issues arise... Oh, and it also further showcases the mess that our article is, as the German name, Burgberg , means castle hill or city hill, and the name Hill 400 is an unoffocial Allied WWII name given to this location and not used by the locals, past or present, obviously. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's something odd about this one. Normally medieval castles at least have some reference someplace online, but the one referred to in this article doesn't seem to, other than in references that seem linked back to this article. There's a lot of mirror clutter radiating out from this article onto the web that I can't really get past. Overall, since the fighting was part of a notable battle, I think a redirect as noted above, and a merge of anything worth saving, is the best route to go. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2014–15 Gimnàstic de Tarragona season

2014–15 Gimnàstic de Tarragona season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
2014–15 Real Oviedo season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Played in the Spanish third division, fails

WP:NSEASONS. Sakiv (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

I don't think that these are equivalent. The Oviedo one has much more substantial info and sourcing. It should be in a separate AfD. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 05:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Sakiv: Wrong bundling in my view, I was looking at the season in the template at the bottom;

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Mahant Kirpal Das

Mahant Kirpal Das (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 - only notable for one battle, has no sources other than one mentioning his name 1 time. I don't think he is noteworthy. I'd want to keep it if we can find more sources on him. Réunion (talk to me) 16:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted by

(non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Lovepantii (series)

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

Article was moved out of draft by recent editor, so only option is AFD. Sources are main pre-publicity puff pieces, one source from post release but no real information used from that source. Article needs something to show notability, but the existing sources and article text don't have that. A decent production section, some reviews from after the show began - something. As it is now, this should be in draft but we can't move it back there. Ravensfire (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Sofia Carson discography. ✗plicit 23:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Carson (album)

Sofia Carson (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)

PROD deleted. Doesn't meet

WP:NALBUMS - trivial, mostly primary source coverage, hasn't charted on any county's national chart. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alevtina Tchalova

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

The subject fails to meet

WP:NARTIST. Searching in English doesn't reveal any sources that aren't gallery listings or Wiki pages, and searching for her name in the Cyrillic alphabet also does not produce reliable sources. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was redirect to Taxonomic database. It does not appear more input is forthcoming and both !votes appear to agree there's a connection rendering this a viable search. History is under the redirect if someome wants to perform it as there's no argument to delete the content. Star Mississippi 01:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Web-based taxonomy

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

All branches of science use the web to some extent. There are no articles for Web-based biology, Web-based chemistry, or any Web-based science. Sean Brunnock (talk) 10:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. It was quick AfD nomination. As per the creator's comment, I'm pulling down the AfD nomination so that it can be expanded appropriately. Will assess it later.

(non-admin closure) Hatchens (talk) 14:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Gregory B. Williams

Gregory B. Williams (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)

He is a nominee. Not yet appointed! Fails

WP:NPOL. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

@Hatchens: God bless, within 20 minutes it's nominated? Wait until it's expanded at least. Snickers2686 (talk) 14:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Snickers2686 - oops sorry! It came in the feed. I'm closing it. Will assess it later. - Hatchens (talk) 14:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Volk

Jeffrey Volk (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 finding any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of

WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was keep. given the recent AfD, a different consensus is not going to emerge regardless of whether this should be an article. Suggest revisiting the issue it when the war is not a current event. Star Mississippi 01:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Control of cities during the Russo-Ukrainian War

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 an interesting list but per

WP:ITSINTERESTING). Also keeping in mind notability is not temporary, when the war ends, what will be the fate of this article? It doesn't even describe the history of the cities, just states who controls them now. This is really a weird Wikinews-type of news that stumbled onto Wikipedia. Lastly, was this created as a source-list for Template:Russo-Ukrainian War detailed map? Maybe it could be de-mainspaced as a source subpage for that template? Ps. Lastly, this list, despite the name, is not just for cities, but also includes villages like this... so not just its purpose, but its scope is a mess too. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

@

Talk 22:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

While there were many keeps, the closer did not present an argument, and many keep votes fall into
WP:AFDNOTAVOTE. A month and a half have passed, the article still is a weird form of NOTNEWS. I think we should discuss it again. And I ote that in your own argument in that past AfD you said this article is a dataset required for the Template:Russo-Ukrainian War detailed map. I don't deny it's useful in this, but it should not be article, but a template subpage or such. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Everything you're raising was already hashed out in the last discussion. Don't renominate just because you don't like the outcome. IAR is policy, you can't just declare any IAR close an "outlier". An AfD is not a vote, but this was 29–6 keep and policy-based arguments were given. ― 
Talk 09:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I didn't even notice the last outcome before my nom (but yes, I don't like it now that you made me aware of it :>). IMHO the previous discussion, now that I am aware of, was of low quality and merits revisiting. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"IMHO the previous discussion, now that I am aware of, was of low quality and merits revisiting." Can I abuse this approach and vote for deletion every article I don't like over and over? Reusing your words I would say that the argument you are providing about "merits revisiting" is of low quality and thus not worth the time. I say this to point out: everyone can call something of "low quality" without a compelling argument to start a motion over and over simply to try to get the wanted outcome. If this discussion doesn't end with delete, would you open one in May (or June or July and so on) then? The argument about a motion - especially when one was already presented - should in my view be compelling and have consensus, otherwise it ends in a silly motion/edit/proposal war. --Pier4r (talk) 11:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unless we have another source to show what belongs to who (the map doesn't show all of them), then this should be kept.Dawsongfg (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I second the view above. This page is highly useful for template editing and as a source of general information reference point on its own. Even if we are to delete per the AFD proposer, one must create that separate template page first or else the map template will collapse on its own. WeifengYang (talk) 06:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In historical terms a geographical overview helps. The article can be improved (and in some parts is already done) with links to the articles of the battles or timelines. In this way there will be a mapping between "where and when something happened plus an idea about the sorroundings". If one adds also "this territory was under control of X from this date to this date and then the control was reverted" it could be also helpful (although somewhat cluttered). Without mentioning that there is a template linked to the list. Last but not least, the motion was already discussed and users vote to keep the list and this new motion with the argument "IMHO the previous discussion, now that I am aware of, was of low quality and merits revisiting." disqualify itself because it is not a compelling argument. --Pier4r (talk) 11:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep per reasons listed by
    User:Tartan357, User:WeifengYang, User:Dawsongfg, and User:Pier4r above. ...Also, I totally agree with User:Mzajac's comment that "This might be a more valid permanent encyclopedic resource if it listed the dates of occupation and liberation of each settlement rather than merely its latest known status." Paintspot Infez (talk) 05:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep per above.
    talk) 15:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not the news. Stifle (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

National Association of State Procurement Officials

National Association of State Procurement Officials (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:NORG; no significant coverage about this organization from third-party sources. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 12:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

London Underground in popular culture

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

Another day, another terrible TVTropic list that violates oh take your pick from

WP:TNT applies. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was redirect to Hefazat-e-Islam Bangladesh. Star Mississippi 02:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tafazzul Haque Habiganji

Tafazzul Haque Habiganji (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 local political functionary who had never been elected to any public office. Fails

WP:GNG Vinegarymass911 (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. Slim consensus mixed creator conduct make this an easier call than would normally be from a language issue article. Star Mississippi 02:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Waliur Rahman

AfDs for this article:
Waliur Rahman (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)

None of the sources indicate the topic meets general notability guidelines. Or that the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources. None of the posts he held is notable or automatic grounds for inclusion. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 12:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Rotigotine. ✗plicit 14:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aderis Pharmaceuticals

Aderis Pharmaceuticals (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 General Notability. I've been looking at potential supporting material for this organisation, but have not found sufficient material, in particular content where the company is the primary focus, to support the General Notability guideline. It pains me, as I do prefer to keep organizations of all types in the encyclopedia, but I believe this article should be lain to rest. Thank you for reviewing and providing your input. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Gary Thomson (snooker player)

Gary Thomson (snooker player) (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)

Despite the player having won several national amateur titles and having spells as a professional, my BEFORE search failed to uncover enough evidence that Thomson is notable enough for an article. He receives passing mentions in several news articles, and "Snooker: 147 But Scots kid Thomo wins measly pounds 75" (Daily Record, Feb 7, 2003) might contribute to notability. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Shared Ground

Shared Ground (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)

Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of political parties. No evidence of notability, pre- or post -renaming. No notable or important results, reliance on sources only to show failed elections, not notable or important stories (standing for election is what parties do, arm article should show more than this to comply with Wikipedia policies). Formerly nominated for deletion. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 05:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Karanvir Singh

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

No indication of notability. The article relies exclusively on self-published or press release sources.

talk) 06:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: do not think this meets notability criteria Tow (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. SNOW keep as well as explicitly withdrawn by nominator.

(non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Scrat

AfDs for this article:
Scrat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | [since nomination])
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
I think
talk) 11:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

(non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 12:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Reflection (The Rubyz album)

Reflection (The Rubyz 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)

The one source given does not establish notability Ficaia (talk) 11:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep.

(non-admin closure) Ficaia (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Bradman Ediriweera

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

No evidence of notability Ficaia (talk) 11:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can't find any good sources other than the paywalled database, so I don't see how this can be expanded. However, if someone can unearth more sources, I'll close as keep. Ficaia (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You say you cannot find any other sources. I found two immediately and they are both reliable. One of them is the online version of the Wisden Almanack which is one of the most famous and most reputable publications in world sport. I've tidied the article up a bit, although I'd be happy for anyone more familiar with Sri Lankan cricket to check what I've done. More detailed coverage of the player will be in printed editions of Wisden and in published Sri Lankan sources. NGS Shakin' All Over 15:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Some claim to coverage existing but consensus is to delete with sources presented being rejected by other editors as being brief at best. Not a single source has been presented to show significant coverage let al9ne the multiple sources required by gng. Fenix down (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud El Banna

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

Sources don't demonstrate notability Ficaia (talk) 11:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No Great Shaker, there is no presumption of notability for referees. –dlthewave ☎ 12:14, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What sources could be used to improve the article? We require sources showing significant coverage to have an article. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Spiderone: In this one he is praised for his decision making during a notable Casablanca derby in 2019; this one is about his selection to officiate at the 2021 Africa Cup of Nations, and this one about his appointment for an African match. All of those sources can be used in this article to improve his career section. Ben5218 (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Prasun Chatterjee

Prasun Chatterjee (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. They have given some quotes and did some charity work during covid like many others. Nothing significant about it. Created by a blocked user. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 11:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

William Levitan

William Levitan (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 seeing independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of

WP:NACADEMIC
. The American Academy in Rome hands out 30 Rome Prizes annually and it is simply "a study fellowship at the academy", so not a notable award. Edwardx (talk) 10:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Shawna Hamic

Shawna Hamic (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 only references are IMDb and her website. Also, much of the content is verbatim from her website and IMDb (which she wrote), so likely copyright infringement. David notMD (talk) 09:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Technofarm International

Technofarm International (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)

Has been completely unsourced for over a decade. A

WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 09:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was merge to Seán Lemass. Stifle (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lemass era

Lemass era (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 text here could be moved to either economy of the Republic of Ireland and or Seán Lemass, so this could be considered a merge discussion rather than a deletion discussion. My reasoning in proposing not having it as a standalone article is that it seems to be relying on a single source for its description, in essence adapting a title used for a monograph into a general term for the period. I would know what someone meant by Lemass era, but it doesn't reach the level of a general term, such as Celtic Tiger. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 08:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blenheim Palace in film and media

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

PROD removed by creator with rationale of "Absurd nomination, this a UNESCO world heritage site, dependent on filming and publicity for its survival. As was discussed on the talk page, listing filming on the site, would swamp the main page. Where are these ridiculous nominations coming from?" Creator states on their talk page "That was a page I created 12 years ago as a dump for all the dull information on the Blenheim Palace page when I re-wrote it" - accurately reflecting the unencyclopedic content of this article. Article violates

WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Any encyclopedic content should be in the main article. AusLondonder (talk) 08:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

They shouldn't be spun off. Any relevant encyclopedic content should be kept at the main article. AusLondonder (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's very much a minority view, with little support in policy. See
WP:SUMMARY in particular. Johnbod (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The example given at
WP:SUMMARY is World War II. The biggest event of the 20th century. Not a landmark. Recent consensus has in fact been that landmarks do not need these kind of seperate, poor quality articles, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eiffel Tower in popular culture (3rd nomination) or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tower of London in popular culture. AusLondonder (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eiffel Tower in popular culture (3rd nomination)... What is the point you are making that this is the THIRD time the article has been nominated, other than there are people who are pushing their preferences regardless of previous consensus? LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – By virtue of the length of the article on the house itself (6k+ words; per Wikipedia:Prosesize, I think), splitting off mentions of appearances in popular media seems justifiable, although I can imagine more succinct mentions being viable if the decision were to Merge. The articles on other equally photographed/video'd houses, in my experience, are far smaller (e.g. Syon House at 1.8k+ and Castle Howard at 1.5k+), where media mentions are listed with greater succinctness and equal lack of referencing to those here. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'm suggesting. Any useful, encyclopedic content should be at the main article. A lot of this article is a load of crap. AusLondonder (talk) 08:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely blown away by this argument. "We should keep poor quality, unencyclopedic nonsense on the project because of obsessive IPs". AusLondonder (talk) 13:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That’s not actually what I, or others, have said. KJP1 (talk) 06:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You literally started your comment by stating that you did not disagree with me but that certain editors "obsessively" add inappropriate and irrelevant content so we should give them space to do so. I disagree with that part. I'm saying inappropriate and irrelevant content should be removed. We're an encyclopedia not a webhost for random trivia. I'm happy to watch the main article and encourage others to do so and remove inappropriate and irrelevant content. AusLondonder (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AusLondonder - I’m not arguing over your misunderstanding/misconstruing what I, and others, have said. You’ve made your proposal, now let other editors add their views. Presently, your proposal is clearly not enjoying anything like majority support. KJP1 (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - to the article about the palace. It's a fun list, but mainly too trivial for Wikipedia. But why delete it when someone might be able to salvage something from it? This topic has potential - let's make it painless for future editors to compose something about this.-
GizzyCatBella🍁 14:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep per

WP:SNOW, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Tek Fog

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

There are companies that generate television segments and sell them to broadcasters – this is broadcast syndication. This also happens in printed media and across websites. A syndication company may offer the same story in multiple formats, such as a long and short news article, or the same story with an alternate lead, or a video and a written article. Whatever the length or format, they usually contain the same claims and are written or edited by the same person or team. Syndicated news pieces may be independent of the subject matter, but they are not independent of one another. When considering notability or due weight within an article, all of the related articles by the same publishing syndicate, no matter how widely they were sold, are treated as the same single source.

WP:SYNDICATED the whole article is cited from multiple sources and all the sources are syndicated from The Wire's investigative journalism article written by Wire's editors Ayushman Kaul and Devesh Kumar. there are no seperate, independent research by any other source on tek fogDdd421 (talk) 07:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

I would also note that the nom, Ddd421 only joined Wikipedia on 6 April and since then has attempted to purge two articles (both with spurious rationale) about controversies relating to Modi's party (their first attempt being less than 10 minutes after their first edit). AusLondonder (talk) 13:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Cooper School

Captain Cooper 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 evidence of any

Fram (talk) 07:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Intrinsic value (numismatics)

Intrinsic value (numismatics) (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 page should be deleted because of its

talk) 07:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Papadopoulos

Larry Papadopoulos (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. Could not find sources to verify he was an Australian jiu jitsu champion. LibStar (talk) 06:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

The third source merely mentions Larry in 1 line and mentions he is a gym owner. Not indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No internet access for weeks, didn't realize sports SNGs had changed. Doesn't change my vote, however. Papaursa (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

(non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 13:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Open encyclopedia

Open encyclopedia (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 concept does not seem to pass

WP:GNG. Yes, there's a blog post, and maybe some scholar papers that mention "open encyclopedia" when referring to Wikipedia, but I failed so far when looking for further coverage of open encyclopedia as a concept itself. MarioGom (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenouism

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

This article on an "art movement" does not meet WP notability for

WP:OR. It was created by one of the blocked sock puppets[22] of Amangpintor[23] which coincidentally happens to be the pen name of the artist Elito Circa who is the originator of the "movement". It was heavily edited by Amangpintor's other socks. A BEFORE search did not turn up anything to substantiate that this is in fact a notable art movement, and the article sourcing seems to be a patchwork of synthesis, primary sources and name checks. Bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone (talk) 02:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TRN TV

TRN TV (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 believe this to be a hoax page. Nothing called TRN TV seems to exist in Germany, and if it ever did, it certainly never met the GNG.

This page is coming to AfD because there have been a bunch of malformed speedy and PROD attempts on it over the years:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 01:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

W. McAdam

W. McAdam (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)

With

WP:GNG
. The only sources I can find on any search appear to be Wikipedia mirrors. I don't contest the reliability of the book cited in the article (which I wasn't able to find and review), but it appears to be book of statistics and records rather than prose commentary. Even if it were significant coverage of McAdam, a single source is insufficient on its own.

There is no list of Darwen FC players or article for the 1891-1892 season to redirect to. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. How did we ever have articles like this in the first place? Never likely to be anything other than the tiniest stub; no new sources giving more information ever likely to be found. RobinCarmody (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. Delete. There is always the possibility that a book will be found which provides information about Darwen as a Football League club. It isn't surprising that the internet doesn't help in a case like this. NGS Shakin' All Over 14:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails
    WP:GNG and we don't even appear to know their first name. The article has existed for almost 9 years without improvement, so I fail to see any point in moving it to draftspace- if people haven't improved it in 9 years, it's unlikely they'll do so in the next 6 months. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Fair enough. I've changed my vote from draftify to delete. NGS Shakin' All Over 15:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Rlink2 (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nom withdrawn. Article is back in draftspace which was the goal Star Mississippi 02:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Literacy Crisis

Literacy Crisis (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)

School project that is not ready for mainspace. @Ian (Wiki Ed) and Praxidicae: moved it to draftspace where @Liance: twice declined it. Creator is not willing to respect consensus that this isn't ready, so we're here. OR, essay like tone without a clear topic. There could be an article about literary crises, but this isn't it. Star Mississippi 01:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Botswana–South Korea relations

Botswana–South Korea 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. There is not much to these relations besides diplomatic recognition. LibStar (talk) 01:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

References

  1. ^ https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/3956118
  2. ^ https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/league-heads-up-on-wrestling-controversy/IZBR6JLVVRT54Z7JXYGTOYOZIQ/
  3. ^ https://concreteplayground.com/sydney/food-drink/food-2/the-city-of-sydney-al-fresco-dining-summer-streets
  4. ^ "Korea-Botswana Trade Summary". Retrieved 17 April 2022.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Federal College of Horticultural Technology, Dadin Kowa

Federal College of Horticultural Technology, Dadin Kowa (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:ADMASQ 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: it would help if those arguing to keep would cite a relevant policy so we could establish consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mindware Studios

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

Does not meet

WP:NCORP. Could not locate coverage online to establish notability outside of passing mentions. -Liancetalk/contribs 00:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Games

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

Does not meet

WP:NCORP. Could not locate any coverage online to indicate notability. -Liancetalk/contribs 00:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_April_13&oldid=1084054272"