Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 April 16

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< April 15 April 17 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

X=Prem

X=Prem (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)

De-PROD'ed.

Draft:X=Prem exists. If merged into the draft, I'd suggest a history merge — DaxServer (t · m · c) 17:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:53, 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. there is a consensus that a redirect would not be helpful to the reader, and that a merger is inappropriate due to the state of the content. Star Mississippi 00:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tundra Buggy

Tundra Buggy (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)

Basically an advertisement that has sat there for twelve years virtually unsourced except for references to the manufacturer's blog. BD2412 T 19:18, 2 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! 18:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:52, 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. ✗plicit 00:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitrios Terezopoulos

Dimitrios Terezopoulos (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 appear to be notable via

WP:GNG - Note el:Δημήτριος Τερεζόπουλος exists over on Greek Wikipedia (but is tagged for notability) maybe as many sources just passing mentions. Terezo10 has edited both copies and has identifies themselves as the subject on their Greek userpage "My purpose is to clearly state my coaching career in the big teams of Greece". KylieTastic (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Govvy what do you mean by "per Greek wikipedia" - that article appears (by rough google translation) to be tagged for notability and for COI editing. I originally looked to pull sources from there but found some don't appear to mention him and many just passing mentions and just appointment notifications. KylieTastic (talk) 10:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Greek wiki article is poor, and the English article has nothing on it, but the guy took over
    WP:GREECE and ask for a wiki user to see if they could improve the article first. Sadly, and it's very sad, when there is potentially a chance to have anything decent, no one tries to sort it out. They look at an article and decide, that's pathetic, lets delete it! Cya! Govvy (talk) 10:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 23:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - there's good references in the Greek version of the Wikipedia such as this. I'm not sure this has been relisted twice already when there's no support for the nomination; I looked at this previously but didn't opine because it looked rather snowy. Nfitz (talk) 21:51, 17 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, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022 Taganrog military airport attack

March 2022 Taganrog military airport attack (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 unnotable attack inside Russia purely reported by the Russian Government sources while being denied by Ukraine

Viewsridge (talk) 23:12, 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. Without prejudice to creating an article about his possibly notable book They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons. Sandstein 06:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Heilbrunn

AfDs for this article:
Jacob Heilbrunn (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:NAUTHOR and GNG. No secondary sources to establish notability. (Just saw it was nominated before. Zero substantial change the 12 years since). EvergreenFir (talk) 06:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I found numerous significant reviews of his book:
  • Mr. Heilbrunn's Planet Foreign Affairs. Mar/Apr 97, Vol. 76 Issue 2, p152-157.
  • Flight of the Neocons. By: Moynihan, Michael C., Reason, 00486906, May2008, Vol. 40, Issue 1
  • THE PLEASURES OF REACTION. By: Lilla, Mark, New Republic, 00286583, 2/27/2008, Vol. 238, Issue 3
  • They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons Jacob Heilbrunn. International Journal. 64(1):299-301
  • Bad Paper John Palattella. Nation. 3/9/2009, Vol. 288 Issue 9, p30-31. 2p.
And there are others. Lamona (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion needed here on the recently added citations.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment One book generally isn't enough to get over the bar of
    WP:AUTHOR; in such cases, it's generally better to have an article about the book itself. XOR'easter (talk) 03:37, 17 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 Draftify , which even the creator seems on board with. Given the circumstances around the creation, I'm going to salt this title to prevent it from coming back without AfC approval. AfC reviewers: consider this my OK for an unSALT when/if you deem this suitable for mainspace. Star Mississippi 00:42, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khidmat Guzar

Khidmat Guzar (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 to draft as needing further sources and material as existing information didn't meet notability. Creator copied the article to create in mainspace and tagged the draft for deletion.

Article is not ready for main space. There is one article that's a decent source and it's an obvious pre-release promotional piece. The rest are terrible sources - passing mentions or basic landing pages

  • hdinpakistan.com - good source, decent in depth, pre-lease promotional piece
  • dramaonline.pk - basic landing page, supports this exists and episodes, but nothing in depth, nothing to help show notability
  • phupo.com - passing mention of prior projects, nothing in depth, nothing to help notability
  • thenews.com.pk - interview, passing mention in list of shows actor as done, nothing in depth, nothing to help notability
  • dramasplanet.com - feels like a scraper nothing, basic information on show, very poor quality source, nothing for notability

Redirect to A-Plus TV Ravensfire (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The said references support the subject. Besides that there are other sources from International sites as well which are Independent i.e, source from Asia4Arab, Sunrise Radio. And as you say the subject is not notable, it has aired internationally. All the references in the article confirms the existense and provides information relating to subject varying from basic to in depth. What do you expect to be included as references of a TV series? Lillyput4455 (talk) 10:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What would be really nice is to allow the article to go through the draft process and address concerns that are raised, rather than just impatiently moving it to main article space as you've done time and again, even with articles that have been rejected. There's no plot section, nothing to help readers understand what this show is about. A reception section, showing that sources actually NOTICED the show would be extremely helpful. Over half the sources are basic landing pages with no extra information. The dramasonline, dramasplanet, zee5 and asia4arabs are all basically the same information. Yes, it's shown on a paid subscription site in a dubbed format.
    WP:TVINTL. Ravensfire (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A little more participation would be nice here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I'd normally say drafity here, but given the history above I'd only be able to do that if the author committed to improving before moving to main space. In the absence of that, a delete seems fair. CT55555 (talk) 22:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok! I'll try to add more content and improve it. Thank you! Lillyput4455 (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to see them commit to waiting for the article to be improved by an AFC approver, not just moved at their whim. That's what got us here in the first place. Ravensfire (talk) 13:48, 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 soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Technically ineligible, but two relists and no dissension from the nomination. Star Mississippi 00:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Bret Ernst

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

Not notable. Sources are promotional and/or don't mention him. No further sourcing found. Prod overturned due to previous AFD which the bot didn't catch (it was part of a bundle AFD). Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:32, 2 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! 16:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for Soft Delete so relisting
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:23, 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. Opinion changed after article improvements towards keeping this article. Liz Read! Talk! 05:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Susie Shellenberger

Susie Shellenberger (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)

Likely fails

WP:NAUTHOR. Supposedly "has written over 40 books, which have sold more than 1.5 million combined copies", but I cannot find any proper reviews in decent sources. Could be a redirect to Sisterhood Magazine, which might be more notable. Edwardx (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Changing my !vote to Keep per
WP:HEY improvements to sourcing by DaffodilOcean. Netherzone (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:21, 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. ✗plicit 00:16, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tracey Medeiros

Tracey Medeiros (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)

her single book that received reviews is definitely notable, but she is not as of yet, so i'd suggest deleting and redirecting as the creator insists on it's existence as a standalone article. I've also removed a few sources, the Yahoo source which was by a marketer that lists her as a client (the article is a word for word copy of the spy.com article written by the same person where she lists this), as well as boston voyager which is a known interview for pay site, and lastly the NYT blog, which funny enough has nothing to do with her whatsoever, the only mention is actually by a commenter, not even in the blog itself. CUPIDICAE💕 21:28, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's
    list of content for rescue consideration. Thriley (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Redirect to The Art of Cooking with Cannabis: Pretty much all sources I can find on her are about her book. I take this to show that she's not notable, but her book is. So, as a non-notable author of a notable book, this page should be redirected to the book. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My reading of
    WP:AUTHOR basically means that any author who wrote a book that got two credible reviews is notable. CT55555 (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
No, her book can be notable but it doesn't mean that she herself is. If all that can be said is "x wrote y" then it should be redirected. CUPIDICAE💕 23:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll quote it, so that people can form their own conclusions, because I still think if there are two good sources on the book, she's good.
"The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews"
That said, I'm only saying this because you said the book is notable, a paywall blocked me reviewing the second source. So just to be clear, if you say her book it notable, then I think
WP:AUTHOR guides us towards concluding the author is notable. CT55555 (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@CT55555 If someone only has a single notable book and there isn't that much additional biographical information on them (so... not Harper Lee, basically), they tend to get redirected to the book. -- asilvering (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation, especially as the
WP:AUTHOR rule was something you first drew my attention to! :-) CT55555 (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Redirect as per Tol. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added sourcing for all of her books, which were not there when the article was nominated. I think these establish her as a notable cookbook author. Thriley (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is ample news coverage about her and her books. Newspaper.com shows 177 Matches for her name in quotation marks. Among them: Rutland Daily Herald (Rutland, Vermont) 31 May 2013, Fri Page B4 [5] talks about her and to her. An author is notable for their works. The subject specific guideline is quite clear. So whether they are writing about her or her books, its the same thing as far as confirming notability. Dream Focus 00:23, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thriley (talk) 00:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. Thriley (talk) 00:51, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Thriley (talk) 00:51, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Thriley (talk) 00:51, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a work in progress as part of the WikiProject Women in Red. She does appear to be notable, and is a regular contributing editor to Salon.com. This nomination is very premature, made while the editor is still building the article. — Maile (talk) 02:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notification was made about this AfD at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red. - Beccaynr (talk) 03:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added sources and information from sources to the article, and it appears that
    WP:BASIC notability related to her collection of cookbooks is supported by multiple independent and reliable sources over time. Beccaynr (talk) 03:34, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep per Beccaynr. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the nominator and others who want delete/redirect have made an assertion that only the single book with an article has substantial coverage (disclosure – I created the article). But this fails on its face; there is substantial coverage of the author and their body of work as required by WP:BASIC. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The
    WP:BASIC notability has been shown by previous commenters. I also just want to add on top of those that google searching her name shows that she is frequently interviewed about using edible cannabis products by various food/lifestyle media - so in addition to the simple "box-ticking" passes of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, from a more subjective perspective, she additionally appears to be regarded as a notable subject expert in her field. -- asilvering (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Whether we need articles for both the author and her book is a question for a different venue. I might support merging the book into the author's page. pburka (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per discussion and adequate sourcing. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as already noted, passes BASIC and NAUTHOR. I agree, however, with pburka's statement about merging the two articles.Onel5969 TT me 14:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Since consensus seems to be not to delete, the decider will have to look at the merit of the merge/redirect arguments. My reading of NBIO is this. If WP:NBASIC is met, then this biography should not be merged or redirected to another article. NBASIC is only not met if the coverage of the individual, outside of the existing book article, is trivial. I don't think this is arguably the case at all: we have significant biographical details including educational history, occupational history, other works, and so on. To support a merge/redirect, one would have to invalidate almost all of the 20 existing citations – I see at most five dealing exclusively with the book in the existing book article; in fact all but those five cites were written before the book was published in 2021. In conclusion, the article can not be merged. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hang on, I don't think anyone is suggesting this article be merged anywhere. The only mention of a merge is by @Pburka, with agreement by @Onel5969 - and they're both !voting keep. The question pburka raises is whether it might make sense to merge the book article into this one. But that's something that can be discussed on talk pages, if anyone cares to do so after this AfD. No one's suggesting it as an AfD outcome here. -- asilvering (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified my comment as there were also two arguments for redirection. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is more than enough press for the book to remain a separate article. Thriley (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a Snow Keep? Randy Kryn (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are 10 Keeps, making this a Snow Keep as a separate article. The project banners rate this a Start class, and you don't merge a start article this far along. It's ridiculous to even consider a merge— Maile (talk) 01:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I found a few more fine sources that could be added including Darien Times and Boston Voyager. There were already enough good sources in the article to keep it. Binksternet (talk) 03:36, 23 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, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kalesh Kalakkode

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

No notable roles so clear

WP:BEFORE search yields only social media and unreliable websites like EverybodyWiki. Likely an autobiography and the article creator keeps going into articles like Lucifer (film) and adding himself to the cast list, despite my attempts to revert. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:43, 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.

(non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Bill Crosby (politician)

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

I found no significant coverage of him online, so it doesn't seem to meet

WP:GNG. The helper5667 (talk) 18:36, 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 23:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Leclaire O'Neill

Michelle Leclaire O'Neill (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 removed all the unsourced nonsense (or poorly sourced) and we're left with...not much. But even digging deep into this, I don't know who or what credible organizations recognize her as an expert, but, well, an expert she is not.

This is a lot of...quackery to say the least and not even recognized well in the communities that believe in hypnobirthing etc... CUPIDICAE💕 17:30, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this unreferenced BLP. I can only find passing mentions of her, not significant coverage. Cullen328 (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/live-well-road-test-hypnobirthing/EDBGX4LLEEURRQTDRTXBN4675U/
  2. https://www.cleveland.com/healthfit/2011/10/hypnobirthing_can_ease_deliver.html
  3. https://www.noticiasmagazine.pt/2020/tomar-o-controlo-do-parto-com-a-meditacao/bem-estar/252513/
WP:CREATIVE criterion 2 says authors, editors and others who invent a significant new concept are notable. CT55555 (talk) 23:06, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Dizzy Acrobat

The Dizzy Acrobat (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)

Redirect to Woody Woodpecker filmography, not notable Indagate (talk) 16:10, 2 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! 16:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

E) 16:33, 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 soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. I don't see a third relist bringing about any additional input. Star Mississippi 00:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Exclusive Movies

Exclusive Movies (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 listed sources seem to be announcements of specific movies' screenings, not in-depth coverage about the subject. Googling the subject does not seem to bring up much better sources. I does not seem to pass

WP:NCORP. MarioGom (talk) 14:53, 2 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! 14:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All sources are reliable and there is no promotion ، Thanks. Kitrsjlhf (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All sources are reliable and there is no promotion ، Thanks Kitrsjlhf (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've struck several duplicate comments that seem to be the result of a cut & paste binge. Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

E) 16:32, 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 23:57, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awei

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

No significant coverage. Fails

WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 16:24, 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 redirect to

(non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Anton Kuprin

Anton Kuprin (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)

WP:BIO1E. The only thing he seems to have received coverage for was his death as captain of the recently sunk Moskva. The article tells us nothing but this fact (which is already covered at Russian cruiser Moskva#Sinking), and I can find no coverage about him prior to his death. Sandstein 16:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Suggested keep The deletionists/redirectionists in this discussion seem to be assuming that the subject of the article is of interest only because he was the captain of a ship when the ship sank. But he was also the captain of the same ship when the same ship was involved in the largely unrelated Snake Island incident, which similarly attracted a great deal of publicity. The ship itself didn't do anything in either incident; it was just the mechanism by which human beings did something, not once, but in two separate and distinct incidents. And during both of those incidents the most significant human being on board the ship was the captain, wasn't he?? Bahnfrend (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTINHERITED applies. He may have been captain during those events, but there doesn't look to be significant coverage about him related to those events, only coverage of the events themselves. Which is why he doesn't justify a separate article, unless significant coverage of him exists. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • ???? - 2016 RKR "Moskva", senior assistant to the commander
    • 2016-2020 "Admiral Essen", commander (16/12/2016- ) based in the Crimean Autonomous Republic at Sevastopol but with periods in the Mediterranean (ref) (during the course of which cruise missiles were launched at Syria) (ref for missile strikes- Adm Essen ref 6; see also refs from '#Combat use' in Russian wiki article Adm Essen)
    • 2020-2022 RKR "Moskva", commander ref

And he had received the following awards and honours:

It would be good to find proper sources either for or discounting these factoids. Yadsalohcin (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to the ship The nominator and others are correct that BLP1E applies, but I can see it being a search term that someone might use, so a redirect would potentially be helpful. Girth Summit (blether) 11:43, 22 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 Ectodermal dysplasia. ✗plicit 23:58, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dermoodontodysplasia

Dermoodontodysplasia (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)

Definitely a notable topic, but this article is one sentence with one reference that barely provides anything to the reader. Bsoyka (talk) 16:10, 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. Sandstein 06:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hoplology

Hoplology (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 that this is a real thing beyond the fan blogs and amateur studies cited. No notable coverage in any RS I can find. The page is a total mess of OR and likely self sourced bumpf Unbh (talk) 16:09, 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 withdrawn. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aashari Crosswell

Aashari Crosswell (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 much significant coverage towards

WP:GNG. Only played two seasons in college, has not played in NFL. He is currently on a USFL practice squad, but there is no assumption of notability even if he plays in a game there this season. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:07, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

I still think this is dubious from a GNG perspective, especially given the lack of on-field accomplisments, but I'm striking my vote in view of the nominator's expressed desire to withdraw. Cbl62 (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good one as well. The subject likely passes GNG with these four articles. I'd withdraw this nomination if not for the two "delete" !votes above. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I also added a source from the Seattle Times that has a fairly decent coverage on him. @Cbl62 and @Hey man im josh, are the above mentioned sources enough to change your minds? Alvaldi (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright I switched it to a keep. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:23, 17 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. Sandstein 06:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neeraj Agnihotri

AfDs for this article:
Neeraj Agnihotri (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)

Neeraj Agnihotri

Non-notable photographer. One previous article was deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neeraj Agnihotri. Analysis of the sources is probably not necessary, because this article is a stub that does not appear to be an improvement over the deleted article, but the sources have been checked, and are not independent:

Number Reference Remarks Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 www.india.com About a film - Mostly about the director - The cinematographer is the subject of the article Yes Not with respect to the subject Probably Yes
2 IMDB Includes a blurb about a film No Not about the subject No No
3 IMDB, same as 2 Includes a blurb about a film No Not about the subject No No
4 YouTube About a documentary by the subject No Probably No No
Robert McClenon (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep
    WP:CREATIVE says that anyone who had a major role in creating a body of work is notable. So it seems he like had a major role in creating Nashebaaz and therefore meets that criteria. That assumes that we'd consider the editor and cinematographer to qualify as a major role, I think we would. At least this deserves a discussion and not a speedy delete. CT55555 (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Update, I'm really struggling to find anything about him, so posting this as more of a comment than a !vote in the hope for more opinions. Still suggesting normal AfD rather than speedy, but I don't have a strong opinion about it... CT55555 (talk) 01:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@
Iridescent 05:01, 17 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! 05:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Realisor

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

An article on a software package which has been tagged for some years for Notability and reliance on Primary Sources. A previous instance was deleted via PROD in 2013. The present article describes the ownership history and features of the product but these do not indicate notability, nor does a bronze award in an industry-body evaluation. Searches for Realisor under Wovex and BRM Fusion find some mentions relative to the tool's use by a consultancy firm, but

WP:ATD target. AllyD (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:43, 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 00:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dishan De Silva

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

Fails the requirements of

self promotion. Dan arndt (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Looks very much like WP:AUTOBIO.--Chanaka L (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the feedback! Ceylon edit (talk) 11:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reads like a resume, no sources found. Zero in GNews. Oaktree b (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the feedback!
    trying to correct it. can you be more specific Ceylon edit (talk) 11:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Inadequate sourcing to meet notability, per
    WP:ADMASQ. NiklausGerard (talk) 21:29, 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 merge to

(non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 16:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Ahdasee Records

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

No

WP:SIGCOV RoanokeVirginia (talk) 14:01, 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 00:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fatboi

Fatboi (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:MUSICBIO RoanokeVirginia (talk) 13:45, 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 soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Ejnar Knudsen

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

Subject doesn't appear to be notable, and article is basically promotional. Refs are just mentions. PepperBeast (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. My search for coverage found only press releases and articles in which Knudsen is quoted or mentioned in passing. Independent reliable sources don't seem to have discussed him in any depth, meaning that he fails
    alternatives to deletion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:43, 23 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 00:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bambee (HR platform)

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

Fails

WP:NCORP. Routine coverage. Brochure article. scope_creepTalk 12:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:12, 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. Stifle (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Fredericktown, Missouri

List of mayors of Fredericktown, Missouri (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? 12:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, and Missouri. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect into
    WP:CHEAP. While the list is not justified, a few items can be copied to the main article with sources. For example the first female mayor. It's missing in the main. Also references supporting facts. As to why not keep: for me the proof is in the pudding. This list has no items with articles. The low point of the list is the key with colors for tiny parties. Why not just write out the party? If you want to use color, fine, but why make readers look elsewhere, in an unnecessarily lengthy legend? gidonb (talk) 07:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete way, way too much detail to merge, not at all justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's why the merge should be selective. Only of a few details. gidonb (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Biased Keep Yeah, I created this. I'll vote keep -- if a biased vote is even allowed. It's history. Most big city mayors, except a few very big city mayors, are rather non-notable. A few American mayors have been state representatives are something like that or perhaps the relative of a more famous person, but that's about it usually. Durindaljb (talk) 15:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional I am not sure why there is a sudden fury to delete several articles that I created and have been around in wikipedia for the past 7 1/2 years! I guess I really wasted countless hours of time with this project. Over 17 references are not enough? Durindaljb (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Durindaljb, I'm responding to whether your !vote is allowed. The short answer is yes. The long answer: you used "bias" here rather loosely. The same drive that caused you to create the article, a deep care for American history, causes you also to want to preserve it. Nothing wrong with that! Au contraire, thank you for caring about American history on Wikipedia! gidonb (talk) 12:47, 22 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 Kei Kusunoki. Liz Read! Talk! 05:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Girls Saurus

Girls Saurus (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 has remained unreferenced for a long time. The only citations I was able to find were from the own publisher or from a few other publishers who licensed the series outside of Japan, but no secondary sources. - Xexerss (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:09, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak redirect to
    WP:ANIME/RS, though that is all I found. That being said, the series was licensed in Italian and French so more sources could exist in those languages, I just don't know many good places to look. Other than that, all I found was primary or user-generated sources. Link20XX (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:16, 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. The rough consensus here is that presence on a single event of The Kelly Clarkson Show is insufficient grounds for notability. Based on the

WP:NOTNEWS policy, that argument is rooted in policy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

First Day of School (band)

First Day of School (band) (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)

Their sole claim to fame is a piece on The Kelly Clarkson Show where they were surprised by their idols Backstreet Boys, which is about the Backstreet Boys than them. They are aged 12 and 9, and do not have significant coverage. Pikavoom Talk 08:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Watch out for logical fallacies. Wikipedia has many articles about kid entertainers and positive trends. This discussion is about
notability. And it may be a good idea to disclose your personal connection with the group. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete When Getty Images is cited as a source, it's on thin ice. Positivity has no place in wikipedia, we're here to be neutral, covering everything from the Holocaust to cat memes. Oaktree b (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Totally agree. I was just expressing that I was happy that it was a positive post. If the inclusion of Getty is not relevant, then it can be removed as it was simply added to be thorough. The other news agencies, in my opinion should more than enough to show enough relevance to be included on Wikipedia. I am not related to them but am aware of them and have reached out to verify information as stated before. CaseyMcCreedy (talk) 22:15, 20 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 soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Writesonic

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

It does not meet

WP:NCORP. Most sources here are native advertisement (e.g. Deals/Store section, source selling the services themselves), with only a few exceptions, which are passing mentions and not in-depth coverage. MarioGom (talk) 08:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:14, 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 soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Rubbertape

Rubbertape (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)

Film production company doesn't seem to meet

WP:NCORP- lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:14, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. My search did not find significant coverage either: only a small handful of passing mentions. Fails
    WP:NCORP. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:17, 23 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. Two relistings have not generated any further input. Apart from the nominator, the calls have been for keeping the article, and the arguments, that her work has seen significant coverage in newspapers such as Boaton Globe and Wall Street Journal, has merit. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Whalen

AfDs for this article:
Jill Whalen (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 quoted in a couple sources, but none of the sources are specifically about her. Everything is

WP:PRIMARY and I couldn't find anything else. Previous AFDs in 2011 and 2012 closed as "no consensus" Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comments I tidied it up a bit and then went to look at what could be decent sources, but but WSJ and Boston was paywalled. Can anyone comment if there is good coverage there?
There's a lot of book talking about her in Google books, but then she is a SEO expert, so this might just be really good marketing. Would welcome comments about their quality. For example, what's the result of your
WP:BEFORE analysis User:TenPoundHammer
, did you review all of this and discount it?
Even google scholar has stuff about her, but I am blocked by paywall: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/1431525

CT55555 (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments The 2007 Boston Globe article is available via ProQuest, and a quick look reveals sections of the WP page are copyvio from that article. I have edited the Wikipedia article to address that problem. That being said, the Boston Globe article is
    WP:SIGCOV as most of the 1140 words in the article are about Whalen. I added in a few more citations, but there is more to be found. DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Here's the newspapers.com clipping to the Boston Globe article [13]. DaffodilOcean (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are multiple by-lined articles about Whalen and her work, the Boston Globe article I provided above is but one example. The article includes multiple other examples (i.e., Wall Street Journal, Inc. magazine). In the mid-2000s she also appeared in books guiding people on how to use the internet, back when books were published on the topic. DaffodilOcean (talk) 11:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Boston Globe article and the Wall Street Journal combined provided sufficient independent, reliable coverage to satisfy
    WP:GNG. CT55555 (talk) 10:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:45, 16 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. SpinningSpark 09:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth planet (disambiguation)

Fourth planet (disambiguation) (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 also nominating the following related pages:

Sixth planet (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Seventh planet (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Eighth planet (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A few other "Nth planet (disambiguation)" pages that people agreed should be deleted at

Third planet. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the
    list of Disambiguation-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • My opinion on
    1 Ceres was listed 7th in order of distance from Sol, not 8th, in contemporary encyclopaedias and sources like François Arago's 1845 Lectures. There's a very brief window when 5 Astraea pushed it out to 8th, but by then it was already commonly listed as the first minor planet, and had been for at least 25 years. (Witness the 1819 list of minor planets in Principles of the sciences at the Internet Archive for example.) I've not found anyone actually designating Ceres as either the eighth planet or the seventh planet in that era. It never had those titles. So that's not ambiguous. As for Pluto, there are serious astronomical sources from before the conversion from major to dwarf planet that did seriously note that it was the eighth planet for a while. Unlike 1 Ceres, it did have the title. But that leaves us in the same situation as with the other three disambiguations, only 2 things to disambiguate and a non-primary topic better served by taking the reader directly to pluto#Orbit via a headnote (or some such) where the fact that it orbited inside the orbit of Neptune for 20 of the years that it was a major planet is already mentioned. Having a whole disambiguation article just to repeat that out of context is overkill.

    Uncle G (talk) 23:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

    ]

  • Delete all per my comments at the previous AfD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:39, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:45, 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 delete per

WP:CSD#A9, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Negativa (EP)

Negativa (EP) (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 has existed for 15 years but there are barely any sources. The band's article has also been deleted, probably for the same reason. With that, I say it's time for this article to be gone for good. SirZPthundergod9001 (talk) 09:06, 16 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. ✗plicit 00:10, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

University of Cambridge in popular culture

University of Cambridge 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 potentially notable topic that is sadly just a mostly unreferenced list of trivia in the TV trope like style (even IF sources exist, which I couldn't confirm

WP:V. Note that while University_of_Cambridge#In_literature_and_popular_culture exits it is just as bad and probably needs to be removed as well. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:20, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep. If this is a "potentially notable topic that is sadly just a mostly unreferenced list", the appropriate solution is to improve the article rather than delete it. And if the nominator believes "in popular culture" articles should not exist - which seems to be the case given the number of them nominated lately - suggest opening a project discussion on that point rather than nomming them one by one. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Popular culture is a perfectly valid topic, and I've written or rewritten some related articles myself. But a TV trope-like list of trivia is good for nothing but
    WP:TNTing. There is nothing that we can salvage here, and its very existence scares people from working on this topic in a proper way. What was acceptable a decade+ ago is not acceptable today. You are welcome to rewrite it if you care, but please follow best practices. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:20, 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. Primefac (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Electron cloud densitometry

Electron cloud densitometry (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)

PRODded by the IP user 159.253.109.209 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) with rationale: Seems to be based on the work of one research group published in low-quality journals, most of the article describes only elementary physics. The author Samsiq (talk · contribs) deprodded the article without adequately addressing the concerns — the new section consists only of background information about van der Waals forces and a description of two images with no clear relation to the section's topic; and contrary to the deprodder's assertion, "elementary physics" as defined by the IP includes basic quantum mechanics. All references are from O. P. Kucherov et al. or are irrelevant to the ostensible topic. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this seemingly decent article provides no evidence of notability, most of the refs being either a smokescreen or just background. As not says, the on-topic refs are single-source. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of documented evidence that this has been more widely influential. Huge chunks of it were copied from
    Atomic theory without proper attribution. XOR'easter (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Save. At present, the electron cloud densitometry is used in many scientific institutions around the world, though under other names. At the request of reviewers, I am creating a section to highlight this fact. The author Samsiq (talk · contribs).
  • Comment This article barely mentions its ostensible topic. There's almost nothing in it about what this technique actually is or how it works, and instead there's a lot of words that don't belong here. I'm not going to do this while the AfD is pending, because there wouldn't be anything left, but if the article is kept as a notable topic, 90% of what's there at present needs to be deleted entirely. That said, I'm not certain the topic ISN'T notable, just that this article isn't much help with learning about it as it stands now. PianoDan (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The == Equipment == section added Samsiq (talk · contribs), 21 April 2022
  • Delete After putting in some more effort to find reasonable sources, or evidence to support the claim that the technique is in wide use, I've drawn a blank. Unless the author can provide more evidence to support the claim that the technique is widely used under other names (and why it shouldn't be listed BY those names in Wikipedia), I don't see a basis for keeping this. PianoDan (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or
    WP:TNT. Article is too immature and sources are not plausible. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC).[reply
    ]
  • The answer for PianoDan. From the equipment section it follows that this technique is widely used in the world. And different names simply characterize the features of different devices. Samsiq (talk · contribs), 22 April 2022
    • Wikipedia calls things by their established names. It is not the place to advocate for new names that have not become standard already. XOR'easter (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can't cite an edit you just made to an article to show that the article itself is correct - that's just circular. You need to cite references to reliable sources. (Not predatory journals). PianoDan (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The answer for XOR'easter.The term “electron cloud density” is encyclopedic, it was suggested by Richard Feynman in his The Feynman Lectures on Physics (references [15]), which are at hand for every physicist. Samsiq (talk · contribs), 11:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    First, "electron cloud density" long predates Feynman (here's an example from 1938); unlike what the article currently implies, Feynman did not invent the idea of an "electron cloud". Second, just because the term "electron cloud densitometry" is a term that could logically apply does not imply that it is the term that the field has standardized upon,
    which is the term Wikipedia should use. XOR'easter (talk) 12:31, 23 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 09:35, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of philosophy

Criticism of philosophy (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 creator has repeatedly reverted attempts (by four separate editors including myself) to turn this page into a redirect, so I'm bringing it here for discussion. The article as it stands simply quotes some comments made by Stephen Hawking which don't appear to have had any lasting impact. Since the title is a plausible search term, I attempted to redirect it to Antiphilosophy; this was reverted on the grounds that "anti-philosophy is a philosophy movement within philosophy whereas this article criticizes philosophy in general".
It's true that antiphilosophy is philosophy, and that's because any coherent criticism of philosophy is philosophy. One can criticise aspects of philosophy as it is practiced, but one can't sensibly criticise philosophy as a concept. Hawking's "philosophy is dead" comment seems to have been just a provocative soundbite; in the book which he is plugging in this speech, he talks at length about the philosophical foundations of modern physics, and presents himself as continuing that tradition with his own work.
As I said, though, I don't see any evidence that Hawking's comments have been widely discussed, which is why I'm proposing a straight redirect to Antiphilosophy rather than a merge. Dan from A.P. (talk) 06:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Dan from A.P. (talk) 06:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this page is a non-notable
    POVFORK because the creator couldn't get the Hawking-quote into the main philosophy article. --Mvbaron (talk) 08:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete - per nom, seems a fair assessment. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the topic in its widest sense might deserve an article, but the current content is just way too specific on one opinion and too limited to do justice to the topic. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As it stands this article is too short and limited to be other than trivial, one scientist's opinion. Athel cb (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as needless. Scientist claims that philosophy is dead, film at 11. XOR'easter (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a terrible sounding topic, just nothing notable or article-worthy on the page, based on a single statement. TeaEarlGreyVeryHot (talk) 02:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have to admit due to the nature of and disgreement within "philosophy" on just about everything, I find it hard to believe it is actually possible to have a coherent article on criticizing it. However we should not treat the statements of one man at one conference as the total sum and point of start on the matter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:26, 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 delete. ✗plicit 09:35, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Totalschaden

Totalschaden (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 album of a rapper whose page was deleted (Tony D (rapper)) FMSky (talk) 06:49, 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. North America1000 06:55, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ramadan Rabie

Ramadan Rabie (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 sigcov. Just database entries. Ficaia (talk) 05:31, 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Islam Tarek

Islam Tarek (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 sigcov Ficaia (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would be more supportive of redirect if he were a one-club man. Redirecting to Tanta would give undue weight to that club over the other 3 that he played for before. Once he leaves Tanta, he will also cease to be listed at Tanta's Wikipedia article so, if the redirect remained at that stage, it may cause confusion. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a perfectly valid point, though the other clubs he seemingly played for have no (known?) stats and he has been at the current club for a healthy 6 years. I was more thinking along the lines of preserving the history and that any meaningful coverage (perhaps those listed below by CT55555) is likely to be in relation to Tanta. However as noted, I would not be against delete either unless verified reliable sources are determined. Bungle (talk • contribs) 14:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails
    WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. I was unable to find any coverage during a search, including in Egyptian media. Alvaldi (talk) 11:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment, I didn't add it in as I don't feel skilled to assess Egyptian reliable sources, but these sources suggest notability:
  1. https://www.youm7.com/story/2021/7/5/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D9%88%D9%86%D8%A9-%D9%8A%D8%B1%D9%81%D8%B6-%D8%B9%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B6%D8%A7-%D9%85%D8%BA%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%AD%D9%8A%D9%84-%D8%A5%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%B7%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%82-%D8%AD%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%B3-%D9%85%D8%B1%D9%85%D9%89-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%81%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%82/5379669 (story about the club not wanting to sell him this summer. It's secondary, it's in depth, I just don't know about the quality of the site)
  2. https://www.cairo24.com/1431526 (analysis the same as above)
  3. https://elbaladtv.net/%d8%a5%d8%b3%d9%84%d8%a7%d9%85-%d8%b7%d8%a7%d8%b1%d9%82-%d9%87%d9%83%d9%85%d9%84-%d9%85%d8%b9-%d9%86%d8%a7%d8%af%d9%8a-%d8%b7%d9%86%d8%b7%d8%a7-%d8%a8%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%aa%d9%88%d9%83%d8%a9/ (same analysis of source) CT55555 (talk) 13:00, 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 redirect to Crossover music. Sandstein 14:16, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crossover jazz

Crossover jazz (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)

WP:NEO. First and fourth sources do not use the term "crossover jazz", second and third are just directory listings. Previously declined from prod in 2019 Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:17, 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 09:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chanchal Debnath

Chanchal Debnath (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 couldn't find a source to show that this person won a legislative assembly election. He seems to have won a zilla parishad election though. Fails

WP:GNG. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:59, 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 09:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sabols

Sabols (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. No significant coverage. PepperBeast (talk) 02:36, 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Moore (immigrant)

Annie Moore (immigrant) (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. Suggesting merge into the Ellis Island article. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 21:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Merge Same as Arne.Per nom, to Ellis Island. Potentially notable subject, but as written the sourcing is inadequate to meet notability for
    WP: GNG. NiklausGerard (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cheers! Fakescientist8000 02:18, 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 soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America1000 06:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Neko (gamer)

Neko (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)

Does not meet

WP:GNG. DBLTAP is a questionable source, and they others are nothing beyond routine coverage, non-mentions, or passing mentions. – Pbrks (t • c) 02:15, 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. North America1000 06:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First General Bank

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

I found no significant coverage per

WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 01:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Rlink2 (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with nom, no coverage and seems more ad than info. ContentEditman (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The only possibly reliable source I could find is this article, which has no byline, has a promotional tone, and could be a press release:
    2. "台資社區銀行當道 大通爾灣分行擴大營業" [Taiwan-funded community banks dominate, First General Bank's Irvine branch expands business]. Taiwan Daily (in Chinese). 2019-10-03. Archived from the original on 2022-04-18. Retrieved 2022-04-18.
    First General Bank (traditional Chinese: 大通銀行; simplified Chinese: 大通银行) does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:14, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_April_16&oldid=1084394313"