Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 4

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< February 03 February 05 >

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. Star Mississippi 22:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All Action Wrestling

AfDs for this article:
All Action Wrestling (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 Action Wrestling

No references, and so does not satisfy the core content policy of

A7, but a deletion discussion is a better idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lars Winqvist

AfDs for this article:
Lars Winqvist (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)

Winqvust comepeted in the Olympics, but did not medal. We determined that such people are not default notable. A search for additional sources turned up nothing that would lead to passing GNG on this person. However there is a different person with this name who was involved in a case in the United States about land rights, so this is also by no means a good candidate for being a redirect. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting that this AFD was on the wrong log page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete lacks
    WP:SIGCOV, per the assessment by Ljleppan, John Pack Lambert, and myself. BilledMammal (talk) 02:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 23:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Sokha Hotels

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

Unreferenced microstub since 2015, with the only claim of significance being that it is the largest hotel chain in Cambodia. I'm not sure how to discern notability for this topic area, but the search results I've found in English aren't promising. There may be sources in the Khmer language, but no Khmer-language name or kmwiki article is given which could be searched. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - needs some RS to establish notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No evidence of notability. Ajf773 (talk) 09:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 National Premier Leagues Victoria. ✗plicit 23:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2021 National Premier Leagues Victoria

2021 National Premier Leagues Victoria (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)

Key data on league table is already included in a parent article of 2021 Football Victoria season; data on home ground information is not especially notable, and shown at National Premier Leagues Victoria article; no other seasons have additional stand-alone articles for individual NPL divisions; the rest of the article is a listing of matches (which could be merged into the parent FV season article, and then a miscellany of minor statistical information such as top scorers and most yellow cards etc., which are not inherently notable for a lower league such as this, and for the lower divisions (NPL2 and NPL3) also not up-to-date. Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are the next lower leagues down - and therefore less notable as stand-alone arcticles - and have the same issues: Matilda Maniac (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2021 National Premier Leagues Victoria 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
2021 National Premier Leagues Victoria 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

Delete I think article for the leagues themselves is clearly warranted, but living in Australia, these are minor AFL football leagues, and they don't need pages for each year's competition - not notable at this level. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you actually have the right sport with that comment. Matilda Maniac (talk) 08:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you're right - we have three different types of football in Australia - the main one in Victoria is AFL. Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I think redirecting these to the main NPL Vic page is better to have than an individual page. - J man708 (talk) 11:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Spartaz Humbug! 08:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Juan Paz (swimmer)

Juan Paz (swimmer) (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 does not have sourcing that rises to the level of Sigcov. GNG requires multiple examples of Sigcov, but this article does not even have one source that meets that. It also does not meet Olympics notability, but even if it did that would not be enough to justify having the article. Searches for additional Sigcov turned up nothing. Juan Paz itself though is a very common name. So without having even one example of Sigcov, the idea that this swimmer is the most likely search option for this name, even just among swimmers, is entirely unsourced. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fiber to the premises by country

Fiber to the premises by country (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 page is promo and out of date. Now, deletion isn't cleanup. But I think those problems are inherent to this page and no amount of editing will fix that. I don't see how this article will ever be more than an advertisement for various internet companies. Furthermore, I'm not so sure the underlying topic is notable. This is effectively a list, and I don't see that

WP:LISTN is met. The individual fiber plans are discussed, but not as a whole entity. With fiber becoming increasingly ubiquitous, I don't see how this would be any more notable than Cable to the premises by country. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

  • I made a recent addition to this article. I put the effort into expanding this article because it answers this question for me: What countries/cities do have fiber connections available? While I see the issue of a lot of name calling of big corporations it is a natural thing to occur in this topic. Usually the biggest telco providers within one country are the most noteworthy and such an apropriate source. I'm in favor of deletion if there is another article which answers the question which I highlighted in bold. But I also admit that the part of title 'Fiber to the premises' cannot properly be answered. A name like 'Availability of Fiber internet by country' would make more sense imho GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 08:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @GavriilaDmitriev To try to understand what exactly you want here: would your question be satisfied by an alphabetical list of every country in the world, and then a simple "yes" or "no" with a footnote? -- asilvering (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the question. That would not be enough. Imagine you want to relocate to a country and you want to know if you can get fiber speed internet there. A maybe outdates yes/no wouldn't help. Interesting info would be:
    • How is the availability (only in cities, almost 100%)
    • rough price I have to expect to pay and
    • how much effort is put into improving the fiber availability
    • How is the provider landscape (monopoly, big variety)
    The current article presents the info in a good way but is sadly severely outdated. But even while outdated I know a minimum standard to expect.
    GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm. I'm still with CaptainEek's reasoning, in that case. That's going to attract promo and unreliable information. Honestly, I've done a handful of international moves and would never even think to try to find that kind of information here, let alone trust it if I did. -- asilvering (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Given the speed at which things change in each country, let alone region or city, I can't see any way that this page can reasonably be kept up to date unless it was just to refer people to the broadband pages for individual countries.Gusfriend (talk) 11:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Page is just promotion. Swordman97 talk to me 21:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. Geschichte (talk) 09:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Reeves

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

Fails

WP:NACTOR; he’s only had one significant role in Election. The Film Creator (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unfortunately, there is a consensus that sufficient and long-term coverage of this individual exists to invalidate a claim made under BLPREQUESTDELETE. (

(non-admin closure) SN54129 17:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Christine Dietrich

Christine Dietrich (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 subject requests deletion. VRT Ticket 2022020410009457. Fails

significant coverage. Geoff | Who, me? 20:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a review of Google News shows she's been consistently covered from 2011-2021 by Swiss news sources over her views.[3][4][5][6] Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as above. These articles are all sigcov - they're completely about her and her actions. I can see why she'd want to have this article removed. Unfortunately for her, there's no
    WP:BLP1E argument here either; both the coverage and her actions are repeated. I've added the sources from Morbidthoughts' comment to the article, except for the BaZ article, which I'm paywalled out of. -- asilvering (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep If I search her name with
    WP:GNG. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 07:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment -- This has the fell of an ATTACK article, written by someone trying to whip up hatred against someone whose views they disapprove of. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I'm the subject of this article and as I already tried to explain to Malo95 I've nothing to do with this PI-platform for more than 10 years now and by the way there was no single text I wrote there that was in any ways against the law. I clearly distanced myself from this blog. But until now - over 10 years later! - I'm still burning on the same stakes, because people (like you?) keep the fire still burning, instead of finally leave me in peace. I accidentally found this Wikipedia article as I'm checking my name on Google search from time to time. I'm not used to write as an Wikipedia author, I'm not familiar with all this codes and as you might could know English is a foreign language for me. I'm just trying to defend myself as a human being. As for Rosch/Ritter you could mention there were verdicts of difamation. They tried to turn an old and cold story into a new and hot one - with nothing new at all in fact. A bit a diffenent view on what happened was published in the Weltwoche mentioned here: https://weltwoche.ch/story/hexenjagd-zu-basel/ I'd really appreciate if you could finally delete the unnessecary Wikipedia entry about me as it is mainly based on false accusations. If you don't, you could at least mention my doctoral thesis about Asylum published in 2008 at Kohlhammer publishing in the Series about Old an New Testament studies. https://books.google.ch/books/about/Asyl.html?id=mBfceMy-jq8C&redir_esc=y. It's a compearing research about legal texts in the biblical writings compared with texts from ancient Greece ancieant Orient, Rome and Egypt as well as later reception in church asylum. Maybe surprising for you I'm mentioning the practice of asylum in a positive way. PChdi1 (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC+1)
    • Hi @Chdi1:, please don't post the same thing on two pages, as in here and on the talk page of this page. It makes it hard to keep relevant discussions together. Also, please sign your posts like this, with four tildes, so it's easier for people to reply to you: ~~~~ -- asilvering (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chdi1 About my question originally posted on the Talk page of this page, no, there is no malice intended there. I'm not sure why you see any, since what I'm offering to do is to add additional information to this article that is about you, but not about the controversies you've been involved in. It's going to be harder for us to find that kind of thing, because of course "someone says something offensive, people respond!" is going to generate more buzz and higher google results than "someone does something unobjectionable". I can indeed add a bit on your thesis. For the verdicts of defamation, I don't think we can add that unless it's published somewhere, though another editor might be able to correct me on this. -- asilvering (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- As I already mentioned I beg your pardon for not being familiar wîth the ruleas of quotation on Wikipedia and I don't think I will comment any more. I still think this article about me (a.k.a. her) has to be deleted because it contains wrong information and as I read in the terms and conditions writig wrong things and "tabloid" information about a living person is not allowed on this platform. See, I always thought Wikipedia was some sort of encyclopedia. Now it seems it's just a collection of informations (no matter if true or false) published in newspapers (and only of those free of charge). Other important facts like a verdict against the author of the most aggressive articles stay unemtioned, because only published "truth" and what "Editors" think is of any importance here. I'm just a subject, and there are no means, I can do something about it. Please, delete this article. I'm not intending to add any more comments. -- Chdi1 (talk) 00:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC+1)
Comment
WP:PUBLICFIGURE section of BLP policy includes a link to the public figure article, which discusses someone "who has a certain social position within a certain scope and a significant influence and so is often widely of concern to the public, can benefit enormously from society, and is closely related to public interests in society". Beccaynr (talk) 02:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Recreation of a page previously deleted at a deletion discussion, as mentioned below by Venkat TL. JBW (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gurvinder Singh Chhabra

Gurvinder Singh Chhabra (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 promotional article on a politician that fails to satisfy either of two criterion at

WP:NPOL & generally lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them, thus a GNG fail as well. Being a vice party chairman in no way establishes notability. Celestina007 (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 23:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flashfire (film)

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

Fails

WP:NEXIST. I also found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - I can't see any SIGCOV here for this film. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There is no significant coverage of this film. Just because a film was commercially released does not mean it was notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Myerson

AfDs for this article:
Dean Myerson (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:NPOL. Internet search did not produce sourcing that was sufficient to satisfy the notability guidelines. (FWIW: First Afd, in 2007, resulted in No Consensus) Sal2100 (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 proposed redirect target does not exist. Sandstein 19:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Rao

Vijay Rao (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:NCRIC. Per this list, they've only played matches in India's domestic T20 competition. Can't find other sources on this guy. Note that the same editor has also created the same article at Draft:Vijay Rao. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Magaby Cabreio

Magaby Cabreio (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 artist does not meet

WP:NARTIST. I cannot find any reliable sources online for this artist. The references included are one to a radio interview. No sourcing for biographical information or exhibit information. External link is dead. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was keep.

Spartaz Humbug! 08:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Llamas with Hats

AfDs for this article:
Llamas with Hats (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 didn't want to do this since this is among my favorite animated video series, but Llamas with Hats sadly just falls drastically short of notabillity guidelines. An IP erroneously dePRODded the article with the explanation that sources could be found on the talk page; these sources do not and have never existed on said talk page. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Hello, TheTechnician27. It was me who prevented the article from getting PRODDED. I originally De-PRODDED the article from an IP on my trip to Africa and posted eight articles which covered Llamas with Hats significantly on the talk page - TWICE. However, for whatever reason that response didn't appear on the talk page both times I submitted it, even though the message popped up that my edit was published. I assumed there was some sort of minor glitch with posting on talk pages from a different IP, or perhaps my internet connection was so slow that it just wouldn't appear at all, so I left it to see if it would appear soon. However, it still did not at all even back in America, which means I'll have to post what I remember of my original response here - for the third time in a row. (>_<)
These were the
three
sources about Llamas With Hats which significantly cover the web series, along with other sources from mainstream media publications as well.
  1. https://www.irishtimes.com/blogs/screenwriter/2013/04/09/we-recommend-llamas-with-hats/ (Donald Clarke seems to be a regular contributor and staff writer for The Irish Times, so this should be acceptable to use even as a "blog.")
  2. https://htxt.co.za/2019/08/llamas-with-hats-returns-as-a-childrens-book/ (talks about the series getting its own children’s book - Impact/Popular Culture?)
  3. https://tvovermind.com/llamas-with-hats-reboot/ (opinion piece on why the series needs a reboot, plus impact and legacy - Impact/Popular Culture)
Also, here are other miscellaneous sources which talk about the show as well, which may also help to prove the series' notability.
  1. https://www.popdust.com/this-haunts-me-murderous-cartoon-animals-of-the-2000s-2645603268.html (cites the series as an example of a raunchy web cartoon from the 2000s - Premise/Impact)
  2. https://urbanmatter.com/10-viral-youtube-videos-from-the-2000s-only-millennials-will-remember/ (cites the series as one of the 10 viral videos of the 2000s, showing its cultural impact - Impact/Popular Culture)
  3. https://studybreaks.com/tvfilm/youtube-kids-isnt-innocent-seems/ (cites the show as an example of an inappropriate, raunchy cartoon as well - Premise/Info/Impact)
  4. https://www.tuttoandroid.net/giochi/llamas-with-hats-calciate-i-turisti-su-android-189741/ (talks about the app version/game version of the series on Android - Popular Culture/Other Media?)
  5. https://www.androidpolice.com/2014/04/28/21-best-and-3-wtf-new-android-games-from-the-last-2-weeks-41414-42814/ (talks about the app version/game version of the series on Android - Popular Culture/Other Media?)
These sources should be enough to just barely pass the series as a notable enough topic on Wikipedia per
WP:WEB. PantheonRadiance (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
SIDENOTE: I've admittedly never heard of the series at all before seeing this article getting PRODDED for the first time, so I found these sources from a place of neutrality. It appears some of these sources were added to the article from when I last checked it (when I De-PRODDED it) to now, so perhaps it may be an example of AfD improvement (I forgot the essay of the article in an AfD which got improved between the 7 days the discussion took place). PantheonRadiance (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PantheonRadiance: Sorry, I meant to get around to this a couple days ago but completely forgot. This may change your mind, Padgriffin. I heavily disagree that these sources are sufficient, and to me it feels more like an unintentional Gish gallop than a demonstration of any cultural notability. Nevertheless, I'll go through all of these individually.
  • The Irish Times blog might contribute slightly under
    WP:NEWSBLOG
    , but definitely not enough to pass notability criteria on its own.
  • Not seeing any sort of editorial board for HTXT.
  • I can't find anything even suggesting that TVOM (TV Over Mind) is a RS, let alone has any sort of editorial oversight whatsoever.
Miscellaneous: (mostly
content farms
)
  • popdust.com is clearly not an RS, with tabloid garbage like "Is Rihanna Pregnant?", "We Need to Talk About Zendaya", and "Kanye West's Obnoxious Divorced Man Energy" littering their front page.
  • UrbanMatter isn't talking about "the top 10 viral videos" of the 2000s; they just say: "These are just 10 out of thousands of viral videos that found their way to YouTube in the 2000s." Moreover, I can find no indication that UrbanMatter is a RS, and their whole schtick seems to be pumping out listicle garbage at a breakneck pace, such as (taken from their entertainment section): "Top 3 Movies Set in Las Vegas"; "The 12 Best Monster Movies of All Time"; "Top 5 Movies to Watch in a Relationship"; "What 5 Movies to Watch to Gain Inspiration for Essay Writing?"; etc.
  • studybreaks.com is some random website with a handful of college student editors that would pretty clearly not qualify as a
    WP:RS
    .
  • Tutto is similar to Android Police but in Italian, with the exception that they say they promote products. This statement, however, has no disclaimer saying that they disclose when reviews and articles are paid for, making them, to me, a completely unreliable source.
  • Android Police seems to pretty much take anyone with a pulse, and I can find very little on how fact-checking and editorial oversight work.
In conclusion, none of the sources you provided under "miscellaneous" are robust enough to contribute to notability. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • not voting as i have some interest in the outcome, but this cartoon and it's catchphrases might be an unique exemplar, an artifact.

it's also had inserted into it humorous errors, an example of wiki parody that was never flagged until recently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkidMountTubularFrame (talk • contribs) 12:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First off,
TVOvermind has actually been used over 600 times mainly for articles relating to movies, TV shows and pop culture, even in Good Articles (and even one Featured Article). This isn't to say a source is automatically reliable because it's been used in a GA/FA. However, assuming editors check ALL the sources in a GA/FA review (which they obviously should, especially for something as subject to examination as a Featured Article review), they probably would've commented on whether that outlet is reliable or not. While I couldn't find an editorial policy I noticed that several of the writers who've written articles for the source at least have a Master's degree in Journalism/Writing and have had their works published in other websites as well. I think perhaps it's more of a situationally reliable source. It's at least a step up from a blogospheric website, and if anyone had a problem with TVOvermind, they would've said something a long time ago, especially in something as held up to scrutiny as a Good Article review. Perhaps it's something akin to Screen Rant
in this regard; maybe it's okay to use for pop culture topics but not for any controversial statements which would require better sources.
Also, the Popdust piece actually contains 130 words of text about the show (214 if you count the last paragraph it's included in), satisfying
WP:100W. I use that essay mostly because Wikipedia doesn't have an official word count for what constitutes significant coverage, so in lieu of the Hypertext source I think that could be an adequate source for notability. As for it being a tabloid, I don't really see it as any less reliable than other journalist websites typically covering pop culture topics. It may not be AS reliable as say, Vogue or Vanity Fair or The Hollywood Reporter, but to dismiss the source as a tabloid because of its emphasis on pop culture over academia is a bit much. The source has at least been used in a couple
GAs as well.
Finally, I think some of the sources should be evaluated more on a contextual basis rather than a quantitative basis. Sometimes writers abide by a "brevity is the soul of wit" philosophy and only write the most important aspects of a topic when describing it. In that regard, sometimes a source which only talks about a show in a few sentences is much more significant than a 3,000 word essay on some minute aspect of a show which contains a whole bunch of trivial, indiscriminate details a reader would have to trudge through. For the list-based sources, I think it depends on the type of listicles presented. Something like "Top Ten Characters who wear Pink Scarfs" or virtually anything from
WP:RSSM
: "...They can sometimes be considered reliable on other topics, although professional sources are typically preferred when available."
Overall, these were pretty much the factors that led to me choosing these sources and why I think they were good enough to establish the notability of the web series. If you guys still think the series isn't notable even with these sources, I understand. PantheonRadiance (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, PantheonRadiance. This is quite a long comment, so I'll try to distill it down to its major aspects.
  • Please find any evidence whatsoever that TV Overmind has any editorial oversight whatsoever. That editors have not raised concerns about it before over the course of three reviews is not indicative of it being a reliable source; abiding by
    basic guidelines
    for what an RS should be is indicative thereof.
  • WP:100
    is just an essay. It's not something even approximating a policy or a guideline, and in my view (which is just as valid as an essay written by another editor, because again, it's an essay), the essay is both entirely arbitrary and completely leaves out the obvious, prominent counterargument that notability should be proportionate to how reliable a source is and that the word count should therefore be decided on a source-by-source basis.
  • I called popdust "tabloid garbage" because of the contents of its articles. For example, please look at "Is Rihanna pregnant?" The article is a rambling, barely coherent mess that spends at least a third of the article shilling "a brand that helps couples achieve healthy pregnancies using natural products to boost nutrition." The source is trash. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more analysis of the sources provided, not just "votes".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A close call, but essentially the strongest arguments are from those advocating deletion, including the view that this not a genuine phobia, and therefore we should have an article about it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roller coaster phobia

Roller coaster phobia (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 do not think this is well-established as a stand-alone

talk) 19:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

  • I think that's kind of the heart of the matter. Roller coasters and haunted houses are supposed to scare you. That's pretty much the whole point. Some people din't go for that sort of thing, they don't enjoy getting scared, so they don't ride roller coasters or go to haunted houses. That's not the same thing as a phobia. There are obviously real phobias that would make a person unwilling to go on a roller coaster, but the same phobia might make them unwilling to drive down a steep hill, or go sledding, or ride on a perfectly normal train.
    talk) 01:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Thing is, "fear" and "phobia" are not synonymous. Of course people are scared of roller coasters, that's the entire point. As I mentioned above, some people don't enjoy that sensation and choose not to ride them. That doesn't mean they have a roller-coaster specific phobia, which is the subject of this article.
talk) 21:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The Psychology Today article you quote is the same one I quote in the nomination, the one where what appears to be the only thing approaching an expert on the subject said it basically isn't real.
talk) 21:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
As PianoDan has already noted, not being a real psychological thing doesn't mean it is therefore unnotable. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But this article frames it as if it is an actual phobia. If someone wants to write a new article titled "fear of roller coasters" that's fine, that's a broader topic not full of
talk) 01:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
  • I hate to keep banging this drum but I believe that is incorrect. The broader topic "fear of roller coasters" may be notable unto itself, but this article is about a
    talk) 22:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • WP:VAGUEWAVE. Please explain why and how X or Y article meets the policy you point to. Pilaz (talk) 12:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I did think of that and overall I don't hate the idea, but so much of the current article is
talk) 00:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I found some articles that might be good for the moved page or at least provide a starting point.
I am actually honestly intrigued by what the Wikipedia community can make of a page about the different levels of fear of roller coasters, how it plays into excitement, enjoyment or rejection. Gusfriend (talk) 00:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Clearly a thing. Possibly rename. "Fear of" would do fine. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not really a real phobia. And, duh, of course some people are afraid of roller coasters. They are literally designed to scare those who ride on them. That doesn't require its own article and can be mentioned in the page on them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the risk of pre-empting things there seems to be a rough consensus forming:
    • There seems to be little support for calling this a phobia as that word has a specific meaning.
    • Fear of roller coasters is a real thing. As Zxcvbnm says, that is part of their design, but there is a point that the response of an individual passes the limit that the designer intended (for example fear induced nausea whilst waiting in line).
    • There are plenty of articles on people having an outsized reaction to the thought of going on a roller coaster.
    • I think that a discussion on the notability of the fear of roller coasters would be better held on a page with that topic.

With all of that I propose rename to fear of with some cleaning up and a notice about additional references needed. Under the new name, after a period, say at least a month, to allow the article to mature and improve, someone from the community can propose a merge to

rollercoasters or another AfD. This gives us a way forward and an opportunity to improve the page.Gusfriend (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kadhalil Vizhunthen#Soundtrack. The supposed "multiple, non-trivial sources that talk about it" have not been referenced here. Sandstein 19:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Naaka Mukka

Naaka Mukka (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 song do not need a separate article, it doesnot meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (music). The article should be deleted or redirected to its movie page. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 16:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Basant Jangra

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

The subject doesn't meet the basic criterias and doesn't have citations from reliable sources. Please refer to

WP:NYOUTUBER for further details. Batamore (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Shooting at the 1948 Summer Olympics – Men's 50 metre rifle prone. Sandstein 19:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Mantilla

Luis Mantilla (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, lacking any significant coverage within the article or identifiable elsewhere, as well as failing

WP:NOLYMPICS. BilledMammal (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudworks Entertainment

Cloudworks Entertainment (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)

Organization which does not meet

WP:NCORP The references in the article don't mention, let alone discuss the company at all and I can't find any further that do. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ICICI Manipal Academy of Banking and Insurance

ICICI Manipal Academy of Banking and Insurance (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 thirdpary source exists, unsourced for years. Unable to find any RS except this Khgk (talk) 14:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Trujillo

Christopher Trujillo (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 as there is very little in-depth coverage on him. Most articles refer to his "date" with Blac Chyna at the 2020 Oscars. JTtheOG (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting previous AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The only sources found are for what looks like a child abduction case/arrest. He was a recording engineer for most of the works shown, one peaking at #82. No Grammy wins. Delete Oaktree b (talk) 14:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Slashlefty (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mirror and comb (Pictish symbol)

Mirror and comb (Pictish symbol) (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 much notability...

WP:3REFS Slashlefty (talk) 12:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ayşegül Coşkun

Ayşegül Coşkun (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)

As an actor or singer does not have the necessary fame. A credible source has not addressed this person and his works have not received much attention from the media and sources. Needs further investigation. Persia ☘ 11:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Motarab Motreb is not the best-selling film in Iran.
  • There is no source in the article related to hamshahrionline in the article.
  • This person was not present in the original version of Behet Ghol Midam, and when Behet Ghol Midam was one of the most popular songs in Iran
  • The Persian sources that have dealt with this person are not reliable sources
    • etemadonline - Only one photo and one headline have been worked on and the news is about a project for the future and has not been made yet
    • borna - Collaborating with this person on Behet Ghol Midam is more about the song itself.

--Persia ☘ 12:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to lie, some Turkish sources, with the exception of a few interviews, look good.
~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 12:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 14:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
That movie is still running. And you are missing the point. Being the first or the second, what's the difference here? You can't deny that Motreb was highly popular in Iran and was a success at box office. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep based solely on my analysis of Turkish sources. The Önce Vatan source is an interview, and cannot be used to establish notability. Haber61 isn't reliable, and I still stand by my
    ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 14:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @
    Styyx: Thanks for your useful comment. I found other Turkish sources too: 1 from Star, 2 about her music by magazinci.com, 3 from Hürriyet, 4 and 5 from Milliyet, 6 from Posta, 7, and 8. These must be enough for you to change your !vote from "weak keep" to "keep". But if you are still unsure, I will try to find other Turkish sources. Thanks 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
What the text in bold says isn't actually that much important as long as the provided argument makes sense. However with the second Hürriyet source above, I think this is a clear GNG pass.
~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 18:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Formative Assessment in Sports

Formative Assessment in Sports (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)

Clearly not written as an encyclopedic article. Notability of subject not established, nor is any such effort present. Would require 100% rewrite to present subject matter in accordance with Wikipedia's requirements. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 10:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kain Rivers

AfDs for this article:
Kain Rivers (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:NMUSIC, this article is poorly sourced (from Russian sources), also contain undisclosed payments. Aesthetic Writer (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I was minded to close this as soft-delete but it appears to have previously survived AFD and I'm not sure it's eligible. Stifle (talk) 11:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Stifle: note that the article's talk page is currently still deleted, that might not have been your intention. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 12:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops. Restored. Stifle (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep This article has BLP violations, inappropriate use of sources, and it is promotional. However, these are all problems that can be addressed through normal editing. Similarly, the use of Russian sources does not have to be a problem at all, per
    WP:TNT might be justified in order to deny the use of Wikipedia for promotion and discourage undisclosed paid editing. However, I think the article can be drastically improved in a few edits... I think the notability is questionable, but with some doubt I think this should be kept for now, noting that the article will need substantial cleanup to become acceptable, and noting that it should later be given a proper evaluation of notability, which is currently hard to make. PJvanMill)talk( 13:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Correction: it was of course the national qualifier for the Junior Eurovision song contest. I should also note that he cannot really be said to be in the top three - as I understand it, the jury only named the winner, not a ranking. Both of these considerations make the NSINGER case a lot weaker. PJvanMill)talk( 21:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Now having gone through the sources to the best of my ability using machine translation tools, I change my recommendation to Delete. Most of the article is strung together from primary sources detailing certain achievements and performances, without any secondary sources that consider these relevant. Other sources hardly talk about the subject. The remaining sources seem rather unreliable: low-quality journalism without a named author. I do not see a single independent, reliable secondary source that talks about the subject in any level of detail. Thus I conclude it is not even close to meeting the
    WP:GNG, and I also base myself on my earlier considerations. PJvanMill)talk( 22:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article has a
notability. There are several citations in Russian national newspapers Channel One Russia, Komsomolskaya Pravda; but they are not enough to establish the notability of this article. I also tried to identify new sources, but as a result I did not find anything notable.--Tysska (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Delete Not notable sources were identified for the article to be preserved.--Tysska (talk) 11:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete agree, if no reliable sources found. delete. Oaktree b (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LaptopMD

LaptopMD (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)

they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Daringsmith (talk) 06:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear advertisement for nn company.Vizjim (talk) 07:11, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Tigrayan Mothers

Operation Tigrayan Mothers (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)

Original research. Another poorly cited creation by now-blocked editor Rastakwere. None of the four citations even mention this alleged operation name. There are just a few mentions of the name in online searches (discounting the numerous copies of this Wikipedia article) and no explanations or descriptions of it. I think he got it off a Tweet. Editor was getting a lot of information behind scenes and putting it into Wikipedia as

WP:OR with tangential citations that didn't verify. Should be deleted as unsourced OR. Platonk (talk) 06:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was no consensus. ✗plicit 10:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Kar

Vivek Kar (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)

Failing the notability criteria. Multiple issues already mentioned on page. PangolinPedia (talk) 13:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PangolinPedia (talk) 13:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. PangolinPedia (talk) 13:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fight Ready

Fight Ready (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)

Cassiopeia talk 22:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC) Subject is a mixed martial arts gym. Most of the sources are from UFC which is not and independent sources for the owner of the gym are related/affiliated to UFC. The rest of the sources are about other fighters, the owner and interview pieces instead of the gym/company which either make the source not independent or relevant. The article fails

WP:GNG. Cassiopeia talk 22:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]


  • Comment - If it helps, I have removed all UFC.com sources and replaced them.-Imcdc (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak KeepDelete see two sources that qualify to meet
    WP:NOTINHERITED, although it does say something about the quality of gym. Papaursa (talk) 04:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I went back and reviewed the sources and decided they weren't quite up to WP's requirements. Papaursa (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 05:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a gym therefore a corporation/organization. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with
    HighKing++ 12:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ravindra Telang

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

Wikipedia is not a Linkedin;

WP:NOTCV. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 07:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting the page author's comment on the article's talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Unelected government officials do not meet
    WP:NPOL. Not seeing any significant coverage to meet GNG, just passing mentions. -- Ab207 (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 03:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Tom Murmu

Tom Murmu (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 bio-article does not appear to meet

WP:RS. In short, the subject in not notable per our GNG standard, thus should be deleted. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC) Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per nom. No evidence of meeting
    WP:NSINGER or GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diecast Model World

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 "keep" opinions do not remotely address the reasons for deletion. Sandstein 19:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avataro Sentai Donbrothers

Avataro Sentai Donbrothers (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)

Avataro Sentai Donbrothers

This article fails both

television notability
.

The statement that it is notable is both incorrect (misunderstanding Wikipedia's technical usage of Notable) and useless.

Verifiability
is a core content policy, and this article has no references.

Moved to draft space once, but recreated in article space.

Proposed for deletion
once, but PROD was removed.

It does not seem likely that the article will become

verifiable within seven days. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Or rather, immediate deletion if you please. The article is now nothing more than a den of vandalism than what is supposed to be the former name of the draft page. Zero stylinx (talk) 08:11, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There is a draft at
    Draft:Avataro Sentai Donbrothers which should be kept in draft space until the series is broadcast on 6 March 2022. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Every entry on Super Sentai#Main series has a Wikipedia entry. All 46. Also there is a whole page here on number 46. There are already pages on three other languages of Wikipedia. There are news stories on the new season. This is a huge thing, what's the point in deleting this when it airs in less than a month anyway?Fulmard (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's almost nothing left on the page, and it's unreferenced. Really, this page should not exist because of authorship attribution requirements (
    Histmerge}}. If not outright deleted, the page would need to be History Merged, and then likely sent back to draft, but that is more admin overhead than is necessary when it can be deleted. If the link above were useful, it could go into the draft, but it is a fandom page. -2pou (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete and wait for the draft to be put into place at the appointed time. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sammi Brie. The subject matter will be notable enough for inclusion within a month, but is currently not. The article that is being developed in Draft space can move at that time. JPG-GR (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Official trailer release and must update it. Harimua Thailand (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment onbrothers first appeared in episode 42 of Zenkaiger which aired in December 2021 so it is basically certain to be aired and cannot be changed further all information regarding the series is publicly announced. sure, so I don't think it's necessary to delete it, but to update it gradually like previous posts about Super Sentai. Bladesaber (talk) 13:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is enough official information for an article and more will come in the next weeks when the series will officially debut. Exukvera (talk) 14:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnamese immigration to Mexico

Vietnamese immigration to Mexico (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 first AFD,

casualdejekyll (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Technically not eligible for soft deletion due to previous AfD under a slightly different title.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 04:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MMA Lab

MMA Lab (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 is a mixed martial arts gym. Most of the sources are from UFC which is not and independent sources for the owner of the gym are related/affiliated to UFC. The rest of the sources are about other fighters, the owner and interview pieces instead of the gym/company which either make the source not independent or relevant. The article fails

WP:GNG Cassiopeia talk 22:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - If it helps, I have removed all UFC.com sources and replaced them. -Imcdc (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep There are some independent sources that focus on the gym itself, although most of the mentions are in passing. Papaursa (talk) 04:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply.
    HighKing++ 13:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Question I'll admit I usually comment on biographies and not companies, so I may not have a good grasp on
    WP:GNG? [7],[8], [9], [10] I admit they're not all great references, but they're not nothing either. Admittedly, interviews take up a large portion of these articles. Papaursa (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment: @Papaursa: All the four sources there are considered not independent and not reliable because the article info are from the subject(s) who related to the MMA Lab in the from of "interview" which means the info are getting from the involved /affiliated subject even thought the website is not affiliated to the MMA lab. Sources need to be independent, reliable and covered the subject in depth (not the ppl but the company since this is a org/company article (the gym) in depth and in lenght and not only passing mentioned. Cassiopeia talk 22:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not necessary true. I checked and all the 4 sources provided by Papaursa have commentary other than quotations or interviews. The parts that are interview or quotations cannot be used, but journalist commentary can be used. It is presumed that when a journalist writes an article based on an interview that it has been validated and no longer primary, so even if the original info was from an interview, but it is not presented in an interview format, then it can be used. Caphadouk (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources above are interview peices. If the interview section is a small amount then that can be used. But this is not the case. Info gathered are from the subject who related to the article in mentioned. Notability need secondary sources - "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them" When the sources info are based on interview and amount a great deal from the person related to the article then it is not an independent source. This is a corp/company article and NCORP is one of the very strict notability in Wikipedia and not a mma gym would just be notable in regardless there are a few good fighters train there. Cassiopeia talk 05:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OntoAgent

OntoAgent (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)

Notability is unclear/unsuitable for encyclopedic entry, Tame (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article is so hard to understand, it's almost like gibberish.TH1980 (talk) 02:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The two citations appear to be reliable secondary sources published in academic journals. Unfortunately, the article is written in an extreme jargon loaded manner, and the lead doesn't even clarify what field or domain the article is about (namely, AI development, which would inform a reader which set of jargon they should look up), but this can be corrected via the regular editing process, no need for
    WP:TNT here. Fieari (talk) 02:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I wikilinked a few of the more confusing terms, added that it's about AI development, and cleaned up a reference. I might work on the article a little more later, as the more I'm trying to clean up and explain the jargon, the more interesting it becomes! This definitely looks like an article worth keeping! Fieari (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note - One of the three cited sources is a preprint submitted to a non-notable journal,
    independent sources which provide context for why this topic has lasting encyclopedic significance. Grayfell (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist to see if the article can be improved or if there is consensus to delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The first source lacks credibility to me: not published, no conflict of interest statement, and yet one author appears to be behind the software, which makes me conclude it is a primary source, which makes me conclude that there is a lack of secondary sources, which makes me conclude this is not notable as per WP:GNG CT55555 (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I originally created the article. Sadly I don't have the knowledge of Wikipedia procedures to improve the article further. Eibriel (talk) 05:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Police

Internet Police (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 an article at all, just a brief collection of unrelated uncited quotes and ideas about law enforcement and computers. Cleanup tagged as uncited since 2009. Apocheir (talk) 02:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the Internet police article which lists a few countries that do censorship. That capital "P" makes no sense unless there is one specific group you want to name. One might argue to make it a redirect, but a search would find the lower case "P" as well. No reason for this one. W Nowicki (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn, Utah

Lynn, Utah (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)

Searching shows that this was a post office, but that's about it. What's on the ground is a single farm, as far back as I can look. Mangoe (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The suggested moves and other changes all sound reasonable, but are left for post-AfD editorial discussion and action. RL0919 (talk) 02:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Church

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

There is only one entry here which is an exact match for the title (

History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, History of the Church of England etc.) - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Wikify to make it a disambiguation page linked from the Joseph Smith History of the Church page. That would eliminate any presumed confusion on the part of a reader entering this phrase and being directed to the Smith book when they wanted something else. -Markeer 01:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: valid and useful dab page. PamD 08:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a valid DAB page (all these articles could be referred to as "History of the Church"). However, the following should also be done for navigational clarity.
1. Move this page to History of the Church (disambiguation).
2. Move
History of the Church (Joseph Smith)
to this page.
3. Replace the hatnotes on
History of the Church (Joseph Smith) with the appropriate Template:About
.
That should satisfy
WP:FURTHERDAB Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_February_4&oldid=1071375272"