Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 June 8

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wulf Kessler

Wulf Kessler (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)

Even though the subject has a German Wikipedia article, the sourcing both there and on en.wiki is very poor. His only big role was in Die Weisse Rose, which means he does not meet

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Germany. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

2017 Valparaiso earthquake

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp |username}}.

2017 Valparaiso earthquake (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 impact from the event in a region that is very active seismically. There are destructive earthquakes in Chile, but this is not one of them. There are some scientific papers on the event, but their coverage focuses on non-notable aspects of the event including "historical seismicity, and scientists' seismic inversion of the event". These are not characteristics that make earthquakes notable in the encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:Notability (earthquakes). Dawnseeker2000 18:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm unsure what to vote. However, although it is definitely not an extremely noteworthy earthquake, the article goes into great detail and it was also an important event in the 2010s. It caused no great damages, but prompted a tsunami warning. I'm more inclined to think it should be kept, but very weakly. --Bedivere (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• What makes earthquakes notable is significant coverage in independent reliable sources, which this appears to have (see my contestation of
  Phil Bridger (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I agree with the above. And yet there is a lot of sources and I wondered if anyone has reviewed them or has more expertise in assessing them than me. CT55555 (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I haven't reviewed the sources in the article, but I have looked at the ones I mentioned above.

  Phil Bridger (talk) 07:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – More of a list rather than an article about the earthquake. Nothing is really elaborated about the actual event and there is no lasting impact. Really not notable or important. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I commented above, but now !vote keep on the basis of:

1. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/4/24/earthquake-strikes-off-coast-of-valparaiso
2. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/rosetta-stones/the-inside-scoop-on-the-chilean-earthquake-swarm/
3. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/24/chile-regrets-panic-caused-by-mistaken-tsunami-warning-after-earthquake
4. 2021 article that briefly talks about it (that is important, that the coverage is ongoing) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/24/chile-regrets-panic-caused-by-mistaken-tsunami-warning-after-earthquake

And the ones mentioned by

User:Phil_Bridger

on his talk page. I agree with Phil_Bridger, it's not about our assessments of the side of the earthquake, it's about the notability of the earthquake. Quoting from Phil_Bridger's talk page:

• https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017GL074767
• https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017GL075675
• https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S003192011830027X
• All the academic papers https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=2017%20Valparaiso%20earthquake&btnG= CT55555 (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A minor comment that the 2021 Guardian source mentioned an 8.3 earthquake in 2017, but the linked url to that 8.3 earthquake was dated 2015. The earthquake in discussion is a magnitude 6.9 which I don't think they intended to mention. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 12:19, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I do not see anything significant about this earthquake. It might have a big magnitude however quakes of this size are pretty common and undamaging with no long lasting impact for Chile. The article also contains only lists with barely any written paragraphs as well as no important aspects about the earthquake (which it had hardly any). Reego41 12:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)— Reego41 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete - This article has literally no purpose at all. The quake was nothing significant seismologically, other than being another average 6+ Chilean burp. And the fact that people are saying that this article is being cited by numerous "independent reliable sources" does not help this case at all. Since like many other people have said above me, what significance does the event itself hold? CoaÏ (Moctalk with me) 04:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)— Moctiwiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete - This earthquake had no impacts, it was just a typical large Chile earthquake. Like others have said, the event getting a lot of media coverage doesn't contribute to its importance. Any earthquake of this magnitude hitting a populated area gets media coverage, what matters is that the quake has damaging effects. Which this didn't. MagikMan1337 (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)— MagikMan1337 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  I think you and the posters above are missing the point of Wikipedia notability guidelines. Getting media attention is what proves notability. Your original research or opinions about the size, impact, of an earthquake are not grounded in wikipedia policy.

  Our task at AfD is less to share our opinions on importance, and more discussing notability which is inherently linked to media coverage. CT55555 (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Alright, yes I do see that there is a decent amount of media coverage, I do see what you mean however the articles about this earthquake mostly focus on the seismic characteristics of the quake (which is the case with every quake with little to no impact that have a decently big magnitude) and historical seismicity in the area which doesn't relate to the present-time. I would also like to mention that this quake was not mentioned on the media for long; it was only notable for a short time since this event is not rare and is rather usual. There's just no need to have an article for every quake that we see on the news with a quick and small article about it; there is no obligation to have it, maybe common sense could be applied and significance and importance can be used as a factor. Reego41 17:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's go through CT55555's sources one-by-one (provided by Dawnseeker2000)

I'm going to make some comments on the sources that were listed numerically. Feel free to reply to any comments.

1. Al Jazeera – It says (right in the title) that "Magnitude 7.1 temblor off Valparaiso did not cause any serious damage", and in the text of the article it also states "in general the situation is pretty normal bearing in mind the quake’s intensity". No EQ article can be based on this source.
2. Scientific American – Again, this one says right in the title "According to locals, Valparaiso's 6.9 isn't worthy of being called an earthquake" and down in the article text it says "As you're about to see, residents of this South American country require their quakes to be quite a bit more substantial before they're impressed."
3. The Guardian – This article is about the Chilean government's apology about the evacuation notice: "The ministry also sent a message to mobile phones around the country urging people to abandon coastal areas, though the ministry later said it was sent in error" and "He said the agency regretted the inconvenience caused by its messages, which he blamed on a technical error."
4. This is the same The Guardian article.
5. doi:10.1002/2017GL074767
   – This journal article talks about scientists' interest in potential seismic gaps, the modeling of stress transfer, comparison to other events, and other events in the area. If this were an EQ with some impact on people, places, or things, these discussions could certainly be included, but not without.
6. doi:10.1002/2017GL075675
   – This article talks about the results of a seismic inversion, a process that attempts to find the origin and type of faulting, a process that is pretty standard in earthquake investigations. The inversion itself is definitely not notable, but it could be included in an article about an earthquake that had some other valid reason for being notable.
7. WP:ROUTINE
   . Nothing to write about in an encyclopedia.

Notability is not about small or big. There are articles about small events, tiny things, abstract concepts. Notability is about things making the news. There is not a minimum richter scale for articles, no matter how much you might want that to be how things work. Things can be notable for being boring. For being small. For being mislabeled. For being mild. It made that news. That is the key thing here. CT55555 (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Before you spend a lot of time typing out many times that each of the sources I mentioned don't say that this is a very big earthquake it might make more sense to just conclude that I am !voting keep because the subject of the article is notable as per the

WP:GNG. CT55555 (talk) 04:07, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

You typed out on 1 June: "I wondered if anyone has reviewed them or has more expertise in assessing them than me" so I'm taking the time to evaluate the sources for everyone that's interested. Dawnseeker2000 04:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That seems disingenuous, I said I did not evaluate another editor's source, then I came back later and added my own sources. If you want to evaluate my sources, please evaluate them against guidance and policy and quote the policy. CT55555 (talk) 04:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dawnseeker2000 Please stop moving my comments down (I replied to your number 2) and please sign your comments. CT55555 (talk) 04:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. All of Dawnseeker2000's findings above are things that could be included in the article, because they are confirmed by reliable sources. I have some sympathy with those who call for deletion on the grounds that this is not important enough, but the majority opinion here seems to agree with the "GNG fundamentalists" who seem to think that the
  Phil Bridger (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I think it is fair to say that it is a run-of-the-mill event. Dawnseeker2000 04:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That reporting about a 2017 event was still happening in 2018 and 2022 refutes this. The size and impact of the earthquake are not part of any notability guidelines (I note the essay that you co-authored, but it is just that, an essay, some people's opinions, not consensus or policy).

WP:ROUTINE

is about (and I quote) Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs not scientific papers, or full articles about events. This is not relevant here.

Run-of-the-mill is defined at

WP:ROUTINE

as common, everyday, ordinary items and I don't think any reasonable analysis of an earthquake that makes international news and provokes academic papers is "everyday" or "ordinary". If it was, I would not have been able to share the global news coverage, the academic papers.

I have sympathy for the position you are attempting to argue from many angles. I see that you want only large earthquakes to be notable. But our job is to make arguments on the policy we have, not the policy we want.

I could make a very passionate argument that no bank robbery is notable if less than $1m was stolen. I could make very compelling arguments for that. But if CNN and Al Jazeera put a smaller robbery on the front page and if that provoked various universities to write about it, that would make it notable, no matter how compelling a logical argument I made about the notability of a $500,000 robbery.

Ultimately, we don't decide what is notable. The news media and the university faculty and the book authors do. How they decide what is notable may not match our wishes. I think you might need to accept that human interest is about qualitative factors as well as quantifiable factors. CT55555 (talk) 05:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This article does not read as a comprehensive recount of the events, but rather a list. There is very little useful information, but much frivolous information given in tables with little relevance to the topic at hand. More importantly, however, I do not believe that this article even meets notability criteria to be included in the first place. Chile routinely gets magnitude ~7 earthquakes. This specific earthquake did nothing more than startle some locals. Dawnseeker2000 has provided well written "debunks" of each cited article and I stand with it. This article should not exist under the notability guidelines. SamBroGaming (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)— SamBroGaming (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  Which notability guidelines? The

  Phil Bridger (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Comment – I voted earlier but reasoning again. There is no encyclopedic value in the coverage. Media coverage of this event is routine: an earthquake struck, people scared, minimal impact. Not continuous and fails
  WP:EVENT. This sort of reporting is consistent with earthquakes. That does not make the event worthy of an article. Keeping this would make the encyclopedia a news journal. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  This has plenty of coverage outside news reports in academic books and papers.

  Phil Bridger (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  The results of published academic works need to have a level of encyclopedic worthiness. DS2000 went through three sources, reasons I agree with. These ten papers about this event (with varying emphasis) are not worth stating since the event itself has no impact in the first place. I would expect a great deal of important findings for this non-damaging earthquake in order to vote keep. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 16:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As someone who has experienced various mid to high end M6 earthquakes, including this one, I don't consider it to be worthy of having an own article. Despite the intensity of the event, it's odd that these events cause major disruption in Chile and the 2017 event was another example of it. It can be argued that the intense sequence that came with it helped highlight it better, but all in all it doesn't stand out too much in the context of the area. Other similar, nearby quakes, like the April 17th 2012 M6.7 event or the August 23rd 2014 M6.4 event, which I also felt strongly, lack their own articles for reasonable reasons, since they hardly went beyond minor disrupton, aside from small cracks or minor landslides. Therefore I think it's worth deleting this article. Melimoyu (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)— Melimoyu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep: Or Merge (somewhere). Natural events belong in Wikipedia. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you elaborate on that? Obviously natural events get their own articles on Wikipedia, but not every single one. Only the notable events that were particularly damaging or scientifically interesting receive articles. MagikMan1337 (talk) 14:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, it's only the notable events that have their own articles on Wikipedia, and this one is notable per the significant coverage in independent reliable sources. There seem to be many editors coming to this discussion and talking about some definition of notability that does square with our consensus-agreed definition. "Particulary damaging" appears nowhere in our guidelines, and "scientifically interesting" is shown by the sources that have been cited in this discussion.

  Phil Bridger (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  The sources explicitly say that the earthquake wasn't interesting... What are you talking about? MagikMan1337 (talk) 02:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge into List of earthquakes in Chile, whatever it is useful. As I wrote above in a comment, the earthquake itself wasn't particularly relevant; it provoked a tsunami alert, prompting evacuations, and that was it. However, there are some definitely interesting sources in the article. I still think it is not particularly relevant, but sources tend to prove otherwise. --Bedivere (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Merging unwanted content to the various lists of earthquakes was done back in the first decade of WP, but that is no longer done because the lists also have certain criteria that must be adhered to. In other words, the list articles in the earthquake space must also contain only notable events. They are not merely dumping grounds. Dawnseeker2000 18:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess you're correct. That's why I suggested merging whatever it is useful. If nothing is useful (hence not even making this worthy of a redirect) then it should be deleted. Bedivere (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes
  WP:DIVERSE). Wikipedia:Notability (earthquakes) is an essay and is not policy. SIGCOV and NEVENT are policies, and I am not seeing a strong case for deletion supported by policy.4meter4 (talk) 00:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete Not noteworthy enough. Bdonjc^talk
• Keep, no policy-based rationale for deletion, appears to have ample sourcing to support an article. There may be a reasonable question as to whether it's ideal to have a separate article rather than having it covered in List of earthquakes in Chile (which would need to be restructured to be a suitable merge target). But that can be dealt with through the collaborative editing process, among knowledgeable editors in the topic area; AFD has no role here. -- Visviva (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe this is a good time to ask someone leaning towards keep: If kept, what is the encyclopedic value of an article like this? Dawnseeker2000 00:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Personally I subscribe to the prime objective: we're here to create, as nearly as possible under various legal and practical constraints, a free and open encyclopedia that makes the sum of all human knowledge available and accessible to every reader. Given that objective, I see no reason why an earthquake that has received coverage in multiple reliable sources should not be covered in some form, and I trust that editors in the topic area will best be able to determine exactly what form that coverage should take. Whether or not this should optimally be a freestanding article, it certainly seems useful and encyclopedic in its current form, at least for anyone who might be seeking information on this particular quake; and anybody not seeking such information would be unlikely to suffer any harm from its existence. Any questions about exactly how this earthquake should be covered, and whether it should be merged elsewhere can be addressed by finding positive-sum solutions through the wiki process. There is no need (nor policy basis) for a drastic remedy like deletion. -- Visviva (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, what would you say the reader walks away with after reading this article (in terms of knowledge)? I don't think it exceeds what the USGS has for the events (I've been generous with the terms of this search). Dawnseeker2000 17:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This quake is irrelevant, pls delete. Sausius (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC) — Sausius (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete I believe there's not enough information on this earthquake however I support this do be merged into List of earthquakes in Chile with a brief overview of the quake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zekromu88 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 18 June 2022 (UTC) — Zekromu88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  The lists of earthquakes also have minimum requirements to be listed. This series of shocks don't align with those minimums. Dawnseeker2000 00:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE TO CLOSER. There is a high volume of
  WP:Meatpuppetry is vote stacking at this AFD. Please consider the strength of the arguments based on policy rather than mere vote count in your close.4meter4 (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan McElwaine

Nathan McElwaine (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

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG ?
https://donegalnews.com/2022/02/mcelwaine-eager-to-impress-with-the-exiles/			"Nathan McElwaine has enjoyed his baptism into senior intercounty football" and "McElwaine has lined out at corner-back in their victories over Carlow and Waterford"	✘ No
https://www.rte.ie/sport/gaa/2022/0129/1276591-london-produce-stirring-comeback-to-down-carlow/			text: "Nathan McElwaine"	✘ No
https://www.gaa.ie/football/football-league-roinn-4/london-waterford/2126013/			nothing there on him	✘ No
https://www.rte.ie/sport/gaa/2022/0220/1281924-london-boost-promotion-chances-after-edging-out-leitrim/			text "Nathan McElwaine"	✘ No
https://www.rte.ie/sport/gaa/2022/0227/1283311-wexford-come-good-to-end-londons-unbeaten-run/			text "Nathan McElwaine"	✘ No
https://www.rte.ie/sport/gaa/2022/0313/1286115-sligo-rout-london-to-boost-promotion-chances/			text "Nathan McElwaine"	✘ No
https://www.rte.ie/sport/gaa/2022/0320/1287383-cavan-survive-london-rally-to-take-victory-in-ruislip/			"Sean Hickey for Nathan McElwaine"	✘ No
https://www.gaa.ie/football/news/connacht-sfc-leitrim-battle-past-london/			nothing	✘ No
https://westernpeople.ie/2022/05/28/london-and-sligo-involved-in-tailteann-cup-thriller/			nothing	✘ No
https://www.rte.ie/sport/football/2022/0528/1301725-egans-extra-time-strike-helps-sligo-survive-london/			text "subs ... Oladimeji Olajubu for Nathan McElwaine"	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ireland. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Please note this is the wrong code of football. You want Gaelic football, not association football. GiantSnowman 15:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I know they’re different, but this is the best could find in the deletion sorting categories. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable sportsperson. Fails
  WP:GNG IrishOsita (talk) 02:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete, per source analysis by rsjaffe. JoelleJay (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 11:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Maddock High School

Frank Maddock High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  Alberta. Shellwood (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as passing 8 out of 10 factors of my standards for high schools. Bearian (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Enough sourcing available to meet
  WP:GNG, as with any other Canadian secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Appears to be meet GNG.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per
  talk) 22:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Meets GNG with the sources in the article.Jacona (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Operating system advocacy

Operating system advocacy (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 sure how this contains any information that isn't covered in Advocacy or Advertising. An unremarkable flavor of an otherwise remarkable topic. Sungodtemple (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Sungodtemple (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete seems to be a fork of better written articles, no proof that this is a coherent subject on its own. Arguments from 2021 were not valid reasons to keep. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not much reliable sources.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 15:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Kevin McBrearty

Kevin McBrearty (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 to meet

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG ?
https://billhillwicklow.com/player/kevin-mcbrearty/			Brief listing	✘ No
https://www.the42.ie/galway-donegal-allianz-league-report-3833590-Feb2018/			Total text for him: "sub... Kevin McBrearty for Thompson"	✘ No
https://donegalnews.com/2014/12/thirteen-new-faces-on-gallaghers-first-donegal-panel/			Text: "Kevin McBrearty (Four Masters)"	✘ No
https://www.donegaldaily.com/2019/10/07/listen-mcbrearty-and-four-masters-avoid-absolute-disaster/	Interview	? "Donegal Sport Hub – in association with the Radisson Blu Hotel Letterkenny – is a website dedicated to sport in the county."	? full interview missing from website	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Ireland. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Please note this is the wrong code of football. You want Gaelic football, not association football. GiantSnowman 15:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I know they’re different, but this is the best could find in the deletion sorting categories. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per source analysis by rsjaffe. JoelleJay (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

APCB

APCB (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)

APCB is a stub, but has little verifiable information, only one reference. Although the reference is cited 238 times, this seems to be the only verifiable reference regarding APCB. APCB has no apparent notability, simple Google search of 'APCB' doesn't bring up anything, neither does the English name. You have to search 'Association de Pilotage des Conférences B' to find their official website, which was last updated in 2013, and as far as I am aware, has not organized another conference since. Hadal1337 (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Mergewith Z User Group. Excellent flag. APCB really does not need its own standalone article. It can have a short sub-section or mention on the Z User Group page, which it has essentially "combined with" since 2000. Then, after merging, if someone wants to redirect the Z User Group page to ABZ Conference (or whatever the appropriate target turns out to be), that may be for the best. Let me know if you need help. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Disagree, quote from Z User Group "From 2000, these became the ZB Conference (jointly with the B-Method, co-organized with APCB)". Doesn't infer to me that it has essentially "combined with", but instead just co-organizers. Also for the quote, there is no reference/citation to back up that claim so we're back to square one. Hadal1337 (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I added a reference to APCB page – but yes, I don't think Z User Group is the final destination necessarily, but what I'm saying is that APCB should be merged with Z User Group as a first / interim step. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm, I see where you're coming from, but I'm still leaning towards delete. I was actually planning on submitting an AfD for Z User Group due to it being created by the group chair, questionable official website, primary sources, not enough notability etc. I guess let's see the outcome of APCB first. Hadal1337 (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. OK. Go ahead and delete APCB. It has almost no information, as you say in your original nomination, and it literally has had an average of 1 pageview per day since it was created. No one will miss it. I'm not sure what the fate of Z User Group should be, but that's a separate discussion. (There are many more BLP pages connected to the Z User Group page, etc.) Cielquiparle (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to a new section based on this article in the
  APCB is/was intended as a support group for the B-Method. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge, delete or redirect (to what target?)?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete based on the fact that most people on the Internet looking for APCB are looking for APCB Electronics in Thailand (or possibly other entities in the APCB Group) (per Google Trends). Hardly anyone is looking for "Association de Pilotage des Conférences B" which hasn't updated its own web site since 2013, unless they click on a blue link from one of the other Wikipedia pages that link to the current page (which we should un-redlink if this page is deleted). (Many of those pages are in need of some updating in general too.) Cielquiparle (talk) 08:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for reasons stated in my original post. Hadal1337 (talk) 22:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No duplicate !votes, please. ✗plicit 11:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete cannot be verified --Bigneeerman (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Economics of taxation in the United States

Economics of taxation in the United States (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 is only one sentence long and fails to explain much of anything Ravens (talk). 21:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and United States of America. Ravens (talk). 21:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While interesting things could be said about the subject, it's probably best that they be done at
  WP:CFORK. Fiachra10003 (talk) 11:27, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Subject is obviously notable; tonnes have been written on the topic. The current state of the article has no bearing on notability. Benjamin (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin is the creator of the article. -The Gnome (talk) 09:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Fiachra10003. Another article is unnecessary. Azuredivay (talk) 11:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  talk) 22:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. The subject belongs to articles about
  blow it up and allow anyone who feels strongly of the subject's independent importance to try their hand. -The Gnome (talk) 09:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Lynch (songwriter)

David Lynch (songwriter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

PROD rationale was: Unable to verify the apparent Emmys win - searching the Emmy website for David Lynch only spits out famous director David Lynch, not a songwriter. No significant coverage located otherwise.

De-PROD'd with the argument that the guy's own website claims that he has won an Emmy, therefore the deletion is "not uncontroversial". I'm sorry, but there's a reason we don't take self-published sources at their word without backing evidence. De-PRODing an endorsed PROD because of an SPS claim with zero other sourcing is incredibly shoddy work and forcing an AfD here without any evidence of independent sourcing whatsoever is a waste of everyone's time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Television, and United States of America. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're omitting the part that I verified

Golden Reel wins. It's not clear that's enough to establish notability but it is at least evidence that the SPS is not all lies and so further discussion is merited. I did not interpret your statement as asserting the subject did not win an Emmy but that you could not find the evidence because of the other David Lynch casts a longer shadow. Apologies if I misinterpreted. ~Kvng (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

No, it's that the only results for the name "David Lynch" on the Emmy's site were for the filmmaker. The Golden Reel wins are meaningless given the absence of coverage about his winning of them;

WP:NBASIC requires significant coverage in multiple sources. If an award falls in a forest and not a single media outlet reports the sound, it contributes nothing to a claim of notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

FWIW, the Golden Reels awards are coming up under "D. L. Lynch". We do have topic-specific notability criterion that presumes notability for winners of certain prestigious awards. ~Kvng (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That the Golden Reel Awards for Sound Editing are recorded on Wikipedia (as part of a larger article, mind you, not even their own) is not prima facie evidence that they are "a well-known and significant award or honor". If there is minimal significant coverage of people winning a given type of award, it is an indication that they are in fact not particularly culturally significant. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no proof of the Emmy win exists, and the Golden Reel does not appear to be a significant award. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, real hard to verify this as the other David Lynch also has several Emmys. If someone can find proof of the Emmys, I will change my vote. Zeddedm (talk) 02:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As near as I can tell, the Emmy was not given specifically to him but, rather, to the team of people who worked on a show that won an Emmy for post-production audio. That's likely why it's hard to verify...because one has to look deep into the credits of the list of people who worked in the audio recording department for the show. Also, it's a technical award, one of many given at both national and regional chapter levels. It's not an award that would indicate he is notable musician, or sound engineer for that matter. And because of this lack of individual recognition, there are no RS's to earn a keep. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No evidence of notability found. ~Kvng (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The whole rigmarole is most probably due to the confusion between this Lynch and the other one, the film maker. Notability monitor for this person shows a flat line. -The Gnome (talk) 09:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Austria international footballers (1–24 caps). RL0919 (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Oppenheim

Harry Oppenheim (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 stub about a guy who played one football game in 1909 is wholly sourced to two database entries. A BEFORE shows it fails

• Redirect to
  WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Austria. Shellwood (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since NFOOTY no longer exists, it does not meet GNG and should be deleted.Samanthany (talk) 01:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  WP:GNG, then and only then could the article be restored. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - The issue here is whether it is appropriate or not to redirect Harry Oppenheim to the list of Austrian national football players. Harry in German is typically a shortening of "Harold" (it can be in English as well of course), and a search on Wikipedia shows that there are a number of other equally non-notable Harold Oppenheims mentioned on here (e.g., a candidate in the 1963 Edinburgh Corporation election). It is also used for "Henry", and there are a number of other Henrys mentioned on Wiki (e.g., a German banker). Searching more widely I see that other Harry Oppenheim's existed, including a Jewish newspaper owner, a collector of Chinese art, a South African magnate who supported Nelson Mandela, and a shoe-maker.
  As such it is not clear to me why this should be a redirect at all and why it is at all plausible that anyone would searching this looking for the Austrian Football player who played a single game for the national squad in 1909. Even if you think it was, apparently Harry Oppenheim also played for First Vienna FC. so why does it make any more sense to redirect to the list of national players and not to the list of First Vienna FC players?
  

In short redirection is only a valid ATD if the people searching for Harry Oppenheim are only going to be looking for the person who played one match for the Austrian national squad, and if the list of national squad players is what they are going to be looking for. Otherwise we are preventing them from finding the other Harry Oppenheims covered by Wiki, or the other roles that this Harry Oppenheim played. As we can see there are actually a lot of other subjects they may be looking for, and even if they are looking for this Harry Oppenheim, they may well not be looking for the list of national squad players.

@

WP:NFOOTY is now obsolete but I'm having trouble finding the discussion where this was decided, can you help me with a link? FOARP (talk) 08:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@FOARP: I believe it was an outgrowth of this discussion: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability. Follow-up discussions to that RfC took place on the NSPORTS talk page which I did not follow as closely. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think this is the one?

WP:CHEAP I think keeping this as a redirect stops people from discovering the other potential search targets and it really isn't likely that anyone is really searching for this particular guy looking for lists of Austrian national football players who played a single game in 1909, so delete it is. FOARP (talk) 11:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I also find it highly unlikely that readers will be searching for this specific fellow and be greatly informed by a redirect to list of one/two-match football players from the early 1900s. -Indy beetle (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet inclusion criteria, and nothing suggests this person would actually be the primary search target.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - According to this database someone with the same birthday called Heinrich Oppenheim also played for First Vienna FC at the same time the subject here was supposed to have been playing for them according to the Italian version of this article and various databases. Either Harry Oppenheim had a twin brother or this article is actually wrong or at least has the wrong name. Given the fact that "Harry" is not a common given name in German, but instead used as a nickname, I think we can say the name of this article is almost certainly a mistake, the result of creating large numbers of content-less articles based on a low-quality database, and especially as we already have an article about a different
  Heinrich Oppenheim it should be deleted and not redirected because in reality it had the wrong name to start with. FOARP (talk) 09:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Transfermarkt is

  not a reliable source. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

It appears no more or less reliable than the source which you used to create the article with, which described Oppenheim using what is almost certainly a nickname. FOARP (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources' reliability are fine per the project's list of sources that can be used. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of beside the point here, all those sources should probably be evaluated on their own merits. It looks like those are simply added on the whim of various users. Not to say that means they aren't reliable, but those links don't appear to be getting approval or review from more than one person. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Harry Oppenhiem was part of the wealthy Oppenhiem family who were also land owners, played for First Vienna FC and SK Rapid Wien, winning a couple of honours in Austria which in turn allowed him a match with the national team. He might be mentioned in First Vienna FC: Fußballfibel isbn: 978-3944068916 or SK Rapid Wien: Fußballfibel isbn: 978-3944068923 . There are newspapers at the time, there is room to improve the article and plenty of research can be done into this person. Possible that he can pass WP:GNG quite easily. It's all down to the research and who wants to do it. I am with Lugnuts on this, redirect is cheap and allows future people to do the correct research if they want. Govvy (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect only makes sense if this guy is the Heinrich Oppenheim that people are searching for. He isn't, because we already have an article about a

Heinrich Oppenheim. Redirection is NOT for storing information - if anyone wants to get this article back (and why would they when it basically contains no information?) they can just request an undelete. FOARP (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

You miss the point of the redirect, the redirect is going to a list and not a name. And besides, Oppenhiem's are all related to each other in one way or another. Oppenheim family, although Harry is not on the list there, that's a very incomplete list. I know a little bit about this family through my family history. Not much know. Govvy (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Lugnuts. GiantSnowman 13:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - the suggested sources mentioned by Govvy make this almost essential as we'll lose the page history and so on otherwise. It'll also stop anyone recreating the article quickly, there's an obvious ATD and redirects work much better than any other method of finding people. Right now he seems to be the only notable Harry O we have. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Holy Fvck

Holy Fvck (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)

At the very least this page should be moved to the draft space because it doesn't satisfy its notability at the moment beyond "It is a Lovato album".

• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Merge to Demi Lovato or Draftify. I had tried to redirect this page several days ago but was met with fierce option in the with comments like "release date announced WITH cassettes and vinyls put up on website (which, I would argue, makes it unlikely to be postponed), 2. lead single coming this Friday, 3. nothing repeated from the main article here apart from the release of the lead single. Also enough sources to make this notable already", then Restoring article and reverting Lil-unique1. Even a Holy Fvck Tour page was created so at this point it's getting ridiculous that its parent album would not get its own article. Please stop edit warring per WP:BRD and/or put it to discussion if you disagree. This page is absolutely fine to exist.. There is an established principle that
  WP:NALBUMS. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 19:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - that's all fine and well if the sourcing isn't there...but it is in this case. High level dedicated sourcing from the likes of Pitchfork, Loudwire, etc - reliable third party sources. It meets the
  WP:GNG. And they've mustered up a paragraph or two of content. Sergecross73 msg me 19:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

1. https://loudwire.com/demi-lovato-rock-album-holy-fvck-trailer-video/
2. https://pitchfork.com/news/demi-lovato-announces-new-album-holy-fvck/
3. https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/demi-lovato-holy-fvck-north-american-tour-1364078/
4. https://consequence.net/2022/06/demi-lovato-holy-fvck-album-tour/
5. https://people.com/music/demi-lovato-announces-new-album-holy-fvck/
6. https://www.kerrang.com/amp/demi-lovato-announces-hellish-new-rock-album-holy-fvck

All dedicated to the subject. All considered reliable per

WP:RSMUSIC. Sergecross73 msg me 19:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Information has to go beyond the existence of the album and has to demonstrate that the information is too much for the artist page. Creating an album page without a lack of reasonable information fails
  a promotional vehicle. That's not what wikipedia is for. NALBUMS trumps GNG ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 19:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  No, NALBUMS does not trump the GNG, not that it matters, because you can still merge things that meet either guideline anyways. That said, your whole proposal is a waste of everyone's time. There's already enough sourcing, and someone already mustered up a paragraph of content. Why waste everyone's time when it's certainly going to created upon release anyways. It's not overtly promotional in tone, nor was it created by some sort of promotional SPA account. This is silly. Articles like this survive all the time. I'm honestly baffled this is so contentious. Is there some sort of factor among editors or the fanbase I'm unaware of or something? I know nothing of Demi Lovato other than they did a song for Frozen (I think?) and announced this album recently. Sergecross73 msg me 20:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It wasn't my proposal to nominate for deletion. Its just standard content policies. You create a page for something when there is enough reliably sourced information to warrant one. TB Hotch correctly pointed out some of the information mentions the album in passing. Had the album already come out we would never create a page for this little information. Hopes for future notability have never been a reason to create a page regardless of how certain something is to happen or become notable. And you're wrong - NALBUMS has some precedence over GNG - if there were 1 million sources talking about the album but no information beyond the tracklisting and existence it would not be notable for its own page. "Articles like this survive all the time" is

  WP:OTHERSTUFF. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  The core parts we disagree are the things that are subjective though. I merely say there is enough sources and content to warrant creation already. Absolutely nothing objectively makes my keep stance invalid. And your "we would never keep articles with this little content" statement is just as much OSE as mine was. Not that it matters, what I said wasn't part of my core argument, just an observation of someone who participated in AFDs for over a decade - the sourcing I found is usually more than enough to keep an article. Which is again why I'm baffled and left feeling like there's other factors involved or something. Sergecross73 msg me 20:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There are enough sources for

  (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I know nothing of that subject, the history behind it, or subject area, so I have absolutely no idea if that's the correct decision being made there. Sergecross73 msg me 20:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Absolutely keep. A lot of confirmed information from reputable sources and a soon-to-be-released album (only 2 months to go) from a famous artist. Clearly the people have spoken and the vast majority have said keep. I love Demi, but I would vote keep regardless. Piratetales (talk • contribs) 20:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I mean, they very clearly also said "A lot of confirmed information from reputable sources" so their stance is not a NOTINHERITED violation. Sergecross73 msg me 20:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  By "a lot" you mean a) it's title b) it's release date c) confirmed tracks. That's not relevant outside Lovato's biography. Please don't attempt to gaslight me becaue you will not succeed.

  (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  No one's gaslighting anyone. All I said was that your accusation of NOTINHERITED was cherry-picking their argument. Because that's the only think you commented on in response. Sergecross73 msg me 20:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is enough out there on this album, whether it's currently reflected in the sources on the article or not, to demonstrate that this is a notable topic, and it will only grow more notable as we approach its release date in August (two months away). Lovato is a high-profile pop artist; the album isn't just going to fade out of relevance before release, especially as they appear to be (or claiming that they are) shifting genres. Even draftifying the article is just delaying the inevitable re-creation of the article. Ss112 20:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  And once that happens we can move the article back to main space. What's the urgency to have an independent page that merely repeats what

  (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  @Tbhotch: Because the topic is notable on its own and therefore does not need to be relegated to a section of the artist's main article. I thought I made that quite clear. Is your plan to disagree with everybody voting keep? It does not and will not help your initial nomination. Ss112 20:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As far as I'm concern I can disagree with anyone I want to, especially when their comment(s) are poorly founded.

  (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  In fact your kept post is so flawed that you start saying, paraphrased, "Even though the current article is so poorly shaped that it's current sources on the article don't reflect its notability, the topic is notable on it's own because there's enough out there that accredit the album as notable". What's exactly enough? a title, an album cover, two confirmed songs, and a background full of speculation based upon what the primary source has said? I mean if that's enough to create pages, then I should start to feel free to create hundreds of barely-notable stubs on already existing topics that lack articles solely because a single reliable source backs-up a claim or because three different sources mention the same information.

  (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Nobody ever said you couldn't. I said it's not helping your case. Your nomination and assessment of the topic's notability is what's actually poorly founded. You claim there's nothing more than the existence of the title yet but that's categorically untrue. There's a lead single being released tomorrow, another track confirmed, the cover art released, a tour announced, the track list will be along in due time, and even more significant than all of that, Lovato signaling the change of their genre from the last 10 years of their career. That's enough for an album article to exist two months ahead of its release. Ss112 20:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Tbhotch, that's great, but there's more here than one source and it's more than a stub and only going to grow. Straw-manning and "what about this other stuff that's in draftspace" arguments are weak. Your disagreement with my !vote doesn't invalidate it. Your disagreement won't invalidate any !vote. Ss112 20:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  What kind of question is that? What's the urgency in creating notable articles? Because we're building an encyclopedia...? Sergecross73 msg me 20:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Right? It's basically just arguing for the sake of it at this point. "Gosh, what's the urgency in saying that this man just died? His body's not even cold yet!" LOL. Ss112 21:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable topic ready to be expanded in the next few weeks and months. Unnecessary to keep it in draft space as a "full-fledged" article will come to fruition sooner than later. More websites have reported on the album since the article was first started too. The sources include events directly leading up to the album release and very obviously anticipating a new era, such as the "funeral" or the announcement of the lead single. Another website talks about the sound direction they're headed with the album. That source merely echoes Lovato's words on what the album will sound like. If that in fact turns out true or not can be debunked upon release but still be included in the final prose as it is part of the timeline. The background section is intended to document events that have lined up to the start of the era and, skimming through these sources again, I am proven right. Just a side note, I'm not a fan of Lovato, nor do I try to promote their album. I regularly contribute to articles of popular music. Lk95 (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This album is coming out in 2 months and is a major studio album by a high-profile pop artist. I do not see a reason to take down an article just to re-emerge it in July? Makes no sense. Also there are MANY verifiable articles and sources on this topic, so that argument is not valid. HaysonDage (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is enough reliable sources on the album to make an article. CountyCountry (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Saying the artist could get dropped by their label is grasping at straws. Not only is it extremely ridiculous but this comes over as bias against them. This is not the first time an article for a highly-anticipated album by an international star has been created. The article will only grow from here and the current sources should be sufficient. Give Your a Break 09:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There's enough reliable resources, and that there is absolutely not a reason to take it down to just reinstate it. Nascar9919 (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per comments. They’re are many reliable sources on the article, I don’t see why we need to delete it. PopLizard (talk) 04:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per a more positive case of
  oops 05:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per other comments. The reliable sources are more than there and the lead single is out, I don't see the point in removing this article when it's going to be remade very soon anyway. Bizarre Bizarre^{Talk modern to me} 11:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bite Ninja, Inc.

Bite Ninja, Inc. (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)

Seems to be a startup with routine coverage. valereee (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Software. valereee (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi valereee - quite a bit of coverage on this company, including segments on top of the top news outlets in the country. Is there a way to better cite/structure the article to avoid deletion? Here's a segment from NBC's Today Show earlier this year: https://www.today.com/food/trends/fast-food-drive-thru-workers-work-home-new-technology-rcna22534 Semonative (talk) 03:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know at your convenience. Really appreciate your help! Semonative (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)Semonative[reply]

Hi valereee - any update on this? Thanks! Semonative (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)Semonative[reply]

Hi, @

WP:COI, as has been requested on your User talk:Semonative. That is a non-negotiable. valereee (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete That NBC item is about the only source I can find. Pages of press releases, not enough about the company in non-PR media land. The undisclosed COI is also worrysome. Oaktree b (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Promotional article, lacks coverage in non-routine WP:RS. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails to meet WP:GNG, though it's a promising startup. --Bigneeerman (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Abdul Qayyum Sajjadi

Abdul Qayyum Sajjadi (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 notability, searches return little more than lists and a few passing mentions. ^Zera/_talk 19:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Afghanistan. ^Zera/_talk 19:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this source verifies that he is an elected official of a subnational legislative body, which meets Wikipedia:Notability (politics) criteria #4. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I do not speak Farsi nor am I all too familiar with Afghanistan's legislative body, but it seems as if Sajjadi was a member of parliament. 1, 2, 3 Does this not make him notable? Mooonswimmer 19:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - clearly passes
  WP:POLITICIAN. We need more articles like this, not fewer. StAnselm (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy keep: A clear
  WP:NPOL pass, an elected official of a national legislative body. Sal2100 (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Note I'd highly recommend that someone throw these 3 sources (so far) into the article, or at least the talk page. I would but it's not fun to copy and paste on mobile. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Dixon (investor)

Andrew Dixon (investor) (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)

Doesn't seem to have attracted sufficient coverage to meet

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable vanity spam article. Please don't use wiki to manage your brand. Oaktree b (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not much more than a vanity page. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No prejudice against creating a redirect to the Fort Pierce article, since the school is mentioned there, but there wasn't a consensus about that in the discussion. RL0919 (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Baptist School (Fort Pierce, Florida)

Faith Baptist School (Fort Pierce, Florida) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is a probable segregation academy that closed in 2015. I did the usual searches, including newspapers.com. The info I found was extremely trivial e.g. "the groom graduated from there" or advertisements. The only reference in the article was a link to an athletics site, now dead. I did find one trivial article [3] The article was deprodded with the statement "secondary schools should generally be taken to AfD". I discussed redirection with the deprodder, who disagreed. I would suggest redirection to Fort Pierce, Florida#Education. Jacona (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect. Fails notability requirements of GNG. - Donald Albury 21:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails notability. NMasiha (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Subject
  kamikaze account, which never helps. -The Gnome (talk) 10:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Looking at the account's edits, I think it's extreme to say SPA. It's their only article creation back in the 2000s but engagement was much different back then. It looks like legit interest in providing info and not aware of the notability guidelines. – The Grid (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Conti

Diego Conti (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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Italy. Theroadislong (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A rather common name, getting many hits in Italian news, but none for this fellow. Zero found in GNews, Gscholar or Jstor, I don't think he's made a notable contribution to the history of music or as a musicologist for example to be featured in them. Oaktree b (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I tried to send it back to Afc when I reviewed it about a week ago, but couldn't. I posted a question at Afc, re: what to do and it was answered today, but I see it is moot. When I reviewed it, it was clearly non-notable. If there was coverage, the inexperienced editor would have placed it. No effective references. scope_creep^Talk 13:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Ms. B'havin

Ms. B'havin (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

• Comment Does the charted hit not add to notability? I'm unsure if she was the primary act on it or just associated in some way with it. Oaktree b (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, although I don't know. Music folk will come in an tell us at some point. She could be massively notable, with lots of historical coverage but couldn't see much. See what happens. Its early internet period, still inside it, its not the early 90's black zone where you cant find anything, that decade before the internet that I have real trouble with, so there should some historical coverage. scope_creep^Talk 16:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The current sources are mostly about Yung Joc or are
  WP:NSONGS, hip-hop in particular is full of one-shot "featured artists" who never develop notability of their own due to a near-total lack of further releases. To name just one example, I found Errtime, where both of the featured artists on the track are redlinked and do not seem to have done anything else of note. Miss B. Havin' Hambrick's only solo chart entry was a very low peak, invoking the precedent of such AFDs as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Born (rapper) or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Wolf where lack of reliable sourcing outweighed the presence of a standalone chart hit. Given that she used a different recording name on the Yung Joc song, I think a redirect would not be satisfactory either. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:27, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify. is a reasonable AtD and will give Amaekuma time to work on it. Star Mississippi 16:31, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Attih Soul

Attih Soul (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 musician. Most coverage consists of puff pieces Mooonswimmer 15:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Bands and musicians. Mooonswimmer 15:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, to be honest I don't know where to append my appeal but I'll just put it here and hope it's enough

First of all, I'm supposed to have ten minutes to put the introductory statements of my article together before I get flagged. Right? That's true according to wikipedia rules right? You didn't even allow the time elapse and here I am getting all these red flags. Such overzealous aggressive has an under tone like I'm not welcomed to contribute here on Wikipedia. I have read what Wikipedia is and isn't and that definitely isn't what Wikipedia is.

Secondly, I know Wikipedia isn't a place that frowns at good faith edits. Wikipedia is great today because a wide range of good faith edits are allowed. Let me do my thing. I am still working on the rules and I haven't broken any rules so far

Thirdly, the backbone of Wikipedia is citations. If I was given time, I would have provided citations

I'm going back to working on the article. Bye Amaekuma (talk) 15:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to influence the outcome you would normally start your comment with something like "keep" or "delete". It's clear you don't want this deleted. We could argue about how notable this person is, you can do that by sharing sources that prove that here. But also you could ask for "draftify" which means you get infinite time to work on it before anyone can judge if the subject is notable. That would be the easier path, I suggest. But you could argue to keep if you can share with us three good sources, that is the less easy path, but totally up to you. I recommend you read the document top right entitled "Introduction to deletion process". All the best to you. CT55555 (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the promptness of my nomination. My intention was not to intimidate you in anyway. You've done some great work on previous articles, and I myself am still new to many things, including AfD. I will consider withdrawing my nomination as a gesture of good faith. Perhaps I'll opt for some maintenance tags.

However, I did conduct a quick preliminary search before the nomination. Most of the articles I came across were obviously sponsored puff pieces. Regarding the sources you've just added:

Attih Soul bags double masters degree in Barcelona (Guardian Nigeria) Sponsored post, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources. The article contains a spelling mistake ("artiste") that Attih Soul himself made in a WikiProject AfC Help desk request back in February 2020, so it's possible the article was written by him.

Meet Attih Soul, the Bio Chemistry graduate who rose to a Superstar in Barcelona (Opera News) Generally unreliable source with no editorial oversight, likely sponsored, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources

Attih Soul, Otta Orchestra thrill at RMF Word-for-word copy of the article on Guardian.ng, which is generally a more reliable source.

I think the deletion discussion should revolve around whether or not his participation in the Road to Yalta festival and his composing of the Democracy Day Theme Song of Nigeria make him a notable musician as per

WP:MUSIC

.

Also, I haven't accused you of breaking any rules or of making bad faith edits. But I'd humbly suggest working on an article in your sandbox or as a Draft before publishing it. You can definitely expand the article after publishing, but I believe there are much better ways to create an article than publishing one that consists of a single sentence and one unreliable source and then working on it. And to be honest, I'm not familiar with the 10 minutes rule.Mooonswimmer 18:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Artiste, is not a typo, I think. If I understand the context of what you are saying correctly. CT55555 (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of that, thanks! I was wondering why the article used both spellings of the term. I checked some articles on BBC News Pidgin to see if it was a West African Pidgin English thing, and that indeed appears to be the case. Quite a few articles use the spellings interchangeably. False conjecture, my bad. Mooonswimmer 18:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some speakers of British English use it too. CT55555 (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Using both "artist" and "artiste" in the same article is what I found intriguing. Mooonswimmer 18:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Drafity Article doesn't meet criteria as it stands, but if someone is keen to improve in the short term, that seems like the fair step to take. CT55555 (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't see a LOT of substantial coverage, but I think there's probably just enough there to warrant an article, possibly more in non-English language sources. I'll withhold my !vote to see what gets added to the article. PianoDan (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify Oblige the page creator and give them time to improve this article in Draft space where, hopefully, it will go through AFC. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The artist should be mentioned in the articles detailing his works. While his work may be noteworthy, the artist is not notable enough for a Wikipedia read.Exquisit (talk) 14:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Larry O'Donnell

Larry O'Donnell (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)

Insufficient evidence that O'Donnell

It can be deleted! I saw the message after and started the (entrepreneur) one. I didn't know it hijacked a redirect. Sorry about that! Angelica ALRC (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Citing Amazon and a photo-gallery as sources are not showing notability. Promotional piece. Oaktree b (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG by the looks, created by a
  WP:PAID editor. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Non notable, self-promotion. NMasiha (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

List of people on the postage stamps of Italy

List of people on the postage stamps of Italy (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)

Still completely unsourced and un-maintained. Still no proof that this is a notable topic per

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Italy. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This is something for another kind of project, outside of Wikipedia. BD2412 T 21:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This unsourced article dates to 7 Novemeber 2004. That makes it only 17 years old, which is short by unsourced Philatelycruft article standards, but way longer than at all acceptable for Wikipedia standards. Wikipedia is not Wikia, and unsourced listing of trivial facts, which the exact pictures on postage stamps are an example of, is not something that Wikipedia should have articles on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Johnpacklambert: you seem to have an private and unsourced opinion that pictures on postage stamps are "trival facts". You are of course allowed to have and express that opinion. Wikipedia should however seek for better arguments when making decisions like this one. Bw Orland (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Pretty certain they also mentioned "unsourced" too, which is one of the most important factors in these discussions, so that really isn't the greatest summation of their stance. Sergecross73 msg me 12:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If we do want to keep these lists in any form in any location, we should reorder them to list by year, not alphabetically. If there is any encyclopedic value to such a listing, it is to show the changes over time in decisions on who to portray in stamps.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; all available evidence tell us that these people were depicted on stamps because they are important to the history and society of their country. Bw --Orland (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of these people are not even from Italy, and never in any way infleunced Italy directly while alive, so this claim is not actually backed up by facts. You are also ignoring the total and complete lack of sourcing. What evidence are you talking about? There are no sources, so there is no evidence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Johnpacklambert: you must be very well into italian history if you can deem which people that have and have not infuenced Italy. As Adenauer is on the top of the list, let us use him as an example: he appeared on this stamp to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Coal and Steel Union. Bw Orland (talk) 07:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is not even a secondary stamp. An image of a stamp like that is a primary source. All articles need secondary sources, and list articles need secondary sources that provide analysis of the subject as a whole.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, John. There is nothing in WP guidelines that says that a list needs an "analysis of the subject as a whole". The image of the Adenauer stamp was not intended as a source, but as an example of people that has been influencal to Italy without being italian. I can see that you are making up objections as you go, and there are probably no answers that would be good enough for you. Bw --Orland (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

          Yes there is, actually, both in

          WP:LISTN. You can't claim "available evidence" and then when pressed for it present none. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

          ]

  What do you mean by "evidence"? Ten Pound Hammer • ⁽What did I screw up now?) 22:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as this meets
  WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. gidonb (talk) 03:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • It has no sources at all. We do not keep articles with no sources, period. No one has offered any sources. Your bald claim it meets the guidelines for lists does not overcome the facth that it really does not. It is a collection of trivia, and as I said there are no sources at all. The one source above which shows what stamp Adenaur appeared on is not a source that treats the lists as a whole, and that is needed to justify list articles. An article that has lasted for over 17 years with no sources at all is clearly broken.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You keep confusing sources with references. The article lacks references and that does not matter. Only the existence of sources matters. Also, Wikipedia has no expiration date. Making up guidelines, then saying period, does not create new guidelines. It's not how WP works. gidonb (talk) 12:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as this meets
  WP:LISTN. Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. This is an intrinsically noteworthy subject, well sourced in any stamp catalogue. The people depicted on these stamps are important to the history and society of their country. Turgidson (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The article still has zero sources. I am not sure on what ground people are arguing to keep an article without sources and with them offering no sources in the keep discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete All of the above keeps are either
  interesting to a limited number of dedicated enthusiasts. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment - I see a lot if people invoking LISTN, but even that is contingent on sourcing. If none can be provided, it's an invalid rationale. I know nothing of the world of stamps, so I'm holding off on a formal stance, but if no reliable sourcing is found, I'd default to delete. Sergecross73 msg me 12:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per Turgidson and Johnbod. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As there are no sources present in the article, and none presented in this AFD, that discuss this topic as a group or set, it fails
  WP:LISTN without providing any kind of sources that demonstrate that it does is not a valid argument. Rorshacma (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete - There is no evidence that 'People who have appeared on stamps in Italy' is a notable topic; nor any evidence that these people have actually appeared on postage stamps in Italy. There do seem to be a LOT of these pages per Category:Lists_of_people_on_postage_stamps JeffUK (talk) 18:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there should be a general discussion about these stamp lists --Lupe (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that this is a non-notable one-time event. Malinaccier (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Wisconsin skydiving mid-air collision

2013 Wisconsin skydiving mid-air collision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable general aviation incident. This accident was previously deleted here- [4] ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Wisconsin. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not notable. Non-fatal light aircraft accident, no notable people involved and was previously deleted under a different name for being non-notable. Mid-air collisions in the US are quite common and
  WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. - Ahunt (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep: I don't ever put anything on Wikipedia, I believe I'm putting this in the correct area. Please don't delete this page. It was a great resource and answered all my questions. The video from this incident constantly resurfaces on social media, so having this page where all the information on the incident is readily available is quite convenient. If anyone would like to beef it up, it may be good to also include information from the FAA incident report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.238.27.221 (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: You haven't addressed the key reason for the deletion nomination, that this is a non-notable accident and was deleted previously as non-notable. - Ahunt (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Three sources from the week following means no ongoing coverage and it fails NOTNEWS. The accident report does not support notability. Surely, there is some other website that records all air accidents? SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Surely, there is some other website that records all air accidents? - https://aviation-safety.net/ - Ahunt (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kriyetic Comics

Kriyetic Comics (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)

consists of external links only & fails ncorp. Khgk (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Khgk (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I found some brief mentions, like this one. The company is desscribed as a self publisher here. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – there are a few single-sentence passing mentions in Google Books and in the press, but sources don't seem to discuss this company in the depth required for an
  significant coverage, it doesn't appear to be notable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lanna Rodrigues

Lanna Rodrigues (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)

Very early stage career. Checked the first 14 references and they are quite poor. Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 14:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - as I look through the first source (Google translated), it looks like there is extensive and unattributed
  close paraphrasing
  in the article. For example,

Beccaynr (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - in my search online and review of sources in the article, I found e.g. promotional sources that lack independence (produced by TV Globo, where she appeared on a reality show in 2016), promotional announcements 2, promotional mentions 2, promotional interviews, a blog, multiple links to google search results (in the article). I would suggest
  WP:NSINGER. Beccaynr (talk) 01:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy Fix

Fantasy Fix (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 results on ProQuest or GNews. "John Boruk" "Fantasy Fix" turns up nothing but Wikipedia mirrors. Prod contested without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Zero references. Zero online. Zero. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I was also unable to find any coverage in reliable sources regarding this program. It appears to have only been regionally aired, and as not even the more specific NBC Sports Philadelphia article mentions it, a Redirect would not be appropriate. Merging, of course, would be out of the question due to the complete lack of sourced material present in the article. Rorshacma (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 16:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

7th Infantry Regiment (Estonia)

7th Infantry Regiment (Estonia) (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 fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Estonia. Shellwood (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]