Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 March 15

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< March 14 March 16 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Edwards

Jacob Edwards (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)

Appears to be an occasional comedian and jobbing actor. No major roles and no reliable, independent coverage about him that I can see. Personal info is uncited and the article relies heavily on YouTube and casting agents website. Fails

WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 22:06, 15 March 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! 23:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William Kidney

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

No indication of notability. Could not find SIGCOV or RS on him. Natg 19 (talk) 21:26, 15 March 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! 23:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Wheaton Academy boys' lacrosse team

2022 Wheaton Academy boys' lacrosse team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails

WP:NSEASONS Troutfarm27 (Talk) 21:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was keep. Consensus was that the found sources were sufficient to warrant an article, passing

(non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Scott Steindorff

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

Fails

WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in secondary sources. The article cites only one source and reads like a press release. While films and shows he's produced are notable, Steindorff himself does not appear to be. If a movie or show is notable it doesn't mean that everybody who worked on it is automatically notable by association. JMB1980 (talk) 19:28, 15 March 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! 23:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmet Yankı Yönel

Mehmet Yankı Yönel (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)

highly promotional resume about an apparently non-notable radio presenter. Though he has quite a career, it doesn't appear he's received any significant in depth coverage. CUPIDICAE💕 18:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. PR... --Kadı Message 19:28, 15 March 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! 23:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ankita Gaba

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

I don't see how she manages to pass

our notability guideline. the news article are as if the company is promote [1], [2] Cinzia007 (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC) struck statement by confirmed, blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 11:38, 17 March 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

WP:ATD. Whether any content should be merged to Salad Fingers can be figured out through the editorial process. Sandstein 08:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

David Firth

AfDs for this article:
David Firth (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)

After having done my

WP:BIO. When it comes to sourcing, nothing much seems to have changed since the article was last deleted. Instead of deletion, this article might be redirected to his popular internet series Salad Fingers. For anyone voting to keep, please provide sources upon which one would be able to construct a viable article as I would be happy to improve it. Throast (talk | contribs) 17:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment: They did not. As I have already outlined in my rationale,
    WP:BIO. Actually, the only nomination that failed was arguably decided not based on the quality of arguments but on the sheer number of votes. Keeps did not substantiate their arguments beyond "meets WP:BIO".(talk | contribs) 19:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • What the article looked like back then is irrelevant to this discussion. I'm arguing that the sourcing (meaning the sources available) has not changed in a way that would meet notability guidelines. The rationale is the same as it was 14 years ago. Throast (talk | contribs) 23:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I'm saying it's wholly relevant, if you wish to say "because there was consensus that the subject failed to meet WP:BIO." On my Talk page you say "The article has seen no significant improvement since it was first created in 2004 or so." So, just to be clear, you're saying that the article is 'no better now than it was in 2008? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This thread is pointless. I've stated my rationale for deleting the article very clearly in the first sentence: I just don't see the significant coverage by reliable independent sources necessary to warrant a standalone article per WP:BIO. That's the thesis you should refute if you're voting to keep. Let's stop needlessly cluttering up this page. Throast (talk | contribs) 09:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible merge with Salad Fingers, except that David Firth seems to be a wider topic than Salad Fingers, and so should be preserved as the main article, i.e. Salad Fingers should redirect here. But would first advocate a discussion at the Talk page to clarify that no more sources can be found. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If you're voting to merge Salad Fingers to David Firth, you're essentially voting to keep, hence the burden is on you to prove that the subject is notable. Throast (talk | contribs) 10:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how Salad Fingers can be notable and David Firth not, when he has created much more than just that one series. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is not inherited but has to be proven for each individual subject. Just because a person has done (or in this case created) something notable doesn't necessarily make themselves notable. Throast (talk | contribs) 13:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I see, so we're really dragging this out. That source would be about David Firth. It's also promotional because it advertises an event of his and hence probably shouldn't count as an independent source (It literally has a "Buy tickets" button at the bottom). Throast (talk | contribs) 13:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you describe as "dragging this out", might also be seen as relevant discussion about possible sources. What about this one? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure you've accidentally put in a wrong link. That article has nothing to do with David Firth. Throast (talk | contribs) 13:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That article is obviously centered around Salad Fingers and mentions Firth only in passing. It's also promoting a tour of his. Throast (talk | contribs) 14:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That source is, in essence, also about Salad Fingers. It's also an interview, hence a primary source, which generally shouldn't be used to base notability on. For more on that thought, see Wikipedia:Interviews. Throast (talk | contribs) 14:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously. Significant coverage of Salad Fingers, not of Firth. I guess it would be better to compile multiple sources into one response instead of asking me about each one individually. I also can't imagine that you're this oblivious about what constitutes "significant coverage". Throast (talk | contribs) 14:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • And this this one from Pitchfork is really about "Locust Toybox" or is promotional? Surely reliable sources are intended to support only relevant claims? I suspect there are very many BLP articles at Wikipedia which have very many sources for small pieces of information, about individual works or projects, and none that constitute "significant coverage" of an entire career (perhaps until that person dies and gets an obituary). Martinevans123 (talk) 14:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • And all such articles would qualify for deletion as well. If you have issues with
    Wikipedia's general notability guideline, this is not the right place to voice those grievances. Throast (talk | contribs) 14:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Exactly. So, can we agree that, until you've gathered consensus to eradicate "significant coverage" from GNG, this article should best be redirected to Salad Fingers for now? If we can agree, I can withdraw the nomination, as not very many other editors seem to be interested so far. Throast (talk | contribs) 15:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would strongly suggest that no decision is made before other editors have had an opportunity to express a opinion and offer arguments, with any sources if they have them. This nomination has not even been open for 24 hours yet? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can only find one short article almost about him, in The Scottish Sun. It gives his date of birth and where he's "from" but the rest of the article is about his works. The WP article mainly uses non-independent and non-reliable sources, and these need to be removed, especially references to his tweets. What we seem to have here is a pretty comprehensive biographical article with no reliable sources for the biographical information - Twitter, IMDB, Youtube, ISSUU (which is a pay-to-play site for artists). It just can't stand as it is. Lamona (talk) 18:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Long Comment - Hey @Throast:, this is PantheonRadiance commenting on this AfD outside of my account. I saw the arguments you proposed and I have a few concerns about them.
First off, I wanted to address your use of WP:Interviews. It seems you dismissed the Narc magazine interview as a primary source seemingly because it contains statements directly from him. While I’m unsure of the reliability of this magazine, I don’t think it automatically qualifies as a primary source for that reason. From what I’ve seen, text-based interviews are a double-edged sword; they can either work as primary or secondary sources, or sometimes blur the lines between both. However, to dismiss an interview as an unusable source for establishing notability is a bit much. Many in-depth articles that grant notability to BLP subjects on Wikipedia are often interviews of the subject that contain quotes directly from them. However, they also have independent synthesis, summary and/or analysis of those quotes and the person in general. See these for example:
Meanwhile, a primary source interview which merely consists of information straight from the "horse's mouth" would generally look like this. This Q/A interview solely consists of bolded questions along with statements straight from the subject itself, with little to no explanation of the subject beyond that. Comparing the Narc source, it seems more in line with the three SS interviews rather than the Q/A one. That interview in particular contains “
evaluative quotes
” from the author about Firth and Salad Fingers, conveying both the elusive nature of both him and the web series.
Second off, the argument of notability not being inherited is honestly a faulty precedent when it comes to creative professionals and the works they make (to clarify: NOT works they were marginally involved in). If it weren't for the person creating the series, then that series wouldn't even exist in the first place. So it only seems natural that sources that discuss the subject also discuss the works they created in tandem, and vice versa. In this regard, the works an artist creates is often an extension of themselves and an important part of their careers. However, that doesn't automatically mean a subject is notable solely because they created such a series. Rather, a single source can be balanced between coverage about the web series and the person itself. And looking at the provided sources, these could still be used to establish the notability of the creator as there is still some usable information about the subject that falls into the article (like the Ladbible source mentioning other works he created: “Firth has since gone on to put his talents to other projects, from web series such as Spoilsbury Toast Boy and Burnt Face Man to flash animations like Musical Predictions 2009 and Jerry Jackson”).
WP:SPLIT
is more applicable here.
Finally, one specific guideline you failed to mention was
WP:NARTIST
. Specifically, criteria #3 which aptly applies to Firth: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." While notability isn't inherited, David qualifies as this because he himself created the already notable and significant Salad Fingers which passes the notability guidelines. Not to mention, the essay you linked states this: "four of the notability guidelines, for creative professions, books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances." Even that essay acknowledges the inheritance of notability through the work a subject creates. Seeing as how notability-granting sources do exist that cover Salad Fingers and David Firth together, the Artist guideline should be taken into consideration moving forward in this debate.
Anyway, I'm not officially voting on this discussion because frankly I don't care much for Salad Fingers or Firth. I merely wish to highlight the issues present in the AfD and comment on the failings of the notability guidelines in the presence of multiple significant, reliable and independent secondary sources. But if the sources in the article aren't enough to convince you, then here's a couple more that editors should discuss.
Also @
isn't a reliable source, so that source shouldn't be used at all. 2601:204:D981:8130:B595:613D:C7D8:5E46 (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
What many people seem to forget in these sort of discussions is this: If a person is notable by Wikipedia's standards, editors should be able to produce a well-written, somewhat elaborate biographical article about that person. With the sourcing available, that seems to be an impossible task. There's just not enough in-depth info about the person out there. Throast (talk | contribs) 01:00, 22 March 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! 23:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Torre

Peter Torre (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 DJ, the claims are largely fabricated or unable to be verified (outside of paid for interviews in black hat SEO) and claims of working with the likes of Snoop Dog are exaggerated and based on a poorly written press release. CUPIDICAE💕 17:20, 15 March 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 01:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amarillo by Morning (film)

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

Appears to fail

WP:MOVIE and GNG Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

  • And by difficult I mean that finding sources is like trying to pull teeth from an Olympic athlete running in the opposite direction at full speed. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the reception section now shows coverage in multiple reliable sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 06:52, 16 March 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 1999–2000 Chester City F.C. season. Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Carver

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

Article about semi-professional footballer which doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. I cannot find any SIGCOV online - just trivial coverage like match reports and database entries or a quick profile like this. Jogurney (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, England, and Illinois. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technically he was a pro as the 1999–2000 Chester City F.C. season was in the third division (now EFL League Two), which is fully professional. Chester was relegated at the end of season 1999-2000. Lack of coverage and any other pro appearance would support deletion despite this.--Mvqr (talk) 15:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete That playing in the 3rd level division could be enough that every player in it is notable does not make sense. We need to find ways to only include the top level players in lower divisions, not every person who plays.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And how do you define a top level player in a lower division? No Great Shaker (talk) 10:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Per

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

WWE Aftershock

WWE Aftershock (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 low effort article, 4 references, and not even a gameplay section. Either redirect to WWE 2K, or have it deleted. TheSecondComing10 (talk) 15:12, 15 March 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 14:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Newport Primary School

Newport Primary 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)

Prod contested without improvement. Small, non-notable primary school which fails

WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 15:31, 15 March 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! 23:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kamu Laird

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

Article about semi-professional footballer which doesn't appear to meet

WP:GNG. I cannot find any SIGCOV online - just trivial coverage like match reports and database entries or a quick profile like this. Jogurney (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

The key word in
WP:CONSENSUS, Lambert. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Also that is exactly what we are doing right now, trying to write updated guidelines for footballers... Which makes Johnpacklambert's comment completely pointless. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:15, 22 March 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 14:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raul Kiria

Raul Kiria (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)

Can't see

97 14:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

KAS Air Company

KAS Air Company (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 gng. almost no info on airline found. 晚安 (トークページ) 14:26, 15 March 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. Hog Farm Talk 13:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Sawyer Software

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

Article on non-Notable company, fails

WP:TNT
and restarting the article from scratch anyway.

Note that this is the state of the article after the worst crap has been cleaned out. Various editors have been doing assorted free-maintenance and free-cleanup on this article advertisement for 11 years now.

I preformed a Google News search looking for any sources to support Notability. I checked all 15 search hits. About the "best" I source I found was this source reporting that this company had been hacked and leaked information for 60,000 accounts. However that source accepts paid advertorials disguised as native content, which you can see listed if you click the "advertise with us" link on that page. That clearly disqualifies the site from being considered a

WP:Reliable source. Alsee (talk) 14:16, 15 March 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. Based on article improvement and reduced opposition. Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2021–22 Wrexham A.F.C. season

2021–22 Wrexham A.F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD was removed, this fails the SNG

WP:NSEASONS and has been deleted twice before. Govvy (talk) 10:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

How to I improve this article to avoid deletion, i have included well sourced references. Yurijohnson (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Yurijohnson: please read Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Individual seasons, which says:
  • Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players.
    Wikipedia is not a stats directory
    . It is strongly recommended that such articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created.
For this article to be kept we need a few paragraphs of continuous text that review the club's activities in the season, without mentioning trivial events or including extended lists. This needs to to be based on reliable sources: good starting points might be the Daily Post, or a BBC website. However, as the team play in a relatively low-level league and they did not have an FA Cup run there may be insufficient reliable sources to make an acceptable article. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might want to. User:Yurijohnson, look at what the main-stream media has been saying. I've seen a surprising amount of coverage of Wrexham here recently in North America in relationship to Ryan Reynolds. Surely some of it relates to their current season. A couple of good references, and some text, rather than just stats, and you're golden. Nfitz (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Such as the 20-camera crew at Wrexham games this season, according to CBC, working on a new FX docu-series called Welcome To Wrexham. Nfitz (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your suggestion Yurijohnson (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited a few sentences in the page Yurijohnson (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - much improved, likely meets GNG. GiantSnowman 22:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Narrow Keep Following article improvement I feel that this article can meet GNG. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because Wrexham played in the 5th tier
WP:GNG, which I would argue this does. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The existence of similar articles is far from conclusive, see
WP:WHATABOUTX. Numerous Wikipedia articles should probably be deleted, and the identification of questionable articles depends on interested editors finding them. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Perhaps User:REDMAN 2019 and User:Number 57 can also review their deletes, in light of the article improvement. Nfitz (talk) 16:12, 22 March 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 11:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Explicit,
The article had several credible links from local newspapers in India. The said movie in question was also listed on IMDB, Youtube. Can you please help me understand what would be required to re-instate this article?
Thanks. Lovelustlife (talk) 05:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rani Agrawal

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

No

WP:SIGCOV, Only one source film Love recipe that too not independent and definitely not reliable. Cinzia007 (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC) struck confirmed, blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 11:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: No evidence of meeting NACTOR and lacks
    significant coverage in reliable sources to meet GNG. Many Indian TV shows themselves rest on shaky notability, so merely having linked articles is not sufficient. Needs to be backed up by independent and reliable sources which is not the case here, nothing worthy was found in a BEFORE search. -- Ab207 (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

U Kadam

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

Article was created by editor who now acknowledges they are the subject of the article and has requested deletion, so I am nominating on their behalf. See [3]. I'm not sure it meets

WP:NPROF anyway. Melcous (talk) 12:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

I am the creator of this page and I do acknowledge that it was a mistake on my part to violate wikipedia guidelines on conflict of interests. I do want to correct this wrong and look upon to remove this page ASAP. Thank you Civilizations1234 (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Some news around JNU protests is there. But it will not give the subject any notability I think.
    WP:GNG is not realized here. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Magalir Mattum (1994 film). Star Mississippi 01:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies Only

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

The film never released, and is better merged with Magalir Mattum (1994 film). Kailash29792 (talk) 12:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to

WP:ATD-M. -- Ab207 (talk) 08:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Even though the completed film that failed to have a theatrical release, it was a very notable (upcoming)film of Bollywood as veteran actor Randhir Kapoor was signed to play the lead role. As a Kamal Haasan production, the casting of popular actresses Seema Biswas and Shilpa Shirodkar also made the film very notable. The page is already having adequate references even though it's an early 90's production. The film deserves a stand alone page irrespective of its original version and finally wikipedia do have a category of Unreleased films. Rajeshbieee (talk) 04:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article does not explain why its failure is notable as per
    WP:NFF. Moreover, its a stub with just a few lines of meaningful content. A standalone article is not warranted here anyway because it can easily be covered as a section of the original film. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (very selectively) to Magalir Mattum (1994 film), it lacks significant coverage on its own to justify a separate page. Cavarrone 10:09, 19 March 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 Sailing at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Star. History remains under the redirect should further sourcing on his yacht club work be identified and consensus develops for a new standalone Star Mississippi 01:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Minoru Takarabe

Minoru Takarabe (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)

Takarabe was a competitor in the Olympics who did not medal. We lack any significant coverage, and my search for such turned up a name inclusion in a periodical about Japanese things from 1936, but nothing else. That as a bare name listing with no context of added information. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:29, 15 March 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 among established editors is Kors does not meet biographic notability, Star Mississippi 01:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Kors

Joshua Kors (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 violates

WP:BLPCOI in that it was created by and has been heavily edited by the subject via the usernames Jakors (as in Joshua A. Kors) and Joshuaiscanadian. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Joshua Kors is a prominent journalist who testified before Congress. The information here is fundamental to public knowledge. Dozens of people have edited this page over the last 15 years and so to say that it is one person's autobiographical statement is incorrect. 71.198.112.132 (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC) — 71.198.112.132 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
My dad is a veteran and I think that this article includes important information about ptsd military reporting that I should have access to. Atycer (talk) 18:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is very true- Joshua had done so much over the last 15 years. This has been edited by many many people. This article is not self-promotion at all. 2603:7000:A740:1AFA:19FB:6824:8BE8:BDD (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that this Wikipedia entry on journalist Joshua Kors should be removed as "self-promotion" is absolutely absurd. Kors is a prominent, award-winning journalist whose work on veterans' issues has been fundamental to news coverage of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The Wikipedia entry on Kors has been edited more than 500 times over the course of 14 years by dozens of Wikipedia users of no relation to Kors. The person who nominated this page for deletion, Dennis C. Abrams, asserts that edits by user Joshuaiscanadian proves that the article is self-promotion. But Joshuaiscanadian is NOT Joshua Kors, the subject of the article, as Wikipedia's editors can verify. This Wiki article meets all of the criteria set by Wikipedia. It contains important information about the National Magazine Award-winning journalist's history and reporting and contains information that the public should have access to. It should NOT be deleted. MMartist365 (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC) — MMartist365 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Totally agree w/ MMartist365 - how can this article be self-promotion if this Joshuaiscanadian, who is accused of self-promoting, isn't mentioned in the article? Just because that user has the same first name as the article's subject? ..... If the article was selfpromotion, wouldn't it make opinioned claims about the subject? This article just lists facts from Kors's reporting career and Congressional actions. And those facts all have citations from outside sources.... This weird comment by Dennis C. Abrams and his nomination of this article "for immediate deletion" made me (Redacted) --- which means that his "nomination for deletion" is probably an act of revenge or sabotage, not an honest effort to safeguard Wiki policies or serve the public by deleting this article's information from Wikipedia. Trying to get an article deleted as an act of vendetta, isn't that a violation of Wikipedia policy? AnnaBloom127 (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • the page was started with someone with the user name that indicates it was this person. That is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy, and we should enforce policy and delete articles started in such incorrect ways.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is absurd that it is even open for discussion. I personally have known Joshua Kors for over 15 years. I have watched him fight for those that cannot fight for themselves. He is as selfless and non self promoting as anyone I have met. I say that this attack on Joshua Kors needs to be dismissed and deleted and that M<r Kors and his reporting and legal work be allowed to move forward. 63.145.108.170 (talk) 19:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This wiki page is a perfectly acceptable resource to learn about Joshua Kors and the contributions he has made. I don't see any reason why this page should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zskyfly (talk • contribs) 23:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I get 4 hits total in Google and one in GNews, none of which show much of anything to support notability (beyond proving he exists). Almost run of the mill. Oaktree b (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am a veterans advocate, and I attended Joshua Kors' address to the House of Representatives about VA benefits, which has been the focus of his reporting. Kors' investigation of veterans’ benefits for ABC News and The Nation and his testimony before Congress led to major changes in military policy that affected thousands of veterans. This Wiki entry about Kors provides important information about a prominent journalist and his investigation. It was written by over 50 Wiki contributors and edited more than 450 times over the course of 10+ years. All of the information in it has citations from trusted media and university sources. That is not self-promotion. Far from it. This article should remain on the site. Wikipedia’s readers deserve to have this valuable information. Vetadvocate2008 (talk) 00:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This wiki page is in no way in violation of any wiki policy. Mr. Kors is indeed an award-winning journalist and all content detailed is both factual and informative - 2 things sacrosanct to Wikipedia and why I donate annually to Wikipedia. NYCRVA (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Unambiguous copyvio. Source: [4]. -- asilvering (talk) 01:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to point out that there have been ten fourteen users who have opposed deletion of this article and nine thirteen of those ten fourteen have not made a single other edit to Wikipedia outside of this topic. I originally thought it was only ten because four of these users were so clearly new to Wikipedia that they put their edits in the wrong place. Several of these users have self-proclaimed conflicts of interest. This is completely reprehensible conduct from an attorney and a journalist. --Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 02:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua has done a lot for the community over the years and leads a fascinating life. I have been following his career from his TedTalk appearance up until now as he uses his knowledge of the law to help many families get through the most difficult predicaments in their lives.

Whether it’s his love for family law or hearing his many thoughts opposing circumcising coming while from a Jewish household, Joshua has led a very interesting life. More and more people will discover Mr. Kors and I’m hoping this site continues to honor that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Luzzato (talk • contribs) 20:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is clearly just fine. The subject is a public figure, mainly for his journalistic work, and the content is appropriate for learning who he is and what he has written.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.213.98 (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Kors has helped untold soldiers through his work to expose unfair treatment of these men and women. He aides families now through his law practice. The main focus of the article is his journalistic career and is concise and accurate. The informative article should remain. Perhaps it could aide a soldier seeking help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gramma47 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article provides information on Joshua Kors, a journalist who has provided significant help to young men who have been wronged by the government. The article is also a source of information for anyone interested in the career and background of Joshua Kors. It should certainly be kept as a Wikipedia source of information. There is no valid reason for deleting it. 2600:8802:531A:7D00:9918:F1E4:A618:B4A8 (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • Nikki Jauron - "I have followed Joshua's work for a decade and his insight is valid and clarity during civic affairs is nonpartisan and uses a fairness in his work. I would be saddened to hear Wikipedia would chose to delete his page as he is a significant contributor to justice in the 21st Century.

March 15th, 7:25 PST; 2022 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.110.64 (talk) 02:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am a licensed attorney and have known Joshua for many years. His work is careful, thoughtful, and impeccable. It also varies widely, is useful to the public, and interesting. (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:5012:1A00:4927:503:A1FA:9842 (talk) 03:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful and unwarranted aspersions against the nominator redacted firefly ( t · c ) 08:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Little to no significant coverage that is actually about Kors. In addition, I have requested extended confirmed protection for this AfD in hopes we can have a real, policy-driven discussion going forward. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. If there's limited coverage (I have not looked myself, but nobody has pointed to substantial coverage yet), his best notability claim would seem to be the awards, for
    George Polk Award. Looking at the NMA article, only one of the NMA "Public Interest" winners has their own wikipedia article, indicating that this award does not confer wiki-notability. The IRE Award page does not even have a list of winners. On the List of George Polk Award winners, however, almost everybody has an article, so this award may be notable enough for ANYBIO. This is not my area of expertise, so I'd want to hear someone else weighing in that the George Polk Award is major enough to make someone notable. Until then, I lean delete, due to what appears to be a lack of significant coverage. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @LEvalyn If it does end up as a keep on basis of the awards, the history will have to be fully nuked anyway as copyvio. -- asilvering (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wiki readers and editors, I heard that this article about me was being considered for deletion and wanted to add some important context. The article was tagged for deletion by Dennis C. Abrams, an opposing counsel in a recent case. Abrams' firm pressed me to reveal confidential information about one of my clients. When I refused, he retaliated by tagging this Wikipedia article for deletion. We have reported his actions to the Bar Association. The Bar is now reviewing Abrams' misuse of Wikipedia and are considering sanctions. ... Undoubtedly, his actions didn't stem from a newfound passion for Wikipedia policies but as an act of vengeance against an opposing counsel who refused to violate the Bar's code of ethics. ... As for the merits of the case, I agree with the veterans' advocates who have posted here: When our investigation for ABC News won the Peabody Award and my reporting received the National Magazine Award (known in the industry as the Pulitzer of magazine reporting), I did become a prominent figure in the field. That's why I was called three times to testify before Congress -- and why Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton collaborated on a bill, signed into law by President Bush, ordering the Pentagon to investigate my reporting. It's also why the NY Times spotlighted my investigation on its front page. ... For Wiki readers, I believe this information and the sentence-by-sentence citations to outside, original reporting and news sources that have been put into place by more than 50 Wiki editors who have shaped the article with approx. 500 edits across the last 14 years have served the Wiki community -- providing important information and context for readers navigating these critical issues of military and veterans' benefits. Jakors (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, if true this is very concerning and should probably be addressed at
WP:GNG pass? This would be somewhat understandable when it comes to trying to serve readers, but instead you chose to write about yourself. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
One additional point I wanted to address: Opposing counsel Dennis C. Abrams, his core objection to this article is that it is self-promotion. That begs the question: Which of the 50+ writers and editors of this Wiki article are motivated by self-promotion? Redrose64 or Nthep or Strike Eagle or LindsayMarie119 or Boisterous Samurai or Iqadri85 or Joshuaiscanadian? None of these writers/editors are even mentioned in the article. And I have no idea who they are. So what about this collaboration is "self-promoting"? The very concept of a widespread, collaborative "self-promotion" doesn't make sense. ... I believe that the core of Wikipedia's mission is to provide verifiable, line-by-line sourced information about prominent topics and figures, information that serves the public, creates a jumping off point for readers who want to do more in-depth research, created in collaboration by a diverse range of unconnected Wiki contributors. That's exactly what this article is. ... It makes one wonder: Who would be served by taking this article down? What Wiki reader or contributor would benefit from having this information about the veterans' benefits scandal and the reporter who exposed that scandal deleted from the public conversation or eliminated as a resource? Jakors (talk) 11:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jakors Again, what resource? How would deleting this Wikipedia article eliminate this information as a resource? It's all taken directly from your own website, which, presumably, will continue to exist whether this WP article does or not. Here is the authorship data for the page, by the way: [5]. As this graph clearly shows, you are the major contributor to this article, and in fact very few people have made substantial edits to the page. Assuming you're also the IP editor (seems a reasonable assumption), the only non-bot editor to make any substantial changes is Ohconfucius.
You are not going to get anywhere rehashing the arguments already made on this page. To make a case for keeping this article, what needs to happen is a demonstration of a
WP:GNG pass - significant, independent coverage of you as a person. (ie, not articles where you've been asked to comment on something - articles about you.) Can you provide any of this? -- asilvering (talk) 13:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Content Analysis

Advanced Content Analysis (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)

After 6 years, this article consists of less than a dozen unsourced sentences. Sean Brunnock (talk) 13:20, 15 March 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 procedural close. ✗plicit 13:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Device independence

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

Redirect to Cross-platform software which is more comprehensive and better maintained. Sean Brunnock (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PrototypeRadio

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

Fails

WP:SIRS, doesn't have significant coverage covering the company in depth. Sea Cow (talk) 12:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Sea Cow states that Promo Only Promotions is not an authority worthy of mention. Promoonly is regarded as one of the biggest Radio trade magazines in the broadcast industry and a music service. In addition the radio program was one of the first programs on its kind on iheartmedai and iheartradio.
I am new to wikipedia and reviewed articles for electronic music radio programs and none of them have any information at all, i mentioned this to sea cow provided links and basically told me not to worry about the other articles when all they have pointing is a url to their page? I feel like im being targeted rather then helped and no matter what i do he comes back and edits it and shuts it down when other moderators have helped and provided edits to help me apply proper wikipedia writting. Mikehollins (talk) 13:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Music, and Internet. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I read the guide just Sea Cow suggested in his deletion of some of my edits. He said i need more then one source. I read the guide and it read.
    "We require the existence of at least one source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources."
    Promo Only is an Authority and a trade publication in the world of broadcast media. I submitted a pdf from an actual published magazine located at the sources website which list PrototypeRadio as guest speakers on two industry expert panels and a nomination for best syndicated mix show which Sea cow Deleted as he deemed PromoOnly not worthy.
    I followed instructions I event went and dug up PrototypeRadio's record labels ISNI, MusicBrainz, Discogs and other authorities, and library confirmation and added an authority confirmation. There is also a trade mark from the patent office that i dug of from the library of congress.
Comment None of those can be used to prove notability, beyond the fact that the thing exists. MusicBrainz is a user-generated wiki, so not reliable. Discogs is user-generated, same idea. ISNI is just a number for a thing, doesn't prove it's notable. Library authority cards basically just tell you something is on the shelf. Oaktree b (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that this article is worthy just from a historical perspective in the world of radio. Mikehollins (talk) 13:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To be clear, the notability test is not automatically cleared just because PrototypeRadio's own
    WP:GNG-worthy media outlets other than itself: that is, newspaper articles, magazine articles or books that discuss PrototypeRadio in prose that independently analyzes its significance. But none of the sources here meet that standard at all.
    Not every award that exists is automatically a notability-clinching award, for example: an award has to be notable (i.e. an award that gets coverage in the media) in order to make its winners or nominees notable on that basis, and an award that you have to source to the awarding organization's own self-published content about itself, because third party media coverage about the award is not available to establish the notability of the award, does not secure the notability of a winner or nominee for that award.
    And as for the number of sources, a thing does have to have multiple reliable and independent sources to be properly established as notable enough to have a Wikipedia article — one source merely stops a Wikipedia administrator from immediately smashing the delete button on sight without even having to take the article to any sort of discussion, and is not in and of itself sufficient to prevent the article from being deleted via the discussion-based prod or AFD processes: it takes several reliable sources to get an article onto safe notability ground that actually protects it from deletion discussions, and the only thing one source accomplishes is making the article ineligible to be immediately thrown into the trash can. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Is a magazine article from Radio and Records magazine notable? Mikehollins (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    or Radio ink? Mikehollins (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Almost entirely self-published sources used for the article, I found zero sources in Google, Gnews. No reliable discussions about the station in anything published. Oaktree b (talk) 00:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    this radio music conference program is self published? http://www.posummersessions.com/ProgramGuides/SSPG12.pdf Mikehollins (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    this is self published? https://web.archive.org/web/20120704180728/http:/www.electricsoundstage.com/pages/showschedule.html Mikehollins (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    this is self published? http://www.wildatlanta.com/pages/PrototypeRadio.html Mikehollins (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    https://web.archive.org/web/20120301124134/http://www.wildatlanta.com/pages/PrototypeRadio.html Mikehollins (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks reliable, independent and
    ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 13:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Niven Postma

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

Lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources (t · c) buidhe 12:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 12:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 12:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article makes no substantive claims of anything that would actually show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A BLP doesn't need to make substantive claims in its expository text to establish notability. What matters is whether the person is notable. On Wikipedia, notability is established by reference to reliable, independent sources that substantially note the person. And they must be substantial -- mere brief mentions don't count. It's also possible that Niven Postma, as a person versus the book she has written, are separate notability issues, and taken separately, neither would rise to Wikipedia standards of notability. I don't feel qualified to judge. Several articles about either Niven Postma or her book are listed in the references section. I separated out articles that originate one way or another from Niven Postma in an external links section. There are cases where an issue of "independence" arises -- e.g. if it's shown that the majority of the articles about Niven Postma were paid placement on the part of Niven Postma, or that she holds an editorial positions with the media organizations hosting content about here. In that case, I would vote Delete. As it is, having created the article, but with questions about notability still lurking in my own mind, I will abstain. At this point, I have to say, it's disappointing I have yet to see a comment here that argues coherently from Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Yakushima (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The four sources listed in References I evaluate as follows:
    1. [6] By Postma, not independent
    2. [7] Ditto
    3. Medium is a self-published source, cannot be used per
      WP:BLPSPS
    4. [8] with promotional tone and a buy link, I don't see this as an independent or reliable source (t · c) buidhe 00:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I'll make corrections. Yakushima (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reshuffled the links to reflect these objections. Regarding [3], I notice that she was a 2007 "Tutu Fellow", and that this is apparently an appointment to AFLI, which published the piece. She doesn't seem to be formally affiliated with AFLI now. Still, this is promotional of a veteran of a program run by AFLI, and thus not truly independent. I've added a link of her being interviewed, but I'm starting to see the ground is shakey here. My bad, for just dashing something off without more careful scrutiny.I'll leave it as a reference, but tag it "Unreliable source?" Yakushima (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Niven's book "The sunshine cruise company" did get a named-author review in the Independent [9] which is far from trivial. I'm not into assessing authors. Elemimele (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC) [reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Homa Games

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 gaming company. The coverage is routine like this funding news or a Forbes Contributor article (in other words paid). Fails

WP:CORPDEPTH. Knud Truelsen (talk) 12:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete and potentially G11. Article contains little information about the exact publishers history and products. + The reasons stated above, which could potentially be a sign of G11. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PerryPerryD (talk • contribs) 14:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails
    WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jairek Robbins

Jairek Robbins (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)

A bio with an obvious COI/UPE history. Performance coaches or motivational speakers are hardly notable just for being a motivational speaker. His notability claim to notability is very weak and is based on the notability of his father

WP:ANYBIO. Knud Truelsen (talk) 12:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was merge to List of Archie Comics characters#Other superheroes. ✗plicit 11:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Phantom

Bob Phantom (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)

A minor comic book character that appeared in a small number of issues. The article consists of a plot summary plus publication history and fails

WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. A redirect and perhaps a merge to List_of_Archie_Comics_characters#Other_superheroes might be considered. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn

(non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Gyanendra Pratap Singh

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

Lacks WP:SIGCOV, heavily cited with WP:PRIMARY. Even his seniors are not having any Wiki. NeverTry4Me - TT Page 10:36, 15 March 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. With the withdrawal of the keep !vote, there is consensus for removal Nosebagbear (talk) 10:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paromita Das

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

Unable to find sufficient sources to verify notability. NeverTry4Me - TT Page 09:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus at all. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]
I see that it's a Golden Jubilee prize, and not the main Sahitya Akademi Award, but with this and this combined with the award, I see enough notability to not change my vote. Hemantha (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Xxanthippe:, sorry, consensus was perhaps not the appropriate word. Let me reword - a lot of people over the years (1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) have considered Akademi awards significant enough for the articles to be kept. Hemantha (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC) links corrected per Xxanthippe's cmt below Hemantha (talk) 04:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These seem to be dead links and, anyway one prize is not enough. What are needed are multiple in-depth reliable sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment: It was third prize in the Indian Literature Golden Jubilee Literary Translation that Das won, commendable but the article should probably have previously mislead people thinking it was first. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Because it was also listed at Sahitya Akademi article, I skipped checking the sources. Withdrawing my vote for now. Hemantha (talk) 08:45, 16 March 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 that subject is not notable in her own right Nosebagbear (talk) 10:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Susan of Mar, Mistress of Mar

Susan of Mar, Mistress of Mar (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)

We've had this article for 17 years but I now struggle to see why. The subject appears to be entirely obscure; there are only 27 Google results for "Susan of Mar" and most seem to be genealogy websites. Indeed, all the references in the article are to genealogy websites. Wikipedia, however, is

not a genealogy website per its own policy. Surtsicna (talk) 09:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 09:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 09:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 09:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 09:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Other than being of noble birth, she's an interior designer, not notable as one either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be a genealogical website. I have my doubts that we actually are not, but we are trying to move away from being one by removing articles like this that do not fit in an encyclopedia. The article has been around for 17 years because in 2005 we have far too few quality controls and we have been trying to overcome the flood of low quality articles we got then ever since.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not Burke's Peerage. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is a slight item of interest here in that she appears to have attended a state school (though going by that school's entry she would have started at the girls' grammar school which preceded it). This is also the case with Charlotte Long who probably is notable for reasons separate from her parentage, who remained in state education even after her area went comprehensive. But that is not in itself enough; her mother is notable not least for having remained in the Lords post-1999, but notability is not inherited. People of her class do not get the automatic level of mass media coverage they got before the two World Wars; I know the Daily Mail cannot be used as a source, but it now publishes celebrity gossip where even in my childhood, obviously well after those two wars, it had Nigel Dempster writing about people like this (as I say, it wouldn't make her notable if the Mail had not followed the redtop route in terms of who it covers, but it is a sign of broader change). She has lived a pretty unremarkable life and there is no evidence that she is Wiki-notable. RobinCarmody (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I would agree that she is only here because of who her mother is and it is well established that for Wikipedia purposes notability is not inherited. If she were to go on to sit in the House of Lords in the future, or achieve notability in some other way then she would merit an article, but as it stands I can see nothing to suggest that at present she has anything like the required notability. Dunarc (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Permanent Representative of the Maldives to the United Nations until such time as the roles riverge Star Mississippi 01:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of ambassadors of the Maldives to the United States

List of ambassadors of the Maldives to 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)

The content is redundant with Permanent Representative of the Maldives to the United Nations since the Permanent Representative is also accredited as ambassador to the US. According to the main source here[10], even though the Maldives had a separate embassy in Washington, D.C. from 1968 to 1970, the Ambassador was still the UN representative. Joofjoof (talk) 08:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect as said above. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems customary to dual appoint both roles suggested in the merge. But I note that is not cited. Maybe the list being the same triggers WP:COMMONSENCE, but maybe it's original research. I lean towards common sense. But here's an issue, right now one is a list (this one) but the other is not. So when something interesting happens, and there is a notable event by the person in one of their roles, but not the other, things are going to get weird and we might regret merging them. So this merge may only look sensible today, when there is no content beyond a list, as soon as some develops, we'll need two separate articles again. So I lean towards keep, but wonder what others think CT55555 (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the UN list. Even if someone at some point gets a seperate appointment to one and not the other office that will not need a seperate list, one list can handle multiple offices especially if they have for most of time been related.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge seems a good end for now, until there's sufficient distinction between the sets (which might never happen). Hyperbolick (talk) 08:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America1000 08:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sikkim Janata Party

Sikkim Janata Party (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)

A short-lived political party that did not win any seats in the

WP:GNG. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep sourcing in article at present is enough to satisfy the GNG. A party that can present multiple candidates and reach 10% in an electorate is inherently notable. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. There is not going to be a consensus to delete this text, but it does seem clear that there's a possible project space merger on tap. That discussion can continue on the article or project's talk and does not require continuation of this AfD. Star Mississippi 17:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States federal judges who died in active service

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)

A fairly common occurrence, and not a defining characteristic of these judges or something that made them (more) notable. Basically, a random pairing of two characteristics. (On a side-note, we shouldn't have mainspace articles with big red errors and "to do " sections in them, that's why we have draft space and user sandboxes).

Nominated are all three lists:

Fram (talk) 08:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

  • I actually do know how N works as does BD2412 –
    WP:NPPSCHOOL. I've got an opening if you're interested. ^_^ There's a reason for AfD, and why everything is not a speedy-d. I disagree with your belief that my comment cancels out BD2412's and vice versa – both our points are substantive. It doesn't matter if the appointee decides to keep their judgeship for life or retire early. What matters is the total number of judgeships, which is 1770 ad infinitum. The position itself is as notable as the judge who fills it, equally as notable as is POTUS making the appt, and it's far from commonplace. It's an integral part of the Judicial Branch of US gvt., which makes it important encyclopedic information to share with our readers. The media and researchers certainly think it's (judgeships) notable enough to make comparisons of presidential appointments, 13:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC) and report the deaths.[15] It's good information to know, and it's well-organized so that our readers can easily find it. WP is not running out of space to the point that we have to delete encyclopedic articles to save room. Atsme 💬 📧 12:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC) Oops - forgot the death link of NY federal judge - now added. 12:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • For those killed while in service, we have a separate list which is not up for deletion,
    Fram (talk) 13:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Federal judgeships are lifetime appointments, so it's unsurprising many stay in office for life. While most do take senior status as a form of semi-retirement and sometimes fully retire, this is not a defining characteristic or one that receives substantial coverage for its significance necessitating this list. All federal judges and their means of leaving office are listed on their respective court articles, and I don't think this needs to be compiled. Members of Congress who died in office is a weak comparison, because that necessitates a special election and Members of Congress tend to be more prominent and receive more national coverage than judges. Reywas92Talk 13:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also members of congress are elected for fixed 2-year terms in the house and 6-ear-terms in the senate, although if elected to fill out a pervious term, it will be less than that (and if appointed to the senate they could be replaced in a special election for the rest of their term). So dieing in office is not expected. It does happen, but since terms are shorter it is less likely.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What next "List of British Monarchs who died while reigning"? Federal Judgeships are lifetime appointments. While they can be impeached, that is very rare. Up until I think sometime in the 1930s there was not even senor status, you had to fully resign, and doing so was not very common, so dieing in office was even more common.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Person in job for life dies while still in job for life. News at 11. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this clearly meets
    WP:LISTN
    . Those should be disregarded.
Another source to add is this one: " "Yet, given what we now know about health and ageing, it must have been uncommon then for old age to impact adversely on the performance of a federal judge's official duties. However, as the epidemiolocal transition took root, and as life expectancy in the United States lengthened, early death provided a dwindling solution to age-related declined in mental capacity. Instead, the judicial system had to place greater reliance on the discretion of federal judges to retire at an appropriate point in their careers." This is actually demonstrated in the lists, where you can see how early judges who died in office were in their 40s and even 30s.CNMall41 (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have added that source to the first article in the series, and will likely use it for other points in the other two. Obviously, this is still a project very much in development, with some excellent improvements and suggestions for further improvement coming out of this discussion. Cheers! BD2412 T 05:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatives to deletion

Comment: though I doubt that a consensus can form on a topic of this nature, here are some

alternatives to deletion
to insure preservation of the information that his been compiled in these articles before and during the course of this discussion:

If a clear consensus for deletion does develop, these lists should be moved to project space as subpages of Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges. As alluded to previously in the discussion, the hand-curated content in these lists can be used to fill holes and fix errors in the Wikidata entries on these judges. Alternately, these could be moved back to draftspace, or back to my userspace, from which the entire project originated. The Wikidata work can be carried out from any of those spaces. BD2412 T 18:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to freestanding article at a title like Deaths of United States federal judges in active service as suggested above. Springnuts (talk) 08:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection, either, to reconfiguring to such an article. Hyperbolick (talk) 10:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The article has been rewritten during the AfD to treat the topic from an out-of-universe perspective, and as a result the discussion has been trending towards keeping it. Sandstein 09:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Duke of Denver

Duke of Denver (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 fictional title.

Avilich (talk) 01:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete - in-universe refs, no evidence of notability. Loew Galitz (talk) 08:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are no useful references, the pedigree section is wholly unsourced and is is written in an inapropriate in-universe style, and once all that has been removed nothing useful remains. The text should be deleted and the title should become a redirect to Dorothy L. Sayers for now. If anyone is able to to dig through the sources mentioned above and draft something reasonable, a new article could be created at that time. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, there is a kernel of useful content there. If I were going to zap this and start again, I'd keep the section on the actual book character, which is easily sourceable to Sandberg 2022. And I'd probably keep a mention of Scott-Giles, although I'd discard everything from Scott-Giles. In fact, let me give that a go. Uncle G (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Info: Out of interest, I checked the Scott-Giles book at the British Library some time ago, as I wondered whether the pedigree was a copyright infringement lifted straight from it. It wasn't, but that does raise the question of exactly which sources were used to create the pedigree, and whether the fictional information given will ever be checkable. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well done! Perhaps some of the delete !voters would like to reconsider per
WP:HEY. StAnselm (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@Piotrus, MichaelMaggs, and Loew Galitz: The article has been rewritten by Uncle G and your evaluation in light of the rewrite is requested. --JBL (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to keep. Thanks for the ping. That's a far, far better article, and I'm happy now to change my !vote to keep. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Uncle G:, you haven't !voted yet. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @MichaelMaggs But the article is a possible forkish mess. It is now covering two characters, one has his own article Lord Peter Wimsey, the other does not but we do have articles on books he appears in (Whose Body?). Note that the current article has content that is relevant to the books/series but not to the characters or the concept of the Duke of Denver ex. the section on the Wimsey Papers, second phalf of the 'In Sayers's works' section which contains paragraphs on portrayal of aristocracy in the series, most of the collaboration section, th eother section which talks about 'fictional genealogies'. Considering the existence of the Template:Lord Peter Wimsey which implies we are dealing with the "Lord Peter Wimsey series", having looked into this in more detail, I think this article (Duke of Denver) needs to be merged to the Lord Peter Wimsey, which likely needs to be tweaked to be an article about the book series. On a side note, I am concerned whether the articles other characters from the series are notable as well. Some might, but some may need merger too. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not perfect, but an article with this title or something like it does seem the best place for a discussion of Sayers' collaboration with Scott-Giles. I would (now) keep the article, but wouldn't be adverse to it being renamed if necessary. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nominated by a sockpuppet with no other deletion proposals

(non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 11:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Anjali Marathe

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

He has sung for a few film, one film of which has won a significant award for the Best Female Playback Singer. I'm not sure it's enough to meet

WP:GNG and some autobiographical editing has been done on the article Cinzia007 (talk) 08:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC) striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 11:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep per
    WP:BASIC notability seems supported by a combination of sources. Beccaynr (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Hello Beccaynr sir , The source of the DNA you are telling me is the news of a woman named

Arati Ankalikar-Tikekar. Second news Indian Express article talk about next generation.Cinzia007 (talk) 05:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

My !vote is weak because of the need to combine the limited number of sources per
WP:BASIC, e.g. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. I would prefer to have more sources, but with the significant award win covered by multiple sources, as well as biographical and career information with some commentary available from sources, I think the article could be rewritten to address concerns about autobiographical editing while also still having enough support for a standalone article. Beccaynr (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Neville, 11th Baron Braybrooke

AfDs for this article:
Richard Neville, 11th Baron Braybrooke (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 British peer who inherited his title in 2017, and therefore never sat in the House of Lords (due to the

WP:ANYBIO (no entries in biographical dictionaries, distinctions, contributions to a specific field). Previous discussion closed as no consensus two years ago.
British peers are not inherently notable.

Source assessment follows:

Source assessment table:
Source
Independent?
 Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward
GNG
?
Person page. The peerage.com. value not understood No Deprecated self-published peerage website. value not understood ✘ No
https://www.ukwhoswho.com/view/10.1093/ww/9780199540884.001.0001/ww-9780199540884-e-289642/version/[bare URL] No
WP:RSP
consensus 		No Unanimous agreement in a 2022 RfC on this source: "There is a consensus that Who's Who (UK) is generally unreliable due to its poor editorial standards and history of publishing false or inaccurate information". value not understood ✘ No
Rudgard, Olivia (11 June 2017). "Downton Abbey writer hits out at inheritance laws after baron's daughter loses right to title and land". The Telegraph – via www.telegraph.co.uk. value not understood Yes Per
WP:RSP
 No Passing mention: "Instead, the title goes to a distant cousin, Richard Neville, 40, director of Bring a Bottle, a price comparison site for alcohol, and the estate to Louise Newman, 56, an art historian." ✘ No
Keay, Lara (12 June 2017). "Aristocrat's daughter loses £60million inheritance due to historic law". Express.co.uk. value not understood No Consensus is that this source is generally unreliable. See
WP:DAILYEXPRESS
. 		No Passing mention. "[...] the title goes to a distant cousin, Richard Neville, 40, a director of the Bring A Bottle alcohol price comparison site." ✘ No
"BRING A BOTTLE LIMITED - Officers (free information from Companies House)". beta.companieshouse.gov.uk. Retrieved 2 December 2019. value not understood value not understood No Just the company information;
WP:PRIMARY
. 		✘ No
"Britain’s 600 aristocratic families have doubled their wealth in the last decade and are as ‘wealthy as at the height of Empire". www.iexpress.co.uk. value not understood value not understood No Passing mention: "Heir: Richard Neville, 11th Baron Braybrooke". ✘ 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}}.

Pilaz (talk) 06:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 06:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 06:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 06:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. VocalIndia (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not pass politician notability. Holders of noble titles are not default notable, and we lack enough sourcing to show that he is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article is mostly about who he is descended from. Notability is not inherited so this is not the basis for an article. If he were a member of the House of Lords, or had achieved notability in another field, then he probably would merit an article, but as things stand I think this is a pretty clear cut case. Dunarc (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability is not inherited. The sourcing is not great (the Express is an unreliable source and the Telegraph is less reliable than usual when indulging an interest in aristocracy and wealth for their own sake) and the fact that only sources like that can be found is in itself a sign that this is an unimportant figure of no relevance to most people's lives in Britain, let alone everywhere else. RobinCarmody (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Zarkora

Zarkora (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 series does not meet

WP:GNG, and none of the books are notable in their own right. I was unable to find any reviews or coverage in independent and reliable (i.e., non-blog) sources. The authors do not have Wikipedia articles, so there is not a good redirect target (well, the first book has an article, but I'm also nominating that for deletion separately). DanCherek (talk) 04:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Fyrelit Tragedy

The Fyrelit Tragedy (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 does not meet

Kirkus reviewed it (link) as part of their Kirkus Indie program which is a paid review service and does not count towards notability. I was unable to find any other reviews or coverage in independent and reliable (i.e., non-blog) sources. The authors do not have Wikipedia articles, so there is not a good redirect target (well, the series has an article, but I'm also nominating that for deletion separately). DanCherek (talk) 04:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn.

(non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 06:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Magnesia (hypothetical city)

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

The concept of Magnesia has no life outside of Plato's Laws. It's not like Utopia. It should just be covered in the article on Plato's Laws. I really doubt it's notable as a separate concept, especially since Laws is kind of obscure. Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 04:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator -- It will be converted into a draft, and if it doesn't turn out to be notable by itself it can be used for the Laws article.--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 05:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Magnesia (disambiguation) for a list of cities named after this colony, for one small example of its "life outside Plato's laws". Also, you don't know what you don't know. There is alot written about Plato's utopias; and I could find dozens of secondary sources with a simple JSTOR or even web search, and this is what I and other competent contributors will do in the coming weeks. I suggest you try that first before nominating for deletion, and move this to Draft instead. This has had a very long afterlife in 2,000 years of philosophical discussion, including in Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas, texts that have made western civilization what it is, for better and worse. Just because that is "obscure" to you and other editors who are unaware of the history of political philosophy, does not mean that it has "no life outside Plato's laws". Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 05:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But unless the concept has been kind of removed from Laws, isn't it better to keep the info all on the page for Laws? I have made a search on an academic database and everything is just about Laws itself. Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 05:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In some ways, yes, it will reduce need for duplication. I'd prefer if you leave it in draft for a few weeks, since I'm the only one so far editing this, and if it proves to be cumbersome, we can deprecate the article and move it into Laws.Jaredscribe (talk) 05:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good plan; I just didn't want to move it into draft space if it has no hope of becoming an independent article eventually. If it's in drafts though I think it should be fine. Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 05:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
However there is precedent for leaving articles on fictional cities. For example, Plato's Atlantis and Bacon's Salomon's House. Having its own article would allow for ease of comparison. Jaredscribe (talk) 05:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
True, but I think Laws isn't commented on widely enough for Magnesia to have its own article. It's obscure, which isn't a good thing, but that's how it is. Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 05:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Harvard Salient

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because its subject seems non-notable (see

WP:GNG
).

I noticed this article had no sources, so it was my plan to add sources. However, I was only able to find this article here (republished here) mentioning it. Additionally, because the author of this source is a former editor of The Harvard Salient, I don't know that the source is "independent of the subject".

The notability guidelines for student media described in

WP:NMEDIA. Therefore, because the subject of this article does not appear to have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and because it does not appear to be cited in reliable sources, I think the subject of this article is non-notable, and the article should be deleted. palindrome§ǝɯoɹpuᴉןɐd 03:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting the previous AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, the previous AfD was rejected on the basis of 'bad faith', in that another longstanding publication had also been nominated for deletion. This is not a reason to keep the article now. I can't find significant coverage of this publication, fails
    WP:NMEDIA. SailingInABathTub (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kumardubi Drakhuli High School

Kumardubi Drakhuli 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)

WP:PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saraswati Shishu Vidya Mandir Dhori

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

WP:PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As it stands no one cared enough to add a reference in the year since this article was created, nor in the nearly two weeks that this article has been on the block for deletion. BD2412 T 22:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Football at the 2009 Maccabiah Games – Men's team squads

Football at the 2009 Maccabiah Games – Men's team squads (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)

Full of red links, and fails

WP:SPORTS Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

  • The women's squads are being discussed already at a separate AFD: here. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! Didn't see that big AfD tag at the top of the page... Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not needed, same reasons as for the women's squads. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable list. GiantSnowman 09:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably delete The way I see it, it's overkill on information. I'd say the actual games are more than notable and even
    Jewish Chronicle, Jewish News and other related newspapers across the world relating to the Jewish community would have covered parts of the events, thus this would build the coverage. Govvy (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per my reasons at the women's squads AfD Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this had been completed, it could conceivably have been merged up, while hidden. But it hasn't been completed. So a discussion is not necessary. So many articles get prodded while they shouldn't. This is the opposite case. It's unlikely that anyone will object to delete.
    WP:SNOW also applies. gidonb (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
You mean that this person will be back to complete their project? Unlikely. I agree that PROD is overused. Lately I have seen a lot of prodding where discussions are likely and articles were eventually kept. But, sure, all of the above! gidonb (talk) 23:52, 21 March 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 11:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Galloway

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

Fails

WP:BIO. 4 of the sources provided are primary. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Coverage mainly comes up with an assistant coroner with the same name. LibStar (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Diplomats aren't inherently notable, and the sources provided above and in the article are either not independent (interviews in particular), do not provide significant coverage (the Jewish Chronicle), and are of unknown reliability. Who's Who (UK) has been considered generally unreliable ever since the 2022 RfC at RSN, and I'm pretty sure all UK ambassadors get an entry in the volume regardless. Pilaz (talk) 09:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the sourcing is not enough to show notability. We have decided not all ambassadors are notable, so a source that seeks to cover every ambassador, especially one that is held to be generally unreliable, cannot be used to demonstrate we need to keep this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I find no sources in Gnews or newspapers. Her name turns up, back as far as the 1870s, but zero coverage about her as a diplomat. North Macedonia wouldn't seem to be a notable diplomatic post either, one small country in southern Europe. Oaktree b (talk) 00:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Orange Mike | Talk 15:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Templar Revelation

AfDs for this article:
The Templar Revelation (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 mess of

original research, with no sources and no evidence of notability Orange Mike | Talk 03:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United Kingdom. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The current article is certainly a mess, but I'm not convinced that flat out Deletion is appropriate (unless we're going for a
    WP:TNT argument) because the book does appear like it might actually be notable. There are a number of sources that mention or discuss it, either as part of criticism of the fringe theories it claims or discussing its connection to The Da Vinci Code, and a quick search brought up at least one, full length review of the book from the time of its release, from CNN. I'm leaning towards Keeping and cleaning up over deletion, right now. And, at the very least, I would think that a Redirect to Lynn Picknett would be preferable to deletion. Rorshacma (talk) 04:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - the book is certainly notable, under
    WP:OR issue is supposed to be here. This is effectively a "plot summary", as far as I can tell, simply listing their conclusions. That's not "original research". It doesn't present the fringe theory as fact, either. If the OR issue is the "perspectives" section, well, it's two lines long - I don't think anyone will be outraged if someone removes that bit. -- asilvering (talk) 07:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I can read some of Johnson's work at [17]. Doug Weller talk 17:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any more of the "for instances" that would satisfy NBOOK 1? I don't see how it would meet NBOOK 3. All I've found is this CNN book review. Also, today I learned that CNN used to do book reviews. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT - First, the article needs a substantial re-write. While including a brief synopsis of the book’s thesis/plot is appropriate, it should not take up the bulk of the article (as it does here). A lot more attention needs to be given to what reliable sources say about the book (ie reviews and critiques). The question is: do such reviews and critiques exist?
If not, we would have no choice but to delete - as we can not have an article that cites NO reliable sources (at all). If the necessary sources do exist, another option is to draftify (ie move it temporarily to
WP:DRAFTSPACE until it can be brought up to snuff, and then return it to MAINSPACE). I could support either option. Blueboar (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dony Valle

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Simione001 (talk) 01:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this relisted when consensus is clear? LibStar (talk) 05:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it seems a bit unusual. AssumeGoodWraith what was the reason for relisting as opposed to closing? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Need a bit more reason than "not notable" or "fails gng". This afd can still be closed at any time if I made another error. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you an admin? LibStar (talk) 04:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fails GNG is a clear enough reason. It means there aren't enough sources about it to pass GNG. If you can't understand that, you shouldn't be doing admin/experienced editor level tasks like relisting. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Suleyman Kerimov Foundation

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

There is no substantive RS coverage of this organization (the cited FT source doesnt mention the organization). If there's any encyclopedic content in this article, it can be merged with the

talk) 02:07, 15 March 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 01:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lenore Fenton MacClain

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

Non-notable person. Her claim to fame seems to be "speed typing" with the Dvorak layout, and winning some competitions, but was unable to find any SIGCOV about her. I don't have a Newspapers.com subscription, however. Natg 19 (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - MacClain won awards for typing, starred in a Navy film on typing, and published multiple editions of a book on how to type. Given how common typing is today it seems odd to have such a focus on typing. However, at the time there was active discussion about which keyboard layout to use and the best methods to train people in typing. With the added sources I have found I feel she now meets the notability requirements. DaffodilOcean (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not think the passing mentions of the speed typing records are enough to actual show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I ran her name through the newspaper archive at the Library of Congress, nothing, same at the New YOrk State newspaper archive [18], nothing. This might be hard to find sources for. Oaktree b (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to find sources in Virginia (where she lived later in life) searching for Mrs. George MacClain, including one that confirmed she was also known as Lenore Fenton MacClain.DaffodilOcean (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Citations 2, 4 and 5 alone satisfy me that she meets the general notability criteria. CT55555 (talk) 07:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Read this and felt I'd learned a fascinating factual tidbit supported by its references. Hyperbolick (talk) 10:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since it's still only 3-2 for Keep I'll add-on. I concur with Daffodil's reasoning - none of the sources are great in a sigcov sense, but their length is beyond that of true passing mentions, so sufficient to retain Nosebagbear (talk) 10:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Baurzhan Ospanov

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

There is no substantive RS coverage of this person.

talk) 01:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Detecting fake news online

Detecting fake news online (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)

Easily one of the strangest articles I've come across. While certainly a useful topic for a different website, this article flies in the face of

SPEAK 01:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. This article makes as much sense as Crossing the street safely. Sean Brunnock (talk) 11:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Hinckfuss

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

Subject does not pass

WP:NOLY. JTtheOG (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pari Ravan

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

This artist does not meet

WP:NARTIST. I cannot find any reliable secondary sources for the article. The creator of the article has only worked on this one article, suggesting CIO WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC) [reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The main contributor has disclosed a Conflict of Interest in [19] "Abstimmung mit der Künstlerin" means "coordination with the artist". Vexations (talk) 13:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not Who's Who or LinkedIn, we do not let people work to create their own articles here to boost public notice.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources are either self published or not reliable. The list of associations isn't helpful, pay money and pretty much any artist can join. I find nothing online. I looked at the sources in the French article, "newspapers" such as the Nice Matin, link to a site saying the site in question has been deacitvated and redirects to what looks like her own personal site to sell art. Almost looks like a clickbait/fraudulent attempt to give herself traction. Oaktree b (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.

(non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 01:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Wesley Donehue

Wesley Donehue (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)

Barely scratches the surface of notability, if that--a player from years back in a couple of local election issues, and apparently mostly known for a racist comment. User:Gruffbenji, on the talk page, seems to think this person isn't notable either. Note: I'm on this article by accident; I restored an earlier version (you should see how awful it was) and removed a bunch of unverified stuff. Drmies (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politics, Internet, and South Carolina. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this article does meet
    GNG, it needs a lot of work if it is to be kept. All but one of the reference links have rotted. GoldMiner24 Talk 22:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep it needs work but the sourcing is there. Nweil (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nweil, please explain which sources you find acceptable, and how reliable they are. I'm asking because a. you do not say anything specific about any of the sources, and b. I've looked over some of the AfDs you participated in, and you seem to be making the same vague keep arguments there. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • What you said feels a little like
        WP:HOUNDING but sure I'll explain more. Here is a full on bio of him in CNN. I see multiple mentions of him in the New York Times and Washington Post. He's quoted in print books. He's not just known for a racist remark, he has had an eventful career as a political strategist. Nweil (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
        ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:33, 15 March 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 Move to draft. Move to draft for improvement when more sources become available.

(non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 11:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Visfot

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

Film appears to fail

WP:NFF. Should be deleted or moved to draft until release. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep :- I disagree with the policy
    AfD. [reply
    ]
    Hello Atlantic306, I think you can do the honor. I believe we reached a consensus here as per 2 admin vote for move to draft. No sources are currently available to prove the point as per asked by Ab207. Thanks, stay safe. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 11:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems like the article passes
    WP:NFILM, Resources are enough to passes for a future film. This is not an incomplete or undistributed film. Jeni Wolf (talk) 05:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To better determine whether it passes NFILM
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - I have contributed to it but it appears to be paid to this articale. Both artical the same guy created and that is both movies belongs to same production house Bhushan Kumar. Ghudchadi. Cinzia007 (talk) 02:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC) striking vote! by confirmed, blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftity per
    WP:NFF for future film. The criteria here is independent coverage from reliable sources, not the status of filming. No scheduled release date yet, should be moved in draftspace until if and when its releases. -- Ab207 (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep :- I disagree with the policy mentioned
    WP:NFF. The shooting of the movie started in October 2021 and now the filming is completed in February 2022. Just saying independent coverage and reliable source what are you trying to convey? If you're considering each source mentioned in the article as unreliable, then I humbly request the community to guide me how to find sources which are consider as reliable for/by Wikipedia. In good faith, never bite a newcomer, so if you're having a good grasp of wikipedia, please share and guide me as well. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 01:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • @
    WP:AFC process to help users unfamiliar with the notability guidelines while creating new pages. Best -- Ab207 (talk) 08:03, 19 March 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. As noted, there is no criteria for deletion of a verifiably existing populated place based on it being of little note. BD2412 T 22:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Havannah, Cheshire

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

Subject does not need a Wikipedia article due to the village being of very little note. Maurice Oly (talk) 00:25, 15 March 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 clear. BD2412 T 22:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis L. Kappen

Dennis L. Kappen (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 if this person is notable, which I doubt,

WP:SPA, possible an autobiography. Edwardx (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_March_15&oldid=1080219820"