Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 November 2

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< November 01 November 03 >

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 04:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miranda Gibson

Miranda Gibson (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)

She is only known for one event, and thus does not pass notability as per

WP:ONEVENT. LibStar (talk) 23:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep She's easily searchable online, has recognition from other notable people. The article could/should be expanded, especially with the success of her activism and the resulting expansion of protected lands. Marleeashton (talk) 18:21, 3 November 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! 21:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vinh Son Montagnard Orphanage

Vinh Son Montagnard Orphanage (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)

Could not find third party coverage to meet

WP:ORG. Previously considered in AfD under different name: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friends of Vinh Son Montagnard Orphanage. LibStar (talk) 23:05, 2 November 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! 21:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stella Savvidou

Stella Savvidou (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:NGYMNAST. LibStar (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Zandi Mas

Alberto Zandi Mas (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)

Launched as AFD as in my opinion, notability is borderline and PROD is likely to be contested. None of the sources cover the person in depth, and the sources only cover what they are doing (opening restaurants, creating social media app, etc.) but none of them cover them in depth. Per

WP:GNG the article does not pass notability. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 00:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete reads like a bio for some website. No sources found, even those given aren't much. Oaktree b (talk) 00:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GMC pistol

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

Does not meet

WP:GNG, no relevant results on Google Scholar, internet searches or Google Books for various formulations of the gun's name in both English and Spanish. The article was translated without attribution from es.wiki; looking at that page's history, half of the information isn't even attributable to the single, inaccessible, cited source that I sincerely doubt the translator verified. signed, Rosguill talk 23:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Like others, I have searched but unable find any reputable sources other than mentions of one being used in a crime back in 2020. S0091 (talk) 17:10, 7 November 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 but without prejudice against re-creation. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:00, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Canine Therapy Corps

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

This is an advert, plain and simple. Could not find sigcov or anything that seems to prove it passes the GNG, and article possibly is created solely to promote (violation of WP:SOAPBOX). InvadingInvader (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Illinois. InvadingInvader (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but TNT first, they have lots of coverage in Chicago newspapers [2], [3], and [4] are just the first three I pulled up. Some are trivial, but there are enough of them to meet GNG. The article as it stands sounds like a brochure listing for the organization; should be re-written from sractch/TNT'ed. Oaktree b (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like at the most that except for the first one, the Corps are all in passing mention rather than the focus of the article. Possible GNG pass but SIGCOV looks like it's a fail. InvadingInvader (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Could I also suggest you read
    WP:JUNK if you haven't already? I think that this article would fall under WP:JUNK... InvadingInvader (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:31, 2 November 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 Lolly Talk. Star Mississippi 21:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lolly Talk live performances

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

Seems like

WP:FAN Billytanghh (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

A lot of kpop groups have an article like this Aga2am (talk) 21:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a reason to keep the article – see
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Richard3120 (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Summarize in the main article (which needs work anyway) and Redirect to Lolly Talk. Not seeing stand-alone notability here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:51, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This appears to be a split article from Lolly Talk. It doesn't have stand-alone notability and the content can be found in the older versions of the main article. I don't see why a redirect would be useful. Sun8908 Talk 15:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect after merging per Rhododendronites. Mccapra (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back as suggested. This violates
    WP:FORK. Bearian (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge and Redirect to Lolly Talk. This vote is purely an attempt to keep this out of "no consensus" purgatory. A merge would be easy and redirecting will cause little trouble unless someone tries to revive the article. By the way, playing live six whole times is not yet notable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:35, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 21:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Strayz live performances

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

Seems like

WP:FAN Billytanghh (talk) 20:34, 2 November 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! 21:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

The Red Room Company

The Red Room 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)

Although the page is in a poor state, there may be something notable here. However, my

WP:BEFORE search was unable to find more sources aside from a single Daily Telegraph article [5], some local coverage, and simple mentions. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 20:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harout Bedrossian

Harout Bedrossian (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 in-depth coverage in independent sources. MB 19:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 21:15, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Peropesis

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

The article does not seem to pass

WP:GNG. MarioGom (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 21:15, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arno Political Consultants

Arno Political Consultants (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 fails

WP:ORG. There aren't multiple, in-depth sources covering the subject. User:Namiba 18:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Notability is not inherited by being involved in high profile political conflicts.--User:Namiba 21:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the coverage appears to actually about them, but the issues. The conflicts might be notable, but just because they play a role does not mean that the consulting group itself is notable much like how a notable court case does not by default make a lawyer or law firm notable by extension. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree, they are involved in various "things", but coverage is about them in relation to the things and talking about the things themselves. Not quite at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 19:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of MT-32-compatible computer games

List of MT-32-compatible computer games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A list article with no sourcing or any indication of why it might be notable. I was inspired by this article to draft one about Gravis UltraSound-compatible games, but determined that neither can be expanded to include a decent prose as to why the technologies are noteworthy in video gaming, as corroborated by my searches not yielding enough sources dedicated to the technologies. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#List of games with Gravis UltraSound support. FreeMediaKid$ 15:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Lists. FreeMediaKid$ 15:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not withstanding a search for sources that comes up empty, I wonder if this might meet
    WP:LISTN, as that requires that the entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. I know that retro gaming YouTubers like LGR and PhilsComputerLab have done dedicated videos on the MT-32, as well as other vintage sound hardware like the Gravis UltraSound. While we can't cite those videos directly, there might be sources mentioned within those videos that meet our criteria for RS and would demonstrate the notability of the set such that LISTN would be satisfied and a list of these games would be appropriate. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Delete Seems to be entirely original research without any sources. This belongs on a gaming site, not Wikipedia. Reywas92Talk 15:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The notability of the Roland MT-32 article has not been in question so far, so it is unclear to me why a list of games supporting it should require a separate indication of notability. We do not require a list of video games released for a particular video game system to have a an indication of notability, separately from the article on the video game system itself, either, do we? If the question is "What makes MT-32 support more notable for games than support for the Covox Speech Thing or the Adlib Gold 1000?", then I would consider it already answered in the "Music for PC games" section of the Roland MT-32 article.
As for the lack of sourcing, I do not see a source for every release date on every "List of games released for system X" either, so I question the strict enforcement of this policy against this particular list. Even if the requirement were to be enforced, it would be much easier to fulfill (by linking to box scans on MobyGames listing the MT-32 as a supported sound device) than a hypothetical requirement for a source for every single release date on the "List of games released for system X" pages would be. The link to the MobyGames list as a source is poorly-formatted at this time, but that can be easily mended. NewRisingSun (talk) 20:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To all the deletionists: what are you guys hoping to achieve by deleting this page, really? More disk space? Less "noise"? Conforming to some idealised "19th century encyclopdia" concept of yours?
I'm a pragmatic person and I see Wikipedia as a wiki collecting information that's useful to people. Whether some of you people like that or not, that's how it's being used. The 18th-19th century concept of a "classic encyclopedia" has long been surpassed, I find it actually a little silly that the word "encyclopedia" is still kept in the official description of the site. E.g. I routinely come to Wikipedia to check out the synopsis of a particular episode of a TV series (please count how many such lists exist on WP!), or the list of games that use Unity, or lists of films released in a particular year, or the list of joint winners of the Nebula and Hugo awards, or... the list games that support the MT-32! In fact, I came to Wikipedia to check out lists far more frequently than anything else.
Seconding NewRisingSun's irritation; it's fine if you want to delete your own page, but this list has been lovingly maintained over 15 years by the same single guy, and has garnered more than 100k page views. Please leave it alone. Surely, the popularity of a given page should be factored into such decisions. People are clearly interested in this page, without the shadow of a doubt. Can you imagine how many other sites are linking to it? By deleting it, all those links would be broken... Again, what do you hope to accomplish by deleting other people's work?
All in all, this is an inconsistent and completely arbitrary attempt to remove a page that's an extremely useful resource for DOS gamers. And if we're questioning the significance of the Roland MT-32 itself, well, I don't even know what else to say...
Moreover, "references" could be added by linking to MobyGames or some other site. But come on, how would that be helpful? That's just creating busywork... GanymedeanSlimeMold (talk) 03:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
!vote Keep (maybe it will work this time; as you can see I'm new to this voting thing...) GanymedeanSlimeMold (talk) 07:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, I'm 100% an inclusionist!
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Inclusionism GanymedeanSlimeMold (talk) 07:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • On determining notoriety, Wikipedia has many interesting lists. For example, the video game Guitar Hero III has a separate page dedicated to inventorying its soundtrack. That's one game, at one point in time, by one publisher. In comparison, from the late 80s through the mid-90s, famous musicians used Roland's MT-32 to compose game soundtracks because it offered the most realistic instrument reproduction, without equal. Game publishers targeted Roland's MT-32 across 13 separate PC platforms, from Atari to the Macintosh, and it was popular in Japan, Europe, and the Americas. As a co-maintainer of DOSBox Staging, one of many DOSBox software forks that use Munt, an MT-32 emulator, I can attest to the fact that many users refer to this page to learn about the games that contain MT-32 soundtracks. This information is highly valuable and of historical significance for retro PC historians and gamers alike. 99.199.156.216 (talk) 01:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC) kcgen[reply]
  • Delete per
    WP:NOTCATALOGUE. It is not encyclopedic to know every single game that supports a specific sound hardware. Ajf773 (talk) 08:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Given
the "Wikipedia is not a directory" policy cannot sufficiently justify the deletion of a particular video-game-related list article without also explaining what makes this list different from and more delete-worthy than all these other video-game-related lists. NewRisingSun (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Keep as per my above comment. GanymedeanSlimeMold (talk) 03:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - we cannot have lists that cannot be properly sourced. Full stop.
    WP:NOTCATALOGUE concerns too, but there's no point in even delving into all of that if you've got a list you can't even reliably source. Sergecross73 msg me 03:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    And what on earth makes you think that it "cannot" be properly sourced? If you cannot tell the difference between "is not sourced" and "cannot be sourced", you should not be participating in a deletion discussion. You also failed to acknowledge that not all of the arguments here are "vague grumblings about not looking to delete things, or finding things personally useful". NewRisingSun (talk) 07:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm saying I don't believe it can be reliably sourced. The keep arguments haven't cited a single valid policy/guideline/essay/anything, nor have they provided a single reliable source that shows that the grouping is discussed by reliable sources (
    WP:OSE. Sergecross73 msg me 12:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I and others have cited several potential sources and plenty of policy, in particular in my response to Rhododendrites, and you are doing yourself no favors just pretending that it is not there. If you think that those do not qualify, then tell me with sufficient specificity why they don't qualify, and what exactly instead would. The vague policy pages you lazily linked to certainly do not provide that answer. NewRisingSun (talk) 12:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please repost the ones you specifically think satisfy LISTN. Sergecross73 msg me 13:07, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I stated that I don't know what it means to "satisfy LISTN" in light of LISTN's statement that "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y").", and challenge you to be able to tell whether any source satisfies it or not in that absence of consensus. I also said that "I would be adding one or two references to "Computer Gaming World" from the early 1990s". For example: "Re-Sounding Personal Computers" by Rich Heimlich, Computer Gaming World Issue 12/1990, pg. 60pp: "The MT-32 is based on MIDI (Musical Instrument Digital Interface), a standard already established in the music industry. It uses a technology known as linear Arithmetic Synthesis which enables the MT-32 to generate 32 voices of sound. Not only does the MT-32 have 21 more voices than an AdLib card, but it also benefits from the superior LAS technology. This allows for the most realistic sound available in computer gaming today. The MT-32 is like having a complete orchestra in your computer. It is so impressive that when this reviewer recently played Space Quest III using an MT-32, his jaw almost dropped to the floor. The experience is like living a dream." Is that sufficient notability? I am not going to waste time on more sources if it becomes clear that nothing will satisfy this (in the context of lists) nebulous requirement. And that you stated that you don't believe that it can be reliably sourced strongly hints at that outcome. I suppose it would help if you could write a hypothetical sentence that if properly sourced would make the "grouping" notable, because I beginning to have no idea anymore what it means for a "grouping to be notable". NewRisingSun (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Those sources would be helpful for the notability of the parent Roland MT-32 article, but they don't help the list article in sourcing entries or establishing LISTN. Sergecross73 msg me 13:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not? Explain it, damnit!!! I asked you what exactly would establish LISTN according to your nebulous criteria, and you refuse to answer that question for three posts now. Also, suddenly you are now pulling the "help the list article in sourcing entries" out of the bag, which was not talked about before. I already explained that individual entries *to* the list article are easily sourced with links to box scans that list MT-32 support, which are easily available. My god, you deletionists are impossible. NewRisingSun (talk) 13:53, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So far you have sourced how each thing in the list is notable. But why is the list important or notable. Sergecross has given you sources and information about the articles lack of notability and policies, either in this thread, or the other ones above it. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 16:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, I'm sympathetic to the fact that some of Wikipedia's rules are difficult to understand. But it's not particularly the duty of AFD participants (let alone someone who opposes your stance) to teach you Wikipedia policies. I'm not required to do anything more than give a policy-based stance and explain it well enough that the closing admin can understand it. I am not your mentor, teacher, or parent. Its up to you to learn, understand, and apply policy. That said, part of the issue here isn't even Wikipedia jargon. It's that there's a disconnect between your source(s) and the discussion taking place here today. You presented a fine source for explaining the notability of the subject of the Roland MT-32. That would have been a great piece of evidence if someone had nominated the Roland MT-32 article itself for deletion. But the Roland MT-32 article is not up for deletion. The list of games is. Your sources don't contribute anything to the games list itself. Sergecross73 msg me 18:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 16:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Since Wikipedia user User:PerryPerryD has now abusively opened a frivolous [SPI investigation], I cannot carry on with this discussion any longer for my sanity. The list had already been copied to a different website as a back-up, and I have now replaced the link on the main MT-32 page with a link to it. NewRisingSun (talk) 07:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My SPI was opened in suspiscion due to the similarities between the comments. Which I now see were falsely made suspiscions. I do not want this to affect the AFD request. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 15:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Filing a good-faith SPI is not a problem even if you're wrong, and has no bearing on AFD. Sergecross73 msg me 15:41, 9 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 15:26, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Warden

James Warden (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. Local interest only in deceased duelist. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Also mentioned in this book (a paragraph and some verses by his widow on p. 310). And a page and a half in this book on pp. 66-67. Both sources were listed in the article, and yet they aren't mentioned by the nominator. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dubious -- This individual is wholly NN, except that he died in a duel. Duelling was illegal, so that I would have liked to know what the consequences were for the other party. Are deaths through duelling notable enough to warrant an article? I have no issue with its sourcing . Peterkingiron (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete
    WP:BIO1E. Mztourist (talk) 02:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The duel was a notable event, and has received significant coverage. It is covered in newspapers at the time, and in two book-length histories over a hundred years later. The sources also describe the duellist's distinguished naval career in nineteen battles, and he's clearly the main focus of all the sources, so it makes sense to have an article on the man rather than the duel. But this could quite easily be turned into an article about the duel and renamed, if others think that is a better way to present the information. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 05:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well one of them didn't work for me. The newspaper article said that he was a naval hero, but the article doesn't say anything about that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring to this book. The duel itself may be the better title and focus of this article. Do you think the sources I've linked above do not provide sigcov of the duel? 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two pages in a book about the area? No. Besides, what's there to say? Two neighbours argued and fought a duel; one died, the other fled. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Plus the 4 other sources I linked above which none of the delete voters have even mentioned... 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 05:47, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    His naval career and other aspects of his life are also covered in detail in this recent article, which calls him a "naval hero". Only about a third of it is devoted to the duel. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can those arguing to delete please analyze the sources provided?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete If he had a "distinguished naval career" we should be seeing more distinguishing stuff about it. The duel is interesting, but not terribly notable. I'd don't think he'd be at GNG without the duel, not sure that adds much to it. If he wasn't in the Navy, a guy who dies in a duel but does nothing outside of that wouldn't be GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain why you think the sources above don't give significant coverage? The last source I linked goes into his naval career in some detail. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 18:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fine source, but it seems to be the only one about the Navy, I didn't consider the ones discussing the duel particularly detailed. He was in the English Navy, I'd expect something to be found in the Royal Navy archives if he was that "distinguised". It's almost at GNG, if we had another source for the naval information I'd feel more comfortable offering a GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 00:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think there's enough for notability: there were reports of the duel at the time across the country, for example Caledonian Mercury - Monday 07 May 1792 (registration reqd), Notes and Queries from 1924 has a couple of pages about the duel and seems he was regarded as a naval hero: Catching smugglers, an expedition against the French and intercepting merchant ships... the fascinating tale of a naval hero and Illustrated talk on Charmouth’s village’s tragic naval hero Piecesofuk (talk) 14:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, No sign of notability. Alex-h (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - sorry, but I can't see anything beyond local interest here. James Warden doesn't seem to be notable in any wider sense, despite a couple of over-enthusiastic headlines, and the duel doesn't seem to meet WP:EVENT. Ingratis (talk) 14:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to meet GNG. This source from Piecesofuk is significant. Here's another book which discusses his navy career, although I don't have access to much of it. Here's another book that discusses his duel, also not mentioned so far. This (unsourced but) detailed article discusses his navy career (he captained the HM Adventure (verification) and the HM Wells (verification)), and much more. In light of Ficaia's earlier findings, I think we have GNG. Oaktree b, do you think so? Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I don't agree. None of these goes beyond local interest. The main source of information is the memorial inscription in the churchyard; the rest are passing mentions only (he commanded X ship, he commanded Y ship: not notable), not the coherent accounts / research that would satisfy GNG. The story of the duel is repeated with very few changes from one source to another, and is on the level of a curiosity, sparked by the unusually long memorial inscription. The story in the Bridport News is about a local talk, and repeats pretty much the same information plus some extra genealogy. Not everything old is notable, however often it's repeated. Ingratis (talk) 03:51, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Significant coverage, according to GNG, is that which addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. It would certainly be nice to have more detail; but what we have is enough to write a balanced, accurate, and sufficiently-detailed article, which is what GNG is, in part, intended to ensure. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Frankly it light of the sourcing presented in this discussion I think
    WP:GNG is easily met. Sources found the man sufficiently of note to write about him during his life, at his death, and again more than 120 years later. Ficaia's sourcing alone is in my opinion sufficient, and the Bridport News story cements it. I think that the man is more notable than the duel; while it wouldn't be enough alone, his naval career, including twice holding command at sea, adds to his notability. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 05:05, 10 November 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 19:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unicorns!

Unicorns! (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)

Single source, no evidence this passes GNG or SIGCOV. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:04, 2 November 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

seasoning Star Mississippi 19:06, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Lingerie Fighting Championships

Lingerie Fighting Championships (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)

Already been deleted twice as being promotional/non-notable and continually recreated. Needs a community consensus to decide if it should be an article all not. The sources found, as well as those listed do nothing more than simply

WP:PROMOTE the event, whether it be advertising or interviews with associated people. No indication this is notable enough. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 19:05, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FabFitFun

AfDs for this article:
FabFitFun (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)

Renominating this for Deletion since two previous participants have been blocked as socks and it is still the same position that none of the references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Pinging previous participants

HighKing++ 17:50, 2 November 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! 15:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PreviewNetworks

PreviewNetworks (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)

Orphaned article about a non-notable defunct company, tagged since 2011 as a possible

WP:COI violation (the article was created by User:Previewnetworks and is that user's only contribution). —Bkell (talk) 15:48, 2 November 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Kaler

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

Notability is a possible pass, but there is little significant coverage of him. The only sources presented on this article are his own website and IMDB, which the first is primary and the second we have an essay about using as a source. If saved, the article, save for the filmography sections, should be TNT'd. InvadingInvader (talk) 00:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck through my IMDb mention since it seems to be upsetting to the discussion. My replies below occurred before this revision. 5Q5|✉ 11:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
5Q5, IMDb is not an indicator of notability. Anyone with a YouTube channel (or even without one) can create a profile of themselves calling themself an actor, writer or director. It's completely user-generated and there is no verification involved of whether information is factually accurate. Liz Read! Talk! 04:43, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:43, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because I do not put much weight in these Keep votes, arguing that IMDb is a reliable source judging notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete.
    WP:EXPERT on IMDb to me shouldn't trump longstanding consensus, though let's respectfully disagree. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 08:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment: Regarding the above comments about IMDb, neither of the Keep voters who have referred to IMDb has relied on IMDb itself to assert that the notability guidelines are met. 5Q5 simply referenced IMDb in passing. The point that I believe 5Q5 was making was that the subject has appeared as himself 21 times, and that's an indicator of notability—that is, appearing as oneself. It is the 21 self-credits—not the mere existence of an IMDb page—that is indicative of notability. Moresdi doesn't argue that simply having an IMDb page goes towards notability, either, but rather makes the point that the subject has a significant list of credits. Again, IMDb was only referenced in passing. Therefore, I believe that the rebuttal arguments which are being made—and which, in effect, say that the existence of an IMDb page does not go towards notability—are misdirected. Dflaw4 (talk) 11:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @
    WP:NACTOR? Further, I've seen 5Q5 frequently only refer to IMDb in their AfD comments, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Gallagher, where they list IMDb as the only rationale, which to me is contrary to your interpretation. After Liz's query, they stated that I've been a registered editor at IMDb for nearly 20 years. It is not like Wikipedia or social media. All content submitted to the site via a form process requires approval by staff before they publish it. Nothing is published directly by users. Even Wikipedia's own article on Amazon-owned IMDb acknowledges these points, which to me is affirming IMDb is reliable. Therefore, I disagree with your interpretation, Dflaw4. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @Dflaw4: Note: I've left a query at User talk:5Q5, I might amend my comment after their reply. Thanks for your time and efforts to keep this article! VickKiang (talk) 02:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Dflaw4 (talk) 05:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment from 5Q5: I only recently started voting in these actor/filmmaker AfDs (not inclined to going forward) so I was unfamiliar with the bias and perpetuated false assumptions about IMDb and how it actually works, since I have long experience on how it actually does. For instance, you can't add a birthdate or death date without providing strong confirmable sources. You can't create an IMDb profile for yourself and call yourself an actor or director. You can create a resume on IMDbPro, a paid service, and if that shows up on regular IMDb it indicates as such. Even Pro content has to be approved though, no direct user publishing.
IMDb FAQ: How can I provide proof that my submission is valid? Please keep in mind that we require verification of on-screen billing. In other words, we do not just want verification that you were involved in the making of a film -- we want evidence that your name appears in the main or end titles. Cast/crew call sheets, contracts, payment receipts, etc. are not evidence of on-screen billing. If you are able to prove that the credit does appear on screen (e.g., by providing a screener copy or a screen grab of the credits or similar materials), please contact us and we'll give you further instructions.
My opinion on the current IMDb is that it has improved its verification standards significantly with change of ownership (Amazon purchase) and is generally reliable with no direct publishing by users. I do not intend to change my vote in this particular AfD and if there is another vote on IMDb's reliability down the road I would appreciate a note informing me on my talk page so that I may participate. Thank you. 5Q5|✉ 11:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:EXPERT on IMDb doesn't outweigh longstanding consensus. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 20:06, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't know how IMDb works in terms of publishing content. I would agree that the lists of credits you find there seem to be reliable, and IMDb is likely the starting point for most of us in these
WP:NACTOR AfDs, to gauge just how much work the subject has done. But again, I don't think that was the point that 5Q5 was making. They said: "Also noted is that he has 21 Self credits on IMDb, an additional indicator of notability." I don't think the in-passing reference to IMDb ("on IMDb") was the point being made as regards notability, but rather the fact that the subject has appeared as himself in 21 TV productions. The "on IMDb" doesn't really add to the argument that was being made. 5Q5 could have simply written, "Also noted is that he has 21 Self credits, an additional indicator of notability," thereby omitting "on IMDb", and it wouldn't have changed the point they were making. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@Dflaw4: Thanks again for your detailed reply! 5Q5, just to clarify again would you agree to just omit the by IMDb part but still vote keep? Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I know that your views on IMDb are not accurate. I go through hundreds of expiring drafts each day, many of them are autobiographies and almost everyone of them links their social media accounts and their IMDb profile. When I look at their IMDb profiles, they are inevitably listing videos they made for YouTube channels, they are not actors, writers and directors in films or TV series. Many people with IMDb profiles are not paid professionals. They use their IPhones to make videos and then call themselves "a series creator". I have also been active on IMDb for decades and no change or addition I submitted ever required verification. IMDB is user-generated and I think anyone who has more than a few subscribers on their YouTube channels has an IMDb profile for themselvse. I'm sure that there are higher standards on IMDbPro because it is a paid service but not on the regular IMDb site.
But you know, it doesn't matter what you think and what I think, on Wikipedia, IMDb is not considered a reliable source and that's what counts. Liz Read! Talk! 07:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone is free to register to edit at IMDb and see if I am acurately describing the submission process. If IMDb does not request confirmation sourcing (they have your email when you register) it is because they were able to verify it themselves. Notability in 2022 doesn't necessarily involve old-school theatrical films and TV shows. This is my final post in this AfD. I have voted, I'm done. 5Q5|✉ 11:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly why we can't use IMDb. Anyone can submit anything. You can use it to confirm the role, but it should be cross-referenced to something else that confirms it. It's good for looking up facts, but not for sourcing here in Wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 15:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IMDB.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Not saying the source confirming the tv show hosting job is notable, but it's confirmation of a major role on TV, which is. Semi-RS confirming a job he had (we could probably find a TV Guide listing confirming the same thing). Oaktree b (talk) 18:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other production- to clarify are you stating that the two roles are: a) the My Boys role and b) the American Heroes Channel: America Facts VS Fiction one? Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 07:06, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct. Those are the two roles I found. Oaktree b (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. We might have different interpretations, but from Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other production I personally see this as that the television show should be notable- as in it has multiple independent, reliable, secondary sources that constitute of significant coverage.
From what I see Jamie hosted American Heroes Channel: America Facts VS Fiction. While he had a significant role in the show (satisfying one part of the criteria), I don't think the show is a notable television show (the other part) as I didn't find refs demonstrating Facts VS Fiction is notable. However, if you could find more refs on the show, please ping me and I could strike my weak delete vote. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 01:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article says that he has gained fame by portraying the character Mike Callahan on the TBS comedy My Boys. Gained fame? Hmmm. The reference for that extraordinary claim is an interview with him and the link is dead. Much of this discussion is based on a misunderstanding of
    WP:NACTOR. Meeting a special notability guideline like that is a presumption or likelihood of notability, not a guarantee. What is required is significant coverage in reliable sources that are entirely independent of the topic. This debate has been going on for three weeks, and nobody has been able to come up with a single source that meets that standard. The CNN source begins with Comedians are talking funny to CNN about various topics, and we offer them for laughs in this feature of CNN Comedy. It is a blend of an interview and a comedy performance, is clearly not independent and is therefore of no value in establishing notability. It is entertainment, not journalism. The bottom line is that he is a low level working actor and comedian who had a four year run as the sixth billed actor on a sitcom, but has never became notable as Wikipedia defines that term. Cullen328 (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@Cullen328: There's an archived version of that source here, but surprise surprise, it doesn't support the claim made. SmartSE (talk) 12:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Below is some coverage I found. Not the greatest but at the very least there should be a redirect to his main show. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pearson, Dan (8 November 2007), "He gets laughs, just being himself", Antioch Review
Vitello, Barbara (2 November 2007), "High seas to Hollywood Comedian Jamie Kaler trades Navy ship - for sitcom", Daily Herald (Arlington Heights, IL)
Lee, Luaine (11 June 2008), "Just being one of the boys is no stretch for comedy actor", Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
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. It has been a month and opinions continue to differ. I do not see a consensus emerging. Star Mississippi 19:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Imeon

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

It is not clearly established that this is a name or even alternative name for the collection of mountains in question in common English usage. The term, variously linked to the Hindu Kush, Pamir, Tian Shan and Zagros mountains does not seem to be based on serious geographical works, but rather consists of

Iskandar323 (talk) 15:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm uncomfortable with what appears to me to be reliable sources being removed and cited content being removed during a deletion review. Best to leave it while the process runs its course, if you're right the article will be deleted anyway. WCMemail 09:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@
Iskandar323 (talk) 09:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The article won't necessarily "be deleted anyway" if editors defend it based on no policy or independent verification.
Iskandar323 (talk) 09:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Focus on content, not on editors. I am not leaving angry messages on people's talk pages, nor do I have a 2 week block in my block history for violating a topic ban. And for the record., I restored cited content removed by you, after checking that IMHO it was sourced. This appeared to be an attempt to reduce an article to a stump during a deletion discussion to sway opinion. I could be wrong, other editors may disagree with my assessment but I put my faith in the community to come to the right decision. I suggest you do the same and not create personal conflict. WCMemail 10:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@
Iskandar323 (talk) 11:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Incorrect [11] I restored material, you removed material again [12], ignoring a clear edit summary explaining my concerns. You were edit warring to remove material so a warning was appropriate, in fact is a requirment of our
WP:3RR policy. And I have explained my comment, it is bad faith to assert I have not. Please stop this confrontational attitude. WCMemail 13:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Iskandar323 (talk) 13:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:11, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is no consensus to delete this article so the debate is whether it is more appropriate to Keep or Redirect this article. Please no further speculation about editor's motivations but it would be counter-productive to remove sourced content from an article undergoing a review.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is an important place and worth its own article. This is taught is Schools, hence, this is notable. It is also a geographical place covering wide areas. I don't see any reason for its deletion.PlorekyHave a problem? 17:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There's enough sources that a stand-alone article is appropriate. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No one can actually be reading the sources, because if they did, they would be finding next to no reliable mentions of the subject. Not inspiring.
    Iskandar323 (talk) 14:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep definitely keep since you can even a book about this place. Idunnox3 (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. @
    WP:SIRS could be used to aid you in a source analysis. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Not a bad shout, since it is unclear if everyone has taken the time to closely inspect the sourcing or not. I have erred on the side of generosity regarding significance. @4meter4, @Junedude433: I hope you find this elucidating.
Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes
the map source Question? Green tickY Question? Red XN Question? This reconstructed map certainly mentions an Emavon, but no source has been provided to connect Emavon to Imeon - the two might be the same, but without a source asserting this, it is
WP:OR
. A 7th-century map is also primary.
The Geography of Ananias of Sirak Question? Green tickY Question? Question? Question? No page number is provided. 467 is the number of pages. I found an archive.org copy of the work, but it is impossible to determine what the reference might be without reading the whole book. It is primary text with commentary.
Silk Road, North China - history blog Red XN Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Red XN Does not mention the subject by name. About the region in general. Pure
WP:SYNTH
.
The Travels of Marco Polo, Vol. 1. Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Red XN Does not mention the subject by name. About the region in general. Pure
WP:SYNTH
.
History of the Armenians. Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN No page number has been provided and the subject does not appear in a search of the text. More likely
WP:SYNTH
.
SCAR Composite Gazetteer of Antarctica Question? Green tickY Question? Green tickY Question? Not about the subject but the name of a mountain range on Smith Island (South Shetland Islands), named after what it attests as the Bulgarian name for a mountain in the present day Pamir and Hindu Kush. One sentence. Pretty trivial.
(in references but not cited) US gov source Question? Green tickY Question? Green tickY Question? Has one line noting the Mount Imeon area as being in the "present Hindu Kush in northern Afghanistan". Trivial.
(in references but not cited) misc web source Question? Green tickY Question? Green tickY Question? Web source of unclear provenance. Mentions "in the Pamirs and the Hindu Kush around Mount Imai." - I assume this is the reference. Trivial. Again, no source attests that this name is the same name (
WP:OR
).
(in references but not cited) link to a book contents page Question? Green tickY Question? Green tickY Question? Links to contents page with no page number referenced. Again, impossible to assess without reading the work, as with the other unreferenced, unlinked sourced.
Total qualifying sources 0
There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements
I would request that the discussion be relisted again, so that participants and any new takers can inspect the sourcing more carefully.
Iskandar323 (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Pinging @
Iskandar323 (talk) 07:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
This and this, for a start. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 07:39, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the fact that this is already taught in schools alone, means that this is notable. no sources needed.PlorekyHave a problem? 07:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that this wide place exists means that it is worthy to be on wikipedia. This is nonsense. Anyways, as long as it's a real area and covers a significant population, it's more or less notable enough for Wikipedia. Read
WP:NGEO. PlorekyHave a problem? 07:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
It is quite disconcerting that you have clearly done no fact checking for yourself and are persisting in this. As I did before I did a quick search, which easily turned up numerous valid sources, to whit:
I could go on but numerous reliable source are easily found [17].
Of the sources used in the article.
  • http://www.kroraina.com/ is simply a conglomeration of papers, individually they need to be taken on their merit. The map is from this paper [18], to me it seems reasonably reliable.
  • [19] is clearly a reliable source, also found on google books [20]. The accusation that the ISBN has been falsified is a bad faith presumption, it is easy to make a transcription error, I've done so myself.
  • [21] is perfectly valid for citing the route of the silk road, the fact it doesn't mention Imeon is irrelevant; this is not
    WP:SYNTH
    .
  • [22] is perfectly valid for citing the route of the silk road, the fact it doesn't mention Imeon is irrelevant; this is not
    WP:SYNTH
    .
  • [23] valid cite for the subject it is supporting; this is not
    WP:SYNTH
    .
  • [24] valid cite for the subject it is supporting; this is not
    WP:SYNTH
    .
  • [25] Clearly mentions Mount Imeon and location. I note this has been labelled by Iskander as "failed verification".
I stand by my original assessment that there are sufficient reliable sources already in the article to merit keep, there are plenty of reliable sources to expand the article and provide additional cites if needed. This does not need to be relisted and I will not change my comment. Iskander needs to drop the stick and step away from the
deceased horse. WCMemail 08:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am going to give this a relist due to the source analysis
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:51, 2 November 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 14:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

StayPlain

StayPlain (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)

10 months old application that fails the

too soon. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Internet, and Ghana. Reading Beans (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- the sources are promotional fluff and I see no indication of notability anywhere else. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am still wondering how you understand the notability guidelines of wikipedia.
    Someone designed and launch an app, and the ghanaian media picked it up, and that becomes a promotional fluff?? You think the app does not deserve to be talked about in the news? or yours is just the normal racist attitude towards anything Africa. Pteph Lon (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry you feel that way, but let me show you what I'm talking about. This article is about only about 320 words. Of those 320 words, over half are a direct quote from the app-builder and the rest are basic and overly promotional descriptions of the app: Stayplain is the new way to communicate with friends and family and serves as the most advanced and innovative social media platform is entirely promotional. This piece is similar. It actually cites the Pulse.com.gh piece, which isn't great, but it's entirely written as though it's promoting the app. That's not a reliable source by our standards, and doesn't help to show the app is notable. Alyo (chat·edits) 20:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, I understand your point now bro, and sorry for my outburst. I will get other relevant sources to support the article Pteph Lon (talk) 10:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi snr, i have made some correction. Have cited new sources. Please, kindly check it out so we can reach an agreement Pteph Lon (talk) 08:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very few reliable sources available, the ones cited in the article aren't really independent or reliable. The "pulse" one for example isn't a news source or anything like that, they're an ad agency: [26]. Google turns up basically nothing useful. --Jayron32 17:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hope you're good. I have made the needed corrections and added new citation sources. Please, kindly check it out so we can reach an agreement. Thanks Pteph Lon (talk) 08:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get you at all. What shows that the app doesn't meet the notability guidelines?? This is an article i will be inviting other wikipedians to contribute to. Your only problem is that you haven't heard about the app before, and hence your believe that it doesn't meet the notability guidelines.
You think you're the only one that read and understand the notability guidelines? or you think some of us just stand up and put anything on wikipedia? Pteph Lon (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and describing Pulse Ghana as an ad agency makes me feel so sad. Pulse Ghana that is owned by a Turkish media giant with sister media companies in Kenya, Nigeria, Turkey etc?? Pteph Lon (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, the About Us page on Pulse Ghana does emphasize its marketing services and the parent site, pulse.africa, doesn't highlight its media operations separately from its marketing services. Do you know if the editorial side of Pulse's operations are kept independent from its marketing services? — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 19:54, 2 November 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, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Szymon Zachwieja

Szymon Zachwieja (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 ski mountaineer.

GNG. If any sources do come to light, please ping me. SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 13:46, 2 November 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 S. P. Balasubrahmanyam#1960s–1970s. ✗plicit 13:47, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emiyee Vinta Moham

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

Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Film, and India. Skynxnex (talk) 14:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You'd think this could probably be merged into S. P. Balasubrahmanyam#1960s–1970s, given how short the article is – that paragraph about the artist's career already mentions that it was his debut song and includes the same source as this article about a rare photo of the recording session existing. The two lines about newspapers hailing the song after his death could easily be added there. Richard3120 (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have redirected to that, except it's such an important song, it's not even mentioned there. But would have no issue with this being redirected there, then anyone with interest could add the information. Onel5969 TT me 17:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is mentioned actually, in the first line of that paragraph. Richard3120 (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right. My bad. Onel5969 TT me 12:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    WP:NSONG per Richard's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 23:41, 4 November 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! 08:11, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ikemba Chisom Sophia

Ikemba Chisom Sophia (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 a comedian, entrepreneur or model as the case maybe that fails to meet

WP:SIGCOV. Jamiebuba (talk) 13:27, 2 November 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 Hangin' Tough (Waylon Jennings album). ✗plicit 13:47, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fallin' Out

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

This is a single that fails

WP:NSONGS as there are only two sources listed in the article and there is rarely any coverage. Despite it charting, the song overall does not seem to have any significant notability. --Fullmoon211 (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Hangin' Tough (Waylon Jennings album): despite significant charting, this single doesn't appear to have anything else going for it notability-wise per my own search, and charting alone does not make notability. QuietHere (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    WP:NSONG states that this is only an indication that the song may be notable, not that it is notable. If there really is no other information about the song apart from chart positions, then it probably shouldn't be kept – the chart positions already exist at Waylon Jennings singles discography#1980s so the information wouldn't be lost, and we really don't need a separate article just to repeat this information if we aren't going to add anything to it. Richard3120 (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Redirect to
    WP:NSONG per nom. Charting can be covered in the album. SBKSPP (talk) 23:41, 4 November 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! 08:10, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Butters' Tavern

Butters' Tavern (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 real indication of notability. PepperBeast (talk) 12:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and New Hampshire. PepperBeast (talk) 12:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and History. Skynxnex (talk) 14:45, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Flowery language and largely unsourced claims. I can only find passing mentions of the place talking about the beer named after it. Oaktree b (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm generally one for saving articles whenever possible, but this business/building doesn't have that much going for it and it's largely being used as a coatrack for non-notable stuff. Jahaza (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - on prose grounds, if nothing else. KJP1 (talk) 07:10, 6 November 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 13:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mandla (app)

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

This article has 10 references - but they are all unsuitable for one reason or another. Cites 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8 publish

MrOllie (talk) 12:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

You seem to have a personal vendetta against the article since your speedy deletion request was shut down. 1 and 2 don't have any connection to the founder and they are Notable publications in Nigeria. In fact one of the sources is criticizing the app for not including the Hausa language in its launch. Claiming it is a sponsored article is baseless. You also have a history of overzealous deletion on your talk page. 65sugg (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A declined CSD tag often means the article is better discussed at AfD. It's not necessarily a determination on whether the article should be kept or not. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DOUBT WP:DOUBT
"If you are uncertain whether or not an article should be deleted, it is best not to rush to have it deleted. Alternatives should be considered." 65sugg (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On that PDF and in the examples given in the PDF, pages delivered via that route are clearly marked as "Partner" links, something not present in the source in this article. - Aoidh (talk) 10:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but still. It is borderline reliable and it sounds like a press release. Duck test applies. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:53, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"borderline reliable" WP:DOUBT WP:DOUBT . There's no evidence to support the claim that it is a press release or that the article on legit.ng is a press release given the fact that it literally criticizes the app 65sugg (talk) 11:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I think the TechCabal reference is legit barring evidence to the contrary. That being said, if TechCabal is a reliable source in this instance, it is the only one, and I looked for more and came up with nothing. There's a lot of press releases and articles based on press releases, but they're easy to spot because they're all worded the same. Articles require multiple third-party reliable sources, and this article's subject maybe has the one. Because of that, the article fails
    WP:NSOFT. - Aoidh (talk) 13:16, 6 November 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos computing

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

Not Notable - all sources are primary sources and research output, i have been unable to find good secondary sources that establish notability. It's been 10 years since the last deletion discussion, and the field doesn't seem to have developed much since then. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 12:01, 2 November 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. Whether to draftify or rename can be decided by discussion on the article's talk page. Randykitty (talk) 13:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citrine Global

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

Seems like a SPAC, but is not notable by any standard as a company. Fails WP:NCORP. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Technology, and Thailand. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or draftify It might be early now because regulatory just passed the merger yesterday between Thailand number 2 and number 3 mobile phone operators to become the new number 1. Here is current google search for Thai name: [43] It will be publicly traded replacing existing 2 stock symbols (TRUE, DTAC) so there will be plenty of news coverage then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lerdsuwa (talk • contribs) 04:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:51, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and rename to True–DTAC merger or something similar, for now. The acquisition itself is the subject of widespread interest and news coverage, even if the significance of the company itself is still unclear. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:19, 3 November 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! 08:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promise Technology

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

Does not meet

WP:ORG. Has been tagged as potentially not notable since 2010, other issues since 2012. The article just summarizes routine coverage like product announcements. 331dot (talk) 08:36, 2 November 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! 08:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ex-Boyfriend (brand)

Ex-Boyfriend (brand) (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 brand, edited by a variety of socks. Theroadislong (talk) 08:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Fashion, and Popular culture. Theroadislong (talk) 08:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing found for this brand, only links to various kidnapping cases for some reason. Oaktree b (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sources provided are almost entirely what they say about themselves outside of the blurb about one their products in CNN. Searching, I only found a couple more blurbs ("gift ideas"). (Note - I only searched "Boredwalk" because at least by 2019 Ex-Boyfriend merged into Boredwalk according the first source, an interview). S0091 (talk) 17:36, 7 November 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! 07:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BoAt Lifestyle

BoAt Lifestyle (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)

Duplicate version exist at Draft:BoAt Lifestyle — Rejected. UPE. RPSkokie (talk) 06:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep – It's a stub and needs cleanup, but that doesn't prevent the article from being kept. The sources are adequate for the

WP:GNG. – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 18:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Per
WP:PROMO at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

(non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 04:15, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Crossroads (Avenged Sevenfold song)

Crossroads (Avenged Sevenfold song) (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:BEFORE search found no more sources contributing to notability. VickKiang (talk) 03:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete or Redirect Of the 13 references, 6 are non-rs, 2 are the band site so are
    WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 04:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Redirect to Live in the LBC & Diamonds in the Rough. Couldn't find any additional coverage, what's on page is clearly no good as stated above. QuietHere (talk) 06:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Live in the LBC & Diamonds in the Rough. If you're trying to figure out if the song is notable, you can do so in draft, and dig out more sources, which is why I moved it there, but nope, didn't happen. Release announcements and promotions can be done at the album article. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:37, 8 November 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! 04:47, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of playable characters in the WWF/E video games

List of playable characters in the WWF/E video games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Big ol' heap of

WP:GAMETRIVIA, a list of characters appearing in video games based upon WWE/WWF wrestling franchises. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 03:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete per WP:GAMETRIVIA, clearly not important content. echidnaLives - talk - edits 06:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 10:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as the nom suggests, this is one giant chunk of
    WP:GAMECRUFT made into its own article. Sergecross73 msg me 11:08, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment Is there a way to save this information? I know someone like me would find this sort of information important although it may not meet the current WP guidelines.GR86 (📱) 13:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You could possibly create something like this on Fandom (or jsut copy it to Fandom while making sure to provide attribution) but I'm not entirely sure. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone in this nom so far. While we do sometimes have lists of characters in movies, that's usually because they are notable but not enough to have their own articles. However this is basically just a list of every wrestler that has participated in WWF/E and was in the games. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously biased because of the time spent, but keep. I see this as no different to any of the ones in Category:Lists_of_video_game_characters, with the exception that there's an article for each character. The trivia sub-section could probably be removed since it's not too important (although one or two of the stats might be). But there's literally 500 different individuals who appeared in these video games, and I think this is the best way to display that. With 30+ years of games, I think it's notable enough. I'd honestly rather have this than a roster page on each game's article (which some have, and some don't, and it's inconsistent). Xanarki (talk) 14:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The existence of a trivia subsection is a violation of
    WP:NOTTRIVIA. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:34, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
These playable characters are based upon real people, they're not fictional characters with creation, development, reception. Imagine having a list of every playable association football (soccer) player that has appeared in FIFA or American football players appearing in Madden. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh god I can see the massive amounts of cruft in those articles already... ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I understand the association. I just figured, in my personal opinion, since the WWF/E games aren't actually sports titles + there's a consistency of the games being associated to one singular company (WWE), that an organized list wouldn't be farfetched. The wrestlers also has defined personalities and backgrounds (thus why they're listed with ring names), as opposed to (most) sports players who are only known for their stats. Pretty much everyone besides me seems to disagree on these points though, so I'll stop banging the drum on it. Xanarki (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"since the WWF/E games aren't actually sports titles" What do you mean? I'm fairly sure Wrestling is considered a sport and therefore these would be sports titles. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in a traditional sense, professional wrestling isn't a sport. It's scripted programming with physical scenes, not much different from an action movie or an action-based soap opera. There's many sources that places wrestling video games as a subgenre of the fighting genre instead of the sports genre. If there was an Olympics mat-based 1-on-1 wrestling video game (does that exist...? must be extremely slow-paced if it does), then that would be more suitable under the sports genre. But since the WWF/E games are different, they are more closely associated to the fighting genre. That's simply the perspective I took, and is the basis as to why I think the page has similar qualities to other fighting games' lists. Xanarki (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. I didn't actually know that. Thanks for informing me. Man professional wrestling must be boring to watch if you know what's gonna happen. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:41, 2 November 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 03:42, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenix hair sciences

Eugenix hair sciences (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:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 03:32, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 03:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Death Tunnel

AfDs for this article:
Death Tunnel (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 consists of a single line plot only description of a 17 year old minor independent horror film that is not of any notability. Nominating for deletion under WP:NOTPLOT Binarywraith (talk) 02:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 03:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Foster

Joanna Foster (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 sources for this one and I can't find anything out there to indicate notability. An actor that has appeared in mostly minor roles and is related to someone. Not enough to indicate

WP:GNG for a Wikipedia article, in my opinion. Not yet, anyway. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

I have access to
The Young Vic significant given their international reputations. I am not done adding sources, and have not yet begun looking through the archives of The Times, The Guardian, etc. I would imagine other sources will appear. For the moment I am combing through the lengthy number of articles in The Stage, but will move on to other databases later. Also, there are some books and reviews I have added from other sources already, so not everything I have added is from the same publication. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Well thanks for adding sources. Clearly the early consensus agrees with you. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:54, 2 November 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 Now That's What I Call Music! discography#Now Dance series (1985–2016). ✗plicit 00:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now Dance 2007 (British series)

Now Dance 2007 (British series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Zero SIGCOV, and aside from external links, no references. A clear GNG fail InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
MOS:DATERANGE) per above. QuietHere (talk) 06:56, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Redirect to Now That's What I Call Music! discography#Now Dance series (1985–2016) per above arguments. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:41, 5 November 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 Now That's What I Call Music! discography#Now Dance series (1985–2016). ✗plicit 00:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now Dance 2008

Now Dance 2008 (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)

Just barely passes A9 of CSD, but does not pass GNG. Zero SIGCOV; all is mentioned in passing and the album returns no results in Google news. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Now That's What I Call Music! discography#Now Dance series (1985–2016) per nomination. QuietHere (talk) 06:57, 2 November 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 Now That's What I Call Music! discography#Now Dance series (1985–2016). ✗plicit 00:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now Dance 2002

Now Dance 2002 (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)

Just barely passes A9 of CSD, but does not pass GNG. Zero SIGCOV; all is mentioned in passing and the album returns no results in Google news. Would additionally advise looking into the deletion of all the individual and non-notable Now Dance album articles. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Now That's What I Call Music! discography#Now Dance series (1985–2016) per nomination. QuietHere (talk) 06:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Now That's What I Call Music! discography#Now Dance series (1985–2016) per everyone else. Bondegezou (talk) 13:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Now That's What I Call Music! discography#Now Dance series (1985–2016) per above arguments. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:09, 5 November 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_November_2&oldid=1121031650"