Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 April 16

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

Purge server cache

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

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

X=Prem

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

De-PROD'ed. WP:TOOSOON and fails WP:NFF for a future film lacking a notable production. A draft at Draft:X=Prem exists. If merged into the draft, I'd suggest a history merge — DaxServer (t · m · c) 17:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. there is a consensus that a redirect would not be helpful to the reader, and that a merger is inappropriate due to the state of the content. Star Mississippi 00:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tundra Buggy

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 00:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitrios Terezopoulos

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

Does not appear to be notable via WP:BIO or WP:GNG - Note el:Δημήτριος Τερεζόπουλος exists over on Greek Wikipedia (but is tagged for notability) maybe as many sources just passing mentions. Terezo10 has edited both copies and has identifies themselves as the subject on their Greek userpage "My purpose is to clearly state my coaching career in the big teams of Greece". KylieTastic (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Govvy what do you mean by "per Greek wikipedia" - that article appears (by rough google translation) to be tagged for notability and for COI editing. I originally looked to pull sources from there but found some don't appear to mention him and many just passing mentions and just appointment notifications. KylieTastic (talk) 10:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Greek wiki article is poor, and the English article has nothing on it, but the guy took over Asteras Tripolis and in 2017 was coach at Rodos. I am inclined to believe there will be local coverage, I highly doubt there will not be a couple of decent sources to add. Instead of posting this article to AfD, you should have gone to WP:GREECE and ask for a wiki user to see if they could improve the article first. Sadly, and it's very sad, when there is potentially a chance to have anything decent, no one tries to sort it out. They look at an article and decide, that's pathetic, lets delete it! Cya! Govvy (talk) 10:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

  • Keep - there's good references in the Greek version of the Wikipedia such as this. I'm not sure this has been relisted twice already when there's no support for the nomination; I looked at this previously but didn't opine because it looked rather snowy. Nfitz (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022 Taganrog military airport attack

March 2022 Taganrog military airport attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another unnotable attack inside Russia purely reported by the Russian Government sources while being denied by Ukraine Viewsridge (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Jacob Heilbrunn

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was Draftify , which even the creator seems on board with. Given the circumstances around the creation, I'm going to salt this title to prevent it from coming back without AfC approval. AfC reviewers: consider this my OK for an unSALT when/if you deem this suitable for mainspace. Star Mississippi 00:42, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khidmat Guzar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment, I'd normally say drafity here, but given the history above I'd only be able to do that if the author committed to improving before moving to main space. In the absence of that, a delete seems fair. CT55555 (talk) 22:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok! I'll try to add more content and improve it. Thank you! Lillyput4455 (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to see them commit to waiting for the article to be improved by an AFC approver, not just moved at their whim. That's what got us here in the first place. Ravensfire (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Technically ineligible, but two relists and no dissension from the nomination. Star Mississippi 00:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bret Ernst

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for Soft Delete so relisting
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Opinion changed after article improvements towards keeping this article. Liz Read! Talk! 05:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Susie Shellenberger

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

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

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

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 00:16, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tracey Medeiros

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

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

No, her book can be notable but it doesn't mean that she herself is. If all that can be said is "x wrote y" then it should be redirected. CUPIDICAE💕 23:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll quote it, so that people can form their own conclusions, because I still think if there are two good sources on the book, she's good.
"The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews"
That said, I'm only saying this because you said the book is notable, a paywall blocked me reviewing the second source. So just to be clear, if you say her book it notable, then I think WP:AUTHOR guides us towards concluding the author is notable. CT55555 (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CT55555 If someone only has a single notable book and there isn't that much additional biographical information on them (so... not Harper Lee, basically), they tend to get redirected to the book. -- asilvering (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation, especially as the WP:AUTHOR rule was something you first drew my attention to! :-) CT55555 (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified my comment as there were also two arguments for redirection. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is more than enough press for the book to remain a separate article. Thriley (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a Snow Keep? Randy Kryn (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kalesh Kalakkode

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

No notable roles so clear WP:NACTOR fail. No sign of meeting WP:NMODEL. A WP:BEFORE search yields only social media and unreliable websites like EverybodyWiki. Likely an autobiography and the article creator keeps going into articles like Lucifer (film) and adding himself to the cast list, despite my attempts to revert. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Crosby (politician)

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

I found no significant coverage of him online, so it doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. The helper5667 (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Leclaire O'Neill

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

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

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

Delete this unreferenced BLP. I can only find passing mentions of her, not significant coverage. Cullen328 (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/live-well-road-test-hypnobirthing/EDBGX4LLEEURRQTDRTXBN4675U/
  2. https://www.cleveland.com/healthfit/2011/10/hypnobirthing_can_ease_deliver.html
  3. https://www.noticiasmagazine.pt/2020/tomar-o-controlo-do-parto-com-a-meditacao/bem-estar/252513/
WP:CREATIVE criterion 2 says authors, editors and others who invent a significant new concept are notable. CT55555 (talk) 23:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is bald and bereft of content that indicates notability. It does not even meet WP:BASIC. Yes, WP:BEFORE (books) returns a number of titles on hypnotherapy and Michelle Leclarie O'Neill; however, it is not our task to backfill articles bereft of content. This is a BLP, has to meet BLP specifications. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:53, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The cleveland.com article actually states that it is not clear who coined this word, "But no matter who originated the word ...". And hypnobirthing does not have its own article, merely a brief mention in hypnotherapy, so it is probably not a "significant new concept" in any event. Edwardx (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete our sources do not add up to notability. Basically I endorse Edwardx's assessment of the situation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 05:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Dizzy Acrobat

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 16:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • It looks like the suggested article features a mix of links - some of the cartoons are standalone, others are circular links to the filmography article (which should probably be fixed). As an Academy Award nominee, this one is probably notable enough to have a standalone article. Keep Tony Fox (arf!) 18:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, despite the current state of the article, the topic is notable having received an Oscar nom. BOVINEBOY2008 08:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. I don't see a third relist bringing about any additional input. Star Mississippi 00:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exclusive Movies

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

All listed sources seem to be announcements of specific movies' screenings, not in-depth coverage about the subject. Googling the subject does not seem to bring up much better sources. I does not seem to pass WP:NCORP. MarioGom (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 14:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All sources are reliable and there is no promotion ، Thanks. Kitrsjlhf (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All sources are reliable and there is no promotion ، Thanks Kitrsjlhf (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 16:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:57, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awei

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

No significant coverage. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Russian cruiser Moskva#Sinking. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Kuprin

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

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

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

And he had received the following awards and honours:

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

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

The result was redirect to Ectodermal dysplasia. ✗plicit 23:58, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dermoodontodysplasia

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

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 06:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hoplology

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

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

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

The result was withdrawn. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aashari Crosswell

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

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

I still think this is dubious from a GNG perspective, especially given the lack of on-field accomplisments, but I'm striking my vote in view of the nominator's expressed desire to withdraw. Cbl62 (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "House of Sparky" appears to be an SBNation blog, written by fans, and the SI.com article is a blurb that every player on the Seahawks' 90-man roster received at the time. I would discount both of them. The other three sources appear to be decent, although the first two are from the same newspaper. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright I switched it to a keep. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:23, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neeraj Agnihotri

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

Neeraj Agnihotri

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

Number Reference Remarks Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 www.india.com About a film - Mostly about the director - The cinematographer is the subject of the article Yes Not with respect to the subject Probably Yes
2 IMDB Includes a blurb about a film No Not about the subject No No
3 IMDB, same as 2 Includes a blurb about a film No Not about the subject No No
4 YouTube About a documentary by the subject No Probably No No
Robert McClenon (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep WP:CREATIVE says that anyone who had a major role in creating a body of work is notable. So it seems he like had a major role in creating Nashebaaz and therefore meets that criteria. That assumes that we'd consider the editor and cinematographer to qualify as a major role, I think we would. At least this deserves a discussion and not a speedy delete. CT55555 (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update, I'm really struggling to find anything about him, so posting this as more of a comment than a !vote in the hope for more opinions. Still suggesting normal AfD rather than speedy, but I don't have a strong opinion about it... CT55555 (talk) 01:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CT55555, I've declined the speedy deletion request on technical grounds, but WP:CREATIVE doesn't say what you think it says. It makes it clear that creatives still need to meet our notability rules, and just suggests that "anyone who had a major role in creating a body of work" is the sort of topic for which sources probably exist. The onus is still on those claiming notability to find those sources. ‑ Iridescent 05:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Realisor

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

An article on a software package which has been tagged for some years for Notability and reliance on Primary Sources. A previous instance was deleted via PROD in 2013. The present article describes the ownership history and features of the product but these do not indicate notability, nor does a bronze award in an industry-body evaluation. Searches for Realisor under Wovex and BRM Fusion find some mentions relative to the tool's use by a consultancy firm, but nothing to demonstrate attained notability. Articles about the current company Wovex were speedy-deleted twice in 2016 so there is not an WP:ATD target. AllyD (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dishan De Silva

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

Fails the requirements of WP:ANYBIO, is solely reliant on primary sources. The author of the article appears to have an undeclared conflict of interest. It appears to either be a resume or self promotion. Dan arndt (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Stevie Stone. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 16:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahdasee Records

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

No WP:SIGCOV RoanokeVirginia (talk) 14:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fatboi

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO RoanokeVirginia (talk) 13:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ejnar Knudsen

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bambee (HR platform)

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Fredericktown, Missouri

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

List of not notable local politicians. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's why the merge should be selective. Only of a few details. gidonb (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Biased Keep Yeah, I created this. I'll vote keep -- if a biased vote is even allowed. It's history. Most big city mayors, except a few very big city mayors, are rather non-notable. A few American mayors have been state representatives are something like that or perhaps the relative of a more famous person, but that's about it usually. Durindaljb (talk) 15:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional I am not sure why there is a sudden fury to delete several articles that I created and have been around in wikipedia for the past 7 1/2 years! I guess I really wasted countless hours of time with this project. Over 17 references are not enough? Durindaljb (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Durindaljb, I'm responding to whether your !vote is allowed. The short answer is yes. The long answer: you used "bias" here rather loosely. The same drive that caused you to create the article, a deep care for American history, causes you also to want to preserve it. Nothing wrong with that! Au contraire, thank you for caring about American history on Wikipedia! gidonb (talk) 12:47, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Kei Kusunoki. Liz Read! Talk! 05:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Girls Saurus

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. The rough consensus here is that presence on a single event of The Kelly Clarkson Show is insufficient grounds for notability. Based on the WP:NOTNEWS policy, that argument is rooted in policy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First Day of School (band)

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

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

  • Keep - They have been featured on multiple national web sites and social media for their charity work having worked for two years straight to raise funds for kids. The fact that Kelly Clarkson herself called them to come on her show, proves that famous media are aware of them and therefore relevant. I contacted them to get a thought, and they are being announced this week as part of the Boys of Summer tour which is the largest tour in the country and their charity has dozens of big celebrities that have joined since the show. The Young Entertainer Awards are the top awards for young actors with Brad Pitt, Scarlett Johansen, Morgan Freeman, Patrick Stewart all having been part of it. Just because they are not adults does not make their hard work unworthy of attention. I put forward that if the LA Times, Yahoo, the Guardian, Kelly Clarkson, and others feel they are newsworthy enough for their editors and national television, then they should qualify. Plus, with all the negative things going on in the world, positive news worthy Articles are more important than ever. CaseyMcCreedy (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Watch out for logical fallacies. Wikipedia has many articles about kid entertainers and positive trends. This discussion is about verifiability and notability. And it may be a good idea to disclose your personal connection with the group. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Delete When Getty Images is cited as a source, it's on thin ice. Positivity has no place in wikipedia, we're here to be neutral, covering everything from the Holocaust to cat memes. Oaktree b (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Totally agree. I was just expressing that I was happy that it was a positive post. If the inclusion of Getty is not relevant, then it can be removed as it was simply added to be thorough. The other news agencies, in my opinion should more than enough to show enough relevance to be included on Wikipedia. I am not related to them but am aware of them and have reached out to verify information as stated before. CaseyMcCreedy (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Writesonic

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

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

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbertape

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

Film production company doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP- lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Two relistings have not generated any further input. Apart from the nominator, the calls have been for keeping the article, and the arguments, that her work has seen significant coverage in newspapers such as Boaton Globe and Wall Street Journal, has merit. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Whalen

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

Has been quoted in a couple sources, but none of the sources are specifically about her. Everything is WP:PRIMARY and I couldn't find anything else. Previous AFDs in 2011 and 2012 closed as "no consensus" Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Here's the newspapers.com clipping to the Boston Globe article [13]. DaffodilOcean (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are multiple by-lined articles about Whalen and her work, the Boston Globe article I provided above is but one example. The article includes multiple other examples (i.e., Wall Street Journal, Inc. magazine). In the mid-2000s she also appeared in books guiding people on how to use the internet, back when books were published on the topic. DaffodilOcean (talk) 11:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. SpinningSpark 09:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth planet (disambiguation)

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

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

A few other "Nth planet (disambiguation)" pages that people agreed should be deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second planet (disambiguation) but need a separate discussion since they weren't properly listed here. I also boldly redirected disambiguation pages previously at First planet and Third planet. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguation-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • My opinion on fourth planet (disambiguation) and sixth planet (disambiguation) remains as it was for Second planet (disambiguation) (AfD discussion), as in my view they are identical situations. (No, "Planet Four" is not the same title as "fourth planet", any more than "Planet X" is the same title as "Tenth planet".)

    Seventh planet (disambiguation) is just bizarre. Only one thing in the disambiguation is a seventh planet. "5th giant" is in no sense an ambiguous title here. But the disambiguation article used to contain the seventh geocentric model planet, which was Saturn. It hasn't contained any other ambiguous titles in its history that I can see, so even back when it was actually disambiguating, it was doing the same as the aforementioned 3: disambiguating two planets by number. So my reasoning for those three applies to that article, too. Take the reader directly to planet#History for historical geocentric numberings.

    Eighth planet (disambiguation) is where things get interesting. There's not a geocentric model 8th planet, and this is disambiguating three heliocentric model 8th planets (two for quite a lot of the page's history). Obviously there's a primary topic. But whether 1 Ceres or Pluto were an "eighth planet" is the thing to consider. Back in the period when the first four asteroids were considered planets, 1 Ceres was listed 7th in order of distance from Sol, not 8th, in contemporary encyclopaedias and sources like François Arago's 1845 Lectures. There's a very brief window when 5 Astraea pushed it out to 8th, but by then it was already commonly listed as the first minor planet, and had been for at least 25 years. (Witness the 1819 list of minor planets in Principles of the sciences at the Internet Archive for example.) I've not found anyone actually designating Ceres as either the eighth planet or the seventh planet in that era. It never had those titles. So that's not ambiguous. As for Pluto, there are serious astronomical sources from before the conversion from major to dwarf planet that did seriously note that it was the eighth planet for a while. Unlike 1 Ceres, it did have the title. But that leaves us in the same situation as with the other three disambiguations, only 2 things to disambiguate and a non-primary topic better served by taking the reader directly to pluto#Orbit via a headnote (or some such) where the fact that it orbited inside the orbit of Neptune for 20 of the years that it was a major planet is already mentioned. Having a whole disambiguation article just to repeat that out of context is overkill.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Negativa (EP)

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

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:10, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Another potentially notable topic that is sadly just a mostly unreferenced list of trivia in the TV trope like style (even IF sources exist, which I couldn't confirm WP:TNT would be needed first). Many position are not even WP:SIGCOV-related, and fail the ORish inclusion criteria in the lead ("some notable examples of references to Cambridge" - notable according to whom?). Sample terrible entry: "In The Good Companions (1929 novel) by J. B. Priestley, the character Inigo Jollifant is introduced as a Cambridge graduate.". Or "Missee Lee (novel 1941) by Arthur Ransome The title character is a former Cambridge student. " Sigh. This catalogue of trivia failsWP:IPC, WP:GNG, WP:NLIST, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR, and mostly, WP:V. Note that while University_of_Cambridge#In_literature_and_popular_culture exits it is just as bad and probably needs to be removed as well. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:20, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If this is a "potentially notable topic that is sadly just a mostly unreferenced list", the appropriate solution is to improve the article rather than delete it. And if the nominator believes "in popular culture" articles should not exist - which seems to be the case given the number of them nominated lately - suggest opening a project discussion on that point rather than nomming them one by one. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Popular culture is a perfectly valid topic, and I've written or rewritten some related articles myself. But a TV trope-like list of trivia is good for nothing but WP:TNTing. There is nothing that we can salvage here, and its very existence scares people from working on this topic in a proper way. What was acceptable a decade+ ago is not acceptable today. You are welcome to rewrite it if you care, but please follow best practices. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:20, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A grab bag of connections to the university, however tenuous or weak, fails WP:NLIST. Fictional students or alumni? Good material for a trivia contest, not for a list. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Poorly sourced list of non-notable (and in some cases, extremely tenuously related) trivia. There is not a single source presented here that actually discusses the topic as a whole or justifies the splitting off of it to a separate article. The main University of Cambridge article also already has a "Popular Culture" section that, while poorly sourced and needing some cleanup itself, further illustrates the lack of a need of a split. Rorshacma (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't much care whether the good material from this list is merged into the University of Cambridge article, or whether this list is tidied and becomes 'main article' for Uni Cambridge in popular culture, but both would benefit from knowledgeable pruning. There is a tendency to cram anything that so much as mentions Cambridge into the list. The list would be more useful, in my view, if it focussed on things that really focus on Cambridge. For example, Bridget Jones' diary hardly hinges around Cambridge, whereas Ransome's Missee Lee very much does, although not a single minute of it is set there: the whole premise of the story wouldn't have worked had it not been for Missee Lee's hankering after her golden years of English University Education and marmalade. The subject of this list/article should be kept, somewhere. The current list is almost TNT-able. But on the whole, I'd prefer a really good, selectively-deletionist clean up. The difficulty is that no single editor is likely to be able to assess all the items in a list this size. Elemimele (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The sheer amount of trivia and original research makes this list unsalvageable. Furthermore, Wikipedia is neither Fandom nor a Jeopardy! answer sheet. Instead, it is an online encyclopaedia. None of this list's content is encyclopaedic. Therefore, it needs to be destroyed. ―Susmuffin Talk 22:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Improve - The article should be about the university in popular culture, as the title suggests, and not include the city or alumini. As far as sourcing is concerned, much of it doesn't require any because novels and films are their own primary source for the plot.--Ykraps (talk) 06:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Popular cultural articles certainly can't be self sourced as plot. Per MOS:POPCULT, "Cultural references about a subject [...] should not be included simply because they exist. Rather, all such references should be discussed in at least one reliable secondary or tertiary source which specifically links the cultural item to the subject of the article. This source should cover the subject of the article in some depth; it should not be a source about the cultural item which merely mentions the subject." See also WP:NOTPLOT, WP:IPCV and this 2015 RFC on the topic Cakelot1 (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as mostly trivial and unsourced. Cakelot1 (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking any secondary reliable sources, thus failing all of our core policies, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV, as well as what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Wikipedia articles are not mere plot details, and it's possible that there is a deeper analysis of the university and how it's portrayed in fiction. But there would be almost nothing to WP:PRESERVE from the current malformed article. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - for now, as an unnecessary content fork. Merge the referenced copy back to an "In popular culture" section in the main article and when a referenced IPC section gets too large, then fork it. Establish reasonable criteria that doesn't include every name drop that ever existed. Our essay on "In popular culture" sections seems to indicate that unless there is an academic or journalistic source discussing why Mr. X in book or movie Y graduated from Cambridge, you don't include it. As one of the oldest universities in the world, if an author is just randomly assigning a school to character, there's a good chance it might be Cambridge. Unless the author has discussed the why for a particular character's educational choices in real life, that isn't encyclopedic content for an article on a university OR for a content fork from one. TLDR version: Article is an unneeded content fork, per WP:FORK.174.212.236.66 (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia is not TV Tropes. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:20, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Primefac (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Electron cloud densitometry

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

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

  • Delete - this seemingly decent article provides no evidence of notability, most of the refs being either a smokescreen or just background. As not says, the on-topic refs are single-source. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of documented evidence that this has been more widely influential. Huge chunks of it were copied from Atomic theory without proper attribution. XOR'easter (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save. At present, the electron cloud densitometry is used in many scientific institutions around the world, though under other names. At the request of reviewers, I am creating a section to highlight this fact. The author Samsiq (talk · contribs).
  • Comment This article barely mentions its ostensible topic. There's almost nothing in it about what this technique actually is or how it works, and instead there's a lot of words that don't belong here. I'm not going to do this while the AfD is pending, because there wouldn't be anything left, but if the article is kept as a notable topic, 90% of what's there at present needs to be deleted entirely. That said, I'm not certain the topic ISN'T notable, just that this article isn't much help with learning about it as it stands now. PianoDan (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The == Equipment == section added Samsiq (talk · contribs), 21 April 2022
  • Delete After putting in some more effort to find reasonable sources, or evidence to support the claim that the technique is in wide use, I've drawn a blank. Unless the author can provide more evidence to support the claim that the technique is widely used under other names (and why it shouldn't be listed BY those names in Wikipedia), I don't see a basis for keeping this. PianoDan (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or WP:TNT. Article is too immature and sources are not plausible. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]
  • The answer for PianoDan. From the equipment section it follows that this technique is widely used in the world. And different names simply characterize the features of different devices. Samsiq (talk · contribs), 22 April 2022
  • You can't cite an edit you just made to an article to show that the article itself is correct - that's just circular. You need to cite references to reliable sources. (Not predatory journals). PianoDan (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 09:35, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of philosophy

Criticism of philosophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article creator has repeatedly reverted attempts (by four separate editors including myself) to turn this page into a redirect, so I'm bringing it here for discussion. The article as it stands simply quotes some comments made by Stephen Hawking which don't appear to have had any lasting impact. Since the title is a plausible search term, I attempted to redirect it to Antiphilosophy; this was reverted on the grounds that "anti-philosophy is a philosophy movement within philosophy whereas this article criticizes philosophy in general".
It's true that antiphilosophy is philosophy, and that's because any coherent criticism of philosophy is philosophy. One can criticise aspects of philosophy as it is practiced, but one can't sensibly criticise philosophy as a concept. Hawking's "philosophy is dead" comment seems to have been just a provocative soundbite; in the book which he is plugging in this speech, he talks at length about the philosophical foundations of modern physics, and presents himself as continuing that tradition with his own work.
As I said, though, I don't see any evidence that Hawking's comments have been widely discussed, which is why I'm proposing a straight redirect to Antiphilosophy rather than a merge. Dan from A.P. (talk) 06:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 09:35, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Totalschaden

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

non notable album of a rapper whose page was deleted (Tony D (rapper)) FMSky (talk) 06:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. North America1000 06:55, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ramadan Rabie

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

Lacks sigcov. Just database entries. Ficaia (talk) 05:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Islam Tarek

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

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

I would be more supportive of redirect if he were a one-club man. Redirecting to Tanta would give undue weight to that club over the other 3 that he played for before. Once he leaves Tanta, he will also cease to be listed at Tanta's Wikipedia article so, if the redirect remained at that stage, it may cause confusion. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a perfectly valid point, though the other clubs he seemingly played for have no (known?) stats and he has been at the current club for a healthy 6 years. I was more thinking along the lines of preserving the history and that any meaningful coverage (perhaps those listed below by CT55555) is likely to be in relation to Tanta. However as noted, I would not be against delete either unless verified reliable sources are determined. Bungle (talk • contribs) 14:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I didn't add it in as I don't feel skilled to assess Egyptian reliable sources, but these sources suggest notability:
  1. https://www.youm7.com/story/2021/7/5/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D9%88%D9%86%D8%A9-%D9%8A%D8%B1%D9%81%D8%B6-%D8%B9%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B6%D8%A7-%D9%85%D8%BA%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%AD%D9%8A%D9%84-%D8%A5%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%B7%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%82-%D8%AD%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%B3-%D9%85%D8%B1%D9%85%D9%89-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%81%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%82/5379669 (story about the club not wanting to sell him this summer. It's secondary, it's in depth, I just don't know about the quality of the site)
  2. https://www.cairo24.com/1431526 (analysis the same as above)
  3. https://elbaladtv.net/%d8%a5%d8%b3%d9%84%d8%a7%d9%85-%d8%b7%d8%a7%d8%b1%d9%82-%d9%87%d9%83%d9%85%d9%84-%d9%85%d8%b9-%d9%86%d8%a7%d8%af%d9%8a-%d8%b7%d9%86%d8%b7%d8%a7-%d8%a8%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%aa%d9%88%d9%83%d8%a9/ (same analysis of source) CT55555 (talk) 13:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - at least 57 appearances (per Soccerway) in the Egyptian Premier League, and sources are out there as shown above by CT55555. Nominator has clearly not even bothered looking as required by WP:BEFORE. GiantSnowman 11:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Soccerway doesn't even record matches before 2019. Over 100 EPL matches; international caps to. There's coverage out there linked above that appears to meet GNG. A completely dreadful nomination. I really don't know what User:Alvaldi is supporting here. Nfitz (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A number of appearanced per Soccerway in the Egyptian Premier League, as GiantSnowman mentioned, sources are out there as shown above by CT55555 and this nominator seems to have a big problem with not doing any WP:BEFORE and appears to be just keen to delete football articles.— NZFC(talk)(cont) 06:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Crossover music. Sandstein 14:16, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crossover jazz

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

WP:NEO. First and fourth sources do not use the term "crossover jazz", second and third are just directory listings. Previously declined from prod in 2019 Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 09:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chanchal Debnath

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

I couldn't find a source to show that this person won a legislative assembly election. He seems to have won a zilla parishad election though. Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:GNG. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 09:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sabols

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

No indication of notability. No significant coverage. PepperBeast (talk) 02:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Moore (immigrant)

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

Fails WP:BIO1E and WP:GNG. Suggesting merge into the Ellis Island article. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 21:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. While I can understand why the nominator refers to BIO1E, I personally don't understand either of these arguments. In terms of "as written the sourcing is inadequate", it is worth noting that notability discussions are not based on the content or the sourcing in the article (at time of nom). But on the sourcing available to support the article/claim (outside this project). In terms of "same as Arne", it is worth noting that Moore is represented in several statues, a number of books (granted several fictionalised), a number of things "named after her" (from software programs to awards to "sponsorship levels" of the Statue of Liberty - Ellis Island Foundation), a significant volume of news coverage, etc. The subjects are not equivalent. Guliolopez (talk) 03:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Arne Pettersen has also been nominated for deletion, and the article currently includes a reference to a website titled "stuffnobodycaresabout.com". Beccaynr (talk) 03:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I had seen that other AfD nomination. But I don't see how its relevant myself. Or how "the article on X is nominated for deletion, and so therefore should the article on Y" isn't an example of an WP:OSE argument. Anyway, I've offered my own (hopefully policy-based) opinion below. I'll shut up now :) Guliolopez (talk) 04:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cheers! Fakescientist8000 02:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. While I understand the inclination to point to BIO1E here ("subject is primarily notable for one thing"), as noted in WP:BIO1E itself (as also highlighted by Beccaynr), where the "event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate". This is absolutely the case here. As indicated by the significant volume of coverage of the subject (and several statues and any number of books and the like). A subsection or footnote in the Ellis Island (or anywhere else for that matter) would be a misrepresentation of the significance assigned by the sources/coverage/etc. Mine is a firm "keep" recommendation. Guliolopez (talk) 02:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep per @Guliolopez. It is clear that there has been sustained historical interest in Moore. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This AfD was not removed from the previous log page when it was relisted, and it should not have been relisted in the first place. @Fakescientist8000: Relisting is only for older nominations that have not reached a consensus, and should never be done by the nominator. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies, it was my first time using the 'relist' tool. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, while I do see your point of WP:1E, I think WP:NOT1E applies here as it fails the third criteria, I think the event is significant enough to warrant her own article. Her legacy is impactful as noted in the Legacy section of the article. Heart (talk) 04:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see four books written about her, I see a statue built to her. The plaque on the statue is in a public place and could be used as a source. BLP1E does not apply for two reasons. 1 - BLP1E is part of BLP and BLP is about living people. She is dead. So I don't think it is applicable. Even if it was applicable, the books are written about her life, not just her arrival, additionally even if you didn't accept those points, she is notable for her arrival and then for someone making a statue, two separate events. Coverage is WP:SUSTAINED. CT55555 (talk) 13:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    However, I never claimed to use BLP1E, I pointed towards BIO1E. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination withdrawn. I have seen your arguments, folks, and have come to the conclusion that Annie Moore is notable enough beyond WP:BIO1E to be on Wikipedia. My apologies. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:20, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America1000 06:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neko (gamer)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. DBLTAP is a questionable source, and they others are nothing beyond routine coverage, non-mentions, or passing mentions. – Pbrks (t • c) 02:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. North America1000 06:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First General Bank

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

I found no significant coverage per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 01:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Cunard (talk) 10:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_April_16&oldid=1084394313"