Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


< July 31 August 02 >

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 13:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC) reply

The Swear

The Swear (  | 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 band, no sources, almost no reference to the band online. WP:MUSIC   Kadzi   ( talk) 18:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Band is currently on tour with David Cook, just released a new album. Plenty of references online and all music is current. Songs have appeared on major TV shows. https://www.theswear.com/tour Lead singer has written hit songs and won major contests. 2601:483:4A80:6E00:48A5:D7C6:AD98:643A ( talk) 22:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Being on tour doesn't make them notable. The link you gave doesn't say anything about them being on tour with David Cook, and even if they are, they don't inherit any notability from him per WP:NINHERITED. The band doesn't inherit notability from Elizabeth Elkins either (who doesn't have an article), but if two band members were independently notable that would be a pass of WP:BAND criterion #6. Spinning Spark 15:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - Although the band have been around for a while, there appears to be no sognificant coverage about them. The article has no references, and I can find nothing that would establish notability. -- Whpq ( talk) 12:10, 7 August 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 00:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Acquisourcing

Acquisourcing (  | 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:DICDEF article about a neologism that isn't even mentioned in the cited sources. I can't find any significant coverage of the term online, and thus falls short of WP:GNG. Redirecting to Acqui-hiring doesn't seem appropriate, as the only commonality is that they are portmanteaus about practices associated with business acquisitions, and "acquisourcing" is not mentioned in any capacity at Acqui-hiring. signed, Rosguill talk 19:15, 25 July 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, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus which does not preclude a discussion on the talk about whether it's worth covering elsewhere. Otherwise no objection to a renomination if someone thinks more input is forthcoming. Star Mississippi 02:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Koogle

Koogle (  | 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)

Referencing and notability issues. Andrevan @ 15:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Weak Keep I found [1] on search, along with various nostalgia blogs. I think it passes WP:NPRODUCT as a reasonable CFORK of Kraft. BrigadierG ( talk) 16:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Hmm. This feels like a somewhat trivial mention. I think we need more. Andrevan @ 17:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete. Probably doesn't even rate a redirect to Kraft Foods. The nextweb source above is a bare mention, everything else is just blogs. valereee ( talk) 14:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep. It gets short entries in From Abba to Zoom: A Pop Culture Encyclopedia of the Late 20th Century [2] and Creamy and Crunchy: An Informal History of Peanut Butter, the All-American Food [3]. I'm seeing a <amended>Consumer Reports article</amended> in a lot of bibliographies entitled "Koogle: Does it Pass the Peanut Butter Test?", for instance it is the reference to this passing mention, but I haven't found an online copy. It was clearly well known in the 1970s and heavily advertised on TV, but I suspect there is only material for a very short page available now, unless Kraft publish some of their primary source material revealing its history and why they took it off the market. Spinning Spark 15:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    These all seem like passing trivial mentions. Andrevan @ 16:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    An entry in an encyclopaedia under a headword is not a passing mention, even if short, because the entry is about that topic. In Wikipedia, we might call such entries stubs. The Consumer Reports article I referred to is definitely not a passing mention, it's just not online. One can't write a magazine article on a product and then only mention it. Spinning Spark 06:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    The Informal History seems like a passing mention, though, no? It's basically an entry on a timeline, the entirety of which, 2 sentences, reads: 1975 - Kraft introduces Koogle, the first commercial flavored peanut spread, in four flavors, cinnamon, banana, chocolate, and vanilla. Consumer Reports turns thumbs down, saying, "Nutrition and taste argue against buying Koogle." Based on that, do we really need to go find this Consumer Reports review? And yes the entry in Pop Culture Encyclopedia seems to indeed be a stub, which is kind of another way of saying trivial, it's also 2 sentences, verbatim is: "Peanut Butter Koogle with the goo goo googly eyes!" A Baby Boomer lunchtime favorite in the 1970s was the peanut butter spread in a jar with swirls of chocolate, banana, cinnamon, or strawberry jelly mixed in. I guess they liked it better than Consumer's. I still think this is a trivial mention - the "encyclopedia" itself is 560 pages, I think it's more of a pop coffee table book IMHO, not World Book or Britannica. It feels like a huge stretch to me still. Andrevan @ 07:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    My vote was weak keep. It was weak for a reason. I already said in my initial post these entries were short. There is no need for you to carry on picking over it and creating a wall of text over something I already know and have already said. Spinning Spark 07:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Rumpletilskinz

Rumpletilskinz (  | 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 for the band and their only album. This is a double nomination with What Is a Rumpletilskin?. SL93 ( talk) 23:44, 1 August 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 00:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Reloliza Saimon

Reloliza Saimon (  | 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 lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 21:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 23:21, 1 August 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 00:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Katherine Chloé Cahoon

Katherine Chloé Cahoon (  | 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 author and television reporter. Reads like a résumé. Not finding much in WP:BEFORE outside of fluff interviews, not seeing anything of note on Newspapers.com or Google News. Penale52 ( talk) 20:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 23:18, 1 August 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! 22:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Yogi Hari

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

Orphaned BLP lacking inline citations. F Adesdae 378 22:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete unless he was an aviator, I don't find any sources. Oaktree b ( talk) 22:50, 1 August 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 00:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Ignatius Muzenda

Ignatius Muzenda (  | 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)

BLP of a businessman whose main claim to fame is his distinguished parents, but notability is not inherited. There’s nothing really substantial here to support a stand alone bio, and nothing worth merging into the article about his father. Mccapra ( talk) 20:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 20:29, 1 August 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC) reply

T. H. Properties

T. H. Properties (  | 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)

Minor house builder that went into Chapter 11. The other assertion of notability is otherwise feeble;

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 20:16, 1 August 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Dcode

Dcode (  | 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 under WP:NCORP. Would be fine re-draftifying back to @ Ahatd: draftspace, but there's only one source here that's definitely independent (TRT World). The TechBoiler and techtaalk were clearly just copied/rewritten from the same press release, and the PhoneWorld piece is an advertisement. Startup Pakistan has similar advertising/fluff issues. Alyo ( chat· edits) 19:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Technology, and Pakistan. Alyo ( chat· edits) 19:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment  – I think Startup Pakistan is mirroring these "press releases" on Phone World and Propakistani, so not RS. But will disagree that pieces on techtaalk and techBioler are press releases, there's nothing I can find on internet being published with same or similar content, so can argue that techtaalk (published 28 Oct) copied techBioler's independent piece (published 25 oct). As far as this phone World's article is concerned, this doesn't look advertisement to me (specially due to ending comments by writer and site's history of mentioning "press releases" as in this case for very same dcode. Thanks AHatd ( talk) 16:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    The issue with the techBoiler and techtaalk pieces is that they're almost identical to each other. Compare A new contender has stepped up in the smartphone market known as Dcode. The company is found in Pakistan with its manufacturing plant in Karachi. It is the first smartphone brand that is manufacturing flagship-level Android smartphones in Pakistan. to A new contender has stepped up in the smartphone market known as “Dcode”. The company is founded in Pakistan with its headquarters based in Karachi. It is Pakistan’s first homegrown smartphone brand that manufactures flagship-level Android phones locally. That's almost identical, just a couple words difference. If you go down the two pages, you see more of this: The phone is really modern looking. It resembles Samsung’s S20 Ultra from the back. Glass back and metal sides can be seen. versus The look of the phone is modern and it very much resembles Samsung S20 Ultra from the back side. This phone has a glass back and metal sides. They both probably got an info sheet and just published it "in their own words", especially since both say "Lets support Pakistani companies" at the end. And if one copied the other, that doesn't make it better. techtaalk is not a reliable source and has no editorial information or even author listed. As for PhoneWorld, there's a light grey "Advertisement" right under the first paragraph, and then again at the end of the piece. I'm assuming that refers to the piece, as there's no other advertisement that loads in those spots for me even without adblockers. Alyo ( chat· edits) 16:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    Like phoneWorld's article in the discussion, virtually each and every PhoneWorld article has that light grey "Advertisement" section thrice (at top, in body and at ending), like here and here. And as I already agreed that techtaalk copy/pasted techBioler opinion, so techtaalk can't be argued as WP:RS, but same is not true for techBioler. Thanks AHatd ( talk) 19:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing ++ 18:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 20:15, 1 August 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! 22:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Chloé (Belgian singer)

AfDs for this article:
Chloé (Belgian singer) (  | 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 read the previous deletion discussion but I still do not believe this person meets the notability guidelines, so I have nominated it again. Sahaib ( talk) 19:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply

I tried looking for sources but did not find much except: 1, 2, 3 and 4. Sahaib ( talk) 20:10, 1 August 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 all except for Ghar-e Rubah Minining Complex, Iran Engineerging Company, Iran Rubberworks, Qazvin-Rasht Road Construction Company, Unity Cooperative Company and Ziaran Meat Packing Company deleted via PROD and Defense Industry Complex, Isfahan and Natanz Steel Plant removed from nomination list and Nuclear Power Plant, Bushehr turned into a redirect. Liz Read! Talk! 17:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Agro-Industry Complex

Agro-Industry Complex (  | 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)

Mass-created article made in violation of WP:MASSCREATE/ WP:MEATBOT based on the 2006 Iranian census, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Carlossuarez46 for all the gory details. The Iranian census gathered data by whatever the closest named landmark was, including pumps, factories, farms, bridges, individual houses and so-forth. Carlossuarez46 apparently realised that something was wrong in this case based on the name, but decided that this (and every other case like it) was really a "company town" despite no source actually saying so. As such this fails WP:GEOLAND#1 since it is not really a legally-recognised populated place, but instead a factory of some kind that census-takers have used as a reference point. The real standard that should be applied here is WP:CORP as it is a company/organisation of some kind. This article obviously fails that standard, as there is no evidence even of a WP:GNG pass much less the kind of coverage needed to pass WP:AUD/ WP:CORPDEPTH.

Together with this article I am also nominating the articles on the following list, all of which appear to have been hoax/spam articles created by Carlossuarez46 using the same template and sourcing, and which Carlos also added to the "Company towns in Iran" category. As such bundling is justified per WP:BUNDLE. In all cases, the appropriate standard is WP:CORP since they are really companies/institutions and they fail that standard.

Coverage in Wiki-like sources like Citypedia.ir, Tageo, Geonames or similar sources does not remedy this issue as they are unreliable. GEOnet Names Server is also unreliable for the purpose of establishing a WP:GEOLAND#1 pass per the RSN discussion. Similarly, use of company/institutional websites cannot sustain a WP:CORP pass, nor can coverage in local press, or WP:MILL coverage. Some of the articles are accompanied by co-ordinates but it is not clear where these co-ordinates were obtained from and they often do not point to a site that is built on, but even when they do it is impossible to know what they point to without engaging in WP:OR. Even if the co-ordinates do indicate a village, it is impossible to know whether the village is known by the name in the article.

The only exception are articles like Nuclear Power Plant, Bushehr which are about very notable topics . . . which are already covered entirely by other articles (e.g., Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant).

Complete list of 215 other Carlossuarez46 articles about "company towns".

* Defense Industry Complex, Isfahan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

* Natanz Steel Plant (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(PS - these will all be templated with AWB soon) FOARP ( talk) 18:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Jay - RE: Defense Industry Complex, Isfahan, having looked at the sourcing, it looks like the only reliable sources are reports of the same incident in which “martyrs” were buried there. It’s not really Sigcov of anything, neither the factories that are there for WP:Corps, nor the town for WP:GNG, nor proof of legal recognition for a WP:Geoland#1 pass. I’m happy to discuss separately but my !vote would still be delete. FOARP ( talk) 15:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply
BTW, I didn't see any that has real sources and a real article. If anyone comes up with such they can be (re)created. North8000 ( talk) 18:51, 2 August 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! 17:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Place of safety

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

This is a very niche and specific construct of English law which could be summarised under Mental Health Act 1983 rather than its own article which may appear confusing to people not from England.   Kadzi   ( talk) 18:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect or summarize under the Mental Health Act article. Oaktree b ( talk) 22:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep; by all means re-name/move to a name that indicates the term is being used within English law. The nomination combines two ideas: that the article is a narrow feature of law, and that it's confusing because it relates only to English law. Neither of these is appropriate: firstly Wikipedia has never shied away from articles about specific aspects of law, provided they're notable. Usually we include legal things if they are either important socially, or important legally (established precedents etc.). This one is about the right of the police to detain anyone apparently acting in a mentally-disordered way, which is of huge social relevance and widely written-about, so it's notable. Secondly, while the UK represents only a small part of the English speaking world, it is not yet such a fringe interest that it can be excluded from WP merely on the grounds it might confuse someone from the US. The world is a big place; we have to trust our readers to have some intelligence. Elemimele ( talk) 07:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Dial-the-Truth Ministries

Dial-the-Truth Ministries (  | 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)

Sources are WP:PRIMARY or promotional in tone. No better sources found. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 15:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Fails WP:NORG because Barnet and Gauntlett both are passing mentions. I have found other mentions in books like The Oxford Handbook of the Bible in America (2017) and in Contextualization in the context of mainstream 'rock' music listeners (2005), but these too are passing mentions. SWinxy ( talk) 19:23, 4 August 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! 17:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Bobby C. Baker

Bobby C. Baker (  | 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 notability criteria WP:BLP, none of the references meet the criteria for notability. HighKing ++ 15:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • I am leaning towards Keep because it seems to me Baker meets Criterium 3 or WP:NPROF (membership of a fellowship). The award may also signal meeting criterium 7 - substantial impact outside academia in an academic capacity for founding the Maui Hawaii's only cancer treatment center in 1993. JamesKH76 ( talk) 17:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. Fellowship in such medical-related societies is a senior membership level that you apply for yourself, not the same as a Fellow of American academic societies. Baker is a practicing radiation oncologist and administrator not an academic, so NPROF does not apply. However there may be sources for meeting the GNG. StarryGrandma ( talk) 21:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I just added a section on a lawsuit brought against him for being involved in the death of a patient with a radiation overdose. This constitutes at least one independent published reliable source about him, and brings him over the threshold of notability, in my opinion. A loose necktie ( talk) 12:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Comment The lawsuit was brought primarily against the Institute where Baker is the President and also against Baker and another doctor. The lawsuit was settled with the Institute paying $13.5m and each of the doctors settling for $1m each which was the maximum of their insurance policies. It wasn't a criminal offense but when we look at WP:PERP or any other policy/guideline/essay, there's nothing to suggest that being involved in a civil and settled and unremarkable lawsuit establishes notability. In addition, Baker only gets a mere mention (and a quote), there's nothing about that article which meets the criteria for establishing his notability. HighKing ++ 12:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete insufficient independent coverage, nowhere near SIGCOV territory atm. I would have be inclined to vote keep anyway had he founded the first cancer treatment center in Hawaii, but it seems he founded the first radiation treatment center for cancer, in Maui. Draken Bowser ( talk) 01:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Doesn't meet any NPROF criteria, so instead would need to be assessed through GNG, which also appears to be failed through lack of SIGCOV. JoelleJay ( talk) 21:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:48, 1 August 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 23:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC) reply

SwissWatchExpo

SwissWatchExpo (  | 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)

None of the references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability, the references are puff profiles which rely on interviews with the founder and/or company announcements. No "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND. In addition and not unconnected, article creator has been indef blocked for advertising/promotion. HighKing ++ 15:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:46, 1 August 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 23:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Ex Cathedra (film)

Ex Cathedra (film) (  | 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)

Note - please also see AfD on Liam Andrew Wright - director of this film who also is up for discussion and Banter Media, company by the same.

This film has no relevant sources on my searches on Google or elsewhere and the two references show that this was pretty much a university project that was never released in cinemas? Reads like an advertisement. Fails GNG with non reliable independent sources and 0 coverage.   Kadzi   ( talk) 13:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom and VickKiang + the sole source appears to be a personal blog (see its about page). QuietHere ( talk) 16:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep - I am the director of the film in question so my vote probably won't be counted but my arguments are listed above regardless. 0xCryptoDegen ( talk) 14:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1172052/ - IMDB listing
https://www.amazon.com/Ex-Cathedra-Richard-Massara/dp/B09HJC8FCY - Amazon Video listing
The film was an indie film created between 2008-2009 in a world where many of the original sources are from websites that are no longer around or cached by WayBackMachine. Honestly, I believe Kadzi has it in for me for some reason. I understand there is a valid debate but the film has been around since 2009 and this page was made in 2010 - what is the rationale for deletion now given that it was deemed notable enough for IMDB (which had strict guidelines at least in 2009) and is available in the commercial market? 0xCryptoDegen ( talk) 13:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. IMDb is, at best, a routine database. Inclusion there just requires that you give them some proof that the film, role, or person exists in some form or fashion. They're also not the best when it comes to verifying said proof, as we've had cases of people adding listings for fake shows, films, and even roles. My whole reason for mentioning that is just to explain why the site isn't seen as a sign of notability and can't even really be used to back up basic claims. At most it can be a jumping off point for further research. The Amazon listing is also considered to be routine, as generally speaking, almost anyone can upload films for purchase/streaming. I'm aware there's a bit more to it than that, but it's not a sign of notability. It just shows that it exists and can be viewed. Finally, as far as other sourcing goes, sourcing doesn't have to be online but it does have to be verifiable and in places Wikipedia would see as independent, reliable sourcing that goes into depth on the topic. Examples of this would be reviews in newspapers or websites such as DVD Talk, as well as articles written about the film. Awards can sometimes count towards notability, but would have to be from notable award granting institutions, as not all awards are major enough to give partial or total notability.
As far as notability guidelines go, they've gotten stricter over the years. To be honest, most guidelines only required proof of existence to pass notability guidelines. This quickly became unwieldy, as a lot of people began to use the site to promote stuff that was extremely non-notable. Think in terms of self-published books through iUniverse and YouTube movies shot on a cell phone by a couple of bored people in their backyard, stuff that hasn't gained any coverage at all. So the criteria got more selective in order to weed those out. It unfortunately also resulted in a lot of indie films failing notability guidelines as well. The guidelines are likely only going to become more selective as time goes by as well, as there just aren't enough editors to keep up with everything. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
This was not the case in 2009. There was a lot of hoops to jump through back then. There were reviews and commentary back in 2009 when the internet was based around blog sites. Many of which are no longer available and were not cached by WayBackMachine. This article has been around since 2010 but today, after I attempted to write a Wikipedia article related to crypto it is now being targeted for deletion? My respect for Wikipedia has taken a big hit today. I saw it as maintaining the digital history of the internet. I know this post won't help my case but it is true. The film was not shot on an iPhone and uploaded to YouTube. It was selected to a world renown film festival (which no longer has records from the time online) and the wiki article has been updated countless times by the community over the past 10 years but today it is now not notable enough and will be deleted? Ok. It is what it is. I know nothing I say will change that now. 0xCryptoDegen ( talk) 14:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Do you have screenshots/clippings of the reviews and coverage? If you can show them, then we can look at them and see if they would be seen as reliable sources. The coverage doesn't have to be online, it just has to be independent of the film and cast/crew, in-depth, and in a place Wikipedia would see as reliable - even if it doesn't exist any longer. For example, DVD Verdict is no longer online as they went defunct in 2017, but reviews from their site would still be seen as a reliable source. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:41, 1 August 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! 06:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Liam Andrew Wright

Liam Andrew Wright (  | 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)

Note - this person is linked to Banter Media and Ex Cathedra (film) and is named on those two pages (which I will also AfD)

This page gives seemingly impressionable/notable feats however on a deeper trawl the majority of the accomplishments listed on this page are either unreferences or first hand sources. The majority of the references link to this persons twitter page, cryptoslate (to which he is affiliated), bantermedia (to which he is affiliated) or youtube - there are no reliable sources here; reference no6 appears to be a promotional news article.

The Ex Cathedra film linked to this person (to which he is director) has no sources that I have been able to find that show its notability and the only reference shows that it appears to be more of a university project than an actual released film. Fails GNG with non reliable independent sources and 0 coverage,   Kadzi   ( talk) 13:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete per nomination. QuietHere ( talk) 16:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep - I am the individual in question so my vote probably won't be counted but my arguments are listed above regardless. 0xCryptoDegen ( talk) 14:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - evidently self-promotion. Deb ( talk) 09:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:40, 1 August 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. Liz Read! Talk! 17:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Trax Credit Union

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

I don't think this meets WP:NCORP, at least based off what I was able to find. There's also only nine locations, so it might be hard to find sources because of that (which would again point towards to the direction of not meeting Wikipedia notability guidelines). It's possible I'm not looking in the right places, though. The article as-is reminds me about those ads you'll see on TV for a product or service "we won an award you've never heard of, ranked # whatever on this list, etc" kind of thing. But I've never lived anywhere near Florida so maybe these listed awards are more important than they sound and what I've been able to find. Clovermoss (talk) 11:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, United States of America, and Florida. Clovermoss (talk) 11:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: FWIW, Trax is by far the smallest credit union listed in Category:Credit unions based in Florida. While size in itself is not a criteria for notability, I think that the smaller a credit union is, the less likely it is that significant coverage exists in reliable sources. - Donald Albury 14:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Search Comment. For roughly 86/87 years, (almost all of this organizations existence), it has been known as Railroad & Industrial Federal Credit Union. Searches using Trax will find only the most very recent references. Jacona ( talk) 11:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Jacona: Thanks for bringing this up, that's an important point. I should've brought this up in the nom because that's an important part of trying to find sources. The main reason I saw the article was because of the page move to the new title. I did try searching for sources for the other title, but didn't really find enough to pass WP:NCORP. Maybe I'm not looking in the right places though. Not every source is nessecarily online, especially for older companies like this. Clovermoss (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    I'm using "Railroad & Industrial" FCU -Trax and Railroad & Industrial Federal Credit Union -Trax in Google to remove any news items discussing the name change. There's also the former website through Internet Archive here. – The Grid ( talk) 14:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    Thank you for those tips The Grid. I was using for the quotation marks for the old company name, but not the - to get rid of sources that are simply about the name change. I found this [8] but it's a press release. I looked through pretty much all the other results and they're pretty much directory-based. Are you seeing something I'm not or just giving search tips? I appreciate them, by the way. Clovermoss (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    Just giving search tips for potentially hoping for someone to find something. I couldn't really find anything. – The Grid ( talk) 18:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:37, 1 August 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. Liz Read! Talk! 17:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Chess at the 2022 ASEAN Para Games

Chess at the 2022 ASEAN Para Games (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Draftify this unfinished article. To be fair it's hardly started, let alone unfinished. Disputed Draftification. This needs a great deal of work before it's ready to exist in main space 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:19, 1 August 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 Nomination Withdrawn. I nominated it, and I'm withdrawing my nomination. We'll talk about the article's name on the talkpage because the name does not seem to cover the subject of the article. (non-admin closure) Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 13:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

All good things come together

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

The article does not cite any source, and a WP:BEFORE shows nothing tangible. I proposed for deletion, but it was decline. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 16:54, 1 August 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. (non-admin closure) Femke ( talk) 16:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Mission sui juris of I-li

Mission sui juris of I-li (  | 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)

Reason: Does not have any sources AAAAA143222 ( talk) 15:45, 1 August 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. Tone 16:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Fwrd Axis News

Fwrd Axis News (  | 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 evidence found of any notability for this site. Sources are either affiliated with the site and their partners, or not about the site. No better sources found with an online search. Fram ( talk) 16:04, 1 August 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 per WP:SNOW. Eagles  24/7  (C) 12:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Jim Simon (American football)

Jim Simon (American football) (  | 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 why the subject is notable. Only one citation is in the article, and it gives no explanation for what makes Brown unique or noteworthy. Nightscream ( talk) 15:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply

You can't vote when you're the nominator. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 21:40, 1 August 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. Tone 16:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Ye Ali

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

Notability isn't transferable, doesn't matter who he's performed with Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:18, 1 August 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 15:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Rupert Clague

Rupert Clague (  | 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 notability criteria, written like a CV with links that do not meet Wikipedia criteria Trumplives46 ( talk) 14:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. Shellwood ( talk) 15:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • This nomination comes from an SPA, as such we need to treat it with caution but that doesn't mean that we automatically reject it. Let's see what we find... First up, the article has a conversational unencyclopaedic tone. That's never a good sign but it is fixable if there is notability. At least the Copyvio detector doesn't turn up any plagiarism. "Clague has worked on documentaries all over the world..." is followed by links to a lot of notable programmes and documentaries but they don't link back. What was his actual involvement? It wasn't nothing but most of the time it wasn't pivotal either. Then we get on to documentaries that he actually directed. That's better. Or is it? None of those seem to have articles. So what have we got? IMDB offers a good way to look at it. He produced some episodes of TV shows. He directed some stuff but it is mostly non-notable shorts and segments. ("Pawsea" is only 4 mins long.) There are a couple of award nominations but they don't seem to confer notability. The fundamental problem is that the article tries to inherit notability from his involvement with more notable people and projects but that's not how notability works. The only really good independent reference is the Ham & High. It is RS and it is actually about Clague. Is it good enough though? Not really. It's a local paper writing about a local person. It would be fine alongside other good sources but it can't take the weight of the article alone. The CBC article helps a little but only a little as he is not the main focus. The IOM Today piece is about him but only about him trying to crowdfund. The Battle of Ideas Festival reference is not great. It seems to be some sort of "free speech festival" (yawn). That said, I don't see any reason to doubt its basic biographical details about their speakers although clearly it is trying to big them up as much as it can. It is probably OK for verification but confers no notability. So, last gasp, maybe the article is just poorly written? Maybe there is more RS out there? Fortunately his name is very distinctive and it is easy to Google. Unfortunately it doesn't turn up much. There is this interview and that's about it. I came here expecting this to be a speedy keep and its actually a weak delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielRigal ( talk • contribs)
  • Delete Agree with above explanation, I can't find much for sourcing. Same ones that turn up for the article. Oaktree b ( talk) 18:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply
May not be important, however Trumplives76, when listing Rupert Clague for deletion, deleted much of the page. This has not happened in the current revision of the page, as I write this. This caused multiple reverts by myself and other editors, so may have problems under 3RR. JML1148 ( talk) 08:09, 2 August 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. Self-admitted paid promotion (the article and its sources, apparently). Sandstein 15:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Bole festival

Bole festival (  | 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 article fails WP:GNG because they seems like a promotional press about the event coming up to entertain and also lack significant coverage. Article also seems fishy looking like a paid job from the way it was written . Subject article also fails WP:EVENTCRIT in terms of No.1 . Articles is a Too soon and should be delete because Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought Gabriel t@lk 14:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Entertainment, and Events. Gabriel t@lk 14:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep — according to the policy, before nominating an article for deletion, you are required to make a WP:BEFORE. I have done so and I have found multiple sources supporting proving the notability of this event.
  • Editor (21 July 2019). "Bole Festival set for August 3". The Guardian. {{ cite news}}: |last= has generic name ( help)
  • Sesan (19 July 2019). "Port Harcourt hosts boli festival". The Punch.
  • "Bole Festival: The Biggest Food Festival From The Heart Of The South". Vanguard. 10 July 2019.

I could go on and on and on. For now, we have WP:THREE. Best, R E A D I N G Talk to the Beans? 11:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - Thank You Reading Beans for saving my article. Actually I’m a journalist and close friend to the Founder of Bole festival. We actually had a promised from our co-partner “CIOUSNET” that our Wikipedia has been verified and can never be deleted because we paid him for the service and news content which he said to be eligible. We are trying to reach “CIOUSNET” but his not picking please how do we email you. We have an upcoming show and we need the Wikipedia to be professionally look good.-- Bolejournalist ( talk) 22:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply
Bolejournalist, that is to say, the page was created by a paid user. Please see {{ UPE}} and {{ COI}}. If this page is to survive (which I now doubt), request for edits on the talk page of the article here. Best, R E A D I N G Talk to the Beans? 09:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC) reply
It is completely against Wikipedia policy to pay someone to make a page, unless they disclose their association, in which case they cannot just post the page, they need to submit it for admin review via WP:AFC. CIOUSNET is in violations of Wikipedia policy. Zeddedm ( talk) 06:10, 6 August 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Lexico (programming language)

Lexico (programming language) (  | 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 meet WP:GNG. I cannot find a single secondary source about the programming language, and it appears obscure to professionals in the field - I was hoping to find a mention at [14] but did not, ending up referring to a programming language called Latino instead. The language gets a mention at a list of programming languages [15] but no significant coverage.

Note recent failed prod here and related discussion here and here. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 13:40, 1 August 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. Already deleted by Bbb23 under CSD WP:G5 Spinning Spark 22:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Firoz chaudhary

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

The subject of this nomination has repeatedly been declined at AfC and does not appear to meet either general notability or notability for musicians. The article creator had previously posted it at Firoz Chaudhary (Singer), then moved that page to draftspace under a different name after it went to AfD and posted this version with a different capitalization of the name. PohranicniStraze ( talk) 13:38, 1 August 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 Kilmeena GAA. Sandstein 15:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Kilmeena GFC

Kilmeena GFC (  | 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)

Delete: This page is about the same club of article Kilmeena GAA. Mind you neither seem to be notable having had little added since 2015. ww2censor ( talk) 13:26, 1 August 2022

Delete Duplicate article. The article it duplicates is equally bad - the collective noun might be a "despair of stubs" :) Sarah777 ( talk) 14:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 10:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

The Woes

The Woes (  | 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'm not finding enough coverage on this band to indicate notability. I added source 1, a review of one of their albums. Source 2 is an interview so isn't much good. I used dated searches and looked for info on their albums and frontman. But reviews and other reporting seems very thin on the ground.

Taking to AfD rather than PRODing in case anyone can come up with some great sources that I couldn't find. MarchOfTheGreyhounds ( talk) 12:59, 1 August 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 13:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Supriya Kumari

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG PravinGanechari ( talk) 12:43, 1 August 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 Forgotten Realms#2000–2008. Sandstein 15:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

The Forgotten Realms Deluxe Edition

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

Doesn't pass notability per WP:PRODUCT. Mika1h ( talk) 12:18, 1 August 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 12:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Lucilia nitens

Lucilia nitens (  | 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 disambiguation page appears to have been created purely based on the fact that "Lucilia nitens" was originally listed at both Lucilia (fly) and Lucilia (plant). However, on closer inspection, it turns out that the former article had erroneously listed a number of plant species, one of which was "Lucilia nitens Less.". Thus the basis for this disambiguation page completely disintegrates. (This is apart from the fact that nobody had ever tried to create either species articles, so it's no wonder this error went by unnoticed) Monster Iestyn ( talk) 12:22, 1 August 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 00:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC) reply

1966 Dartmouth Literacy Conference

1966 Dartmouth Literacy Conference (  | 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)

While undoubtedly detailed and compendious, this very long article on a conference - with a lot of OR/uncited content - is sourced entirely to its own proceedings and publications. With no MSM coverage in evidence, and no evidence to back up claims such as "The Conference had a very big impact on how English and literature were taught in the United States and the United Kingdom for multiple years after the conference.", and with no evidence at all of an impact on British education, let alone American education. In fact, the paper cited here, "The Dartmouth Conference: Its Reports and Results" appears to throw cold water on the while idea of Dartmouth being influential on the teaching of English. We really don't need a list of people who attended a conference in 1966, either.No independent coverage, fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 07:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:57, 1 August 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! 06:18, 6 August 2022 (UTC) reply

La Paz Junction, Indiana

La Paz Junction, Indiana (  | 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 reference does indeed claim a plat for this spot, but it does not claim it to be a town, and I find no evidence of same: there are a few scattered buildings but the contrast with La Paz itself is striking. Seems to be a non-notable rail junction. Mangoe ( talk) 04:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 10:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 10:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Thapaswini Poonacha

AfDs for this article:
Thapaswini Poonacha (  | 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)

Contested draftification. Fails WP:NACTOR. Likely WP:TOOSOON 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Fugug

Fugug (  | 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)

Delete as unverifiable, appears to be at best an alias for something for which an article already exists. Searching for sources online merely finds apparent citogenesis from this Wikipedia article. — The Anome ( talk) 11:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was KEEP. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 22:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Casuarina Senior College

AfDs for this article:
Casuarina Senior College (  | 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:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. As per earlier AfD, COI is established. Hence, nominated again for a clearer and rational consensus. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 11:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 10:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

List of books considered the worst

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of novels considered the greatest was recently deleted. This one remains, arguably, even more trivial, failing WP:LISTN/ WP:LSC. If kept, this needs major cleanup due to unclear inclusion criteria (" cited by many notable critics" -> some entries have only one ref, who is a "notable critic" here, etc.). The multi-ref entries are not always better; for example, The Four Streets is here because a single reviewer called it "the worst novel I've read in 10 years" (other critical reviews do not use adjective "the worst"). This very much is a list of books that received some negative reviews and in which at least one reviewer used the adjective "worst". On the other hand, if there is consensus to delete, it would be good to merge referenced content to 'reception' section about various books. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  • This one is tricky. We could turn into a table like what I have in my userspace for the best of draft, but that may remove context. On the other hand, this context would presumably be in the articles for the books or the author. I suppose that this could be an additional criteria for the page: to be included the book would need to be independently notable. I'm not opposed to this just being a category either, however it would need some sort of guidelines set forth to ensure that people don't add it willy nilly to books that have been criticized for one reason or another but aren't on a "worst of" list. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As per Clarityfiend, "worst" is a vague and subjective inclusion criterion, regardless of whether the word has been used by sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete If the reliable sources covering this all listed the same books on their worse list, then it'd pass the general notability guidelines. That doesn't seem to be happening though. Dream Focus 10:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this rather un-encyclopedic list. Lightburst ( talk) 02:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This article is really about published books that received strongly negative reviews, and/or were mocked in various media. There is no way to arrive at "worst" any more than there is a way to make a list of "yukky foods." Presumably this information should be included in the articles for those books. Lamona ( talk) 16:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This article is clearly unencyclopaedic as it is a collection of personal opinions and negative reviews from different sources combined to form a single list. Instead the criticism of each book should be moved to their respective pages. DEFCON5 ( talk) 04:07, 8 August 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 12:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

List of food months

List of food months (  | 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 seems like a WP:INDISCRIMINATE failure of WP:NLIST (while some month-long evens dedicated to food have happened here or there, grouping them together and listing them like this seems non-encyclopedic OR). Food month isn't a defined concept. List of month-long events related to food would be a more correct name... List of food days may merit discussions too. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of food weeks was just closed as soft delete due to no participation. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 10:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Dorjee K Thongun

AfDs for this article:
Dorjee K Thongun (  | 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, WP:ANYBIO, WP:SIGCOV. Just WP:MILL case. Page history indicates a COI. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 08:57, 1 August 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 12:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Mohammed Zakir Meyra

Mohammed Zakir Meyra (  | 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)

Delete as unverifable. Although there are numerous citations given, almost all of the article seems to be effectively based on a single source, and the citations given seem to be insufficient to track that source down, either online or in libraries. The name of the author cited also seems to be that of the Wikipedian who created the article; are they literally just citing themselves as source, over and over?

(I'd also note that another article the same editor created, Umar Bakkalcha, also shows the same citation pattern, and it might well be worth examining all of their contributions further.) — The Anome ( talk) 08:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was procedural close because the article was moved to Draft by its creator. However, there is already an AfD for another version of the singer's article; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firoz chaudhary. ( non-admin closure) --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 13:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Firoz Chaudhary (Singer)

Firoz Chaudhary (Singer) (  | 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)

Repeatedly declined AfC submission moved to articlespace by the creator. Non-notable musician, BEFORE search turned up 1 result, which seems to be a self-published source anyway. Fails GNG and NMUSICIAN. Mako001  (C)   (T)  🇺🇦 08:35, 1 August 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 00:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Kim Mullen

AfDs for this article:
Kim Mullen (  | 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 reality television contestant; competed on, but did not win, Survivor. Bgsu98 ( talk) 03:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:27, 1 August 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! 06:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Alexis Jones

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

Lacks notability; competed on, but did not win, Survivor. Bgsu98 ( talk) 03:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. I don't care if she won a TV show or not, she seems like a notable person, who launched a notable organisation, and who wrote a notable book. I do accept that a lot (but not all) of the sources below are based on interviews, but still, for the conversation to focus on her winning a TV show or not seems like we're missing the bigger picture here:
  1. https://www.vibe.com/news/sports/sexual-harassment-nick-young-jordan-clarkson-412133/
  2. https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2017/03/15/activist-aims-to-combat-sexual-assault-by-engaging-athletes/99219752/
  3. https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/317844
  4. https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/alexis-jones/i-am-that-girl/ # https://www.salon.com/2014/03/14/i_am_that_girls_new_generation_of_girl_power/ # https://www.glamour.com/story/kristen-bell-talks-friendships
  5. https://www.oprah.com/inspiration/alexis-jones-i-am-that-girl-founder https://www.today.com/style/i-am-girl-organization-empowers-girls-young-women-t23671 CT55555 ( talk) 03:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Ample coverage exists for her work with ProtectHer ( [31] [32]) in addition to coverage about her time competing on Survivor. The article needs some work and definitely places too much emphasis on her being on a tv show when the articles seem to be more focussed on her activism, but that's no reason to delete. Samsmachado ( talk) 22:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:24, 1 August 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. (non-admin closure) Bungle ( talk • contribs) 09:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Eliza Orlins

AfDs for this article:
Eliza Orlins (  | 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 reality television contestant; competed on, but did not win, Survivor and The Amazing Race. Bgsu98 ( talk) 03:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:23, 1 August 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. CSD G7. Liz Read! Talk! 00:11, 6 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Jovo Jovanović

Jovo Jovanović (  | 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)

Per Wikipedia:BLP1E and/or WP:NOPAGE. Also, the author of this article seems to have determined that she is a supercentenarian or "Serbian man ever" recognized by an organization called ESO, but I don't think ESO is an internationally recognized and prestigious longevity science organization, unlike Gerontology Research Group. More famous and prominent articles about the oldest people, the country's oldest person titieholder, have also been deleted in the past like Misao Okawa, Yukichi Chuganji, etc. There is no reason to keep only this article of the oldest person in a small country like Serbia, when considering impartiality...-- Ayuta Tonomura ( talk) 03:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 05:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Kiran Bala Bora

Kiran Bala Bora (  | 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)

Coverage does not appear significant enough to meet WP:GNG. Most of the sources provided (e.g. [36], [37]) only contain passing mentions of Bora. Apparently written by a relative of the subject. – Ploni ( talk) 16:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep.

  1. The first PDF linked above mentions her 15 times (search for "Kiranbala" to verify). That is more than a passing mention.
  2. Passing mention, but described as "the legendary social activist Kiran Bala Bora" here: "The pathogen called gender discrimination." Assam Tribune [Guwahati, India], 6 Apr. 2021, p. NA. Gale OneFile: News, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A657902977/STND?u=wikipedia&sid=ebsco&xid=47bb39ef. Accessed 16 July 2022.
  3. 14 mentions in this book: Sharma, D. (1993). Assamese Women in the Freedom Struggle. India: Punthi-Pustak.
If you search for her in the format "KiranBala Bora" you also get
  1. https://ousar.lib.okayama-u.ac.jp/files/public/4/40928/20160528032043930389/oer_033_2_001_009.pdf briefly mentions her as one of 4 women leaders of a movement of 400 people
In summary I see two sources that mention her significantly, and passing mentions as an important leader. CT55555 ( talk) 19:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 02:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep The sources given are a bit borderline for me - The Sharma book mentions her mostly in combination with other women leaders, and has but a few descriptions of what she did on her own. Can't access the 1993 book. I think it's likely more sources exist in Assamese, or given the time period, offline sources, which brings me to keep. Femke ( talk) 18:18, 1 August 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. Tone 16:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Badminton at the 2022 Maccabiah Games

Badminton at the 2022 Maccabiah Games (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTDATABASE. Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 00:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. It makes no sense to pick one of all the sports under Category:Sports at the Maccabiah Games. This needs a general discussion for all the aports there. -- Florentyna ( talk) 04:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    This is not a valid deletion rationale Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 14:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Badminton, and Israel. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 00:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Florentyna. St Anselm ( talk) 08:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as article author. I was under the impression that individual sports at international multi-sports events regularly had their own pages. The Maccabiah Games are among the largest sporting events in the world, and WP has ample pages for sports at other smaller events ( 2019 European Games for example) - not to say WP:WHATABOUT, but I think that if there are questions to be brought about these sort of pages, we should have a wider discussion about what we include on WP rather than pick off individual articles. In terms of the arguments brought up here, I don't personally think they hold much weight. I don't see anything at WP:NOTDATABASE to suggest that this wouldn't be a viable article type (I don't think it comes under Excessive listings of unexplained statistics - let me know if I'm missing something obvious though), and IMO it has enough references to verify everything there to a good enough standard. Thanks, Gazamp ( talk) 12:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, the Maccabiah is major event that is covered by media. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) ( talk) 19:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The Maccabiah is definitely an event of importance. Enough not only for its own article but also for edition articles and for multi-year summaries per sport. On the other hand, it is not important enough for articles per sport per Maccabiah or per delegation per Maccabiah. Still, the medal count table in the AfDd is a legitimate addition to the empty medal count header in the 2022 Maccabiah Games article, under a sub-header badminton. So suggesting a bit of merge as well. Per sports discussion should also appear in the individual Maccabiah articles. The immediate problem here is premature WP:SPINOFF/ WP:SPINOUT. As pointed out by nom, the WP:GNG is not (clearly) met for the minor sports but this would allow to preserve all major ones. In my book, all these articles need to go. gidonb ( talk) 04:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Per Florentyna. We should decide on an approach and then restructure information of a given multi-sport event as desired. But we shouldn't have gaps in our coverage because one article got nominated for deletion and the one next to it didn't. Simeon ( talk) 10:53, 6 August 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! 00:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Kyle Bradley

Kyle Bradley (  | 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:NMMA. His highest ranking by Fight Matrix was 83rd in the lightweight division, and he never previously appeared in Sherdog's top 10 rankings. A WP:BEFORE shows up no significant coverage either. ♡RAFAEL♡( talk) 00:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. Consensus that the added sources are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat ( talk) 22:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Patrick Markey

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku ( talk) 02:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep for now. Added some sources. He's a 40-year vet and most of his career is going to be offline sources. Per creative he played a key role in two important films, The Horse Whisperer and A River Runs Through It. -- Green C 16:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete You're talking about the Moral Combat guy, right Oaktree b? Agree, he seems more notable! Film Patrick is not, per WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 12:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, notability is not inherited. >> Lil-unique1 ( talk) — 23:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    Invalid rationale for topic deletion. WP:INHERIT says don't make this argument during AfD discussions, that's all it means ("It only applies to arguments to avoid at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion"). Nobody here has made an inherit argument. If you are referring to my Keep, because WP:NACTOR requires two important films. -- Green C 03:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Thanks to sources added by GreenC. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Interviews are not reliable sources of information. He's been nominated for several awards, but never won any. Sean Brunnock ( talk) 14:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    People often say no interviews, but I am curious as to what guideline it is? What rule are you citing? I would like to read it. I found WP:INTERVIEW but it's just a user essay that someone wrote. Because what counts as an "interview" with long block quotes answering questions verbatim; versus a biographical piece that includes quotes from the subject; versus original journalism that appears in the same piece. It's pretty complicated. You'll have to explain which one(s) and why they are interviews and why the interview essay trumps GNG and NACTOR in this case. -- Green C 15:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    Even accepting the interviews, all of the references amount to "He's an interesting guy." Not a notable one. Sean Brunnock ( talk) 15:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    "Interesting" is an argument to avoid see WP:INTERESTING. According to WP:NOTE: "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines". We base it on the guidelines first and foremost, then weigh things such as importance. Your rationale is entirely based on your perception of his importance. -- Green C 16:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    Think you might like to re-read Sean's comment, there. He asserts lack of notability OVER the 'interesting' stuff... Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 16:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    Sorry you are right, he's saying the sources say interesting while Sean himself says "Not notable." Per WP:JUSTNOTABLE "Simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable." What guideline or policy is Sean basing the not notable assertion on? -- Green C 18:28, 31 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    You're asking me to prove a negative. Sean Brunnock ( talk) 18:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    I'm asking why you think it fails NOTE. -- Green C 19:05, 31 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    It's not up to me to prove that he's not notable. It's up to you to prove that he is.
    There are 4 citations in the article-
    1. Local man going to the Emmys. Lot's of folks go to the Emmys. Not notable.
    2. Northwest Ohio native Patrick Markey...is a fervent supporter of those calling for change. Not notable.
    3. Producer Patrick Markey is currently developing a number of projects through his Fostoria Film Co., including “Heart Mountain,” to which Robert Redford is attached as star and director. Heart Mountain never got made and Fostoria doesn't have a WP page. Not notable.
    4. Film producer Patrick Markey, a West Virginia native, visited the West Virginia University College of Law to take part in a question and answer session and screening of "The Natural," a movie he was involved in...
    None of this seems notable to me. Sean Brunnock ( talk) 19:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    Ok, you have now said why. That's all. It's not about "proof", just need to give a rule-based rationale why you think the sources fail Note. Based on your reply, I think you are saying the sources are not "significant coverage" ie. WP:NOTE says "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". In this case you consider "significant" not to be word count or focus (these source are all entirely about Markey) rather the quality of the source content doesn't meet your standards of notability. That's fine, it's your opinion and a valid one. I think he meets WP:NACTOR, but we can both have valid rules-based opinions and disagree. -- Green C 00:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Brunnock, it doesn't matter how you (or any of us) assess the subject's achievements. If reliable sources have chosen to cover the subject, he's notable. ~ Kvng ( talk) 17:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning delete on this one, but hoping to see a bit more discussion on the four sources that were added to this article during the AfD, and whether they constitute notability per GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 00:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. WP:PRODUCER says 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 multiple independent periodical articles or reviews and (correct me if I'm wrong) he's produced at least 10 films that are each sufficiently notable to have their own wikipedia article? That seems like a clear pass at the criteria. I understand that for creative professionals, it's OK if they are not the subject of the sources, as long as their work is, so feels like an easy "keep" from me. CT55555 ( talk) 17:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - GreenC added four sources: two from local papers, one from Variety (magazine) and one from a student newspaper. Variety is definitely reliable and has significant coverage. The two local papers are also reliable and have significant coverage. Some editors are not persuaded by local coverage but there's no policy reason to exclude it for a bio and the local coverage is in two different areas: Bozeman (where the subject lives) and Toledo (where he was born). This definitely meets WP:42. ~ Kvng ( talk) 18:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:HEY. Widely covered per search results on ProQuest. Additionally, he has received multiple nominations for awards such as PGA Awards, including in 2021. 2001:569:5593:5900:90E0:EBBE:1798:3609 ( talk) 20:51, 2 August 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/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_August_1&oldid=1103357972"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE