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

The result was delete. Consensus is that sourcing isn't sufficient Star Mississippi 02:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Thomas Francis Murphy (actor) (  | 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 major roles or contributions. – Ploni ( talk) 23:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Ohio. Ploni ( talk) 23:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply
• Weak Delete It appears that he comes up just short of NACTOR - some references and several roles on significant shows and movies, but they appear to be bit parts. Someone more knowledgeable may be able to save this article, but I can't contemplate where else additional information would come - it appears to be thorough as it is and it still comes up short. Royal Autumn Crest ( talk) 12:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Many small roles but not enough to establish notability per WP:NACTOR. Frank Anchor 02:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment. A cursory PROQUEST search yielded some potential hits on reviews of his performances in publications like Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post. I will get back here later this evening with more details. 4meter4 ( talk) 22:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in light of possible new sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep. I found two quality theatre reviews in The New York Times of his performances in plays, and one quality film review of his performance in News of the World in the Los Angeles Times (see additions to the article). I think there is enough there to show he passes criteria 1 of WP:NACTOR. I only stated weak keep as I couldn't find any coverage where he is the primary subject, other than this blog ( [1]) which is probably not RS. There's likely other reviews out there as he has had some recurring roles in notable TV shows like The Walking Dead, and he has worked in theatre in cities other than New York. 4meter4 ( talk) 23:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Pokerzone (  | 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:BEFORE found little to no sources on ProQuest and Newspapers.com. Prod contested. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 21:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 21:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk) 23:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Unnotable game channel. `~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 06:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete Doesn't meet GNG. Avilich ( talk) 00:26, 13 July 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 12:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Jacob Groll (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Appears to fail WP:CREATIVE. Also unsourced with significant contributions from the subject ( User:Jgvienna007). – Ploni ( talk) 19:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Austria. Shellwood ( talk) 19:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment: This article is rather point-in-time, and misses much of the subject's later career, which includes co-writing a series called "Janus" ( passing name coverage) and a TV film. I am not seeing the coverage needed for WP:CREATIVE criterion 3 though. AllyD ( talk) 16:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 5 July 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!} 01:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Melissa Malzkuhn (  | 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)

Sent to Draft, banged right back into mainspace. Fails WP:GNG, sources presented are interview or non-RS such as Obama Foundation website, Forbes Sites. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 08:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 08:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep She has been covered by reliable sources, including NPR, the Washington Post and PBS NewsHour. Vexations ( talk) 15:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete These are either brief or tangential mentions. I also find coverage in Forbes and the PBS clip, but they're interviews. She's got some coverage, not enough for our purposes here. Oaktree b ( talk) 21:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep There is coverage of her work in multiple news articles. The article linked above for The Washington Post includes multiple paragraphs on Malzkuhn. The NPR story is also extensive coverage on Malzkuhn. Finally, her work The Baobab, a bilingual book was reviewed by an academic journal. DaffodilOcean ( talk) 03:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep. She is notable in the general sense, but the mutiple review of her book that I saw on ProQuest give her a pass at WP:AUTHOR. I've added one more in, so the article passes as it stands. CT55555 ( talk) 02:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep as meets WP:GNG. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 17:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment As per User:Oaktree b above, the mentions presented are ALL passing - and the book review quoted by User:CT55555 above is a review of an app, to which Malzkuhn is one of several contributors of short stories for children, it is not a review of HER book and there is no case for WP:NAUTHOR. While she is clearly an active advocate, there is no in-depth or significant coverage of her to indicate notability. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 05:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply

  I've looked again. Quoting from the Journal of Education article "The Baobab and the VL2 storybook app series are designed and managed by Melissa Malzkukn" she's the only one mentioned in that sentence. Indeed, it's a book delivered digitally with American sign language. My reading is that someone signs the words. Obviously that can't be done in paper, it's done via a tablet or phone. The article refers to it as a book, because in many ways it is. In other ways, it is more than a book. I think this is not a reason to discount it, in fact it's quite spectacular in my opinion and should give her bonus points. WP:AUTHOR = WP:CREATIVE so I see no need discount an electronic book/app over a paper one. I don't agree that this is a passing mention. It's a proper review, 5 long paragraphs, and as per the WP:AUTHOR it's the subject of her work (the book/app) that needs to get significant coverage, not her. We're getting this here. So sorry, User:Alexandermcnabb, I just completely disagree with your characterisation of this and understanding of the guidelines.

  The review I'm talking about is:

  JIMÉNEZ, LAURA M. Review of BOOKS FOR YOUNG READERS, by MELISSA MALZKUHN, KRISTEN HARMON, BENJAMIN BAHAN, WANDA RIDDLE, YIQIAO WANG, APRIL JACKSON-WOODARD, JACQUELINE WOODSON, et al. The Journal of Education 196, no. 1 (2016): 53–57. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26612608.

  Another review of The Baobab (although it doesn't mention MM):

  MURRAY, J. J. The Baobab: Translanguaging in a multimodal sign language translation project. Applied Linguistics Review, [s. l.], v. 9, n. 1, p. 135–156, 2018. DOI 10.1515/applirev-2017-0085. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edb&AN=128384820&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 29 jun. 2022.

  Another review that I cannot open, but mentions MM her in the abstract:

  Nolan, E., & Indrisano, R. (2016). The baobab, A storybook app. Journal of Education, 196(1), 53. Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/baobab-storybook-app/docview/1776673905/se-2?accountid=196403

  A news piece, that does quote her, so not 100% secondary:

  Larimer, S. (2017, Jun 05). How one university is trying to reach young, deaf readers. Telegraph-Journal Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/how-one-university-is-trying-reach-young-deaf/docview/1905625974/se-2?accountid=196403

  There is lots more on proquest, I hope I've convinced you. Sorry for not listing more here, but real life calls.... CT55555 ( talk) 23:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete. As noted, tangential mentions in passing do not establish notability regardless of the quality of the sources. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment. I commented above, since the relist, but did so above, to keep things in logical order. CT55555 ( talk) 23:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC) reply

• Comment She also contributed an essay to In Our Own Hands: Essays in Deaf History 1780-1970, which was reviewed in Disability Studies Quarterly and Canadian Journal of Disability Studies. Beccaynr ( talk) 00:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment According to a review in The Journal of Education Vol. 196, No. 1 (January 2016) (via JSTOR), she designed and manages the app, which won the DEVICE Design Award in 2014, and she is a co-author of the story. This is a substantial and positive review. The coverage in the May 28, 2017 Washington Post article How Gallaudet University is working to reach young, deaf readers is about her (including biographical information), her lab, her app, the series of stories, and positive reception from parents and children, so this seems to be SIGCOV about her and her work. Beccaynr ( talk) 01:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment She was also featured in a " Brief But Spectacular" segment on PBS NewsHour in 2019, and I found two WaPo blog posts on ProQuest where she offers information on ASL slang. There are also many reprints of the 2017 WaPo article on ProQuest, and various press releases in the two pages of ProQuest results. She also co-founded the Cultivating Research and Equity in Sign-related Technology (CREST), a research network ( Inside Higher Ed, 2020), but I have not found secondary coverage about that or the children's show "Here Comes Mavo!" she helped develop. However, the 2015 NPR coverage When It Comes To Learning For The Deaf, 'It's A 3-D Language' is also about her and her work, including the storybook apps. I think there is sufficient in-depth and secondary attention to her and her work over time, plus some coverage for her art, as a slang expert, tenant, etc to support WP:BASIC notability, and the sources identified in this discussion can help further develop the article, so I !vote keep. Beccaynr ( talk) 01:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please consider in light of new sources found.

Keep The additional sources found since this AFD started are sufficient to prove the subject clearly notable. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 07:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep in light of new sources found and significant expansion since nomination, when this was a very short four-sentence stub.

WP:BASIC allows multiple independent sources to be combined to establish notability. On that basis, the strongest piece of coverage is the 2017 Washington Post feature by Sarah Lorimer. Although the article does include quotes (direct and indirect) from Malzkuhn, it also contains factual information and direct observations by Lorimer herself about Malzkuhn's work at the Motion Light Lab, as well as information she gathered by interviewing others. Similarly, the 2015 NPR story includes quotes from Malzkuhn, but also has some independent analysis and content related to her work, incorporated by NPR. A separate 2022 Washington Post article includes a one-paragraph independent review of Malzkuhn’s art installation.

The two larger pieces from Washington Post and NPR include quotes from other professionals serving the Deaf community and from a parent whose child uses the VL2 storybook apps, which help to validate the impact that Malzkuhn’s work with the Motion Light Lab is having, not just what Malzkuhn herself may claim. Nevertheless, it is important to have additional external perspectives from the broader educational and deaf community (that are “more independent”) regarding the significance of her achievements.

For this, criterion 3 of WP:CREATIVE / WP:AUTHOR is satisfied, because she has “played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work” (as evidenced by independent sources). The body of work is the VL2 Storybook Apps, starting with The Baobab, which was reviewed by the Journal of Education in 2016; the larger body of work is noted in the 2020 second edition of the book Deaf Culture: Deaf Communities in the United States. The 2018 article in Applied Linguistics Review is authored by a non-independent source (a Norwegian partner who worked on translating or “translanguaging” The Baobab), but nevertheless demonstrates the international reach of the collective body of work, within the field of applied linguistics.

In total, there is enough coverage across multiple sources to justify keeping this as a standalone bio of a creative professional who is also an academic and Deaf advocate. Cielquiparle ( talk) 21:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to Sweetwater Sound. ✗ plicit 12:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Sweetwater Studios (  | 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 recording studio which fails WP:GNG. The sources in the article (and those additionally available online) either include passing mentions of the recording studio, or are not independent (interview based, client portfolio, press releases etc), or are blogs. I found no sources that could be considered WP:SIGCOV. SailingInABathTub ( talk) 22:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SailingInABathTub ( talk) 22:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Sweetwater Sound: I found enough mentions in Google Books and an article [2] in Music Connection that justify its inclusion in the encyclopedia (alongside what is already cited in the article). However, I don't think it has enough justification to be split from its parent page. Merge what is useful and make it a redirect. Why? I Ask ( talk) 03:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC) reply
• Merge or Keep the available sources are not so poor to delete a 40 years company. -- 95.117.31.251 ( talk) 15:37, 4 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!} 23:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Merge to Sweetwater Sound, I agree with above, not enough sources meet NCORP for this topic so merging makes sense. HighKing ⁺⁺ 21:54, 10 July 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 01:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Glenville Rogers (  | 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; lack of WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG ( talk) 21:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, United Kingdom, and Caribbean. JTtheOG ( talk) 21:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC) reply

  Does that source intrigue you the most? Ivan Milenin ( talk) 22:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep There is enough around for me to satisfy GNG. Govvy ( talk) 15:11, 1 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!} 23:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Clear fail of WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 02:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Nothing remotely close to SIGCOV. I don't know what Ivan is saying about the source above but It was the same for Anguilla, who saw Glenville Rogers score the first goal of the game in the 30th minute in the first half. is clearly a passing mention in a routine recap. I got literally only 3 pages of hits on Google, all of them stats databases, wiki mirrors, rephrased versions of the above source, false hits, or police blotters. JoelleJay ( talk) 00:45, 8 July 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!} 01:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Gadgets and Gizmos (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article about a television show, not properly referenced as passing WP:TVSHOW. As usual, television shows are not "inherently" notable just because their own self-published production websites offer technical verification that they existed -- the notability test is the reception of third party media coverage about the show in sources independent of itself, to demonstrate that they have been externally validated as significant by virtue of having had attention paid to them by neutral and objective sources.
But this cites absolutely no sources at all, and even on a ProQuest search all I'm finding is glancing namechecks of its existence in tangential coverage of Amber MacArthur hosting an unrelated special on a different TV channel months after this was cancelled. Bearcat ( talk) 21:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada. Bearcat ( talk) 21:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete The article itself makes a good case for this show's not-notability, and there does not seem to be anything out there to contradict this point of view. TheLongTone ( talk) 11:45, 8 July 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 23:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Barry Scott (DJ) (  | 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)

Promotional. No independent sources confirming notability. No meaningful improvements to article since "no consensus" closure of AfD in 2014. ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Connecticut. Shellwood ( talk) 17:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already been through AfD under a previous article title.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{( talk • contribs)} 21:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. `~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 06:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, hoping for additional, thoughtful participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Missing references DavidEfraim ( talk) 15:07, 6 July 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 12:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Audrey L. Hall (  | 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, available coverage is limited to non-independent coverage, and an award that seems unlikely to meet WP:ANYBIO standards. I was unable to find more substantial coverage online. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and England. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete: WP:ROTM radio presenter (etc) doing their job. Fails WP:BIO. My WP:BEFORE found nothing useful 🇺🇦  Fiddle^Timtrent  Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:12, 4 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!} 23:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Non notable journalist! Couldn't find anything useful on a WP:Before search. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 12:44, 6 July 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. Although it may be technically ineligible, there's no indication input is forthcoming ergo no one challenging it Star Mississippi 02:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC) reply

The Glowing Hours (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A WP:SPA article about a short film. IMDb indicates that the film was submitted to various film festivals in 2012; I added a press-release confirming that it was joint winner of an award at Fort Lauderdale International Film Festival. However that does not appear to be a "major award" in terms of WP:NFILM criterion 3, and my searches are not finding evidence that the film meets the other criteria - in particular, I am not seeing the review coverage needed to pass criteria 1 and 2. AllyD ( talk) 17:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and England. AllyD ( talk) 17:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion due to previous WP:PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{( talk • contribs)} 21:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 5 July 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 Sweetwater Sound. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply

All Pro Integrated Systems (  | 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 company. Sources are trivial, and no better sources were found online prior to nominating. Fails WP:NCORP. SailingInABathTub ( talk) 21:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Sweetwater Sound as per WP:ATD. Topic company fails NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing ⁺⁺ 16:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to List of programs broadcast by Much. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Born to Be (TV series) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article about a shortlived television show, not properly sourced as passing WP:TVSHOW. As usual, television shows are not "inherently" notable just because their own self-published production websites offer technical verification that they existed -- the notability test is the reception of third party media coverage about the show in sources independent of itself, to demonstrate that they have been externally validated as significant by virtue of having had attention paid to them by neutral and objective sources.
But this cites no coverage at all, and I'm not finding much on a ProQuest search either -- apart from a couple of glancing namechecks of this show's existence in coverage of other things, I'm really only finding MuchMusic's own press releases and accidental text matches where references to the songs " Born to Be Wild" or " Born to Be Alive" (i.e. not this) happened to coincide with references to MuchMusic. There's just nothing here that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt this from having to have any real GNG-worthy media coverage. Bearcat ( talk) 21:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada. Bearcat ( talk) 21:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Much As generic of a music bio show as you can possibly get without calling it Artist Biography. Nate • ( chatter) 22:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 5 July 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 12:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Make or Break TV (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article about a shortlived television show, not properly sourced as passing WP:TVSHOW. As usual, television shows are not "inherently" notable just because their own self-published production websites offer technical verification that they existed -- the notability test is the reception of third party media coverage about the show in sources independent of itself, to demonstrate that they have been externally validated as significant by virtue of having had attention paid to them by neutral and objective sources. But the only "source" here is the show's own self-published production website, and on a ProQuest search for older sourcing that wouldn't Google I found just one decent article about it in a mid-market paper and a tiny smattering of "TV tonight" listings, which isn't enough coverage to get this over the bar. Bearcat ( talk) 20:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada. Bearcat ( talk) 20:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Khalydia Velasquez (  | 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) 17:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 17:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  • @ GiantSnowman: I've found these sources. [3] [4].-- MonFrontieres ( talk) 20:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC) reply

    The second source is ok, but not enough for GNG. Giant Snowman 20:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC) reply
• Draftify.-- MonFrontieres ( talk) 20:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep - As well as the sources @ MonFrontieres: found, I found this source and at age 11 she became the youngest player to score in an official sanctioned FIFA international tournament. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 01:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  @ GiantSnowman: See this new source, founded by Das osmnezz. MonFrontieres ( talk) 01:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  Sorry this is a clear fail of WP:GNG and Wikipedia:One hundred words Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 13:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  This does not change my view, sorry. Giant Snowman 17:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • @ Sportsfan 1234: I didn't write to you, or are you GiantSnowman?-- MonFrontieres ( talk) 15:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply

    Not sure why, but the reply button sometimes puts the comments at the very bottom. My comments are directed as Das Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 15:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The sources found by MF and DO above are 1) a routine match recap; 2) a reprint of a CONCACAF story, which fails independence; and 3) 1.5 sentences in a news blurb. These are not remotely enough for GNG. JoelleJay ( talk) 00:32, 8 July 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 23:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Daniel Gilford (  | 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) 23:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete not even close to enough sources to pass GNG. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:10, 11 July 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. While there is a lot of duplicated content between this page and Minimum wage in the United States, there is some small amount of content on this page that is unique, like the minimum wage in past years. And, while there is substantial support to turn this into a redirect, I don't think it's quite strong enough to form a consensus. I'd recommend that the maintainers of this list article find more ways to differentiate it from the minimum wage article and fill it with relevant data that doesn't already appear in that article. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC) reply

List of US states by minimum wage (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

All information on this page is already included in Minimum wage in the United States. Numberguy6 ( talk) 23:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Oh please. The need for notable list articles is a long settled issue. The topic of US state minimum wages is a notable topic. See:

Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists

Lists of U.S. state topics

List of lists of lists

Category:Lists of lists

Wikipedia:Contents/Lists

Minimum wage in the United States is a massive comprehensive article, not a list article.

-- Timeshifter ( talk) 08:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Certainly it's a list article (though not exclusively). See Minimum wage in the United States#List by jurisdiction. TompaDompa ( talk) 08:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply

It's a massive prose article with some lists too. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 10:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Minimum wage in the United States per nom and WP:CFORK. Ajf773 ( talk) 10:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Wikipedia:Content forking actually recommends spin-off articles as the main article grows. "This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage." -- Timeshifter ( talk) 13:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Minimum wage in the United States, especially since Wikipedia is not supposed to take a presentist view. That way we can have text not just on the current minimum wage, but changes over time, also mention states that have mechinisms to increse the minimum wage (here in Michigan where I live there are built in adjustments up that do not require legisltive intervention), also we can cover cities/counties that have higher rates than the state they are in. No reason for a seperate list. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 12:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • The list article has some of the changes over time. But I see your point. The solution is to move the rest of the tables from the main article (see: Minimum wage in the United States#List by jurisdiction) and put them below the existing table in the list article. I support that. That way you have a summary table followed by more detailed tables. I don't tend to help with updating tables buried in prose articles. That is because they are more difficult to maintain due to all the prose edits mixed in too. It burdens my watchlist. Tables in list articles are often more up to date for this reason.-- Timeshifter ( talk) 14:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Redirect Minimum_wage_in_the_United_States#State and Minimum_wage_in_the_United_States#State_laws have the same information this article has, and its better suited there with the rest of the relevant information. I see no benefit in splitting it off to a separate page. Dream Focus 23:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • See my reply to John Pack Lambert. All the lists can be moved to the list article page. In fact, the prose article is way too long, and parts should be spun off according to these pages:
  • Wikipedia:Article size
  • Wikipedia:Summary style
  • Information for "Minimum wage in the United States"
  • -- Timeshifter ( talk) 00:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Comment. You don't see people trying to move List of countries by minimum wage into the prose article Minimum Wage. Even though there are sections in the prose article with additional info on countries. That's because the prose article is already long. As is the list article. They shouldn't be combined. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 00:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Speedy redirect Baffled why this was created when the main article's right there with this info. I see no need for a separate article just for the table and map, but reorganization of the main page may be appropriate. Reywas92 ^Talk 02:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • A lot of people prefer a list article when all they want is quicker access to the data. Versus a TL;DR long prose article with the lists buried within. See previous replies as to why Wikipedia recommends this. The rest of the tables need to be moved to the list article. TL;DR is short for "too long; didn't read". -- Timeshifter ( talk) 02:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Notice left at Talk:Minimum wage in the United States. I think this AFD should be extended long enough to get more opinions from actual editors of either the list or prose articles. So far, it seems that mainly only deletionists have commented. No one other than me seems to actually be reading or replying to the actual Wikipedia guidelines and policies I have posted. The editors at the prose article might consider moving the rest of the tables to the list article. That would solve all the problems mentioned so far by commenters wanting all the detailed list data to be together. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 03:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong oppose. Per Mirza, the main article ain't broke. Don't try to fix it by making the main article worse and forcing readers to see the data on a separate page. It's not "quicker access to the data" if it's not on the primary page, it's slower access! Reywas92 ^Talk 14:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Mirza was talking about the list article not being broke. Mirza is an editor of the list article (under Avman89 in the article history). And if you go to Talk:Minimum wage in the United States#Federal minimum wage over time you will see an example of someone who got lost in that huge prose article. From Wikipedia:Article size: "A page of about 10,000 words takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is close to the attention span of most readers.[1] Understanding of standard texts at average reading speed is around 65%. At 10,000 words (50 kB and above) it may be beneficial to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries per Wikipedia:Summary style – see Size guideline (rule of thumb) below." See more links there. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 15:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Redirect Whole content already exists at Minimum_wage_in_the_United_States#State_laws. Rustam Fan ( talk) 03:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep No reason needed. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Mirza Ahmed ( talk) 12:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC) reply

That makes no sense. Rustam Fan ( talk) 13:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Mirza Ahmed is an editor of the list article (Avman89 in the edit history). And Mirza Ahmed is correct, there is nothing wrong with what is currently in the list article. The list article just needs the rest of the tables moved to it. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 13:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The article is long, the list is long and the list entries meet the WP:CSC#2 criterion, so there is no policy reason not to have a list article. The solution to the redirectors concerns is to move the lists to the list article instead of combining all into one unwieldy whole. Regarding User:Johnpacklambert's concerns, WP:MOSLIST states that stand-alone lists "may include additional information about the listed items" and WP:SALLEAD expounds on this. For examples of lists with extensive prose sections and/or extensive prose within the list, see John Neal bibliography and List of countries by Human Development Index. —  AjaxSmack  02:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Redirect, the subject is notable but covering it here is a duplication. It is already covered quite well Minimum_wage_in_the_United_States#State_laws. Lightburst ( talk) 00:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep I was going to recommend a redirect but it looks like this article is more up-to-date than information on Minimum wage in the United States#State laws, seen by just checking a few random states. I'd advocate having this information on the page where it is most likely to be maintained and kept current. I realize that this isn't the purpose of an encyclopedia but readers come to Wikipedia seeking all types of information and if we are going to have this data available, let's keep it current. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:31, 13 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep - As pointed out above, there's a lot of duplicated info on both pages, including a US map, and a long list showing the states with some overlapping content. I think it's easier to maintain if we put the long tables and map on a single forked list page. Info from the other table should be merged here. Columns can be narrowed to fit in more data if the interior table notes are moved below the table as footnotes. The challenge (besides the merge) will be improving navigation so readers of the other article can easily find the info here. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:42, 15 July 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!} 23:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Rene Regis (  | 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) 23:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 23:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 02:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC) reply

The Book of Tasty and Healthy Food (  | 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)

Nominated as WP:PROD by Молдовський винний погріб.

I removed the PROD tag as I found some results on Google Scholar and Books mentioning this in relation to Soviet cuisine, but I am neutral as to whether it should exist as a standalone article on the English Wikipedia (with lean towards keep). However, I thought this should be brought up for discussion. QueenofBithynia ( talk) 22:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Literature, and Russia. Shellwood ( talk) 22:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Google Scholar search suggests this cookbook has been widely studied. pburka ( talk) 23:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep — per Pburka. Best, R E A D I N G ^{Talk to the Beans?} 09:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep - per scholar and book returns, and the Russian article has further details and sources which attest to its significance. Spokoyni ( talk) 09:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep. per above. Alimovvarsu ( talk) 21:51, 8 July 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 Children's Miracle Network Hospitals but if consensus eventually lands on Children's Miracle Network, that would also be a fine target. That is an editorial decision. Star Mississippi 02:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC) reply

All-Star Miracle Home (  | 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)

Total spam. Would G11, but it's somehow survived for several years like this. The fundamental purpose of this page seems to be to promote a lottery, and it would need to be rewritten entirely to do anything else. Notability is also somewhat unclear based on the BEFORE search. I also suspect it to be a copyright violation, but I wasn't able to identify where it came from. Mako001  (C)   (T)  🇺🇦 22:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mako001  (C)   (T)  🇺🇦 22:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to the Children's Miracle Network, which seems to be the charity that benefits from this and now promotes it. Nate • ( chatter) 22:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Agree – You should feel free to conduct a WP:BLAR (to Children's Miracle Network Hospitals) which would solve the problem and avoid continued, needless discussion. – S. Rich ( talk) 23:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete A redirect would WP:ASTONISH since this program is not mentioned there and a reader would have no idea why they were taken there. This article was written in 2006, and I found a 2007 article, but nothing newer. I don't see enough to meet GNG even if rewritten. MB 00:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Nazim Sattar (  | 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)

other than being mentioned in passing and entirely related to his brother, there is virtually nothing in the way of sources about Sattar, aside from mere charges which he has not been convicted of. This is a massive BLP vio and non-notable. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Maldives. Shellwood ( talk) 22:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Notability is not inherited, and most provided sources do not have significant coverage. Even so, WP:CRIME would not be satisfied by what is described. ComplexRational ( talk) 22:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete WP:NOTINHERITED Lightburst ( talk) 18:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete As per ComplexRational and Lightburst. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC) reply

I have provide sources from independent articles which may provide sufficient information about this person and I have removed any sources which includes unproven allegations against this person. I would be grateful if you could review this again so that I can make modifications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auf Shareef ( talk • contribs) 02:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Adrienne Wojciechowski (  | 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 government official. Completely fails WP:GNG, with no WP:SIGCOV extant. While WP:POLOUTCOMES does state that assistant secretaries are usually notable, I think the complete lack of coverage places this particular article on the other end of that usually. Curbon7 ( talk) 21:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and United States of America. Curbon7 ( talk) 21:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete not even close to having yet held a level of government office that gives notability, and the sourcing just is not there. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 12:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete – not quite there, yet. Simply being involved in politics doesn't make one notable. I checked the bios/BLPs of Ag Secretaries, and also checked United States Secretary of Agriculture to see if we've been listing assistant secretaries, and didn't find any names. All I found was a sub-section for the Line of succession and the title "assistant" but no names. Prior to her nom by Biden, she was a lobbyist for The Nature Conservancy. Being appointed for that position by a US President and having to be accepted by the Senate may be notable, but I don't think it's enough for a stand alone bio. Atsme 💬 📧 14:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. No indicia of encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 05:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete Agreed. A news search on either Bing or DuckDuckGo pulls up no results in the news section, and a quick scan through the web section appears to show social media accounts, a few press releases, what appears to be a agricultural news and policy blog, and this article. Augusthorsesdroppings10 ( talk) 17:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete WP:TOOSOON. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 11:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 20:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Dickens in America (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Just a plot recap. WP:BEFORE found sources discussing the event the film depicts (namely, Dickens' American tour), but nothing about the film itself. GNG not met. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 21:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Film, and England. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 21:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

I don't have a strong opinion on the outcome but I have made some edits to the page. I have added several references and a bit of background information, as well as extensively shortening the synopses for the first seven (of ten) episodes and putting them into a more standard Wiki list format. I hope this helps. The Cardigan Kid ( talk) 11:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep per reviews in Playbill and the Independent, presumably added by TCK. pburka ( talk) 13:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. pburka ( talk) 13:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep based on current citations, it's a pass for me. Lovewiki106 ( talk) 19:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep Meets GNG upon my review.-- Milowent • ^{has spoken} 20:20, 6 July 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) 19:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Cleaveland Simon (  | 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) 20:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 20:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete we do not have the level of sourcing to meet GNG. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:51, 11 July 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!} 23:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Emory Tate (  | 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)

Some debate concerning notability. Main debate seems to focus on number of reliable sources. CivilianArthur ( talk) 19:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CivilianArthur ( talk) 19:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment This might be a case of the sources not being available due to systematic bias. Tate is an important figure in the African American chess community and Daaim Shabazz, a professor at Florida A&M and a chess enthusiast, has published Triple Exclam!!! The Life and Games of Emory Tate, Chess Warrior and has written about him extensively at his website The Chess Drum [5], [6]. But as it is a blog, it would probably not count as a reliable source.-- Pawnkingthree ( talk) 16:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep The article includes some lightweight material citing unreliable sources, but I would think that the Chess Life obituary and the chess.com obituary should be considered reliable sources. (There is also an obituary in chessbase.) I would also be inclined to treat Triple Exclam as a reliable source to some degree, although it is self-published. The lack of sources prior to obituaries is a peculiar thing -- as if he suddenly became notable upon dying. During his lifetime he was well-known in U.S. chess circles, mainly for his showmanship, but because his actual chess strength didn't go much beyond the IM level, it might not be easy to find articles in the chess press celebrating his exploits. Bruce leverett ( talk) 03:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep Unquestionably notable. Emory Tate is an iconic figure, famous for his attacking play, and one of the strongest African-American chessplayers of all time. Maurice Ashley I believe is the only African-American grandmaster, and Emory Tate was one of the only (maybe the only?) African-American IMs. His notability is shown by the fact that ChessBase, Chess Life, and chess.com had obituaries of him (as Bruce leverett noted), and that Prof. Daaim Shabazz (of the famous "The Chess Drum" blog, who was recently honored by USCF) wrote an extensive biography of him. (Full disclosure: I was the proofreader of that biography, "Triple Exclam!!! The Life and Games of Emory Tate, Chess Warrior.") I am mystified by the nomination of this article for deletion, since no one has even advanced an argument why this article should be deleted. Krakatoa ( talk) 15:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  Minor correction: Stephen Muhammad is also an IM. Bruce leverett ( talk) 17:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep Emory Tate's notability is beyond question. (Disclosure: Tate and I were friendly acquaintances, not quite friends.) The Shabazz book, which I have read, handles source material well. Agree that the article itself needs polishing, but that's irrelevant to the AfD discussion. Billbrock ( talk) 00:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Billbrock and Krakatoa. Notability standards are met and exceeded by a considerable margin. Numerous high quality sources with editorial oversight are cited in the reference section including Chess Life. In addition there is a well-researched obituary in ChessBase magazine. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete All evidence of notability given is subjective. No verifiable evidence of notability. Popoki35 ( talk) 13:18, 11 July 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 keep. The talk page was incorrectly nominated. The page was renominated for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emory Tate (non-admin closure) Tartar Torte 19:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Talk:Emory Tate (  | [[Talk:Talk:Emory Tate|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)

Some debate about notability. Major debate seems to focus on number of reliable sources. CivilianArthur ( talk) 19:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CivilianArthur ( talk) 19:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• @ CivilianArthur did you mean to nominate the talk page because if so that should be nominated at Wikipedia:Miscellany for Deletion. If you meant to nominate the article you'd have to move the tags to the article page and also change this to be titled Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emory Tate instead of its current title. Tartar Torte 19:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  I did not mean to do that. I've added the template to the actual article page and deleted the one on the talk page. Thank you. CivilianArthur ( talk) 19:51, 5 July 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) Atlantic306 ( talk) 22:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Dawn of the Beast (  | 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 prod. Fails GNG and NFILM; this video doesn't have reviews categorized by Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic, and searching I only see non-notable critics/horror blogs covering this. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• comment looks like there’s at least an AV Club review [7], plus a couple of others from lesser publications. Artw ( talk) 20:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep Rue Morgue and Horror Society are reliable sources, not to mention the earlier coverage on the production by other reliable sources. ★Trekker ( talk) 09:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • What makes them reliable sources? Wikipedia:WikiProject Horror/Sources just lists Horror Society, for example, as "reliable" with no evidence or discussion demonstrating consensus. What are the reliable sources covering the production? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply

We at the horror project discuss sources on the project talkpage before they're added to the list. ★Trekker ( talk) 17:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply

And can you point me to those discussions so there's actual evidence these are reliable sources that meet WP:GNG? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Feel free to look at the history of the talk page of the Horror project. ★Trekker ( talk) 18:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply

If you're talking about this discussion, it's all of three people and frankly doesn't demonstrate a high understanding of what makes a reliable source. Just having an editorial staff is not enough. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Feel free to go to the Horror project and point out any issues with the sources that you think make them unreliable to cover horror fiction. ★Trekker ( talk) 12:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Trekker. Artw ( talk) 15:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep based on sources provided by Trekker. Lovewiki106 ( talk) 19:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• keep based on the new sources provided by Artw and Trekker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zekab ( talk • contribs) 23:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep as article is well sourced. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 18:40, 12 July 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!} 23:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Storming of the prisons in Donetsk (  | 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)

Unexecuted operation that falls short of WP:NEVENT. I was unable to find any coverage suggesting lasting significance other than a brief flurry of Ukrainian publications citing Mykhailo Nikolov's then-recent public statements in 2020. Not mentioned in any capacity that I can tell at Russo-Ukrainian War, and seems likely UNDUE for merge. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Russia, and Ukraine. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete lack of evidence and neutral reliable sources. -- IgorTurzh ( talk) 10:51, 10 July 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 Classy (group). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Myung Hyung-seo (  | 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)

Reality star, part singer/actor. Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:NSINGER. Refs are routine PR, profiles and clickbait. scope_creep ^Talk 19:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Classy (group) - per nomination, no notability as an individual singer nor actor. The web series she's in X-Garion doesn't seem to be notable. Redirect per usual for Kpop artists in a group. Evaders99 ( talk) 20:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, and South Korea. Shellwood ( talk) 21:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment I was planning to redirect, but wasn't absolutely sure. scope_creep ^Talk 21:43, 5 July 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!} 23:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Paolo Zagami (  | 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)

Promotional. Only references are to his own stuff. Rathfelder ( talk) 19:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Italy. Rathfelder ( talk) 19:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Gas Explosions In The UK (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

not really sure how localized lists of gas explosions are notable and anything more than WP:NOTNEWS. in any case, this list is redundant if we're to keep just the notable events, as they're already adequately covered here and we don't need a list of every residential gas explosion. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United Kingdom. Shellwood ( talk) 21:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment Three gas explosions on the list have their own articles dedicated to them, and one links to an article about the village Loscoe#Explosion that has a bit about how it lead to new legislation and research. The others don't seem notable enough to be listed. Category:Gas explosions shows how many articles for this subject have happened. Perhaps a list showing just all of them. If the 29 listed for America make that new list too long, it can be split off. Dream Focus 06:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  I don't think we need a list of all gas explosions anywhere. Only notable explosions which are adequately covered in Gas explosions. They happen pretty much every day in many countries (I can think of 3 this summer in my city, alone, none of which are notable.) PRAXIDICAE🌈 12:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  I was suggesting a list of those with their own articles only. I wasn't aware there was a list of gas explosions already at gas explosion. I see gas explosions listed along with other things at List of explosions as well. Dream Focus 15:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete the notable explosions can be listed at gas explosion (most of that article is a list of explosions anyway), and the rest aren't important enough to be covered in this encyclopedia. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 13:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete Most of the incidents seem insignificant. GenuineArt ( talk) 12:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment- One issue at the moment would seem to be that it only covers fairly recent events, thereby not featuring some big historic ones, and as such is incomplete and as a result coming across as insignificant as noted. For instance Piper Alpha is not included though a case could be made for its inclusion, and the Clarkston explosion which resulted in over 20 deaths is missing. Thus might be better to draft first? Dunarc ( talk) 15:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  Why not just add it to the target article where it belongs? PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC) reply

That would be fine. My point was more if there was a feeling that there should be a separate article for the UK (which on balance I would probably lean against), that there would need to be more added to it and as it stands it would probably be better as a draft. However, the main article you mention is probably enough to cover what is needed. Dunarc ( talk) 22:46, 11 July 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) NemesisAT ( talk) 19:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Weena (Rotterdam) (  | 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 there is significant coverage of this street. The one ref is from an article that says 400 streets in Rotterdam don't meet pollution standards and only mentions this as the worst. MB 17:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I reworked the article to emphasize notability and coverage. Weena is a defining street in Rotterdam. Several national monuments and noteworthy buildings are on Weena street. Ruud Buitelaar ( talk) 03:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep major commercial street in major industrial city of Netherlands. jengod ( talk) 23:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep per WP:GEOROAD and the WP:GNG. Nomination is a clear and gross failure of WP:NEXIST and WP:BEFORE. Nominator is concerned only with references, not at all with sources. This is not how articles should be nominated. gidonb ( talk) 10:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. gidonb ( talk) 22:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep -- per WP:HEY due to great work by Ruud Buitelaar and a clear WP:GNG pass based on those sources. Ovinus ( talk) 19:55, 9 July 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. WP:ITSUSEFUL is a weak argument if put against the WP:SYNTH concerns. Sandstein 08:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC) reply

List of Macintosh models by case type (  | 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)

Deleted via prod, resurrected via Refund as "useful", but there's nothing encyclopedic about this. Reliable source are not creating indexes of Mac models by case types, and the end result is an unreferenced gallery with a lot of original research (how some models are arbitrarily broken apart, for example the "slim unibody" versus "unibody" iMacs.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete not “useful” and apparently a lot of very detailed SYNTH. Mccapra ( talk) 19:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete, complete synthesis of unrelated ideas. No sources back up the completely arbitrary division system. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 20:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep, I think it is useful, for example, for a student who is doing a project on the evolution of computer design. Apple is one of the most representative brands in terms of design. A list like this allows you to see this evolution at a glance. Mrodriguezmad ( talk) 20:31, 9 July 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) 19:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Sirplay (  | 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 gambling company, no in depth coverage, just your average press releases and passing mentions in mostly non-rs PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete Fails WP:GNG. No more than small press releases or passing mentions. GoldMiner24  ^Talk 16:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. Shellwood ( talk) 16:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Fails GNG. Alphaonekannan ( talk) 03:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply

We are changing headquarters, from europe to the United States.

In the meantime we are in press silence, soon we will reactivate communication with the public.

Thanks Sirplay ( talk) 13:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Yeah, no that's not how this works. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete: agree with nominator. For the COI editor it doesn't matter why your organization doesn't have notability, as the organization is not notable it does not merit a wikipedia article. -- VViking _{Talk Edits} 13:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Nominator is absolutely correct, major conflict of interest. Dr vulpes ^{( 💬 • 📝)} 07:53, 12 July 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!} 23:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Mittu Chandilya (  | 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. Was in news only for being CEO of AirAsia India. Article was written like WP:PROMO. Not notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete As per nom, subject is only mentioned as the CEO of AirAsia India. Fails WP:BIO. Notability is not inherited WP:INVALIDBIO. GoldMiner24  ^Talk 16:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was withdrawn and closed on the article by the nominator. — David Eppstein ( talk) 04:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn, I had incomplete information BrigadierG ( talk) 16:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Charles Musselwhite (  | 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)

Sadly a non-notable academic, and article is most likely a WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. His most cited work has been cited 25 times according to google scholar, which is not sufficient for WP:NSCHOLAR, and he does not meet any of the other criteria. BrigadierG ( talk) 15:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

top article cited 249 times https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=gUbAOe8AAAAJ&hl=en

second most cited of all time in transport and health https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?view_op=search_authors&hl=en&mauthors=label:transport_and_health

second most cited of all time in older drivers https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?view_op=search_authors&hl=en&mauthors=label:older_drivers

fourth most cited of all time in traffic and transport psychology https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?view_op=search_authors&hl=en&mauthors=label:traffic_and_transport_psychology 144.124.112.162 ( talk) 16:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. Shellwood ( talk) 16:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Weak Keep I believe the subject passes notability guidelines for WP:BIO. The article could use a WP:HEY but I don't see a need for it to be deleted. GoldMiner24  ^Talk 16:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep. His "Chair in Psychology" position appears to be a personal chair, for scholarly accomplishment, rather than department chair, an administrative position (that's someone else, Nigel Holt [8]). And although we don't have an article on the journal for which he is editor-in-chief, Journal of Transport and Health, it has been around since 2014 from an established publisher and is rated well by SCImago Journal Rank [9]. Google Scholar shows citation counts of 249, 203, 134, 126, ... [10], nothing special for a high-citation field like psychology, but also not so small as to make one question the chair and editorship. So I am not convinced he passes WP:PROF#C1 but I think he does pass #C5 and #C8. — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

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!} 23:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Robin Hood Ventures (  | 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 and anything I find is related either to an announcement or one of their investments or a mention-in-passing. HighKing ⁺⁺ 15:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. HighKing ⁺⁺ 15:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing ⁺⁺ 15:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 07:14, 10 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Searches find announcements and passing mentions of involvement in events (noting a distinct similarly-named firm in Australia), showing a company going about its business, but not the coverage of the firm itself needed to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD ( talk) 08:03, 10 July 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 Lucknow Super Division. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Techtro Lucknow FC (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not a fully professional. No significant coverage. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Indianfootball98 ( talk) 14:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Indianfootball98 ( talk) 14:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Redirect - to Lucknow Super Division as likely search term. NB to nominator that NFOOTBALL no longer exists. Giant Snowman 21:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Why isnt this club notable. Sullyboywiki ( talk) 11:35, 7 July 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 Kerala Premier League. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Basco Othukkungal (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A semi professional club without any significant coverage. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG Indianfootball98 ( talk) 14:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Indianfootball98 ( talk) 14:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Redirect - to Kerala Premier League as likely search term. NB to nominator that NFOOTBALL no longer exists. Giant Snowman 21:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete or Redirect: Fails GNG. The Footballean ( talk) 07:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment There are some articles about this newly form club, I am not sure it needs deleting. Everything has to start somewhere. Govvy ( talk) 09:17, 7 July 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!} 23:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Osarhieme Osadolor (  | 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)

Unexplained PROD removal by article creator, here we are. Fails WP:NACADEMIC; WP:GNG, only potentially significant role held was acting vice-chancellor of the Ambrose Alli University - WP:POLOUTCOMES here helps us, "Civil servants who assume a political office on an interim or caretaker basis are not considered notable just for having briefly held that office, even if holders of the office are normally considered notable." Coverage relates only to appointment/removal - this is not notability. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 14:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Nigeria. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 14:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• @ Alexandermcnabb: where are you seeing that the subject is a civil servant? If there are additional sources you're pulling from which aren't currently on the page please add them. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 15:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Leaning delete based on current sourcing, willing to reconsider if additional sources are provided. Hope someone can do a non-English source search. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 15:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep, I messaged a Professor friend from West Africa and they confirmed exactly what Kaizenify and Elemimele have been saying. The VC is the highest professional position at the University and is held by a career academic or administrator, the chancellor is just a local or national notable who generally doesn't do anything besides collect a check. That means the subject here meets WP:NACADEMIC six. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 16:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep, As the article creator; going back to the edit summary of the PROD removal here which explain: “The subject clearly satisfy the criteria 6 of wp:NACADEMIC as “The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution” whether as acting or not; he served as the highest official of the university for a period of 10 months where he governed the academic institution”. In Nigeria, the vice chancellor is regarded as the highest level for an academic institution on whether as acting or not; it is appointed based on pedigree within the academic area and this duly satisfy criteria 6 of WP:NACADEMIC; also beyond being a VC, the subject also satisfy criteria 1 and 4 of WP:NACADEMIC as their works has contributed significantly to the academic and research work in Nigeria history with publications like this, this and this which has contributed to the retrieval of Benin and Nigeria artefacts from different part of the world. Kaizenify ( talk) 15:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Can you clarify something for me? Ambrose Alli University seems to show both a chancellor and a vice chancellor, are you saying that the vice chancellor is the actual person in charge and the chancellor is just a figurehead? Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 16:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

UTC)

Thank you Horse Eye’s Back; chancellor in Government public universities in Nigeria are usually a ceremonial non-resident head of the university mainly traditional leaders and monarchs with no administrative effect in the school and academic experiences. The vice chancellor is the administrative and academic head and the highest appointment of the institution. Kaizenify ( talk) 16:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

If you look at the person described as chancellor at WP's article on the university, it is Yahaya Abubakar who is clearly not the academic in charge. It is a very common misconception that vice chancellors are somehow second in command. In most universities where the VC is named, they are the absolute head, the chancellor being some sort of figure-head who might make the occasional appearance for ceremonial reasons, but who has no influence over the running of the university. This university's own website names its vice-chancellor, but not its chancellor [11] Elemimele ( talk) 16:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

To be clear, what you say is true for universities modeled on the British system. In the US, the titles are different. The US university at which I work has a chancellor who is the academic in charge, and a vice chancellor who works under the chancellor (focused more on managing the campus and less on external affairs). We do not have ceremonial chancellors. But I believe that in Nigeria, VC is the real head. — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• I'm leaning towards keep. There appears to be a story behind his appointment, with his role as more than just caretaker [12] He has clearly published respectably in his field, and vice-chancellors are the top of the heap. We can't redirect to Ambrose Alli University because he's not mentioned there; in fact we're not serving our readers well, as Ignatius A. Onimawo describes this predecessor as a former vice-chancellor without explaining what happened. My feeling is that we would probably accept an article about someone who became vice-chancellor of a middle-sized UK or US university by government decree following a mess-up (rightly considering this to be a major matter in academic circles) so we should be biased towards doing the same for Nigeria. Elemimele ( talk) 16:25, 5 July 2022 (

Comment. Do we have any guidance on what a "major university" or "significant accredited college" is? Is it relative to the region, or on an absolute scale? It would be helpful to know the background on this criterion -- was it included from the assumption that university heads would have had sufficient academic impact as researchers before going into administration, or was there an expectation that such positions always garner GNG coverage? Also, he seems to have only been an interim/acting VC, which would not meet C6. JoelleJay ( talk) 23:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

@ JoelleJay: C6 does not exclude interim/acting leaders, holding the position is all that is required. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 02:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply

There's a fair level of consensus on this: for the two most recent discussions see here and here. Interim/acting presidents/VCs have not undergone the degree of vetting performed on candidates for the actual VC position; this scrutiny has been considered an essential prerequisite for the assumptions of C6. JoelleJay ( talk) 06:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Linked consensus seems to go the other way... The argument that a "confirmed" VC who serves for a single day is automatically notable but an acting VC who serves for a decade (a reality in some systems) is not just can't be taken seriously. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 21:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply

It's in fact totally reasonable to assume NPROF notability for a VC who only serves one day (and not for a long-term acting VC): the whole reason we have that criterion is because it demonstrates other people have decided that person's academic background (etc.) is extraordinary enough to meet the stringent standards for VCship. It's essentially the same as designating someone a distinguished professor; the notability comes from their being independently evaluated as worthy of the distinction, not for how long they've had it. And I'm not seeing how the linked discussions point to a different consensus. Maybe David Eppstein could weigh in here? JoelleJay ( talk) 00:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep: Acting VC of a university counts per WP:PROF. Gusfriend ( talk) 04:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep — served as the VC of a Nigerian university. Satisfies WP:NACADEMIC#6. Best, R E A D I N G ^{Talk to the Beans?} 20:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep: Vice Chancellor is the highest position of any university in Nigeria, that's why there are "Deputy Vice Chancellor" who is second to the VC. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep It appers to meet WP:PROF Kazanstyle ( talk) 17:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 16:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Helen Brocklebank (  | 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. The Harper's source is the only cite that might serve to establish notability, and I would argue it's really too weak to do so. These lists of putative movers and shakers are often very shonky. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and United Kingdom. Shellwood ( talk) 14:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete no notability per WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. -- Morpho achilles ( talk) 14:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete Plenty of mentions in the press, mostly interviews or her commenting on something or another. I'm unable to find any sources about her directly. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete: And the page is also quite non-neutral to me when I reviewed it as an NPR, which is why I placed a neutrality template on it. Thanks, NotReallySoroka ( talk) 22:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete I couldn't find any direct information on her either and consider it not notable. Kazanstyle ( talk) 17:09, 9 July 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply

List of Miss Universe Myanmar titleholders (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet WP:NLIST. This list does not warrant a split from the main page in terms of size. – Meena • 13:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Myanmar. – Meena • 13:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Support mostly because it doesn't warrant a split from the main page, there isn't much extra information that would even need to be merged. EmeraldRange ( talk/ contribs) 19:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete. It's all covered by Miss Universe Myanmar. A redirect could have been justified per WP:CHEAP but this a very new WP:FORK so just delete. gidonb ( talk) 16:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 16:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Gaelscoil an Mhuillinn (  | 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 satisfy GNG. A Google search provided no RS or significant coverage. – Meena • 13:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Ireland. – Meena • 13:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Non-notable school that (per WP:NSCHOOL) fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NORG. Noting that the title of the subject is incorrect (the actual school is called "Gaelscoil An Mhuilinn" [one "l" in Mhuilinn] and not "Gaelscoil an Mhuillinn" [two "L"s]), I did a quick WP:BEFORE search. The only news sources I can find are things like this or this. Which amounts to fairly run-of-the-mill coverage in local news sources only. Searches in national news sources (like the Irish Times or Irish Examiner or RTÉ) return nothing at all. Put simply, schools are not automatically notable. And this relatively small and otherwise typical primary school is no exception. Guliolopez ( talk) 14:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete - non notable Primary school Spleodrach ( talk) 10:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per nom Kazanstyle ( talk) 17:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 16:09, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Simon Škrlec (BOBNAR) (  | 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)

Slovenian drum teacher. No notability whatsoever in evidence - fails WP:GNG; WP:MUSICBIO, under-sourced and promotional. Promotional can be edited out, notability can't be edited in. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 13:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Slovenia. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 13:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete - no evidence of notability. Biggest claim to fame is being a touring drummer with a borderline notable band. That is simply not enough. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 13:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete not every drummer who is with a band significant enough to tour becomes notable. In fact, for musical groups much more notable than the one he is with, a large number of the members are not notable, so this is a very clear case of not being notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply