Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 April 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< April 04	April 06 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was 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 12:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chill Out Zone

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

Article about a television show, not properly sourced as passing WP:TVSHOW. As always, television shows don't get an automatic free notability pass just because they exist or existed -- the notability test is the reception of reliable source coverage about them in media other than their own self-published content about themselves, but this article is completely unreferenced, and all the way back to its initial creation in 2008 it has never had even one WP:GNG-worthy citation in it at all.
As I don't have access to any databases in which I could retrieve European media coverage from the 1990s or 2000s, I'm perfectly willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to that type of resource can find enough reliable source coverage to salvage the article -- but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to cite any proper third-party sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was no consensus and no objection to a relist at a time when there might be more input Star Mississippi 01:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Santaris Pharma

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

No real evidence of notability as a standalone company. All the reliable sources in the article barely mention the company, but are focused on some employees. Possible conflict-of-interest editing has been noted since 2015. QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Denmark. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There appear to be significant words in Reuters and multiple from WSJ and again so WP:SIRS is satisfied. And this is about more than one event. Article is substantial. Chumpih ^t 07:02, 2 April 2022 (UTC) + 6 Apr[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. The references posted by Chumpih above do not meet WP:SIRS as claimed. SIRS references WP:ORGIND which requires "Independent Content" that is original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. This Reuters reference is entirely based on a company announcement with no "Independent Content" except perhaps for the last sentence which, on its own, doesn't make up for the CORPDEPTH requirement. Ditto for the first WSJ reference and the second WSJ reference relies entirely on information from the company with quotes and also falls short of ORGIND/CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This analysis of the sources is questionable. The statement "relies entirely on information from the company" is wrong. Chumpih ^t 17:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if, for example, you pointed to some in-depth (WP:CORPDEPTH) information in the article that doesn't rely entirely on information provided by the company or their execs? Otherwise your comment has no weight. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question is mostly based on info from Roche (not the company in question) and is prior to acquisition so from a business disclosure aspect this is likely to be factual, and without vested interest. Chumpih ^t 16:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. If a company announces its intentions to purchase another company, they definitely have a "vested interest". Even if what you claim has some validity (which it doesn't), Roche already had a vested interest at least six months previously (which is referred to in the Reuters article you linked to). HighKing⁺⁺ 13:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, to state 'nonsense' is plain incorrect. There are rules about disclosures before purchase, e.g. the FCA's Disclosure Guidance and TransparencyRules sourcebook. WSJ is fairly scrupulous about its sources, hence WSJ is WP:RS. Therefore bias in the WSJ article is unlikely - the honesty around M+A disclosures is underpinned by law. Chumpih ^t 18:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it is nonsense to say that Roche had no vested interest. And we're not discussing "bias in the WSJ article" or whether the WSJ is RS or not - ignoratio elenchi. We're looking specifically at our own guidelines, in particular WP:ORGIND which requires "Independent Content" from sources that are *not* affiliated with the topic company. Look - here's a recap of how we got to this point. I provided an analysis and said the references fail NCORP. You said the analysis was questionable. I asked for you to point to a specific part of the article which doesn't rely on info from affiliated sources - you ignored the request, instead claiming that Roche is acceptable as a source as it provided factual information and without vested interests. I refuted that claim by pointing out that Roche had a vested interest and is therefore not unaffiliated. And now you're arguing that the WSJ is a RS. It doesn't matter if the info provided by Roche is factual or not, that isn't the point. Our guidelines explicitly state that we require *multiple* references where a third party writes in-depthly about the topic company. The references must pass WP:SIRS and in particular, from my experience, both WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH are the sections which most references fail to meet our criteria. This is no exception. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roche's statement is prior to acquisition, therefore it's not vested - it would be vested after acquisition (unless we're applying a hedonic definition of vested). The guidelines have been considered. The arguments here pertain to SIRS for this WSJ reference. It's arguably independent - no vested interest, and possibly subject to FCA guidelines. It's arguably from a reliable source - WSJ are robust in their fact checking . It's substantial, with descriptions about the company in question. Chumpih ^t 21:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that is all still utter nonsense, I cannot believe you're trying to argue that Roche were "unaffiliated" with the topic company at the time they were announcing the pending takeover. Also, not sure why you want to pick over a definition of "vested interest", strikes me as wiki-lawyering especially as WP:ORGIND has no mention of "vested interest". Even so, your strictly legal/financial limitations on the term flies in the face of everyday use and understanding - for example your definition rules out usaeg such as "banks have a vested interest in the growth of their customers" or "the riverside cafe has a vested interest in the success of local tourist attractions". All of which discussion and your objections fall away once it is pointed out to you that in the very Reuters reference you provided above, a "vested interest" is confirmed where the topic company's CEO says "Andersson said Santaris is not in immediate need of funding as it recently struck a deal with Swiss pharma giant Roche, which secured funding for its research beyond the end of 2014." HighKing⁺⁺ 11:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that would be the WP:ORGIND that starts with the words: A primary test of notability is whether unrelated people with no vested interest in the subject have actually considered the company, corporation.... Further discourse here is likely to be pointless. Chumpih ^t 12:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I am wrong (some wouldn't have been able to resist the urge to say I was talking nonsense :-) and you are correct, ORGIND is as you say. Still doesn't obviate the overall point though, that your "definition" of "vested interest" is too narrow and appears to require a financial stake and ignores Roche's prior investment. But yeah, I think we're done. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Jabbar Numan

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

Article is full of unverified, and unverifiable, information. Possible conflict-of-interest issues that have been left unresolved since 2020. QueenofBithynia (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. QueenofBithynia (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. QueenofBithynia (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable - unlike the reasons in the nom, this is a valid ground for deletion. 16:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Keep as has significant coverage in reliable sources already in the article including a newspaper article that describes him as the founder of an original art movement,imv Atlantic306 (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Vaco98 (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it definitely needs to go, it has questionable sources Zippybonzo | talk 19:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can commenters please elaborate on which sources they find unreliable or reliable, and why?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, WP:BASIC/WP:GNG notability appears supported by sources in the article, e.g. per Yemeni American News (in the article) (translated with Google Translate) in an article about him titled "Abdul-Jabbar Nouman and Symphony of Color", he was "born in 1949. He studied art. He graduated from Leonardo College in Cairo in 1973." Per the Almawqea Post (described as a private news website by the Committee to Protect Journalists) in a 2019 obituary, (also translated), "The late is considered one of the most prominent plastic artists in his country [...] Abdel-Jabbar Ahmed Abdel-Wahhab Noman was born in the Dhahban area near the city of Taiz, where he began his studies and then completed it in Aden, and traveled to Cairo, where he joined the Italian Art Institute and obtained a bachelor’s degree from it with distinction with honors in 1973..." and more information about his career, including "among his most prominent works is a mural inaugurated by the United Nations on war and peace". Another obit (Al-Arabi?) refers to him (translated) as "not just an amateur artist, but was one of the most important founders of the Yemeni plastic art movement". Also, the birth year does not quite match, but the work of Abdel Jabar Numan of Yemen, b. 1946, is held in the permanent collection of the Jordan National Gallery of Fine Arts. Beccaynr (talk) 22:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep, arguments above are valid. However, page might needs more sources Das kluge Gretel (talk) 10:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zaku

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

I am putting this up as this is very detailed article though it seems to be almost all Primary Sources or worse unsourced. Believe it fails WP:GNG as a result. Slywriter (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The article right now has insufficient sources to show it passes WP:GNG, but per WP:NEXIST that doesn't mean it's not notable. There is an article at CBR explaining the Zaku and calling them "beloved and iconic". They built a huge Zaku and Gundam statue in Japan. [1] They sent a model of Char Aznable's Zaku into space. [2] And there are tons of other mentions if the mecha is Googled. It's "weak" keep because I haven't been able to find solid examples of WP:SIGCOV but the sheer amount of mentions in reliable sources makes me think that it should probably stay an article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My findings mirror Zxcvbnm's, but I assess that on the whole the findings demonstrate notability in the aggregate, even if individual criteria aren't clearly met: This isn't a fly-by-night thing, but a reasonably major element in a reasonably established fictional franchise. Jclemens (talk) 02:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per above, with a note that some more SIGCOV may exist in Japanese, but we don't seem to have any editors these days familiar with Japanese language and active here, sigh. Also the article seems to suffer from excessive plot summary/fancruftis, and lack of references, but that's theoretically fixable without the need to apply WP:TNT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The commenters have argued for Keeping this article but have yet to find significant sources for it. Maybe another week can cause them to surface.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This might count as sigcov? I don't know, I think it's good enough but people seem to have wildly different standards for what counts as sigcov, so draw your own conclusions. I didn't bother looking past the first few results on Google News because I don't care about Gundam and only took a look because Piotrus lamented the lack of editors familiar with Japanese, so there might be more. Mlb96 (talk) 02:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At first glance it does in fact seem like SIGCOV. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SoBran

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

Notability has been questioned since creation. The purported references were about CBRNE without any actual mention of the company. A BEFORE does not show any significant coverage despite existing since 1987. Fails WP:NCORP Slywriter (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Ohio. Shellwood (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete almost a WP:PROMO. Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 04:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing I can see or find to show the topic meets NCORP notability criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Pasadena, Newfoundland and Labrador

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

Completely unsourced list of almost entirely non-notable mayors of a small (pop. 3.5K) town. Pasadena isn't large enough that its mayors would be presumed notable just for being mayors per se -- so only one person in this entire list actually has a Wikipedia article, and even he has it for going on to serve in the provincial legislature rather than for being mayor of this town per se. So there's just no need to keep a list of almost entirely non-notable people, especially without any sourcing to support it. Bearcat (talk) 22:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Newfoundland and Labrador-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only person on this list we have an article on we have such only incidentally, because he served in a higher level administrative body.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial list. NavjotSR (talk) 06:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wouldn't oppose merge with Pasadena if a source can be found.--IMR2000 (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gabe114 (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Southern Ukraine offensive. ✗plicit 23:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Tokmak

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

Minor clashes, like in many places, nothing special. No non-news sources. Wikisaurus (talk) 22:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Russia, and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Southern Ukraine offensive: Most of the sources that do exist are practically unverifiable; a search for sources has found some post-battle activity in the town [3] [4], but these obviously don't regard the battle, for which few reliable sources seem to exist, as all of the sources currently in the article cite the Uke military. Curbon7 (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Southern Ukraine offensive or Delete: No real battle took place. EkoGraf (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Southern Ukraine offensive or Delete: Obviously does not need its own article.Wolf359Locutus (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Northeastern Ukraine offensive. ✗plicit 23:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Chuhuiv

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

Minor episode of Battle of Kharkiv (2022), not notable per se. Wikisaurus (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Russia, and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 23:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Northeastern Ukraine offensive: Feels like a WP:POVFORK as well. Sources don't demonstrate independent notability (i.e. it falls under WP:NOTNEWS). Curbon7 (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is a significant battle during the Northeastern Ukraine offensive. It should be kept. SavageBWiki (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Curbon7. We don't know the identity and strength of the defenders or the casualties on either side. Anyway, most of the info is already in Northeastern Ukraine offensive, and the rest could be added there. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Curbon7. I support merging the articles. KajMetz (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, the particular battle is not notable in its own right. Merging to Northeastern Ukraine offensive will be for the best. SunDawn talk 01:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Curbon7, not in line with guidelines on forking and regarding notability. EkoGraf (talk) 11:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Aryee

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

Recreation of a previously deleted article. This is written differently enough from the first version to not qualify for immediate speedy deletion, but it is not actually bolstering his notability claim with appreciably better reliable sourcing than it had the first time.
This is still referenced far too heavily to primary sources that are not support for notability -- the alumni organizations of his own alma maters, content on the self-published websites of organizations or companies that he's directly affiliated with, Q&A interviews where he's talking about himself in the first person, etc. -- and the very, very few footnotes that actually come from real WP:GNG-worthy media outlets are just glancing namechecks of his existence, not coverage that's substantively about him for the purposes of establishing notability.
As always, Wikipedia is not a place where people are automatically notable just because they have jobs -- notability is not a question of what the article says so much as it's a question of the quality of the referencing you can or can't locate to support the things the article says, and the referencing here isn't good enough. (For added bonus, the creator was explicitly told the first time what kind of sourcing is acceptable and what kind of sourcing isn't, but still came back with this anyway.) Bearcat (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur, passing mentions, no evidence of SIGCOV. He exists, has a career, but does not appear to meet WP:NBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:19, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Holmes

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

The article on this academic and psychotherapist currently has three references. One is a book review with no information about the subject of the article apart from verifying his profession. The second is an interview. The third is a publisher's page about one of his books. This isn't significant coverage in reliable sources so I'm doubtful about his notability. Page has been tagged as needing more citations since 2010; WP:BEFORE has not found me anything to add. One of his books won the Goethe Award for Psychoanalytic and Psychodynamic Scholarship, so it's possible that book is notable. Holmes himself, per the publisher's page, has won the Bowlby-Ainsworth Award, but that does not have a wiki article. Tacyarg (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did a quick search and found one independent review of his work, I note also the awards. Did your WP:BEFORE include google scholar? I ask because I don't have time to do more, but I found one quickly. (asking in the context of WP:AUTHOR just needing one more and perhaps one plus award = notability....?) CT55555 (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: the top three results in Google Scholar are 2011, 995, and 402 citations respectively. Very strong numbers, actually. St Anselm (talk) 22:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The results on Google Scholar are enough to establish him as an academic and an author. He must be big in his field because there was a conference dedicated to his work:

Peripheral Visions': A Conference Celebrating the Contribution of Jeremy Holmes and 20 Years of Psychoanalytic Studies at Exeter University, UK By: Hepworth, Mary, British Journal of Psychotherapy, 02659883, , Vol. 35, Issue 2

The article says very little about him biographically and hopefully could be much improved if those kinds of sources could be found. In addition, there is much room to include information on the impact of his work. That may require subject expertise to do him justice. Lamona (talk) 03:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw as nom, others have made good points, thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Spaul

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

Don't see how he is notable enough as an ancient historian/archaeologist. Seems to have published only a handful of journal articles, and I'm not sure if the books are enough to justify the retention of this article. 2/3rds of the article text is just his time at university and teaching in Africa and the source of his death isn't even an obituary about him but an article on his wife. It doesn't look as if we can call him preeminent in his field Holyisland (talk) 20:32, 5 April 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) 20:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I did some WP:BEFORE He meets WP:AUTHOR because his books have been the subject of multiple independent reviews. Examples:

The Roman Army now, By: Lendon, J. E.. Classical Journal , Apr/May2004, Vol. 99 Issue 4, p441-449, 9p, Database: Art & Architecture Source
https://www.academia.edu/1059530/Alae_et_Cohortes_Daciae_et_Moesiae_A_review_and_update_of_J_Spauls_Ala_and_Cohors CT55555 (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: 181 citations in Google Scholar for his book Cohors 2 suggests he was a recognised expert in his field and passes WP:PROF. St Anselm (talk) 23:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think the level of book reviews that seem to be available is pretty borderline, but the heavy citations for a work in classics (and pretty good numbers for his other book Ala²) push me to the keep side. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons given by CT55555, StAnselm, and David Eppstein. It's a good idea to have articles about authors whose works are likely to be cited in Wikipedia. P Aculeius (talk) 13:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as he passes WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow delete. I've emailed the student a copy to show their professor and also informed them that I left a note on another student's page of how they could otherwise contribute to Wikipedia. I took a look at the material and I don't think that anything can be merged, as it's all written akin to an essay and it's uncertain whether any of the sources actually mention the story in question. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gender Analysis of "Minty Minty"

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

Clearly violates no original research and what Wikipedia is not. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gender Theory In 'President Daisy' and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love Silk food. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 20:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not encyclopedic CT55555 (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entirely WP:OR. Several searches to see if there has been any WP:RS talking about gender in this short story turned up none. Skynxnex (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See also User:Queen Unstoppable/Gender Analysis of 'Roll It'. Uncle G (talk) 06:56, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete extremely obvious WP:NOTWEBHOST violation. Dronebogus (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, preferably speedy, as a cocktail of OR, SYNTH, NOTESSAY and NOTHERE. SN54129 19:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Pure WP:OR, and depressing since an instructor has set an injudicious project, top the disadvantage of the students. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Undisclosed Jamaican school writing project is discussing the project 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP is not an essay-hosting site for OR. --Kbabej (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Come Let Us Sing Anyway. The book the story is in is notable, so the summary of the short story could go there, and the editor should be encouraged to redirect their attention to non-OR editing on a story that is in itself a valid topic for wiki coverage (even if it doesn't need a standalone article). This isn't a violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST, this is a student who doesn't currently understand wikipedia very well. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Sexuality and gender, and United Kingdom. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is an essay. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 04:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:12, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mackenzie King Village

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

A redirect to University_of_Waterloo#Housing_and_residence was contested, so we're here. Unable to identify independent notability for the dorm. Many are named for notable folks, and there's nothing else asserting notability Star Mississippi 19:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable CT55555 (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is referenced entirely to primary sources (content self-published by the university), with no evidence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage in real media shown at all. Not opposed to the subsequent recreation of a redirect to the original redirect target if desired, but we should delete this first so that there's no content in the history to revert-war over again. Bearcat (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:11, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Octavius Freire Owen

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

Found through New Pages Patrol, created 31-Mar-2022. No indication in article that this classicist and clergyman is notable. No footnotes. Bibliography references "Alumni Oxonienses", which does not look like a marker of notability. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and not found sources to add. Tacyarg (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF #3 (FSA) and WP:GNG (I have added a reference). His wife Emily also appears to be notable.[5] St Anselm (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She certainly is! You inspired me. Coming soon: Draft:Emily_Owen CT55555 (talk) 13:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I note there is only one book and Wikipedia normally requires multiple for WP:GNG with three the norm. However, the book is from 1887 and still available online. Compared to 2022 when books are easily printed, you had to be important in 1887 to make it into a book, so to me that counts for a lot. Also he is close to being WP:AUTHOR as by translating Aristotle's (no less!) work into English, he really did play a major role as defined in criteria 3. Absent for a clear pass at 3 is someone doing a book review of his work, but mentioned that he translated it are vast. So to me that's a 90% pass on two notability criteria, plus the argument above for WP:PROF is persuasive. All these imperfect factors to me are enough for me to be comfortable to !vote keep. CT55555 (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I note the Alumni Oxonienses entry mentioned in the article says "for list of his works see Crockford." If only we could find Crockford... St Anselm (talk) 14:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a list, he's written/translated tons https://www.amazon.com/s?i=stripbooks&rh=p_27%3AOctavius+Freire+Owen&s=relevanceexprank&Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.x=37&Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.y=12&unfiltered=1&ref=sr_adv_b

I've rewritten the article. I really hope/assume the work demonstrates his notability. CT55555 (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he passes WP:PROF and an important literary role in translating Aristotle, so the article should be kept in my view particularly as it has been improved since nomination, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons given. His Fellowship of the Society of Antiquaries also points to notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hulk Hogan's Celebrity Championship Wrestling

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

Short-lived reality show that died after only eight episodes. Zero sourcing found anywhere that did not originate from CMT, the network it aired on. Prod declined. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:12, 28 March 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?)} 21:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect per below Only one reference, doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. — Czello 21:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hulk Hogan#Reality television and hosting per CHEAP. Nate • (chatter) 01:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources found, changing to keep. Nate • (chatter) 01:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hulk Hogan#Reality television and hosting as a valid WP:ATD. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nobody looked for sources? ~~TV Guide~~, The Oklahoman, IGN, Reuters, Reuters again, Bleacher Report, Hollywood Reporter, Hollywood Reporter (archived), Tampa Bay Times, Slam! Wrestling, PWInsider, Pro Wrestling Dot Net, Baltimore Sun.LM2000 (talk) 11:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I struck the TV Guide link because I apparently posted the wrong one. Here's a detailed article from Tuscaloosa News that we can replace it with though. I can keep finding sources, but I think it should be clear that this point that many more exist.LM2000 (talk) 11:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Worth noting there is some additional sourcing at de:Hulk Hogan's Celebrity Championship Wrestling. I'll take a look later, internationally broadcast, seems incredibly unlikely it got no press. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per LM2000. Several sources covers the show. Looks like nobody tried to find them. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well of those sources, Pro Wrestling, https://www.pwinsider.com/ViewArticle.php?id=34525&p=1], [6], [7] seem like fan sites that don't look like reliable sources to me. [8] is a short article that explains the show, [9] and [10], [11] are very short pieces that just list contestants (and WP:NOTINHERITED applies, it's not a notable event just because notable people take part), [12] is mostly about Hulk Hogan rather than the show itself, [13], [14] are copies of Hollywood Reporter articles (so cannot be considered a separate significant coverage from HR), [15] is an interview, which cannot be counted as significant, independent coverage. I cannot access Baltimore Sun, so no comment on that article. I don't see enough significant, independent coverage about the programme in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just chiming in to say that prowrestling.net, pwinsider, and slamwrestling are all considered reliable sources per WP:PW/RS. — Czello 16:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The PW Insider and Slam Wrestling sources, reliable or not, only mention the show in passing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Baltimore Sun article is an eight paragraph preview of the show. PWInsider actually dedicated weekly coverage to the show.[16][17]LM2000 (talk) 07:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per LM2000. Quite a few reliable sources. The objections to several of the sources seem mistaken or disingenuous. For example, the Tampa Bay Times article explaining the show is exactly what is needed to establish notability. Slam Wrestling is accepted as a reliable source, and it definitely does not just mention the show in passing--the entire article is about the show--a contestant's reasons for appearing, training to appear, etc. The Baltimore Sun article, while the inability for people in some locations to access it is definitely valid, is also a detailed discussion of the show. As for The Oklahoman, the fact that a reliable source interviews the person behind the show, asking specifically about the show, definitely asserts some notability. WP:RS and WP:GNG are both easily met for this one. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per found sources listed by LM2000. matt91486 (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hulk Hogan#Reality television and hosting. Several of the sources that have been found all have the same wording, indicating they a PR and other ones don't look reliable. It looks like clickbait. I don't trust a single one of them. The Tampa Bay article is likely reliable, but it gives it a bad review. So it junk. That is very definition of promoting mediocrity. It is non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 10:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is the quality of the show relevant to whether or not it receives coverage to be notable? matt91486 (talk) 05:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all sure what you mean by The Tampa Bay article is likely reliable, but it gives it a bad review. So it junk. That is very definition of promoting mediocrity.. Should we also disregard references that say Mortal Kombat: Annihilation is a bad movie? — Czello 09:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's covered multiple times by Reuters, what more do people want? CT55555 (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not my type of entertainment but keep by sources identified above. gidonb (talk) 15:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The-Dream production discography

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

Found through New Pages Patrol. Does not appear to add anything useful to the existing and well-sourced page on The-Dream. Tacyarg (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Saying someone is notable for something, but not listing everything notable they have done, is ridiculous. With actors we don't just say here is a few movies they've been in, no reason to have an article listing all of them. Same way with writers, directors, and others. Dream Focus 02:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article absolutely needs to be cleaned up with sources added, but it is valid as a list topic because The-Dream is well-covered as a producer as seen in his own article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:26, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, acceptable content fork. There are many "X production discography" articles out there in cases where the artist has a sufficient production discography, and this seems to be true here too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RG Qluck Wise

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

non-notable musician, warred into mainspace with no meaningful coverage and doesn't otherwise meet WP:NMUSIC CUPIDICAE💕 18:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Ghana. Shellwood (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not satisfy musical notability or general notability.
- There are two copies of this article, in draft space and in article space. It was created in article space and moved into draft space twice and then recreated in article space.
- This appears to be an autobiography, the submission of which is discouraged.
- An article should speak for itself, and this article does not provide any evidence of notability.

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Spkabil (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject fails WP:GNG completely. Ampimd (talk) 23:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As is typical for hundreds of new and unknown African media personalities, we get a promotional WP article backed up with unreliable gossip sites that merely reprint one's own press releases. This one has the distinction of padding with sources that are actually about his high school. Good luck to dude as he gets started. I also recommend a new stage name that is pronounceable by non-robots. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Pluralist school

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) - car chasm (talk) 04:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The "pluralist school" never actually existed - the oxford handbook to presocratic philosophy notes on page 17 that those distinctions were incorrect. this page should be redirected to the relevant section on Pre-Socratic philosophy - car chasm (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That it is argued that the Pluralist School never actually existed is just something to include in the article; it is not a rationale for removing the article. The fundamental issue is that it has prominently been said to exist, and this is the rationale for the article's existence.Teishin (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unless I misunderstand the argument, the contention is that because the philosophers making up a school of thought that is today labeled the "pluralist school" didn't recognize the grouping or the label, it didn't exist, and therefore is a modern hoax. This is not a logical argument—by this rationale, there were no pre-Socratics, either. It is irrelevant whether a group is aware of the similarities that cause scholars to group them, or whether they would agree with it. Likewise, it doesn't matter if some scholars disagree with the grouping, as long as credible, verifiable sources contend that it's valid—and they don't have to represent a permanent or ongoing opinion, either. If 19th century scholars considered it a valid classification, but 21st century scholars have abandoned that view, it would still be the valid subject of an article, for the very practical reason that readers might encounter the concept and want to understand what it is. P Aculeius (talk) 11:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@P Aculeius: There's no reason that we need a whole article on that, though, right? If the page is redirected to a section of Pre-Socratic philosophy that explains which philosophers have been considered "pluralists" in various 19th century scholarship, and it's very much not a consistent or coherent group of philosophers (other than usually Empedocles), should it really merit its own whole article? - car chasm (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an argument for merging the articles, not for deleting this one—and the rationale would also be different from the one given for the proposed deletion. If, as the sources seem to indicate, there was such a school of thought, or at least some modern scholarship holds that there was, and this topic can be thoroughly covered in a related article where it seems to be a natural fit, then of course merging it into that article is an option. But that means making sure that all of the significant information—including the sources, unless they can be replaced by better ones—is added to the other article. Then this one can be turned into a redirect to that section. Note that other editors may disagree with the merger based on how well the subject fits, and this article could still be recreated in the future if it can be expanded beyond the prudent limits of that section. I also note that you don't need permission before attempting to merge articles. Perhaps you could go ahead and do that, then if nobody objects here after a reasonable time, change this article into a redirect to that section. P Aculeius (talk) 02:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, perhaps I need a self-WP:TROUT here. The section on pre-Socratic philosophy appears to be much longer, so I'm going to redirect to that for now and make a discussion on the talk page if anyone disagrees with the redirect. - car chasm (talk) 04:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 01:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of UK number 1 men's tennis players

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

Per WP:Notability and WP:NLIST. No significant coverage for this list to warrant its own article. ForzaUV (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Tennis. Shellwood (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Interesting enough this was nominated a week ago, then withdrawn by the nominator after one user voted to keep based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The right thing would have been to let the discussion run its course but at least somebody else has picked up on this. This is an indiscriminate collection of stats and the sourcing is loosely based on player profiles rather than actual rankings. Ajf773 (talk) 00:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While the UK number 1 is covered fairly regularly by the British press [18][19][20][21], the articles don't tend to be focused on the chronology of the ranking but on whichever player happens to hold the No. 1 spot at the time. How that meshes with WP:NLIST I'm not sure. Letcord (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Ajf773. I was the original nominator. I apologise for the premature speedy keep, I did not think my original reasoning would have been applicable had I improved the article to include more than a short list of men's singles players, and perhaps include double and women players (rather than because one other person voted keep). However after spending some time making a list of singles and doubles British number 1 players I don't think the article can pass WP:NOTSTATS, it involves scraping data from old rankings (which are not always accurate) and obscure, outdated fan websites. Bonoahx (talk) 10:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow delete. I've emailed the student a copy of the content for their professor and I've left a recommendation of how they could otherwise contribute to Wikipedia on another student's talk page. Offhand there's nothing here that can be merged, as it's all WP:OR. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gender Theory In 'President Daisy'

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

Pure WP:OR, part of an injudiciously set class project. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love Silk food and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gender Analysis of 'What He Is'. Wikipedia is not a host for class projects and essays. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP is not an essay hosting site for OR. See WP:NOTESSAY and WP:OR. --Kbabej (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not encyclopedia content. CT55555 (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article clearly violates WP:NOR and WP:NOTESSAY. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 19:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete extremely obvious WP:NOTWEBHOST violation. Dronebogus (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, preferably speedy, as a cocktail of OR, SYNTH, NOTESSAY and NOTHERE. SN54129 19:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP is not an essay-hosting site for OR. --Kbabej (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Come Let Us Sing Anyway. The book the story is in is notable, so the summary of the short story could go there, and the editor should be encouraged to redirect their attention to non-OR editing on a story that is in itself a valid topic for wiki coverage (even if it doesn't need a standalone article). Some of the other content may have valid merge targets as well, e.g., to articles on Caribbean culture and history. This isn't a violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST, this is a student who doesn't currently understand wikipedia very well. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender, United Kingdom, and Jamaica. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is another essay. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 04:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to James Webb Space Telescope. Star Mississippi 01:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HD 84406

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

Nominating on behalf of IP editor. Rationale below.

This article is a blatant failure of WP:NASTRO as well as WP:GNG. Twice I attempted to redirect this to the appropriate section at James Webb Space Telescope, but both times was reverted without explanation. An extremely similar situation has already taken place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2MASS J17554042+6551277, in which the result of the discussion was a consensus to redirect similarly. So, here we are. The WP:NASTRO failure is pretty clear -- a WP:BEFORE search of the scientific literature pulled up one or two brief mentions of this, in massive lists with no other relevant discussion. And WP:GNG is similarly skimpy. While there are lots of mentions of this due to its role as a calibration target for JWST, there's no significant, in-depth discussion of the star itself. Any information about the star's role as a calibration target should be (and already is) at the JWST article. Notability is not inherited, and thus I suggest a deletion followed by a creation of the redirect I attempted in the first place. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to JWST or First light (astronomy). The star isn't notable, the telescope is and there's no need for an article for a fact that's specific to the telescope. Reywas92^Talk 15:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: per above. This star was chosen for its Webb focusing role precisely because it is stable and isolated. It has no particularly interesting features and lacks any serious studies. Perhaps in the future that will change, but for now a redirect will suffice. I added a row for the star in the List of stars in Ursa Major article, but it definitely fails WP:NASTRO. Praemonitus (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect no inherent interest outside JWST. PianoDan (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the telescope's article per nom, star is not notable by itself (at least for now). Artem.G (talk) 10:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect. As stated above, notability is not inherited. Aldebarium (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, I agree with the nomination, redirecting to the telescope's article makes the most sense.
Comment: Why should we redirect to the James Webb Space Telescope instead of List of stars in Ursa Major? Although there is no inherited notability, there is still a lot of information in the infobox that could be put to good use there. People will want to know more about HD 84406 - not just that it was used for the James Webb Space Telescope - and List of stars in Ursa Major is a good article we can carry this information to without losing it altogether, while redirecting HD 84406 to there as it does not meet notability guidelines. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 11:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow delete. I've emailed the student a copy of their work so they can show their professor. I've also left them a message about why their works have been getting removed and a suggestion of how they could otherwise contribute. I did also look over the material, but like the other pages the content is original research. The sources aren't actually about the book, but used to back up claims. (I'd done some WP:BEFORE when putting the book article together as well.) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Love Silk food

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

This article has a complex history as a school project (see User_talk:Dino_Marc#Welcome! and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gender Analysis of 'What He Is' and AfD seems a little heavy handed, but the creator believes it's a fit for mainspace, so we're here. It's an essay about a short story and the themes present in it. However, the sourcing doesn't align with the short story - it's just about those themes in general. This project and article are clearly not appropriate for mainspace. Can anyone reach the instructor to explain that this isn't what Wikipedia is for? Star Mississippi 15:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy @JBW and Guettarda: Star Mississippi 15:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a host for class projects. The tutor needs to visit Wikipedia:Education noticeboard to seek to save their students' grades and marks. This is pure WP:OR and has no place as an article 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP is not an essay hosting site, regardless of if they are for educational purposes. Agreed this is complete WP:OR that needs to be deleted. --Kbabej (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've removed the other per SNOW and I can do this one as well but want to see more consensus - on a side note, I've created a page for the collection. It's in rough shape since I was pretty much just looking for enough to establish notability. If the class is willing to edit within policy then this would make for an excellent project to work on, as it's pretty bare bones and I'm sure they have more access to content written about the work than I would. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:57, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or move to userspace not enclyopediic per noms above Rlink2 (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See also Draft:Art, For Fucks Sake, which its another in this class project 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gender Theory In 'President Daisy'. This is desperately unfair to the class. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rlink2 they contested the move, which is how we ended up here. I didn't want to AfD as it seemed too heavy handed, but these don't belong. @Timtrent yeah, I feel the same. @Dino_Marc responded on their talk, so maybe there can be a way to engage. I know @Guettarda tried as well. Star Mississippi 17:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the article should be taken off WP, just moved to draftspace. While Wikipedia is not an essay hosting service, I think leaving the article in draft space is the best way to move forward to avoid any further drama. If the instructor doesn't understand how Wikipedia works, they are unlikely to understand the difference between mainspace or draftspace. Draftspace will seem to make everybody happy. Rlink2 (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how draftspace would help anyone here. The entire article is OR on a non-notable subject. Why would be encourage more work on it? --Kbabej (talk) 18:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry i meant to say userspace. Rlink2 (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification, but what purpose would it serve WP in saving it? Not trying to badger; just understand why WP should save this content. --Kbabej (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't serve a purpose on Wikipedia, in my opinion. But outright deleting it could cause drama between these instructions that apperently, from what I have been hearing, have a hard time understanding wikipedia. If its in userspace it does no harm to anyone while reducing drama. Rlink2 (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it will encourage the student and instructor to keep working away at the article. I don't think it best practice to simply move it to avoid drama. If it's unsuitable for WP, it's unsuitable. --Kbabej (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlink2 Draft space is not intended for this category of use. Please refer to WP:DRAFTIFY. It is not a holding zone for items which will never make it to be articles. While an outcome of an AfD might be to draftify that still has to comply with the rules 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent I had meant to say userspace, not draftspace. Rlink2 (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rlink2 I appreciate your comment. I'm not entirely sure it works in user space, though. See WP:NOTWEBHOST

This entire thing is unfair on 100% of the class, and appears to have been created by an unwise or uninformed instructor. While I have sympathy with the students, and all of their work, my loyalties lie with Wikipedia. Let the instructor solve the problem. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a beaucrarcy or a government where laws have to be followed no matter what. If they are working on the article in userspace, and they aren't disrupting any other part of the article, I'd say thats fine.

But yes, the ideal solution would be to delete the article and get the instructor to understand Wikipedia Rlink2 (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The community rises above all. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble with your (very kind, very human, I appreciate and respect it) argument is that it creates an inventive system whereby the main lesson all the students and academics take from this is that they can do this and we presented them with a workaround mechanism to use wikipedia for not wikipedia purposes. There are negative consequences to this. I think if anyone wants to change the rules of wikipedia there is a process for that, but this process is to apply them. I'm not a fan of causing problems for others, but the cause of the problem is not the implementation of the rules, it's the teacher's bad choices. I think we must delete to signal and incentivize less of this. CT55555 (talk) 01:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quick note: I did email the student a copy of the article so they have something to show their instructor if that's part of the concern with leaving a draft. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not encyclopedic content. If we leave in draft and it satisfies the instructor, we will get more of this. CT55555 (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly unsuitable for an encyclopedia. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 19:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete extremely obvious WP:NOTWEBHOST violation. Dronebogus (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, preferably speedy, as a cocktail of OR, SYNTH, NOTESSAY and NOTHERE. And it's pretty poor to see Wiki Edu condoning this kind of thing. SN54129 19:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Come Let Us Sing Anyway. The plot summary of the story can be used there. I agree that there's little point in moving things to draftspace when there's no chance the topic could be notable, but it actually doesn't look like anyone has engaged meaningfully with the story's notability. Many individual short stories are notable, like Ivy Day in the Committee Room. Just because this version of the article is OR does not mean that no valid article can be written on the topic. I am not saying the story is notable-- I haven't looked-- but the fact that it has clearly been assigned in this class gets it halfway to a pass of WP:NBOOK#4, so I don't see why it is being dismissed out of hand. AfD is not cleanup. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is an essay about a story. There is no encyclopaedic content here. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 04:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Max Verstappen

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (NOTSTATS). Mvqr (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Mvqr (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Mvqr (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In that case: how about deleting all of the following articles as well?

Ischa1 (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the racing greats there, which may be justified by article split, many of those lower calibre ones were created in late 2021 by one user. Verstappen's article does not justify a split, it has his entire karting record in a list (Max Verstappen#Karting record), starting from 2005 when he was eight years old. See What about article x? (OTHERSTUFF) as to why this is a bad argument..--Mvqr (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To awnser your question directly: ( I would argue, for most of them,) yes. But it needs to be more of a case-by-case basis, as some of these (a couple) may satisfy WP:NLIST. SSSB (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge Verstappen's record is at Max_Verstappen#Racing_record, Clark's record is at Jim_Clark#Racing_record, etc. A split of all statistics may be appropriate in some cases, but we shouldn't have separate articles listing only wins just for the sake of it. Reywas92^Talk 15:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~all~~. WP:FANCRUFT. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 17:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Only the Verstappen list is nominated. The others are merely listed as part of an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. SSSB (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Max Verstappen list as not containing anything noteworthy not already covered at Max Verstappen#Racing record. I will not comment on the others as they are malformed as of writing and not tagged into their respective articles. Whether or not this AfD covers all of them or we have separate AfDs for all of them doesn't particularly concern me. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 17:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Firstly: the article isn't quite finished yet, hence the {{under construction}} template. Secondly: it's already been majorly expanded in the meantime, with sources, images an extensive introduction, like all the other lists have. Now it's a true article and not just an excessive listings of unexplained statistics (NOTSTATS) as argumented before. Ischa1 (talk) 11:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TheRollBoss001 (talk) 16:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:FANCRUFT and would be unnecessarily splitting an article into two pages. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Aaron Ltd.

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

Poorly-referenced promo piece on a non-notable company. The sources cited consist of the company's own website (closely paraphrased, in part), one incidental mention in a trade mag, and a few admittedly-RS sources but which don't mention the company at all or only in passing. BEFORE search finds nothing beyond the usual social media and company listings etc. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT by some margin. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep The article is indeed poor, but the subject, a leading dealer in its field for over a century, is probably notable. That they have their own short page on the British Museum website suggests so. As usual (deep sigh) the search term in the template only catches some mentions. "David Aaron Gallery" and ""David Aaron" dealer" produce more. Johnbod (talk) 22:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RE the British Museum entry, that refers to the Aaron Gallery, which is not the same entity as David Aaron's newer business on Berkeley Square, the subject of this article. Notability is not inherited.

RE searching, I tried different combinations of 'David Aaron' plus something, because I didn't think 'David Aaron Ltd.' was particularly useful. If someone can produce better results, feel free to add, of course. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/09435505 DAVID AARON LIMITED was incorporated on 12 February 2015. Vexations (talk) 11:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Businesses set up new entities all the time. The (probably COI) article & the subject's website take the business back to the original foundation, & one of the Antiques Trade Gazette pieces says the new address was part of the same business; both are on Berkeley Sq. But "The Aaron Gallery" is now on New Bond Street (very close by) after a split some decades ago. I think the article should be rename to "Aaron Gallery" and cover all the permutations. Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Based on off-wiki, public, easy to find evidence that I won't link to because it might be considered outing, I am certain that the creator of the article has a COI to declare. Vexations (talk) 15:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to find significant sources about the gallery. I do find it listed in various lists of galleries but these are more like phone book entries than anything else. I don't find the fact that they have an entry on the British Museum site as a gallery to be worthy of an article here. The best source is the NYT article and that is not much more than a mention. I removed two references that did not mention the gallery, and there is still information in the article that I can't verify. Lamona (talk) 04:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no significant coverwage in independent, reliable sources. The yorkshirepost only has The museum acquired the collection from previous owner David Aaron as a result of donations from American donor Richard Beleson, individual donors and funding through Art Fund. and Reyahn King, chief executive of York Museums Trust, said: “On behalf of York Museums Trust, I am incredibly grateful to Richard Beleson, Art Fund, the other individual donors and David Aaron, who have made the purchase of this incredible hoard possible.” The NYT has only quotes from the gallery itself and the antiquestradegazette is the kind of trade publication that WP:ORGIND says must be used with great care. I'll note that https://davidaaron.com/press/ lists 30 articles in which they are mentioned, but none of those are significant coverage of the subject either. Vexations (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am also unable to locate any references that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus and it does not appear further input is likely. Star Mississippi 01:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

United States of America Computing Olympiad

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

Not notable, I tried to find reliable sources that cover USACO but none of them are mainly about USACO. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 07:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 07:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. Is this the only or main feeder competition to select the US team for the International Olympiad in Informatics? If so it is highly notable, that seems to be a major competitive programming contest. References could be found by starting from the IOI page. Also how well regarded is the IOI considered in the landscape of programming contests? Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my understanding it is. But I do not think it would be notable that way because of WP:INHERITORG? For example the Asia-Pacific Informatics Olympiad might be notable under your criteria, but has even less media coverage than USACO. Per WP:ORGDEPTH these two would be both not notable. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 07:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Then I think my vote is keep per WP:COMMONSENSE. I agree with WP:INHERITORG and WP:ORGDEPTH but an organization in the united states that feeds into IOI would certainly be a huge deal in my estimation, barring a contrary opinion from someone with direct expertise/experience in computing olympiads. In my opinion, the fact that we have not found the sources yet doesn't mean they don't exist (I didn't have a chance to look yet). Likewise, we would not be justified delete the page Apple even if two, or even a dozen readers could not find independent reliable sources discussing Apples. Caleb Stanford (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. After a search, the NOI in China (National Olympiad in Informatics, China) was deleted because of a similar reason. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=91939855)

If we keep USACO because it is the main feeder competition to select for the IOI team in the US, then the NOI article should be resurrected as well, per consensus.

I'm not sure if the fact of it being in the US alone makes it more notable than a competition in another country. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If United States of America Computing Olympiad is primarily of interest due to its relationship with the International Olympiad in Informatics but does not meet notability for a stand-alone article, we might consider a merge or redirect to the latter article. ~Kvng (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that sourcing does not rise to the level of notability. Should she be eventually added to the Council's website, happy to provide the content under a redirect for attribution purposes. Star Mississippi 02:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Burkett

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

Biography of a county councillor, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, county council is not a level of office that confers an automatic inclusion freebie in Wikipedia -- the notability test for county councillors hinges not on verifying that they existed, but on showing substantial media coverage about their work to establish the significance of it: specific things they accomplished in the role, specific effects they had on the development of the county, specific impacts they had on wider political affairs beyond their county, or other stuff which establishes a reason to regard them as significantly more notable than most other county councillors.
But this is referenced entirely to the county council's own self-published website about itself, a primary source which is not support for notability, with not even one reliable or notability-supporting piece of media coverage shown at all.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have a lot more substance and sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't get past the paywall, but seems to be some notability here:

Keep Some time on google news showed me that she is at least mildly notable. I've mentioned four sources above that I could not get to due to paywall, but also this article might have seemed like a WP:BLP because her death was not noted, but she died, so it is not BLP. CT55555 (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment More sources focused on her here:

Oppose/Keep The article clearly needs improvement but I think she meets the criteria for notability based on the above articles that focus primarily on her plus the many more articles available that reference her positions on issues facing the county council from 2002-2014. St. Louis County has a population greater than several states and at least the St. Louis Post Dispatch and St. Louis Public Radio (formerly the Beacon) that cover local politics in detail so I would suspect that any County Councilor who serves long enough would meet the criteria for notability. I disagree that there is a notability requirement for County Councilors that they must be more notable than other county councilors. I think they just have to meet the normal notability standards such as significant coverage, which I tried to show above that she does. Skier23 (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to St. Louis County Council. Not seeing any indication of notability (per WP:NPOL at this time, but I'm not opposed to preserving the page's history. KidAd • SPEAK 17:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to evaluate posted sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. CT55555 (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This can't be redirected to the StL Cty Council page because that page 1) does not mention her 2) itself is devoid of RS. So far I see only one significant biographical source, the STLPR obit. Note that no matter how many mentions we find of her in STLPR that counts as only one source. I can't get to any of the other newspaper articles because of paywalls. If someone can get to those and can add to the article that would be great. Lamona (talk) 04:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect Having checked the sources (including the ones listed above), I do not believe that WP:ANYBIO is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:27, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are non-significant. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of the available references are simply local, I don't think NPOL is met here. SportingFlyer T·C 13:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Coverage does not rise to the level of notability. Does not meet WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO], WP:GNG, and WP:NPOL, the latter warning us that just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability. To be noted, some sources ar invoked above without having being checked. Some others are just images. -The Gnome (talk) 10:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - these two obituaries: St. Louis County Councilwoman Kathleen Burkett Dies (STLPR, 2014) and St. Louis County Councilwoman Burkett dies (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 2014) include significant in-depth coverage about her and her career. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch also wrote an article about her in 2012: Missouri withdraws contract to Burkett to run Maplewood License Office, and STLPR has more in 2012 about her and her career: County ordinance on women's shelter passes but with heated debate. Per WP:NPOL, she is a major local political [figure] who [has] received significant press coverage because per fn 8, she has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists, and the article can be expanded with information from these sources. Beccaynr (talk) 03:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see a bit of coverage post mortem; I fail to see significant coverage. We do have a couple obituaries but I have yet to stumble upon a case where a member of the council, any member, passes away and does not get an obit. And that 2012 news item is about the travails of an ordnance proposal through the council; not about our subject per se. I sincerely do not see "significance." We might be setting the bar too low for notability. -The Gnome (talk) 06:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The STLPR obit links to a variety of other coverage related to her career on the council, and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch obit includes biographical information, e.g. her family, children, religion, and career before becoming a council member. These are not the only obit articles available for her, but these two appear substantial enough to help support notability. What other council members receive should be assessed on an individual basis, because announcement and funeral notices are different from in-depth reviews of a subject's life and career.

Also, the 2012 St. Louis Post-Dispatch article is about her, and there appears to be more related coverage available. And the 2012 article about the "heated debate" is substantially about the "heat" Burkett brought to the council meeting by discussing her experience as a survivor of domestic violence. WP:NPOL/WP:BASIC notability appears supported because these articles focus on her and include enough information so that we can actually write a whole article. Beccaynr (talk) 12:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:21, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one of the current councillors has a Wikipedia page, and she also served in the state legislature. I am sure that Kathleen Burkett is sorely missed and fondly remembered by friends and family, but there is nothing very notable here. Nwhyte (talk) 07:51, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Modussiccandi (talk) 07:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Antillio Bastian

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

This article doesn't seem to meet WP:NTRACK or WP:GNG. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 19:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Have a non-relay mark listed on the IAAF senior all-time list or equivalent list" Bastian meets this requirement on the IAAF aka World Athletics Website. He is ranked (3751) overall in the 200m in a time of 20.94, and (6090) in the 100m with a time of 10.48 Jahamian876242 (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[22] Source can be found here Jahamian876242 (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this guideline says significant coverage is likely to exist. doesn't seem like this would meet GNG with reliable, independent sources, but that's why I opened this discussion... SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 19:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've included local Bahamian newspapers, Tampa's local newspaper , along with the school athletics website and official competition results since we last spoke. There won't be much information online as there has been many broken links from past articles that were not archived . [23] Jahamian876242 (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 March 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Caribbean. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been improved significantly since nomination and now I think there's enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Also, it appears the athlete does in fact meet WP:NTRACK. NemesisAT (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fail to see how he passed WP:NTRACK. I don't see him taking part in any of the international events that are listed on NTRACK, having went through them one by one. The attempt at WP:HEY has added more of the same type of references, but not one of them confirm NTRACK. I see he has competed at the Under-23 championships at CAMPEONATO NORTE, CENTROAMERICA Y DEL CARIBE in 2008, but don't see it on the list, nor the IAAF on the pdfs for ranking. I see him on here: 2008 NACAC U23 Championships in Athletics and the 2010 one, but he never won anything. He is non-notable at this time. scope_creep^Talk 10:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough coverage in the article already (barely, but probably just enough), to pass WP:GNG from my point of view. --Jayron 32 12:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Howard B. Chase

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

Minimally sourced stub, of the "Subject was a person who had a job, the end" variety, of a former chairman of the board of a media company. While this would be enough to get him an article if some actual substance about his work could be referenced to enough reliable source coverage about it to get him over WP:GNG for it, it isn't "inherently" notable enough to require keeping a 19-word stub that's referenced exclusively to a list of past presidents on the company's own self-published website about itself. Bearcat (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft and tag for expansion. If it doesn't come, this will be deleted as a matter of course. BD2412 T 21:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was awarded the CBE for his war work. I think he was more notable as a union leader, he was president of the Canadian Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers. He died February 1973, there are a number of obituaries on Newspaper.com but I don't have access but here's a report from Google Newspapers: Funeral for Former Union Chief Piecesofuk (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a link to The London Gazette for his CBE named Howard Brown Chase. Piecesofuk (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify It needs more than a single reference. What is the point of these single line articles. They don't benefit anybody, nobody reads them. scope_creep^Talk 10:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Agree, he has several mentions in GBooks, one in a magazine, but I only can get a snipet view, this looks like an article. [24]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are hundreds of articles about him in Newspapers.com. I've expanded the article a bit based on them and will develop the article further as we go along. But clear notability as a prominent trade union leader and public official, plus a wartime CBE (the highest a Canadian could get as the knighthoods were closed to them). Atchom (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Needs expansion. Likely passes WP:GNG once draft has been fleshed out. Deletion premature. NiklausGerard (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arin Dez

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

None of the sources show notability but rather shows that the article is WP:TOOSOON. There is a dearth of independent and persistent coverage in reliable sources, including news outlets and the relevant literature; what remains are obscure sites that have no reputation for accuracy and fact checking, not meeting WP:RS. The The Times of India that was cited is clearly just promotion. Coverage falls short of requirements under notability guidelines and fails WP:SINGER. This article should be deleted. UserNumber (talk) 11:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of music-related deletion discussions. UserNumber (talk) 11:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. UserNumber (talk) 11:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 March 29. UserNumber (talk) 11:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep TOI is a coverage for a song, it's not promotion and maybe WP:TOOSOON but I don't think deletion is important. @@@XyX _talk 17:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TOOSOON is grounds for deletion and the TOI is a music video with text underneath that includes "Check out Etimes Bengali music videos section for more Bengali songs and Arin Dez songs" so likely a paid promotion and certainly does not count towards notability. None of the other refs are WP:RS. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women's football in French Guiana

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

Nothing of note DerVogel999 (talk) 11:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is not much to discuss, they don't have a women's nat'l team or league. Maybe redirect to the spot on the list of women's national teams where it says French Guiana, Bonaire etc don't have a team. Or maybe a new article: List of FIFA members without a women's national team? DerVogel999 (talk) 11:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sports, Football, and South America. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, nothing worth draftifying, doesn't even merit a redirect anywhere. Giant Snowman 20:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GiantSnowman.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per all above. Not worth RD or merge. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 16:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete so far as I can see, this team played a couple of matches ever. They don't look to be a proper, FIFA-ranked team, and certainly don't pass WP:GNG. Can't see a valid redirect term either (as Inter-Guyana Games doesn't have an article, and even then it'd be a stretch to redirect it there). Joseph2302 (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it doesn't seem that any official team exists. The problem is the status of French Guiana which isn't a country – it's one of five Overseas departments and regions of France. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 09:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Differential equation#Examples. The consensus based on the discussion is that the page fails WP:NOTTEXTBOOK and that any encyclopedic content is already on the main Differential equations page. (non-admin closure) Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 13:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of differential equations

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

Honestly, I'm astonished this wasn't nominated for deletion before. Basically, a textbook case of WP:NOTTEXTBOOK.

What's next, examples of polynomial equations? Examples of circles? Examples of sine waves? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Differential Equations#Examples The material reads like a how-to guide, and all its encyclopedic content is duplicated by the articles we have on the individual types of differential equation and the methods for solving them. I do think that the title would make a decent, straightforward redirect to an existing section of the main article on differential equations.

As a side-note, the page was "moved" here from the subpage Differential equations/Examples on 7 September 2002 (!), even though it doesn't show up in the move logs.

Comment. I have no clear idea ot what to do with this article. As it is, it is certainly not encyclopedic. However, with little work, it could be a basis for an article called List of analytic methods for differential equations. This could be useful for users not interested in the theory, but who have equations to solve. So, I hesitate between the above suggested redirect and a move. D.Lazard (talk) 11:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Differential Equations#Examples per above. This topic is already covered in that section and doesn't warrant a stand alone article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Agree with the nottextbook criticism. In response to D.Lazard (talk · contribs), I think it would take immense work to make such a change, since the content is (at present) almost completely restricted to what's usually a single chapter in a first undergraduate textbook on the topic. Gumshoe2 (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename: There are many types of differential equations and I can see an article discussing them, separate from the main differential equations article itself. Maybe the article title "examples of ..." is problematic. Just redirecting feels a bit lazy solution. -- Taku (talk) 09:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Differential_equation#Examples. Not that that section is great — the examples seem chosen in a partly arbitrary way, with only brief indications of significance for only some of them — but it makes more sense to improve that page than to try making something out of this one. XOR'easter (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Open Era men's singles tennis players by career match wins

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

Violates WP:NOTSTATS, same as the women's singles one which was deleted a few days ago after AFD discussion Joseph2302 (talk) 09:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they are the equivalent articles for doubles tournaments:[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS and same reasons as for the equivalent article for the women's competitions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sports, and Lists. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NLIST. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 14:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. TheRollBoss001 (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as NOTSTATS violations Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:36, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOTSTATS. Gabe114 (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. I've sent the student a copy to give their instructor and someone has reached out to the instructor, so hopefully they will move the assignment off Wikipedia. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gender Analysis of 'What He Is'

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

This is a book report for class - even the title states it Pure WP:OR. It has been sent to draft once already. If I sent it back I would be move warring. Even if sent back it has no hope of ever becoming an article 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the article looks as if it came a sandbox or a draft. --Vaco98 (talk) 11:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vaco98 That it came from a sandbox or a draft is not a policy based deletion rationale. It came from a draft, yes. But many articles come from drafts. Please may we have your thoughts based upon policy? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Textbook definition of WP:OR that fails WP:NOTESSAY. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above, a perfect example of an WP:OR article. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 13:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP is not an essay hosting site (WP:NOTESSAY), or a place for WP:OR. Heave ho. --Kbabej (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete part of the same class project as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love Silk food. Neither is appropriate for main space, and it would be helpful if someone can find the instructor to better explain Wikipedia. Star Mississippi 15:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strands Social Player

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

An article on a media player that was in the market around 14 years ago. Several new product awards are listed (e.g. the "Up and Coming App of the Year" award at GetJar's Mobile Awards in 2008), but for me these seem like typical promising-start-up awards rather than evidence demonstrating that encyclopaedic notability was attained. An article on the vendor company was recently deleted at AfD so there is no clear WP:ATD. AllyD (talk) 07:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the sources appear to be primary (either from the developer or related companies), with some PR sprinkled in. Awards appear to be minor and not other signs of notability. Also written as an advertisement. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 14:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Isabelle Belato

Archived copy of article that was deleted: https://ghostarchive.org/archive/FeW1o?kreymer=true

Does not meet WP:NCORP - most of the sources here are primary, or are sources which NCORP states does not establish notability

I did do DuckDuckGo web search and these came up, and while the sources look reliable, the mention of strands is only passing:

http://claudiob.github.io/affinity/

https://web.archive.org/web/20081010041735/http://www2.iiia.csic.es/~claudio/papers/Baccigalupo-Donaldson-Plaza-2008-ISMIR.pdf

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/magazine/16Worth-t.html

https://mtsprout.nl/management-leiderschap/yunoo-door-ing-buitenspel Rlink2 (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It was discontinued in 2009, I doubt we'll find much more about it since then. Delete per above. Oaktree b (talk) 01:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Webster

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

It does pain me to bring this West Wing-related article here, but I'm not seeing much solid evidence of a GNG pass. She had a minor role in the show, and it doesn't look like she garnered too much coverage of her own through it, or another noteworthy role. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, had a minor recurring role in West Wing. Her subsequent production career, serving as a field producer in a few TV shows, has garnered even less coverage. Does not have SIGCOV. Pikavoom ^Talk 07:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, inclined to agree that this individual has not gained notability and does not appear to be significantly covered in any sense. The name itself isn't uncommon but even trying to narrow down searches is returning very little. Maybe the fact the article is barely developed in 18 years is an indicator. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to being notable as an actress, even less so as a producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable for Wikipedia Kpddg ^(talk) 14:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability. Gabe114 (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5. The article was created in violation of a block and has no substantial edits by other editors. Mz7 (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Earth

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

Promotional article about a website created April 4, 2022. Internet Archive first archived The Daily Earth on April 4, and a WHOIS lookup on the URL confirms it was registered April 4. The "Daily News Today" source is another website created by Anisur Rahman Niloy, and the article is published April 4th. The Daily Star source has no mention of "The Daily Earth", and is dated before the false 2015 founding date of "The Daily Earth". Politanvm ^talk 03:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Politanvm ^talk 03:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Politanvm ^talk 03:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SPAM or WP:PROMOTION maybe? The article body says it was created 6years ago. But this [25] says another thing. @@@XyX _talk 04:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Zero notability. This person has been spending a considerable amount in getting their name and newspaper placed everywhere online in an effort to establish notability or achieve some degree of fame.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons outlined by the nominator, particularly as this seems quite a clear case of WP:PROMOTION and the integrity of sources are questionable. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:PROMOTION. Most of the sources look unreliable and in any case they only prove this website exists. There's no evidence of notability. Interestingly, if I try to access the Daily Earth website itself my ISP blocks it as a security risk! Neiltonks (talk) 10:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a perfect example of WP:PROMOTION and does not meet any notability requirements. --Kbabej (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WHOIS information and copies at the Internet Archive can not necessarily be used to prove the age of an organization of a website. The Internet Archive can fail to capture content for sites until long after the domain has been registered.

A WHOIS search is significantly more foolproof and better evidence, but even then it is enitrely possible the website could have been operating under a different domain and just moved to this one on april 4th. This has happened to multiple websites. After doing some research, it seems like this is the case: there is another domain that was registered in Feb 2022 and it looks like it the same website as "The Daily Earth" (same articles, same layout, very similar name). On both sites, the earliest articles seem to be from Feb 2022, so it seems to me the website was actually created on Feb 2022 and not April 2022.

I'm voting delete because there is basically nothing covering this website - and by nothing it means nothing, let alone RSes. Thus, this doesn't meet WP:GNG Rlink2 (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for flagging. If you’re talking about dailynewstoday.co.uk, it’s another website created by the same person, that they attempted to promote on Wikipedia shortly after it was created, by hijacking a similarly named publication (The News Today (Bangladesh) - which I later PRODed since it wasn’t notable either). There’s one surviving draft at Draft:Daily News Today Limited and some more context at User talk:Anisurwiki. Obviously doesn’t change your !vote, but for anyone else trying to figure out what’s happening here. Politanvm ^talk 17:57, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 19:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginary Friends Studios

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

May not pass WP:GNG. A search on Google shows limited new coverage. – robertsky (talk) 03:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 03:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 03:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 03:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - managed to find very little secondary sources mentioning the studio, none of which are reliable. Agree with nom that doesn't pass WP:GNG. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 14:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage from gnews is mainly limited to 1 line mentions, nothing indepth. LibStar (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network

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

WP:BEFORE yields nothing of note from a web search or news search. Beyond that, sources on the article seem to consist exclusively of WP:SELFCITEs. The article refers to the organization as "we". Moreover, it was created by User:Karennano, a WP:SPA whose userpage says "This user was created to admin the Nise Net and NanoDays wiki". jp×g 02:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. jp×g 02:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. jp×g 02:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. jp×g 02:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find supporting reference material for the subject of the article. Appears to be created by someone associated with the topic. Chronotime (talk) 18:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant advertising. Seems to be a case of a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. No sources to demonstrate notability as required. AusLondonder (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Marin (actor)

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

Based on my further search on Google, the article does not have additional sources. The refs provided are questionable, with the second and fourth from the unreliable IMDB, and the first from BTVA, in which the Perennial Sources (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Behind_the_Voice_Actors) list stated that "There is consensus that Behind the Voice Actors is generally reliable for roles credits. Editors agree that its coverage is not significant and does not contribute to notability." The third ref could possibly be reliable (although I am unsure), nevertheless, it is mostly the info that Marin himself provided (and should likely be attributed), and does not constitute the coverage from multiple sources. Many thanks for your time and help. VickKiang (talk) 01:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Comics and animation, and Michigan. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All I find are mentions of him appearing at ComiCon. Leaning delete. 02:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Weak Delete Personally I'm a fan of him he is a good voice actor of my childhood show like 2 in Am Pm, Regular show and many more. But surprisingly can't find any significant references of him. So it's a delete per norm. @@@XyX _talk 04:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of secondary sourcing. Generic name and a couple of roles outside Regular Show make it an unlikely redirect candidate. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pepper Palace

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

Company that fails WP:NCORP. Given reference is to a local newspaper. Not publicly traded. Products aren't notable and wouldn't support notability of the company anyway. Mikeblas (talk) 04:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, as it stands. BD2412 T 06:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Tennessee. Shellwood (talk) 10:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite being a national chain, couldn't find any significant coverage for the company itself to satisfy WP:NCORP. The sources I was able to find are either brief announcements about a new store opening or stories about sauces that they sell. Couldn't find anything in depth about the company itself. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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