Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 31 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Coffee (talk | contribs) at 06:58, 8 February 2022 (Relisting Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Mylene Sheath (2nd nomination) (XFDcloser)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 06:58, 8 February 2022 by Coffee (talk | contribs) (Relisting Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Mylene Sheath (2nd nomination) (XFDcloser))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Recent AfDs:    Today    Yesterday      January 7 (Tue)      January 6 (Mon)      January 5 (Sun)     More...

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

< January 30 February 01 >
Guide to deletion Centralized discussion
Village pumps
policy
tech
proposals
idea lab
WMF
misc
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Nina Græger

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

Nonnotable scholar, tagged since 2010, no improvmnt Loew Galitz (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 22:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete Google Scholar shows articles by a Nina Græger but this scholar is at the University of Copenhagen and her home page doesn't mention either the Journal listed on the page nor the Norwegian institute she presumably is employed at. Either the information in the article is wrong (and it is not backed up by sources) or we have two people with the same name, only one of which can I find academic output for. Lamona (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - in 2019 she moved from Oslo, Norway to the University of Copenhagen (and I put the information provided by the department into her page). No comment yet on notability, but I will see what I can find about coverage of her work on diplomacy and Scandinavian countries. DaffodilOcean (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

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 21:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Abortion survivor

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

ALL of the content is Original Research WP:OR. This term is suitable for a dictionary, NOT an encyclopedia article. ---Avatar317 23:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete and merge into Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. -- Valjean (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  • The content is not original research, as even a modicum of looking for sources on the subject finds supporting material. It's just a totally absurd structure and scope for an article, with a name conjured by a Misplaced Pages editor out of thin air, based upon no actual expert writings on the subject but rather upon some wacky headlinese, and a parochial U.S.-centric bias. The actual concept in U.S.-centric sources is live birth. This is the name used in Ackerman and Strong's A Casebook of Medical Ethics (1983, ISBN 9780195039177), for example. It's the name used in the "Legal issues in neonatal-perinatal medicine" chapter of Fanaroff and Martin's Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine E-Book: Diseases of the Fetus and Infant (2010, Elsevier, ISBN 9780323081115) The concept in U.K.-centric sources (although it has the same name in countries such as Australia) is the legal notion of child destruction.

    Both are low quality, but already existing, articles. If you want to see how bad our latter article really is, contrast it with John Keown's 22-page treatment of the subject in the "The scope of the offence of child destruction" chapter of xyr The Law and Ethics of Medicine (OUP, 2012, ISBN 9780199589555) or Kristin Savell's treatment (of it, the born-alive rule, wardship, and other subjects) in xyr "The mother of the legal person" chapter of Visible Women: Essays on Feminist Legal Theory and Political Philosophy (2002, Hart, ISBN 9781841131955). Our article on live birth (human) can similarly be contrasted with Faranoff and Martin, which explains for starters that there were state law legal frameworks for what constitutes a live birth as well. Helen M. Alvaré's "Abortion, Sexual Markets, and the Law" chapter of Persons, Moral Worth, and Embryos: A Critical Analysis of Pro-Choice Arguments (Springer, 2011, ISBN 9789400716025) even quotes the law of Maine which actually has "live birth" in the statute.

    That the existing articles on the actual subjects are piss-poor is no reason to start a new separate article with a clickbait name taken from a BBC News headline, however.

    Uncle G (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment this article is seriously flawed for many reasons, most blatantly the USA-centric nature of how it's written. CT55555 (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete As I think this article is about a newly created phrase WP:NEO and I think it is pushing a point of view WP:NOTADVOCATE and most importantly WP:NOTSOAPBOX CT55555 (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Additional comment User:Avatar317 you are not getting much input here, and that may be because the AfD doesn't appear on any thematic AfD notification pages. Maybe some social science and health AfD lists would be appropriate. Sorry, I'd do that myself, but I don't know how. CT55555 (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
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 Noah Becker. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 08:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Whitehot (magazine)

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

This article on an art magazine does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:NCORP for notability. The sourcing in the article consists of one primary source to the magazine itself, and three sources that do not mention the WhiteHot magazine at all (it does mention a gallery with a similar name, White Box, so not sure why that is.) A WP:BEFORE search brings up hits for social media, primary sourcing to the magazine or its founder, but no verifiable in-depth significant coverage on the magazine itself can be found. Bringing it here to seek feedback from the community. Netherzone (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

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 23:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Croatia–Turkmenistan relations

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

Fails WP:GNG. There's not much for these relations except a few state visits. No embassies, agreements or significant trade. The fact that Turkmenistan bought a ferry from Croatia hardly adds to relations. LibStar (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

  • I tried looking for sources in Croatian, and all I found was cursory press coverage of two presidential visits, which isn't actually WP:SIGCOV of international relations, rather a WP:NOT#NEWS violation. This is another article in search of a topic like the one about Croatia and Mongolia that took us a decade to get rid of *facepalm* Delete. --Joy (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete, moderate-high confidence on this one after seeing Joy's analysis of Croatian-language sources and my own search for English-language sources. I only found a document that can attest to the fact that relations between the two countries were established in 1996 . A Russian-language (and/or Turkmen-language if anybody knows that language here) search would probably be useful to get 100% certainty, but it as it stands it doesn't look like there's a notable relationship. Pilaz (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom there are No embassies, agreements or significant trade.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
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. I wrote up a lengthy closing statement, and had it frustratingly erased by an edit-conflict. So I'll summarize by saying that arguments on both sides here are generally based in policy, and cannot simply be set aside; reasonable editors can and do disagree on whether the sources provided here are substantive. Given the high participation, there seems to be no purpose served by relisting. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Mike Tinney

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Misplaced Pages:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Misplaced Pages:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. " It was deprodded by User:Newimpartial with the following rationale "Additional secondary source added; meets NBASIC". I am afraid I disagree, the new source seems like a brief press release. I stand by my view that this person does not meet NBIO. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep - the threshold for significant coverage is whether the (independent, reliable) source contributes material from which an encyclopaedic article can be written. This is clearly the case for at least two sources used in the present article; it therefore meets NBASIC and therefore WP:N. Newimpartial (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep per Newimpartial, as I believe VG247 which Newimpartial added is a WP:RS source. BOZ (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
    In case it helps at all, the Vice article I added has a little more information about him. BOZ (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep - It would seem that he could qualify under WP:NCREATIVE#3 having a collective body of work he was a creator or co-creator of. Part of this has to be taken at face value of WP editors that came before, but I will WP:AGF. Clearly part of the body of work seems to be Mind's Eye Theatre (for being specifically called out by Appelcline in Designers & Dragons, which seemed to cover him pretty broadly according to the article) and Rage (where there are only two creatives listed). That's a body right there that would qualify when pushing NCREATIVE to its limit. That plus the ability to actually write the biographical information thanks to the Designers & Dragons book push past failing WP:NOTRESUME/WP:NOTDIRECTORY. That alone is a bit thin, but following the pages linking to him, he's also a designer of Aberrant, Hunter: The Reckoning, and Vampire: The Requiem. These games list many more designers, so it's a bit harder to judge his individual contributions, but I don't think they should be dismissed. The World of Darkness series post 2002 probably would probably add more to his body of work given the statement by Appelcline that games in the line underwent massive changes, but I can't really verify much beyond that, so this part just nudges me past weak keep, and definitly past a redirect (although redirecting to White Wolf Publishing might make sense, it does face WP:X or Y problems, dismissing more specific works). -2pou (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
    I agree that Mind's Eye Theatre is the single most important credit, and it is worth noting that "Line manager" in the RPG space is primarily a creative/game design position, not a marketing position. The subject's work in LARP, tabletop and CCG domains mitigates against any redirect options.
    The article, of course, sucks, but that isn't a policy-relevant argument at AfD. Newimpartial (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep Assuming this is the same guy who is getting RS news coverage for the fitness startup mentioned at the end of the article. Content like this makes me strongly suspect they are. Jclemens (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect to Rage (collectible card game). Fails WP:NBIO. Like most game designers, this individual has not received in-depth, independent coverage by reliable secondary sources. The problem isn't the reliability of the sources, like keep !votes have suggested, it's the lack of significant coverage of the subject of the article, which is a requisite for NBIO. I also don't think that WP:NCREATIVE#3 applies when the body of work has not been covered by independent and/or reliable sources; and X or Y "problems" are not real problems when the page gets 1 view a day. Pilaz (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    • The sources presented below with respect to the health-gaming startup of the subject of this article are all industry-related PR press. They also either do not cover the subject in depth, or when they do it's in the format of interviews, which are WP:PRIMARY and not independent from the author, and therefore do count towards WP:NBIO in my view. Pilaz (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Two of the four references are press releases that are about company mergers. The fourth reference is a very brief announcement. I don't have access to the first reference, which does seem substantial. But that's only one reference. Looking in Google books I can find him mentioned once in this book, once in another book. There's a Mike Tinney who wrote "The Secret Life of the Pencil" but I can't ascertain if it's the same person. I'm just not finding enough for an article. Lamona (talk) 04:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • is largely about the subject. is about his work, but he's quoted a fair bit. There are plenty of sources like that one. With the first source in the article, I think we are past WP:N. Keep. Hobit (talk) 02:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Coverage of the individual in the sources is not sufficient in-depth to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: most of the article, and in particular the quasi-totality of the Appelcline-sourced paragraph, is word-for-word plagiarism of Appelcline's second edition of the volume Designers & Dragons (vol 3: '90-'99). Please see the template on the article for more information. Editors wishing to contribute to this AfD are recommended to look at the history to get a full picture of the state of the article prior to replying to this AfD. Thank you. Pilaz (talk) 07:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, I do see that I unfortunately copied the first sentence word-for-word when I started the article in 2015, and the rest of that paragraph has some close paraphrasing and a few phrases copied verbatim; I rewrote that section under Talk:Mike Tinney/Temp per the instructions, so please review to make sure it is rewritten sufficiently. BOZ (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

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 04:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Tree homomorphism

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

No sources cited; unknown notability per WP:GNG (perhaps someone more knowledgeable can improve this stub). Headphase (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete as unsourced. While the definition given is mathematically natural, for the reason I gave in my comment above it does not appear to be of much interest. I've checked this by looking at the three highest cited articles with tree homomorphism in the title and none of them used the same definition as the article but investigated less rigid notions of homomorphism. Skimming the other abstracts, the most popular definition seems to be the one coming from the theory of tree transducers. We should treat the article as original research. — Charles Stewart (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete, not enough sources to meet notability. Alex-h (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz 22:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Labour Party Secular

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

Non notable political party, a before search shows me hits in unreliable sources that have no reputation for fact checking and a plethora of press releases. Celestina007 (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 20:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

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 23:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Kalen Chase

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

He appears not to be notable outside of a band that never really made it off the ground and is notable only for certain people involved in it aside from Chase. I previously PRODded this, but it has been refunded. No attempt to improve the article has been made. dannymusiceditor 18:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Mild Delete Other than the "American Songwriter" interview, seems to be mostly mentions of him in other articles. Would support a keep vote if more reliable sources can be found directly about him. Oaktree b (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 20:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

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 22:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

CHUMBA Racing

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

Needs broader conversation than PROD. Possibly the best source, but questions remain as to RS level, and it's not enough for GNG. There are listings such as this and similar present in the article, but there's no indication they're independent and definitely not of the in depth required for WP:ORG. They're currently described as a blog site related to betting on cycling, but that doesn't appear to have engendered any more coverage than their time as a bike manufacturer. Star Mississippi 18:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 20:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Abdullah Syed

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

Another non-notable Minor League Cricket player. Like similar articles created by this user, there is an erroneous claim that the player has played in matches that held List A and Twenty20 status; as with others they have created, this simply isn't the case. The matches in the ICC World Cricket League Division 4 fail the revised WP:NCRIC guidelines too. StickyWicket (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Family tree of Shah dynasty of Gorkha monarch

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

Whole article unsourced. Even the article title is unclear and confusing. Peter Ormond 💬 19:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz 22:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Jean Hugues Gregoire

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

Does not seem to pass WP:N, simply taking part in an event is not a sign of notability. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

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. Geschichte (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Fistful of Vengeance

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

Fistful of Vengeance

Unreleased movie that does not satisfy any version of film notability guidelines and does not satisfy general notability guidelines.

Created in article space in August 2021, then moved to draft space by User:Bovineboy2008 with the edit summary: 'film's production is not particularly notable, does not meet WP:NFF yet'. Submitted for AFC review on 20 January 2022, and declined with statement: 'Please expand after the film is released to include reception information, and resubmit.' Moved to article space immediately after decline, with edit summary: 'Deserves a page, and the official title doesn't include Wu Assassins in it (for some reason)'. The title is a secondary issue, but the film only deserves a page if it satisfies general notability or film notability. The article does not speak for itself and establish why the unreleased film is notable, and the references do not establish notability. The references say that the film started production and completed production, but there is nothing notable about the film or its production.

Number Reference Remarks Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 Collider.com Description of teaser No Yes No
2 Deadline Hollywood Announcement of plan to shoot film No No Yes No
3 Variety.com Announcement of plan to shoot film No No Yes No
4 Maactioncinema.com Announcement of film No No No
5 Twitter Text saying that production is complete No No No No
Robert McClenon (talk) 06:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

---

  • My recommendation is Keep because Fistful of Vengeance is streaming this February 17th and barring anything catastrophic I strongly doubt that Fistful of Vengeance won't be streaming this February 17th. And if the Fistful of Vengeance article is not made/kept the movie itself will still be refered to and/or is already refered to in the articles for Wu Assassins, Iko Uwais, Lewis Tan, Roel Reiné etc.
As for news coverage/notability (per Google News search today): Variety (as noted in the media coverage table above), ScreenRant, MovieWeb, NME, Collider (new article published Jan 21st), Geek Tyrant, Gizmodo, CBR, JoBlo, SlashFilm, Hypebeast, and several Dutch-language and Indonesian language news sites are already beginning to publish several articles covering Fistful of Vengeance since the trailer dropped yesterday (Jan 21).
I am confident that coverage will only get wider in the coming days. And after February 17 (which is only 26 days away from today) you'll have your full plot synopsis and initial wave of critical reception.
Fistful of Vengeance is eagerly anticipated because Wu Assassins has been critically acclaimed for its martial arts choreography, and media coverage anticipates that the excellent fight choreography will continue. Also both Fistful of Vengeance and Wu Assassins are part of the recent wave of Asian-American cinema which started with Crazy Rich Asians in 2018 and continues today.
And if Fistful of Vengeance's status as a yet-to-be-released movie is the issue then why do we also have articles for the upcoming Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (coming May 2022), streaming series Moon Knight (March 2022), Thor: Love and Thunder (July 2022), and so on and so forth?
--Ferdi Zebua (username: Lemi4) (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm not sure I agree with Rob that this article is not notable. In my opinion, it is well written and extremely well sourced using a variety of reliable sources. Therefore, I feel it does pass NFF, and the article should remain 19:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KeineMelon (talk • contribs)
  • Keep I believe the film does reach notability standards; it's just a stub as of now, but is slowly getting more info on here, especially since promo material just dropped as the release date nears. Iamnoahflores (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep, the article has the typical sourcing that unreleased films have, I am not particularly enthusiast about them, but this one is not different, and the release date is very close. I disagree with the nominator's table above, eg. I agree the Variety article carries a very limited weight, but how is it not an independent, significant or secondary source? Cavarrone 08:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep while I admit that draftify is probably the correct answer, it seems like process wankery to me to do so and bring it right back. We're talking about February 17, 2022 so three weeks away. I don't think this is the crystal territory that it would be if we were talking 2023. Star Mississippi 17:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am fully cognizant of the effect this relist has regarding certain argument put forth.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep Deadline Hollywood and Variety are considered reliable. I also don't know why they wouldn't be considered independent here? Besides WP:NFF doesn't apply here, since photography wrapped in 2021. It wasn't the right way to publish the page but I don't think it should be deleted. BuySomeApples (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep Agree with above and a few references/hits found in Screen Rant, a reliable source also I believe. Oaktree b (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator with no votes for deletion. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 19:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Blood Is Not Fresh Water

Blood Is Not Fresh Water (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NFILM. Article still has no citations after 15 years. Platonk (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
— Withdrawn by nominator: ReaderofthePack has performed a virtual miracle by finding new and obscure sources (and updated the article). Well done! I don't mind being proven wrong for a good cause. Withdrawing my nomination. Any editor can close this as Speedy Keep per WP:WDAFD. Platonk (talk) 02:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

2026 Kerala Legislative Assembly election

2026 Kerala Legislative Assembly election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per Misplaced Pages:Too soon. This is a potentially notable topic, but currently, it has no significant coverage in relevant sources. If there is any, those are merely speculations. In short, the topic, as of today—January 31, 2022—is not notable. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

It overlaps SNOW quite a bit, and, although an essay, seems an accepted Misplaced Pages way of saying this has no chance. When I put on my thinking cap I think that the term TOOSOON should probably be upgraded to guideline level with a link to the essay. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I think the issue here is that there is no fixed time limit as to when it is appropriate to create article for far-future events, especially elections. AfD is better as it helps determine the consensus that there is no notability, than speedy deleting it just because it is created 4 years ago. For instance, 2026 Kerala elections has no notability, but maybe 2026 United States Senate elections does. Just like 2032 Summer Olympics. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
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 22:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Aravind T. S.

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

The references seem to be largely his own work, but they are in Malayalam, which I dont understand. Is he notable? Rathfelder (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Lifespan timeline of presidents of the Philippines

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

Trivial cross-categorisation which is also an unsourced WP:NOTSTATS violation. This is simply not encyclopedic content: the number of living presidents or how long they lived after are nothing more than statistical trivia, and they are usually not included - see previous community consensus at similar discussion: 1, 2 (which had very similar content, IIRC), 3, 4, 5. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Muscular Dystrophy Family Foundation

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

Completely unsourced article. Organisation failing WP:NORG. Google returns 129 results, not a single one pointing to a source independent from the organisation. Given that in this time and age, notable nonprofits tend to have significant online coverage, there is nothing to suggest that Google results are not representative. So, no choice but to delete. — kashmīrī  14:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

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 WMLB. ✗plicit 05:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Sidewalk Radio

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

Article about a radio show on a station (WMLB) which has since changed formats to conservative talk. There have been no new editions of this show since 2015 as its host station has ended programming. Article does not cite any external or independent sources and appears to be WP:COI. Flip Format (talk) 12:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 13:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete. Radio shows are not automatically notable just because their own self-published web presence technically verifies that they exist; the notability test is in the depth and quality of the media coverage, in sources other than itself, that can be shown to demonstrate that its significance has been externally validated (noteworthy awards, analysis of its cultural impact, etc.) by people without a vested interest in promoting it. But there are no independent sources here, nor am I seeing a reason why the show would even be quasi-notable enough to warrant retaining a redirect. But I won't fight a redirect if somebody wants to close it that way anyway, so don't deem this "no consensus" on my account: the overridingly important thing here is to make the standalone article go away by whatever means are available. Bearcat (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Likely a brokered programming show, and redirecting it to the WMLB article which now has a complete 180º in their programming format (starring the 'Godzilla of Truth') would be pointless and confusing. Nate • (chatter) 04:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Redirect to WMLB: Barely found anything about the radio show. It doesn't matter if the station has reformatted or not or whether the show is station-produced or a blocktimer. Since the show was aired only on the said station, redirecting the show to the target article is the best WP:ATD to go. ASTIG️🎉 (HAPPY 2022) 13:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
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 Opémiska Community Hall fire. Vaguely plausible search term. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

1980 Chapais fire

1980 Chapais fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page Opémiska Community Hall already covers the topic of this article Cologne Blue 12:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete Already covered by Opémiska Community Hall fire. CarringtonMist (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 02:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Efim Jourist

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

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 appears clear that BerriBlue is not yet notable as defined here. If someone would like a copy to work on in draft space, just let me know. Star Mississippi 02:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

BerriBlue

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

The artist has only minor exibitions, to soon, SPA JakubDeWisniewski (talk) 11:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Wil57 (talk) 08:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC) - Hey guys, I came back to look at this since I got an email about it. My original intention was to create a couple of articles about street artists in Porto, but I never really got beyond this one and a draft about another artist, Hazul. I would love to return to the project and finish off a couple more articles, so it would be a shame if this one was deleted. Could you please explain what changes I should make?
I understood from the comments so far:

  • the scarves section should be removed because it's promo (I checked Wolf&Badger and they are no longer there, only on the artist's site and a couple of small retailers, so I agree that it should go.)
  • Also that the artist isn't in museums - for street art I don't know how that can work really - if you walk around Porto or Lisboa you will see that the works are everywhere, but how should I note that?
  • Do I need more sources?
p.s. Sorry if the format is wrong here, I'm new to this!

The problem is that the artist is not yet notable to be included in English wiki, even her works "are everywhere". Please take a look at biographies of other street artists Hense,Banksy, Keith Haring and compare exhibitions. Perhaps submitting the article to Polish wiki, where standards of inclusion are not that strict is an option worth exploring.--JakubDeWisniewski (talk) 09:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

  • keep passes WP:GNG "!vote" added at 11:21, 1 February 2022 (edit) by २ तकर पेप्सी
  • Question for JakubDeWisniewski. In your nomination, you write The artist has only minor exibitions, to soon, SPA. Are you saying that the creator was/is an SPA, and that creation by an SPA is grounds for deletion? -- Hoary (talk) 12:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment References 2, 9, 11, 12 and 15 are to her website, and other refs are weak. David notMD (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete - It is WP:TOOSOON for this street artist to have an encyclopedia entry. There needs to be independent significant coverage in RS to meet WP:GNG. After examining the sourcing, I find that even though there are a lot of refs listed in the article which makes it "appear" to be substantial coverage, they are not quality sources. The sourcing consists of blog posts, pieces that do not have an author byline (probably paid PR, native advertising or modified press releases) and primary sources such as her own website or user-submitted content. In other words, promotional. She does not meet notability criteria for WP:NARTIST; she has had few exhibitions at non-notable galleries, but no museum shows nor collections, no reviews in notable art magazines or journals. Netherzone (talk) 14:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete No indication of being notable, fail to launch. (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scopecreep (talk • contribs)
  • Keep As the name shows street art is a genre for the people on the streets. For a street artist is much harder to get an opportunity to exhibit their work within the official network of art institutions. Suffice it to refer to Banksy’s career, and it’s clear how pointless it is to object that the artist hasn’t been featured in renowned galleries or museums yet. Under these circumstances it is a notable enough achievement that her works have been exhibited in several countries. (Poland, Ireland, Portugal). As the references prove, she gets attention form the audience.

Porto is famous for its decorated buildings. There is a long tradition of tiled and painted facades. There is a good chance for this artist to be really successful there. I would keep the article. Of course it should be corrected. It should be more neutral. I think it would be important to know her real name and other personal data. With a bit of good will one can even ask her about these pieces of information. There is no harm if the article is kept. New information is going to be added in the future. There is no harm in helping young artists. They have a calling or they have simply choosen a profession that makes living utterly difficult. Mirabella (talk) 07:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete- " There is a good chance for this artist to be really successful there", "There is no harm in helping young artists" - these are not arguments to keep the article, otherwise Misplaced Pages should keep all the emerging artists. They are many outlets, where an artist can put thir bio and works, and there is no shame of not having a Misplaced Pages article. She may become notable in a few years, but at this moment is too soonJakubDeWisniewski (talk) 09:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Ok, delete it if you will, but I mentioned arguments to keep it as well. She has already exhibited in at least 4 countries. I don't know whether you have an idea how difficult it is to get an opportunity to exhibit your works abroad... most of all as a street artist. Kolja Kramer Fine Arts exhibited street art in Vienna but it is a rare exception. The gallery was short-lived. The article was written by someone who has no other connection to the artist as wanting to write about street art in Porto. Self-promotion is excluded. On the other hand, I have to say, that even self-promotion would be a good sign. Today nothing else matters than promotion. You can sell an untouched dirty canvas it your PR is in order.

Yes, I would be careful deleting young artists. I'm not an artist but I led an online gallery for a very long time in the old days when online presence of artists and galleries was rare. You never know in advance who is going to be remembered. However it is worth keeping in mind that young Attila József was expelled from the university by Antal Horger, rector of the university, for a poem that seemed to be a bit radical. He is in my opinion by far the best poet in the history of Hungary. On the other hand nobody... literally no-one would remember Antal Horger except because of Attila József. I think today people, most of all professionals of the art market, are interested in these young artists rather than in those established ones you can read about in every art history book. Mirabella (talk) 11:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  • I removed the whole section on scarves, because I agree that can be considered promotion or merch.
  • I think that Mirabella's point about street artists not generally having many exhibitions is really important.
  • I disagree with the comment about only including street artists on the level of Banksy or Keith Harring. Those are the absolute top of the game, but there's a big difference between one of the main street artists in a large city / country and a total unknown. It's like saying we should only have musician articles about Led Zeppelin and Abba, and no one who isn't as big as that.
  • I think this passes WP:GNG because there are a number of secondary sources including books, magazines, auction catalogues, and large national newspapers. It does specifically say these can be in any language, so I also object to the comment that the article should go in the Polish wiki, because the standards are lower. It sounds a bit elitist about the EN wiki to be honest. :/
  • Delete- The auction catalogues come from "Desa aukcje młodej sztuki" a vanity event with no curatorial selection. There is no museum commissions, works in collections, residencies, critical texts about the artist. Lack of Portuguese of Polish wiki-she has not been recognized locally (red flag). Plus, your nickname sounds too similar to Willim, husband of the artist...

I undestand that you support her art, but writing an entry on Wiki to soon, is not a good idea. Tagging experienced Polish wikipedians to take a look Piotrus,Adamt — Preceding unsigned comment added by JakubDeWisniewski (talk • contribs) 15:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Wil57 (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC) Uff okay guys, I do disagree but getting a bit too much bother to be honest, which is a pity. Last thing I can think to do is email BerriBlue directly - I can ask about whether the auction is curated (I don't think it's a paid event). Is that any use, or am I wasting my time?
  • On the name - ha I see that, unfortunate!
  • Wil57 - I'd say it would be a waste of your time to email the artist to find out whether or not the auction was "curated". Auctions exist to sell art or other collectable things, they are not a reliable source, and info from the artist would be primary sourcing which does not contribute to notability. "Curators" in an auction house are different that museum curators. In reading some of the comments above, I just want to say, that there are folks here who are not only interested in the work of younger emerging artists, they are deeply interested in the "next generation". However articles on emerging artists still have to be vetted through the Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies of verifiability, reliable sourcing independent from the subject, significant coverage over a period of time, etc. This is why I believe it is WP:TOOSOON for this artist. Is she promising, yes! Interesting, yes! Talented, yes! But the encyclopedia does not exist to advocate, help nor promote the next best thing; rather it is about what is in the historical record in verifiable, high-quality news, journal, and book secondary sources that are independent of the artist. It takes a while to learn all these guidelines and policies, so please understand that as much as many of us "support" young artists (I've spent a lifetime doing that thru my job) there are criteria for WP notability that multiple editors agreed upon thru consensus, over years of discussions. Wil57, please don't take this discussion personally. She sounds amazing. If it ends in deletion, which is likely, perhaps in a few years enough will have been written about her that could support an article. With best regards, Netherzone (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment JakubDeWisniewski’s remark about Polish Misplaced Pages lacks political correctness and reflects the Western belief, unfortunately still present today, that anything that is not the result of Western European or American civilization can only be inferior. I can assure you that is not the case.

Since the artist lived in Poland only until she was 13 years old, why should be an article about her in Polish Misplaced Pages first? Mirabella (talk) 08:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Please don't assume or claim that the participants in this discussion believe that "anything that is not the result of Western European or American civilization can only be inferior". I don't believe that at all. Vexations (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Answer My remark was related to (citation): Perhaps submitting the article to Polish wiki, where standards of inclusion are not that strict is an option worth exploring.--JakubDeWisniewski (talk) 09:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC). As I'm Hungarian, I tend to take everything as an offence that is likely to hurt Polish people. We have kind of a common history. It may not have been intended the way it sounds. Still I have experienced many times in my life this covert contempt that made me sensitive. Excuse me. I think, everything has been cleared and there isn't any further problem to settle. Mirabella (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Update Hey everyone, a few things - I have reached out to BerriBlue by email and asked her for help with some of the citations. She has copies of some of the physical books and newspapers cited, so I've asked for scans to verify them. Wil57 (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Just to let you know where I stand, I am trying to find only good sources to reference. This artist has had work featured in books on street art, national newspapers, and on TV, as well as exhibitions internationally over the course of 10 years. I'm hoping that counts for something. I'm also quite busy in real life, so could someone please let me know the deadline I have to work with here?
  • Thanks to Netherzone for your comments, I'll try not to take it personally (hard when you put loads of work into something, as I'm sure you all have experienced before), I do understand that certain boxes need to be ticked and that is fair. However, if my last attempt at proving notability through secondary citations doesn't work, I suggest taking a look at how street artists are measured as opposed to regular "gallery" artists. There are certain boxes that can't really be ticked, and if BerriBlue isn't considered notable, then none of the other Portuense street artists would be either, which is quite upsetting to people in Porto since it's part of our contemporary culture. (Also to me personally, since this whole thing started as a project where I would write up on the top 3 or 4 artists from Porto.)
  • Regarding the points made above, I don't believe that it was intended as such, but it did really come across that the EN wiki is the more correct version, and that the fact that something was missing from the "lower" PT or PL versions meant it wasn't worthy of the "higher" EN version. Again, totally don't think it was intended that way, but please take note of the potential for being read as such.
  • Question - Wil57, may I ask...would you happen to have a connection to the artist? The reason for this question is that I can't understand how it is that you were able to take the close-range photograph of her and upload it as your own work? I can understand with the two images of her street art that you could have encountered and photographed them in Porto. But the infobox image is obviously a posed shot. Please explain when you find a moment. Netherzone (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Wil57, is a husband of an artist Willim, not only because of a brillant choice of a nickname. He has edited only her entry, he's an English native speaker, there is no Portuguese or Polish version because no one outside of the author care to write about her (if she's notable/popular in Porto someone would have written it in Portuguese), he uploaded her picture, ( +we can check the metadata here and meta from her website) and he cares too much for a stranger using here a weasel language i.e "exhibitions internationally over the course of 10 years" to make her seem more notable than she is right now. Maybe Berriblue herself is watching him writing this. Anyway, COI and most importantly TOOSOON --JakubDeWisniewski (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Wil57 has denied COI, but has been asked on the Talk page of the article to explain who was the photographer of the three images. If Wil57, feels like COI (the second image is described as in a private collection, not street viewable). If not Wil57, then copyright violation. David notMD (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Ref #11 (Singleart), appears to be an online gallery, so this appears to be a primary source, using information provided by BerriBlue. David notMD (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
    @David notMD I agree about the Singluart.com citation, that is used 8 times. I was debating about removing that citation entirely, because I noticed that it is a user-submitted art sales website, and definitely not a reliable source. It is non-encyclopedic. Netherzone (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
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. I'm actually going to delete this as a WP:HOAX (ie, snow close). A quick look shows that there is nothing to substantiate any of the claims in the article. User is also going to get a WP:NOTHERE block. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Nick and Ellis: The Movie

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

Not notable. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

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. A quick look at the page shows some clear WP:HOAX material, such as the claims that it's getting released through major production companies. Snow closing this as a hoax. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

The Art of Justice: Eye of the Tiger

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

Not notable. Couldn't find anything in a google search. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America 11:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Oscar Merner

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

An article has been created about the subject of this article across multiple wikis by Frryan404; the simplewiki article was deleted a short while ago for non-notability. I ran a search for sources, and turned up empty-handed; I only saw a few mentions. I admittedly could not check for Swedish-language sources; but from what I can see, it seems that the subject is a case of WP:BLP1E and thus fails WP:BIO. Also, the creator attempted to canvass others, according to the simplewiki discussion, suggesting there may be a COI involved. JavaHurricane 11:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Wgullyn (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC) (I corrected the result to reflect that the nominator withdrew their nomination, this wasn't a "Keep" decision. Liz 22:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)}

Sus al-Aksa

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

Mooonswimmer 10:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator Was testing out Twinkle for the first time, accidentally created the AfD. A PROD seems to be more suitable. Mooonswimmer 10:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) DanCherek (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Dataclysm

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

It is not immediately evident that this book has had much lasting impact on the world (beyond the odd review following its release) that might make it worthy of an encyclopedic entry. Between the lack of sourcing, the clear absence of editors interested in taking this further and the rigors of WP:NOTNEWS, it does not really seem worth retaining this material. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Deep Joshi (cricketer)

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

Completely non-notable cricketer. There is no trace on Cricinfo or CricketArchive for this cricketer, the latter containing the profiles of the most minor of players. The player fails WP:NCRIC as Minor League Cricket does meet the notability inclusion guideline for players (see WP:OFFCRIC), and the same is true for supposed under-19 players. Going back to there being no Cricinfo or CricketArchive profiles, originally the infobox claimed the player has played 7 Twenty20 matches, which is simply untrue; this has now been changed but the lead claims he has played List A cricket, again untrue; if these claims were true, the player would have a CI and CA profile. StickyWicket (talk) 09:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to List of Bhutan Twenty20 International cricketers. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Ranjung Dorji

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

This cricketer fails the revised WP:NCRIC guidelines. He has does not play in a top-level league (see here) and his one T20I international also fails NCRIC as they have not appeared as a player for an Associate team in a Twenty20 International match after 1 July 2018 in either a World T20 (men or women) or Global Qualifier (men or women). Fails wider GNG too as coverage is very much routine. StickyWicket (talk) 09:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Deirdre Lenihan

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Needles and Pins is okay as one semi-major credit, but where are the others? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz 22:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Deirdre Hamilton

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

Being a member of the National Mediation Board is not enough for WP:BIO. I see little more than notices about her appointment. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

More NMB members with weak qualifications to come if this pans out: Kyle Fortson, Linda Puchala, Ernest W. DuBester. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
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 Modern pentathlon at the 1952 Summer Olympics – Men's. Pretty clear consensus to take the WP:ATD route. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Frederick Denman

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

Fails WP:NOLYMPICS ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Smartyllama - Previous efforts at cleaning up stubs using redirection have seen the redirections simply reverted by the creator. FOARP (talk) 08:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
@FOARP: Was that before or after the changes to NOLY meant these people failed the SNG in additon to any GNG failure? I redirected a few articles from the same events as these AfDs last week for individuals where there was a clear target to redirect to (either the event, or the country if they competed in more than one event but only at one Olympics) and have not been reverted. I can understand why people would have reverted the BOLD redirects when NOLY still said they were notable though. Smartyllama (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
@Smartyllama: - Yes, they are definitely still doing it. FOARP (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
@FOARP: I get what you're saying, but that looks like a bad redirect and a good revert to me. wjemather 19:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Really? We literally have something in SPORTSCRIT saying you shouldn’t base notability solely on Sports-reference.com, and Olympedia is just an amateur-maintained copy of Sports-reference.com. But if you think that should be kept, can you now see why AFD tends to be the better way to go for these, despite the time taken? FOARP (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Probably worth doing a quick skim of the cited sources and other language wikis before redirecting? wjemather 22:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 07:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

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. Geschichte (talk) 09:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Ethecon Foundation

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

This organization is not notable Misplaced Pages:Notability. All the references cited with regard to the organization itself are blogs, many of which are broken links. Several of the references don't even link to pages resembling the reference title (e.g. reference 1, which links to a book called "What Then, Must We Do?" while the reference itself is entitled "What do Hugo Chavez, Vandana Shiva, and Diane Wilson Have In Common?"). In addition, this page violates the Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons policy. It accuses an individual person of "irresponsible marketing of baby-food, genetic engineering and the monopolizing of water.", with nothing but a link to Ethecon's blog as the reference, violating WP:BLPSPS. I suggest it be deleted. Kim.mason (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I've already fixed reference 1 - the original article was simply dead and redirecting elsewhere. I've linked to an archived version of the original article instead. In the future I suggest checking whether issues than concern you can be easily resolved before nominating an article for deletion. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Comment: And now I've fixed all the references. There are no dead references, there are no references that redirect anywhere else, and many references of questionable reliability have been removed. It appears the article's main issues was actually overciting. Many recipients of awards had two or three references when they only needed one, and these were typically the sources that were the most questionable. Sure, some of the remaining sources may not be reliable (take them to WP:RSN if you like), but other sources used in the article to back up claims include The Guardian, AlterNet, Die Tageszeitung, Der Freitag, Neues Deutschland, Junge Welt and Chelsea Green Publishing. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 07:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

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 06:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Ebix

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

Highly promotional article that's mostly about Robin Raina and not about the company. Sources cited are highly suspect, e.g. "Robin Raina Net Worth (2022)". "Raina is known to lead the firm efficiently during the 2008 global financial crash". And so forth. WP:LISTED does not compel us to keep this just because it's publicly traded, and the sources cited are all routine business coverage or not WP:RS at all, leaving little to be said about Ebix. FalconK (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep; not promotional at all: This Hindustan Times article clearly says that it's "a leader in insurance and payment processing software and exchanges". And according to this Business Today article, it is the "only company in Atlanta that has a road named after it: 1 Ebix Way". Moreover, this company has enough media coverage that your bid to challenge its notability makes your stance completely baseless. If you think this article is written like an advertisement you can certainly use different a tag instead of AfD. Now let others decide. Derivator2017 (talk) 13:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
    I was looking into this, and note that the Hindustan Times piece linked above is a by-line-less reprint of an Asian News International piece, with the latter source's reliability being highly contested last time it was discussed; I would not consider it to be an indicator of notability in this context. signed, Rosguill 16:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep but improve. This is a company on the NASDAQ with a current market cap of over $900 million USD. Suggest tagging with appropriate improvement tags. Ebix Smartclass has also been marked for deletion so perhaps merging it to this page would be a start.Gusfriend (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep - As above - needs work, but no need for WP:TNT. FalconK if you could tag the areas you have a problem with, I'm happy to work on them. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I've removed some of the irrelevant stuff but my main problem with it is that there's so little to say about the company other than that it's a business, has a bunch of money, and exists. I'm having some trouble with WP:CORPDEPTH on this one. FalconK (talk) 08:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

But where is the evidence for notability? FalconK (talk) 07:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To examine the newly added sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Bayou St. John (novel)

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

I don't think this is a notable book - Google is just bringing up sales sites and blogs, and there's nothing on JSTOR, EBSCO, Gale, or ProQuest. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Hog Farm Talk 05:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Downtown Rumble

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

Noting that WP:NTV is an essay. I could not find significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 05:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. Consensus is, this is more than a definition Star Mississippi 02:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Wingnut (politics)

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

Delete per WP:DICDEF. This was a neologism with no enduring notability. It saw a brief period of usage in the early 2000s. Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary. Absent some manner of historical or cultural context, I think this is a subject for Wiktionary rather than Misplaced Pages. AlexEng 05:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

  • It's also rather absurd to say that "wingnut" has "no enduring notability", considering that Safire first wrote about in in 2004, and economist Paul Krugman used it in his NYT column as recently as 2015 (in the form of "wingnut welfare"), and it was used in a WaPo column in 2018 . Cites can be found up to 2021 (not suitable as a WP ref, but it's still a usage). Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • NOTE TO CLOSER: The above editor brought a quickly closed complaint abut me to AN/I, in which he issued a WP:PA against me, "BeyondMyKen is on one of his OCD kicks again:" had edits to an article I've heavily contributed to reverted by an admin and another editor for being WP:POINTy, , went to an editor I'm in a content dispute with on this very article to offer themselves as an "ally", and has been warned by two admins on their talk page for their battleground behavior in regard to me. , All this in the last 4 days. I don't believe that their !vote here can be taken at face value. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • NOTE TO CLOSER: same !vote as I would have made regardless. Skyerise (talk) 18:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep There has been significant coverage and analysis of the term, not just use of the term, by writers like Safire (twice), Herszenhorn and Avlon. The term is notable. Cullen328 (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
    • @Cullen328: you should know that notability does not guarantee a standalone article. We have WP:NOT#DICT for a reason, and it is a policy. AlexEng 23:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
      • The article is longer and more in-depth than would be found in any dictionary, print or online, including Wikimedia's. It is, in fact, an encyclopedia article, and not a dictionary definition. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
        • AlexEng, I agree with Beyond My Ken. This encyclopedia article is currently far more comprehensive than a dictionary definition, and discusses the concept and not just the word, in detail. I do not know how much you know about William Safire but I followed his career for nearly four decades. I disliked him initially as a Richard Nixon/Spiro Agnew speechwriter, but he redeemed himself with 30 years of coverage of the English language for the New York Times. Safire did not write dictionary definitions. He examined and analyzed and documented the history and connotations words in far more depth than any dictionary, even the Oxford English Dictionary (which I own a print copy of), would ever do. The policy you quote does not rule out articles about terms but rather articles that consist only of dictionary definitions without encyclopedic content, and the policy specifically mentions Truthiness as a contrary example. There is ample precedent for keeping this article. We have Category:Pejorative terms for people which has 257 articles, and there are subcategories such as Category:Class-related slurs with 54 articles and Category:Ethnic and religious slurs with 151 articles. In this case, an entire book called Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe is Hijacking America has been published in 2010, which is referenced in the article. What is the basis for deleting this article about a notable pejorative when we have hundreds of other articles about notable pejoratives? Cullen328 (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete/Wiktionary redirect - Haven't dug into this too deeply, but it seems like "Wingnut" is a classic neologism that's mainly used pejoratively in Op-eds. It's not clear to me that the term has gained any direct coverage in mainstream RS's. NickCT (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • No, not when the ref is offered not for the truth of the statements made, but for the existence of the usages shown in them. It's very much like the standards used in (American) courts. And the Safire is the opinion of a verified expert - he's not using the terms, he's explaining the usage of the terms. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Your reasoning is sorta challenging to understand. I agree the word "exists" and is used, but that doesn't mean it's a notable topic worthy of encyclopedic coverage. Lots of words and neologisms exist but aren't notable subjects.
The Safire piece doesn't give the term direct coverage. Notable topics receive direct, detailed and significant coverage in reliable sources. Safire's piece may be RS, but it's not direct, detailed, or, by itself, significant. NickCT (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
No, the addition of 12K worth of textual material was in no way a "REFBOMB". Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: Neutral pointers to this discussion have been placed on the talk pages of the WikiProjects listed on the article's talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. The nominator wanted "some manner of historical cultural context". How about: https://www.thedailybeast.com/a-brief-history-of-wingnuts-in-america-from-george-washington-to-woodstock — and in that context, WP:DICDEF is irrelevant to this topic. The article could be improved, but the notability of the topic is obvious, and the recent citations added should alleviate concerns about whether this article is deletable. Incompleteness is not a valid reason to delete, and this article is not incomplete, it goes into far more depth than any dictionary ever would. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Here is a highly relevant quote from DICDEF: To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term (see use–mention distinction). Cullen328 (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Historical relevance aside, DICDEF doesn't matter if the WP:WORDISSUBJECT. That Wing Nut (Safire, 2004) and Wingnuts: Extremism in the Age of Obama (Avlon, 2014) both address the topic in so-titled works is evidence of notability for me. I would like to see more sources, and without checking the coverage of the word itself in the texts I won't be more emphatic than a weak keep, but I see no reason to delete at this point. — HTGS (talk) 08:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. No need of deleting the article; moreover Improvement is needed who has expertise in this field should be notified. ... २ तकरपेप्सी talk 19:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep - better than a WP:DICDEF, this article discusses the origin of the neologism and its use in political writing and cultural impact. It may not be in prominent use any more but notability is not temporary. Other issues can be dealt with through regular editorial processes; WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Ivanvector (/Edits) 17:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
    Per WP:NTEMP, While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion. NTEMP is not a rational for keeping or deleting. The issues are its reliance on primary sources (like dictionaries), the same authors over and over(lack of wide spread coverage), and outside that small group of authors only usage or passing mention(not direct coverage). Which is the reason for this AFD and not something covered by WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. PackMecEng (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep The article has clearly been expanded well beyond a mere dictionary definition.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. I believe this is beyond a dictionary defitition now. If it was used several years ago, notability does not expire. The article is not refbombed; refbombing is when several (questionable-quality) references are stacked onto a small amount of text, such as this: There might still be some concerns about primary vs secondary sources in this article, but not quite enough to warrant deletion. Geschichte (talk) 10:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
    @Geschichte: That is incorrect. WP:REFBOMB it is getting a bunch of sources to try and establish notability of a topic even if those sources are not great. Basically trying to puff up its notability. The number of sources to the same author or two and all the links to primary sources is an example of that. Per refbomb A common form of citation overkill is loading up an article with sources without regard as to whether they support substantive or noteworthy content about the topic. It is in reguards to the article as a whole rather than a specific small amount of text or sentence. PackMecEng (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep This page is not a dictionary definition, it's an article on the usage of a political term. I think there is remove for improvement but that is true for the majority of articles on Misplaced Pages. Liz 22:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
    @Liz: What should be removed for improvement? PackMecEng (talk) 02:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Ali Kamanda

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

Does not meet WP:DIRECTOR. ––FormalDude talk 04:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

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. Spartaz 08:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Andreas Fulda

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

Potentially notable, but fails WP:NPROF. Possibly meets WP:NAUTHOR. scope_creep 03:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep: I think Cunard may have misunderstood the usefulness of reviews and their relationship to WP:NAUTHOR? Reviews of an author's work do not need to contain biographical coverage - indeed, it would be very strange for an academic review to do so. However, it is also strange that an academic this frequently quoted in news media, etc, only has a handful of reviews for any of his three books. I'm the one who added the reviews to the article; when I first saw it, I was expecting to find a clear NAUTHOR pass since there were three books there, but they're pretty under-reviewed, and one of them isn't a monograph. I held off on voting either way at first because this looks very borderline. But on reflection, I don't think there is any clear purpose in deletion here: this is a borderline case that will almost certainly become more notable as time goes on, and the article is short but not in bad shape. I don't see a hugely compelling argument in either direction, really. -- asilvering (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
The 1st one. Yip, possibly a paid review or at the very a least conflict of interest. I think it probably makes it suspect at the very least and unreliable. scope_creep 09:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Ok, I'm still lost. I only see reviews footnoted for the three books. It would be extremely unusual for someone to write a review for an article in any case. But I'm also laugh-sobbing at the idea that academics get paid to write reviews for books (books that you also, typically, do not get paid for writing). -- asilvering (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
It is too low a bar by any measure to satisfy WP:NPROF and GScholar isn't used for WP:SIGCOV or WP:NAUTHOR. A simple measure on GScholar to determine if he was notable, if he had more than five papers with more than 100 citations for NPROF. The only measure that counts here is the book reviews. NAUTHOR requires independent book reviews. There is one that is idependent, one is bit dodgy, and likely unreliable. If another review turned up, then it would be good start for notability, but it has not been found yet. I don't think it will. It seems to be be below borderline. scope_creep 11:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
@Scope creep Can you please link the exact review you're talking about for me, since I'm still at sea here? I think this might be a misunderstanding of how academic publishing works - editorial boards of journals are not terribly beholden to the publisher, and indeed academics don't often think of who the publisher even is for journals, at least in the humanities. (You do care when it comes to a book... usually. But as someone working for an academic press, I've been told (reasonably politely) to go to hell by an ed board before. It's the board and the peer reviewers who decide what gets published, much much more than the publisher.) But you may indeed be correct and be seeing something I've overlooked, in which case we should probably pull the review link entirely. -- asilvering (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
The 1st above. Both the book and review have been published, by the same publisher. It is not independent. scope_creep 18:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
You mean in @Cunard's post? That's not the case. The review is in a Brill journal, and the book is published by Routledge. -- asilvering (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

They are appearing on the same, not published by. So far they're is only one reliable reference. scope_creep 09:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. I think it's still a bit WP:TOOSOON. The best case appears to be through WP:NAUTHOR, as is unsurprising in what I believe to be a "book field". I see two solid reviews of authored works, one of an edited volume, and one review/interview on the New Books Network. I think that New Books Network is probably somewhat reliable (with usual caveats about interviews), but I don't think it's the kind of review discussed by WP:NAUTHOR; edited volumes are different from authored works. I'd like to see at least one more solid review of an authored work. Mentions in context of his work seem a little short of WP:GNG. I'm not seeing WP:NPROF, as others have discussed. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Bosley John Bosley: They are articles not profiles. Don't use the word profiles, if you wish to remain on Misplaced Pages. Saying such a thing as that, makes me think that you undeclared paid editor. scope_creep 13:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
...er...WP:AGF...check my edits dude - who would be paying me?...and for what? Bosley John Bosley (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. The book reviews are enough for at least a weak case for WP:AUTHOR, and the Radio Free Asia "Concerns Grow" source has a six-paragraph section about him, which I think rises to the level of nontrivial coverage. More coverage is hard to find but in part that's because it's obscured by the many publications that are by him rather than about him. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: further discussion of whether there's a confict between the journal and the book's publishers, which does not appear to have been addressed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment. I find the focus of the deletionists here on independence of publishers and the reiteration of this focus in the relisting comment by User:Star Mississippi to be completely baffling. The article does not list any reviews that match the imagined descriptions of the deletionists here: there are no reviews of articles, and there are no reviews that have the same publisher as the thing they review. The article in its current state (unchanged since Feb.9) lists four book reviews: published by New Books Network about a 264-Routledge book, published by Brill about the same Routledge book, published by U. Chicago Press about a 311-page Palgrave Macmillan book (edited), and published by the Arnold Bergstraesser Institute about a 277-page Springer book. There is not even an apparent conflict of interest. In all four cases the publisher of the review and the publisher of the book are unrelated, and the page counts make it clear that the reviewed items are books and not mere articles. When asked for clarification on which review was meant, Onel only produced more unclearness: "Yip" (a name not used in any of these reviews), and "the first one" (of what ordering?) We cannot base a deletion discussion on made-up facts that do not match anything in the article or the rest of the world. Opinions based on these untruths should be discounted, just as we normally discount deletion opinions that are disconnected from our notability guidelines. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
    Speaking purely to my statement, it didn't look like @Scope creep's query was answered. And note, NeverTry is a blocked editor so that conversation definitely needs input from established editors and Bosley's keep is not at all policy related. If I had closed, it might have been n/c, but I didn't feel confident in that standing, hence the relist. No harm in more time. Star Mississippi 14:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
@Star Mississippi: I'm wasn't sure if he is notable or not, hence the Afd rationale above. I think with four genuine reviews, the subject is likely notable. I tend to trust David Eppstein as he knows what he is talking about, in this instance. I originally looked at them and wasn't sure. Regarding the comment above, I don't think there was any attempt to make up facts, as that is the whole point of Afd, is to ferret them out and make them visible so they can discussed. Lastly Yip means Yes in British English. I thought originally the first review that was coied, but even with three others it would be more than enough. scope_creep 14:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Oh absolutely. My concern was whether your question was answered. I haven't reviewed the sources as this is a complicated (in a good sense) discussion and I haven't had time to dive. If folks happy with this closing, happy to revert my relist. Star Mississippi 15:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
@Star Mississippi for what it's worth, I think your no-consensus instinct is sensible. There are more keep votes than delete votes, and once you cut through the confusion about the publishers the delete votes are pretty weak, but the keep votes don't have really strong arguments either, and it's been a pretty confusing AfD, as you say. -- asilvering (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
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 Wrestling at the 1904 Summer Olympics – Men's freestyle welterweight. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Abraham Mellinger

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

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. BilledMammal (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America 11:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Xinfeng railway station (Jiangxi)

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

Fails WP:SIRS. Info directly copied from rail site. No independent verification. Notabilty and ref tag added for new article. scope_creep 01:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep invalid rationale. A railway station is not an organisation or company and thus WP:NORG (of which WP:SIRS is part of) doesn't apply. I believe the official China Railway website is 12306.cn, the comment that there is "no independent verification" is false - neither of the sources appear to be owned by China Railway. Regarding notability of railway stations, there is longstanding community consensus that all railway stations are notable and for good reason - it saves us from wasting time arguing over these articles and it allows users to follow the line using the "adjacent stations" template at the bottom of the article. Removing this article would make navigation harder, making Misplaced Pages worse for our readers. NemesisAT (talk) 10:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment I've added an addtional source. NemesisAT (talk) 10:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment They're may be consensus on the Misplaced Pages that railways and railway stations are notable. Of course they are notable, but like every article on Misplaced Pages, they must be referenced. Simply copying information from a database generated page isn't acceptable. Where is the encyclopeadic value. Lastly, I think railway stations are organisationally based. Where does the money come from when they are repaired? They are covered by WP:NCORP. This article was sent to draft to be fixed. It wasn't. I understand it is quite hard to find information on static structures. But this is effectly a reflection of what is found on the database generated page. A notabilty tag was placed by an editor in good standing, on the new article in mainspace, which indicates there is real problem here. scope_creep 11:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep I've added an additional citation. I'll add some details of the service pattern shortly. Nempnet (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Merge into a new list article for stations on the rail line A reevaluation of the pseudo-policy by which "railway stations are generally presumed notable" is in order. NemesisAT has been making a large number of these train station stubs, many of which would fail GNG if weighed against that metric. They are often tagged for notability or insufficient references by new page patrollers, and/or draftified, but all draftifications are promptly undone by NemesisAT without any improvements made. These are very small stubs - before this AfD, the entire text of the article was: "Xinfeng railway station (Chinese: 信丰站) is a railway station in Xinfeng County, Ganzhou, Jiangxi, China. It is an intermediate stop on the Beijing–Kowloon railway.
History
The station opened in 1996." Considering we recently had a giant thread at ANI over an editor mass-creating poorly referenced stubs, I think it's fair to say the community does not support mass creation of poorly referenced stubs sourced mostly to databases. Take a look at the next station down the line from this one (not created by NemesisAT), which is in even worse condition: Longnan railway station (Jiangxi) is sourced only to a timetable. My two cents is that if the station articles are this barebones, they should be contained within a list article for each line, with only stations that have enough sources to justify a standalone article kept as individual articles (for instance, Beijing West railway station is clearly notable). There is not any actual policy stating all train stations are inherently notable. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Some service details added Nempnet (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep NCORP is the wrong guideline to apply here, it is WP:NBUILDING, which says that Artificial features related to infrastructure only require GNG (and as WP:5P notes we are sort of a gazetteer, I use a very lax definition of GNG here). And this very lax interpretation can be met as follows (yes, these are poor sources, but do technically check all the boxes there being significant coverage of the station by multiple reliable independent (see WP:XINHUA) sources):
While I would also support Trainsandotherthings suggest of a list & re-evaluating the consensus applied at AfD to presume notability (there was an RfC on this a few years ago, got no consensus due to disagreement of what counts as a "train station", maybe a more focused definition can get consensus), I don't believe this AfD is a good place to do this, as it requires more depth (ex. which articles should be listified, if a list would be appropriate (if vast majority of articles have enough info to write an article or would be awkward to listify because they are transfer stations, then I would just make articles for all railway stations instead)). Probably best to start an RfC in WP:TRAINS then work from there. Jumpytoo Talk 18:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep - It's literally impossible for such an infrastructure project to be built without extensive government reports on the budgets, planning, building and operating. It's highly doubtful that such a topic in the US or UK would even be considered for Afd. "No independent verification"? Of what, its existence? Oakshade (talk) 06:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
@Oakshade: That is a reasonable argument. The Afd rationale isn't that its not notable, it was the fact that it doesn't verify that its notable. Where is that information, the extensive government reports. Instead, is information copied directly from railway timetables, and database generated pages. What is the point of that exactly? Does that do a disservice to Misplaced Pages? What is the point of duplicating content between here and the source site? scope_creep 10:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages has been around for twenty years. Other websites frequently dissappear, making the information inaccesible. Many times when creating an article I've used sources from Chinese Misplaced Pages, and they have gone offline. NemesisAT (talk) 11:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
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 Culver's. Whatever section. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

CurderBurger

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

Completely mediocre subject. References are PR. Fails WP:NCORP. No historical or encyclopaedic value. scope_creep 00:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Catherine E. Heald

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep 00:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

That is a PR website with a PR article. scope_creep 09:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Center for Jewish Values

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

No evidence of Notability after over a decade. In 2007 it's notability was questioned in the previous AfD but kept because of editor commitment to improvement and sourcing (which seems not to have happened).

In 2019 a GNG tag was placed on the page, but no sourcing has been added. A cursory search does not arrive at coverage in secondary sources, and the tone of the entire article expresses self-written bias. -Markeer 00:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete I didn't find anything to establish notability either. It's been awhile, so it's probably not there. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete If you're relying on sources from the wayback machine that's a sign. It fails WP:GNG by some margin. MaskedSinger (talk) 12:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

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.