Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 30 - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

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. Star Mississippi 03:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Parviz Iskenderov (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)

Although the facts are laid out and easily verifiable, the article appears to lack a significant, independent coverage in the secondary sources, so it seems to fail WP:GNG. Zafir94 (talk) 01:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, Belarus, and Australia. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Lack of independent sources and I found nothing to show he's a notable kickboxer. No indication he's won any notable titles. Does not pass WP:KICK and WP:GNG Lethweimaster (talk) 12:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Unfortunately, this article fails WP:GNG. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Dozens of articles authored by the subject are cited throughout Knowledge (XXG) in order to meet GNG of other organizations/people in combat sports (including those @Lethweimaster: tried to improve). Zafir94 (talk) - Being the author of articles used on wikipedia doesn't make him pass WP:GNG. Lethweimaster (talk) 08:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
    So, as a journalist, according to what you are saying, he is "not notable", but what he does/writes is used to establish the notability of others. Also Knowledge (XXG):Notability_(journalists) would be helpful. Zafir94 (talk) 10:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
    Of course, there are many articles from journalist that are used all across Knowledge (XXG), adding coverage and strengthening notability of these subjects, however this does not in any way make these journalists notable. Lethweimaster (talk) 13:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
    In this case, it seems obvious that the subject would be widely known in the field of combat sports, since the authors on Knowledge (XXG) use his work to establish notability of other subjects they write about, including some of the most prominent athletes and kickboxing organizations.

    As a fact there have been only a few journalists specializing in covering kickboxing, meaning all those "many articles" on Knowledge (XXG) wouldn't really exist (wouldn't have multiple sources) if it wasn't for those (only a handful of) journalists covering this sport, as a result helping with the notability of its participants.

    In other words, there wouldn't be a Knowledge (XXG), if there was no articles to cite. And there wouldn't be those cited articles if there was no authors/journalists that write them. Zafir94 (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
    I am not entirely sure that just because Knowledge (XXG) cites this person's work, he's automatically eligible for an article. Has there been any coverage on Iskenderov himself? Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 01:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
    You should probably once again review this section on your talk page previously left for you by experienced editors, admins. Zafir94 (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
    You are confusing "using his work" on wikipedia with being notable himself. As cited in the failed proposal Knowledge (XXG):Notability_(journalists): This would include far too many journalists. For example, Lethwei World is the most respected website and the authority for Lethwei, the founder and editor in chief is a Burmese named Aung Mint Sein. His articles are used as coverage in many articles on wikipedia to establish WP:GNG, but it does not make him notable and does not make him pass WP:GNG himself. One day Lethwei World might have a wiki, similar to Fightmag (where Parviz works), but it doesn't justify a stand alone page for Mr. Aung Mint Sein nor for Parviz Iskenderov. helping with the notability of its participants does not make them notable. By the way, the fact that we spent time on his Journalist aspect proves also that there is no claim to notability for his career as a fighter. He doesn't pass WP:NKICK. Lethweimaster (talk) 10:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
    I have read that section on my talk page, and I follow its advice. That remark you made has absolutely no relevance in this discussion.
    Also, I 100 percent agree with the editor above me. Please take a look at Knowledge (XXG):BLUDGEON Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
    Nothing really to reply to a "participant" whose "participation" appears to be only tagging/agreeing with everything to be deleted. Zafir94 (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
    1. Your claim "Lethwei World is the most respected website and the authority for Lethwei" is just your opinion, which basically shows bias. Neither this website really appears as an independent reliable source or a notable publication.
    2. Nobody said that if someone's articles are cited on Knowledge (XXG) makes them notable. Unfortunately, you seem to be missing the point established above.
    3. "The fact that we spent time on his Journalist aspect" proves that the person is versatile, and this aspect is in fact proves that it is an important part of bio of a living person.
    4. Further, in my opinion, it would be fair to say that WP:NKICK needs a thorough review - based on its current (as of writing) criteria practically every articles on Knowledge (XXG) fails.
    5. It was me, who nominated this page for deletion, in order to have a proper discussion, so the administrators can make a final decision.
    6. Would be good if other members reviewed the article and the above, and also participated in this discussion. Zafir94 (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete He's not notable as a martial artist and I don't believe he meets WP:GNG. I see articles written by him, but to be WP notable he needs to have articles written about him. Papaursa (talk) 16:37, 5 September 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. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

David Meyer (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)

As with his brother, Anthony Meyer (actor) (also AfD'd here), I was trying to substantiate the article's claim that he was born in Watford. In doing so, I discovered that I could find absolutely no significant coverage about him, and his roles, like his brother's do not appear to be significant enough to pass WP:NACTOR.

I checked all the usual Google suspects, as well as WMF Library, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, British Newspaper Archive, and Newspapers.com and found nothing, even when adding specific terms like "Watford" or "Octopussy". Please note that he is not, so far as I can tell, the David Meyer of Dover who has quite a few hits on Newspapers.com. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. QuietHere (talk) 03:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

90% of actors don't have what you could call extensive biographical coverage, it's time the guidelines were updated to acknowledge this. Actors who are mentioned in dozens of reliable sources from many notable films typically are acceptable. I was discussing this recently with SusunW that most biographies don't have the coverage we want but you have to put bits and pieces together. Knowledge (XXG) is better off having this than not.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Im not entirely sure that i can agree with your opinion. The sources that support the pages of the more notable actors, contain not just passive mentions, but entire opinions on the impact theese actors have or had. If, in order to establish the notability of one person, you have to (your own words) "put bits and pieces together", then that's proof that this person is just not notable. Knowledge (XXG) is not better off having an article about everyone who starred in some sorta role, based on just routine coverage. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
If 90% of actors don't have extensive biographical coverage, we shouldn't have pages for 90% of actors. You don't get a Knowledge (XXG) page just for doing a job, whether that job is appearing in movies, being a CEO, or playing sports. GNG is the governing standard for biographies except where explicit exceptions (NPOL, NPROF) have been carved out. We literally just finished litigating this with the recent NSPORTS RFC, and I'm starting to think we need a NACTOR RFC as well. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Then there's hundreds of thousands of biographies on Knowledge (XXG) which should be deleted based on the lack of "extensive coverage" criteria then. Only the top actors tend to have biographies and massive amounts of coverage. Many of our guidelines are contradictory and merely the opinion of a handful of editors, and could quite easily be updated/replaced. The main criteria should be "is there enough coverage to write a minimum start class half credible encyclopedia article about that person", and "has this actor had any notable leading roles in films and stage performances?"? The reality is that a very large number of biographies can be written but don't have detailed articles about them. Some people would prefer it if Knowledge (XXG) strictly only covered the most important content of course, you have a point. But Knowledge (XXG) clearly isn't what you want it to be with its 6.5 million articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Then there's hundreds of thousands of biographies on Knowledge (XXG) which should be deleted based on the lack of "extensive coverage" criteria then. That is exactly what I'm saying, yes. Quality is far more important than quantity. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. The most important content should be quality first before we grow and go for quantity, but Knowledge (XXG) hasn't developed like that.. There's a theatrical article in PDF about the Isaac Newton role at:

www.nature.com › articles by P Ball · 2011 — Isaac Newton perplexes and fascinates ... David Meyer, one of three actors — including a woman — who play different facets of Isaac Newton ... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Meyer isn't even discussed in the text of that article! He's mentioned in a caption. Come on, man. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
The role is discussed though and it's reviewed in a major journal as a notable play/role.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
The play is being reviewed in a major journal. Not one word of that review is devoted to Meyer's performance. His name literally does not appear except in a caption. It is the absolute epitome of a trivial mention. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
His role is notable enough for a full page in a major journal!! It's a science journal so of course it's going to be written from the viewpoint of Newton. I'm sure there are reviews about the play and his performance in theatrical publications/newspapers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
And if there are, I'm sure you'll be able to find some and post them here, but so far you've produced a lot of sizzle and absolutely zero steak, so I'm not exactly holding my breath. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
  • SchroCat, if that is who you are, you ought to have the experience to know that number of references does not correlate in any way to quality of references, and frankly this is an embarrassing argument for you to be making. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is me. There's nothing embarrassing about my !vote, although perhaps I should have been clearer about it. The number and range of references referring to him provide a certain weight, rather than just an ephemeral mention. The number and weight of these smaller references get it over the GNG hurdle in my opinion; I've also run a few additional media searches and found a partial profile in a local UK newspaper and an interview with him in The Independent - as a UK broadsheet, it's a reliable source. I also looked at his brother but he comes no-where near enough GNG for me to say the same thing there. This Meyer is a bit different. That's just my take on it, but obviously people's mileage differs. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 09:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
You're the one who hasn't looked at the sources then. Which Twin is Tony?". The Guardian. 2 February 1985. p. 13 Newspapers.com . WP:SIGCOV says " Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. " ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Ahem! A director who works in tandem with Richard Hickox on a Britten opera at Sadler's Wells is not notable? Come off it! Tim riley talk 19:06, 4 September 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 14:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Jayda Brown (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, sources are interviews or trivial coverage. Avilich (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 30 August 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Anthony Meyer (actor) (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)

In trying to substantiate the article's claim that he was born in Watford, I discovered that I could find absolutely no significant coverage about him, and his roles do not appear to be significant enough to pass WP:NACTOR.

I checked all the usual Google suspects, as well as WMF Library, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, British Newspaper Archive, and Newspapers.com and found nothing under both "Anthony Meyer" and "Tony Meyer", even when adding specific terms like "Watford" or "Octopussy" (which appears to be his most significant role). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I have also listed his brother, David Meyer, at AfD here.

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Valerie Tian (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 non notable actress. Not much coverage about her. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:36, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 30 August 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 05:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Mikhaila Bowden (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:BASIC, WP:NSPORT. Avilich (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Work 23:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

It would be very helpfull if you provided us the other sources you claim you found, @Das osmnezz: (edit:i initialy pinged the wrong user, sorry!) Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
@Handmeanotherbagofthemchips your ping of @Das osmnezz likely did not work because your signature was still the same from the first ping. Basically, if your first ping is not correct, the best solution is to undo the edit and redo it or ping the user in your edit summary. I have pinged them again for you in this response. Eddie891 Work 15:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Ahh, got it, many thanks. Again, sorry for pinging you, it was an error! :) Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
No worries, happens to the best of us! Eddie891 Work 15:33, 31 August 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 Delaware and Hudson Railway. There's a clear consensus that a stand-alone article is not warranted, but no consensus to delete, hence a merge seems to be the way to go. Randykitty (talk) 14:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Delaware and Hudson Roster (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 is a fairly clear violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and lacks anything besides primary or otherwise unreliable sources. Knowledge (XXG) is not a locomotive roster hosting service. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:44, 30 August 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. The "keep" closure notwithstanding, a possible merge can still be discussed on the article's talk page. Randykitty (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Howard Parrish (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 sources are from Stars and Stripes, which lacks WP:INDEPENDENCE. Other sources are lacking, does not appear to meet WP:GNG. A loose necktie (talk) 07:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Georgia (U.S. state). Shellwood (talk) 08:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Merge to 6th Port Headquarters. The nomination lacks WP:COMPETENCE. The contention that Parrish wrote Stars and Stripes, a major newspaper, is utterly absurd. Nor is the article written from a single source. Normally that would rate a speedy close, but I am not convinced that sufficient biographical material exists to create an article on the subject. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
    I don't see the nomination contending Parrish WROTE Stars and Stripes, but rather that the article was solely sourced FROM Stars and Stripes. That isn't accurate, but the majority of sources are Stars and Stripes. Unless, of course, there's another nomination out there that didn't come through correctly. Intothatdarkness 16:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
    By saying that Stars and Stripes is not independent of the subject, the nominator is indeed claiming that the subject of the article is the writer of Stars and Stripes. Most likely, the nominator is unaware of what is meant by independent of the subject. Or, for that matter, the fact that the sources used in the article are irrelevant to a determination of WP:GNG, since that depends on the existence of sources, not whether they are actually used in the article. And you're quite right; it isn't the only source used in the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
    Still...was it necessary to go after the nominator? A simple "Merge...subject not notable on his own" would have easily sufficed. Intothatdarkness 21:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
  • This was my first whole page, I was shocked that it was nominated for deletion within minutes after I created it. I don't see how any one could have read it and checked the citations so quickly. I would have hoped that giving it some time it might grow some citations, their must be more about this decorated veteran in 2 wars. I figured that if it doesn't grow, it could be merged into the the 6th Port Headquarters as Hawkeye7 suggested. I would love to see this get a little time and see if it grows. We really need to preserve history as best we can so future generations can have a valid, factual source for this kind of history. These units were so critical in the support of the troops with supplies, food and other critical items, basically thrown into a job that had little training. Without these support troops and the Col that brought them over, the war supply chain would have stalled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kleebis007 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
    Sure, and I have written a bit about them in Allied logistics in the Southern France campaign. Actually, it is not uncommon for articles to be nominated for deletion soon after being deleted. Or even deleted. The New Page Patrol (NPP) goes through the newly created articles. The first hurdle you have to get over is what we call a "credible claim of notability", and the best way to do that is with a first sentence that tells the NPP why the subject is worthy of an article. They won't check the citations. You managed to do that. In fact, I was the one who marked it as reviewed. However, you now have to make that case it passes GNG. Here, you have a problem, because we just can't find any biographical information about hi, It would be different if he had managed to get promoted to brigadier general. (Also I would be interested in locating a copy of the Men on the Job. I've told the MilHist Bot to look for it for me.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‡ El cid, el campeador 13:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To invite scrutiny of the newly presented sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep (retracted my closure to vote instead) as to me, the sources provided do not seem objectionable from a GNG standpoint. Obviously independent of the subject, sigcov is visible, seem to be secondary sources, and The Atlanta Constitution seems to be reliable. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:25, 7 September 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 Lady Godiva#Images in art and society. Liz 05:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Another mostly unreferenced violation of WP:IPC/MOS:POPCULTURE, i.e. pretty random list of media mentioning Lady Godiva (ex. "In the 1970s TV series Maude, the opening song, sung by Donny Hathaway, includes the lyrics, "...Lady Godiva was a freedom rider, she didn't care if the whole world looked."" or "Sliding Doors Gwyneth Paltrow's character says 'like lady shagging Godiva'", and worse, like "Home Time, a 2009 sitcom filmed and based in the city" - perhaps a misplaced reference to Coventry?). As an article, this fails WP:GNG. As a list, WP:LISTN. Note that aside from the usual list of mostly trivial appearances, this article also features a short section on Lady Godiva as a patron of engineers, and longer on her prominence in Coventry, both badly referenced. Something from this could be perhaps merged to the main article on Lady Godiva, which could probably use an "in popular culture" section, but I am skeptical whether anything from the current mess is easily salvagable. My recommendation is to do a redirect, without deleting history; maybe one day, when someone feels like creating such a section in the main article, they can check this mess and find a few tidbits of use. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep, merge, or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:08, 30 August 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 05:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Lack of in-depth independent coverage. The sources are all articles written by him, or are completely or primarily interviews, or very minor mentions. MB 05:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 05:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 06:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Weak keep: The author's views and works have received substantial coverage in prominent secondary sources. But I also conceded that most of them are completely or primarily interviews.--IndyNotes (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
    • Interviews are primary sources and are not independent and therefore do not count towards notability. ––FormalDude talk 08:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
      There is no policy or guideline that says that. The best we have is an essay WP:INTERVIEW and it has a section for Notability Knowledge (XXG):Interviews#Notability which says "if the material the interviewer brought to the table is secondary and independent, contributes to the claim that the subject has met the requirements laid out in the general notability guideline." One has to look at the type of interview and gauge it. For example Time Out is "merely quoting" blocks of text with little added by the journalist. Same with BK Magazine and Thailand Insider. Splendid Table and CNN are less clear as the journalist is more involved making commentary or responding to what the person said. The other thing is the essay says "A multitude of interviews with a breadth of styles shows a wide range of attention being given to the subject and can be considered as evidence of notability." For some reason this person has a lot of interviews, sources are choosing to pay attention to them, even if individually some interviews are "merely quoting" blocks of text as a whole they might show a different picture. -- GreenC 16:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
I ask the closer to allow at least one extra day, I started a bit of organizing and located an image on commons, submitted for ARS help as well. Lightburst (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:00, 30 August 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. ✗plicit 23:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Michael Young Jr. (American football) (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)

Undrafted, currently unsigned. Has not plaued a single professional game. Sourcing is database and routine transactions. Fails WP:GNG Slywriter (talk) 21:51, 30 August 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 delete. Author requested deletion. (non-admin closure) Slywriter (talk) 23:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Jordan Mosley (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)

Undrafted, currently unsigned. Has not played a single professional game. Coverage is standard database and routine transaction. Fails WP:GNG Slywriter (talk) 21:49, 30 August 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 under WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Deanna B. Marcum (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 – a librarian and a managing director of a small nonprofit. Only references are to sources closely associated with the subject.

This is one of a number of biographies with questionable notability added by Rlhuffine. — kashmīrī  20:58, 30 August 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. The "keep" opinions must be discounted as unfounded in Knowledge (XXG) practice and guidelines. They argue that the subject is automatically notable as the head of the Small and Medium Business Development Agency (Azerbaijan), but there is no notability guideline to the effect that heads of government agencies are automatically notable (compare WP:NPOL). Sandstein 09:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Orkhan Mammadov (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)

fail to see how this ultra vanity spam article is notable - the subjects position isn't a notable one, he isn't elected to the position and even so, it's not inherently a notable position, the sourcing is worse than lackluster and again, complete vanity spam. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‡ El cid, el campeador 21:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 20:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep - Article should be edited to conform to the style encyclopaedia article (MOS). However this person is notable as head of a government entity. Also there is significant coverage Per Chagropango as is to be expected of the head of an "important" government agency.
PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 21:15, 30 August 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. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

William C. Burton (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)

Below GNG – author known for one book (a legal thesaurus). Recipient of three minor awards (all from small charitable organisations). One of major editors in this article seems to be the subject himself.

This is one of a number of biographies of questionable notability added by Rlhuffine. — kashmīrī  20:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep. notable former asst. attorney general, special prosecutor, and author. Article isn't great. Obviously, the man shouldn't be editing it himself. Still, this guy is basically the Roget of legal writing and legal libraries I think. Winner of the "Blackstone Award at the Friends of the Law Library of Congress Wickersham Awards Ceremony", doesn't really seem like a tiny insignificant thing. American Society of Legal Writers Lifetime Achievement Award, usually the other winners are like SCOTUS justices. Andre🚐 02:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
    The book may indeed warrant an article. But this is an author's bio, and my nomination centred on the WP:ANYBIO criteria. — kashmīrī  08:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
    Author meets the criteria. Plenty of sources for notability. Award-winning and frequently cited author. Your rationale is invalid. Andre🚐 14:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Move to draft to rewrite with better sources and excise COI, but otherwise leaning keep. BD2412 T 04:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep, deletion is not an alternative to cleanup. Rlhuffine edited this article once (to add a citation), he did not create it, contra the deletion reason given. Jahaza (talk) 08:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Would not be opposed to move/redirect to a new stub for Burton's Legal Thesaurus. --Jahaza (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep: The thesaurus appears to be used and recommended extensively at many universities which would mean that they meet WP:PROF #4. A few examples are available at , , , , , , , and . Also founding a notable award . Gusfriend (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
    @Gusfriend: This is not an article about the Thesaurus. This is a biography of one of its authors who has not been known for anything else - he does not have an independent notability from the Thesaurus. Hence this nomination. — kashmīrī  05:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
    I agree that the article is about the author and not the book but WP:PROF says The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
    I am making no comment about their meeting GNG but I believe that they meet WP:PROF as it is so widely recommended. Gusfriend (talk) 06:06, 4 September 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 Sportsnet. Liz 04:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

JZone (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)

Could not find any evidence of notability. No in-depth discussion in any reliable sources. Most of what I found were Knowledge (XXG) mirrors. Fails GNG. ‡ El cid, el campeador 19:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 20:50, 30 August 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 under WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Mary Lou Zoback (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)

Misusing Knowledge (XXG) as LinkedIn. Article fails WP:NACADEMIC – none of the subject's academic achievements warrant an encyclopaedia article. External links are used incorrectly and appear promotional.

This is one of a number of biographies of questionable notability added by Rlhuffine. — kashmīrī  20:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep Delete. Agree that article does have credible claim of significancy for reasons given by @David Eppstein; therefore, article is not proposed for speedy deletion per Knowledge (XXG):A7. However, does not appear to meet Knowledge (XXG):BIO, thus warranting deletion. First, much of subject's notability is temporary/transient/not sustained (Knowledge (XXG):NTEMP and Knowledge (XXG):NSUSTAINED), including prior participation on U.S. NWTRB. Subject appears mostly or completely inactive in research for several years per Google Scholar (aside from conference abstracts a few years ago), which would be the source of subject's notoriety. Second, I do not agree with the implication above (@David Eppstein, @Skynxnex) that any NAS member warrants an encyclopedia entry. Per Knowledge (XXG):ANYBIO, "...meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Some prominence in field, especially temporary prominence from years ago, is not sufficient notoriety on its own to warrant a bio page, especially one written like an autobiography. Tensorsum (talk) 03:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
    • That's surprisingly badly reasoned for someone who has been here for more than a few days. Albert Einstein and Alan Turing have been mostly or completely inactive in research for several years. And you may not agree that the night sky is dark, but the fact remains that WP:PROF does not depend on WP:BIO or WP:ANYBIO and explicitly lists membership in the National Academy of Sciences as a sufficient reason by itself to declare someone notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
      • If we accepted Tensorum's reasoning, we would also be debating the deletion of Isaac Newton who hasn't published a scientific paper in 500 years. Don't get me started on that Archimedes guy. It is too late at night to count the centuries. Cullen328 (talk) 06:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
        Nope. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST is not a valid argument in a deletion discussion, and I hope I don't have to explain you the difference between famous scholars of ancient Greece and today's minor academics with few independent sources and little in terms of published work. — kashmīrī  08:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
      • @David Eppstein, @Cullen328: I think you've missed my point. The point is that subject is not Isaac Newton. Moreover, whether you agree with them or not, WP:NTEMP and WP:NSUSTAINED are established Knowledge (XXG) criteria for determining notoriety. I of course agree with you that not having written a paper in 300 years does not matter for someone whose work is as significant to present thought as Newton's. But these Knowledge (XXG) guidelines are meant to allow us to determine which subjects have only transient importance, and that is absolutely relevant here. I don't have especially strong opinions about whether subject is notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia article. I simply argue for the reasons above that subject does not achieve Knowledge (XXG):BIO. If being a member of NAS and/or achieving professional awards are sufficient alone to warrant a bio page, then there would be a great number of pages to add, often for people whose contributions are of dubious impact for Knowledge (XXG). I hope that the commenters who argue for Keep can address some of these issues to everyone's satisfaction, ideally without the unnecessary personal attacks and sarcasm. It's obviously not ideal practice (or helpful to the discussion) to dubiously accuse an editor of WP:VAGUEWAVE and not following WP:BEFORE but then attack their (and others') reasoning/justification. Tensorsum (talk) 14:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
      @David Eppstein Can you please stop commenting on contributors? Your repeated PA aren't at all helpful in the discussion. A person's edit count or account age are utterly irrelevant to the subject of this discussion. — kashmīrī  08:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
      • @Kashmiri: Given that you immediately followed up this request by a PA on another contributor (Special:Diff/1107678513), I don't see why I should take your request to not participate seriously. But since you seem to have failed to understand, let me spell out more explicitly what I meant by the part about length of contributions. If such a comment had been left by a day-old contributor, I would have taken it as simple trolling and ignored it. Tensorsum's longer history here makes clear that the comment was intended in good faith and therefore more worthy of response. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
        You are not expected to ridicule anyone's reasoning or length of editing. Try to comment on content, not on contributors, even when you disagree with them. — kashmīrī  09:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
        If you somehow believe that comments like "intended in good faith and therefore more worthy of response" are intended to ridicule, I don't see the point in continued engagement with you. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
    I still don't see any policy-based reason (or subjective reason) for deletion. If I'm not mistaken, WP:NTEMP is not about the meaning of temporary/transient notability but rather once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. The NAS membership meets to WP:PROF, as others have mentioned: Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. ... 3. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences .... (formatting in original).
    And even more so, I believe she would meet WP:GNG based on the sources in the article which are good and what I saw with my ebsco search. But here are some specific ones
    • A to Z of Earth Scientists, Facts On File, Gates, 2009, pp 303. Is a multi-paragraph bio. gbook link. (Relevant pull quote: Mary Lou Zoback's service to the profession is unparalleled for someone so early in his or her career.)
    • Encyclopedia of World Scientists, Facts on File, Oakes, 2007, pp 798. Same publisher but a different, distinct multi-paragraph bio. gbook link.
    • American Women of Science Since 1900 vol 1, ABC-CLIO, Wayne, 2011, pp 997-998. Another just over one page bio covering her career. gbook link. (Already in article but I think important to note.)
    • Uncovering Plate Tectonics, Teacher Created Materials, 2007, pp 26. A book aimed at school-age children but it devotes a page to photo/brief bio of her. gbook link.
    I think the totality of her memberships (NAS, president of Geological Society of America (which seems to meet WP:NACADEMIC#6, which is enough by itself as well), James B. Macelwane Medal of the AGU (which has an article so is not unnotable), Arthur L. Day Medal (likewise), and Public Service Award from the GSA) easily meets WP:ANYBIO 1 and NACADEMIC#2; coverage of her work on the World Stress Map project, additional publications, and she has been the primary person quoted in news articles about earth quakes in three distinct time periods, meets ANYBIO 2; and the fact she's in enough encyclopedias of science and other listings effectively meets ANYBIO 3.
    especially one written like an autobiography is not a reason to delete an article. unverifiable or no longer valid (subject is not listed as a Stanford professor; subject stopped serving on U.S. NWTRB several years ago, despite prior article text implying active participation; others) the things that are verifiable easily meet notability requirements and "no longer valid" is not a reason to support no notability because of WP:NTEMP. Skynxnex (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
    • These points are good (thank you for being civil). They and some above incline me more toward Keep. Will continue watching this page over the coming days for alternate views. Tensorsum (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
      @Tensorsum FYI you should strike out your original !vote if you change your mind. (like this: <del>'''Delete'''</del>) Madeline (part of me) 18:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
      Thanks, @Maddy from Celeste. I'll change to Keep as you suggested based on the general consensus of commenters here. I was waiting for more comments here before making up my mind. Keeping this article seems marginal to me from a more common-sense reading (what exactly has the subject contributed to science and society that merits an encyclopedia entry? Leadership many years ago on a world stress map?), but I am persuaded by several commenters (@Skynxnex, @David Eppstein, @Cullen328) that the subject clearly meets at least the letter of Knowledge (XXG)'s notability guidelines, mostly because of citation counts, society awards and Academies membership. Tensorsum (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
    • However, an issue that continues to trouble me is that the reading of WP notability expressed on this page would seem to invite many more academic bio pages. There are a great many people who meet at least one of the WP:PROF criteria. Thoughts? Tensorsum (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
    Tensorsum, why would you be troubled by the fact that NPROF may invite many more academic bio pages? This is a project to build an encyclopedia after all, not to tear it down. Cullen328 (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
    @Cullen328 It's a philosophical question. While trying not to tear down an encyclopedia, how much noise drowns out the signal in WP pages? You make a good argument that the subject meets the letter of the notability guidelines (memberships, awards, citations), even though no one has made a strong case for subject's substantive, tangible contributions. Based on this discussion I'll probably add more WP bio pages. This discussion may be useful for adjudicating WP notability questions in the future more broadly. Tensorsum (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
    There are a large number of academic biographies on Knowledge (XXG) that would not pass the general WP:GNG that easily pass WP:PROF and at least one passes through AfC every day. This is a good thing because these academics are people who shape our lives through their research in untold ways. Gusfriend (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
    More than farmers, drivers and businesspeople? — kashmīrī  09:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
    If you wish to challenge the long-established WP:PROF consensus you should choose a different venue. You've presented no reason this particular article should be an exception to the SNG. pburka (talk) 12:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep: Easily meets WP:PROF. Gusfriend (talk) 08:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Snow keep. A member of the National Academy of Sciences is surely notable per WP:NPROF C3 -- indeed, this is one of the examples given of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society. (And there good reasons she was so elected; the citation record is a clear pass of WP:NPROF C1.) Would a passing administrator consider putting this discussion out of its misery? The only delete !vote is clearly contrary to our notability guidelines. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:31, 2 September 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 The Great Indian Laughter Challenge. Liz 01:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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

No indication of notability - she hosted one season of a reality show and acted in one film. The only articles I can find about her are mentions here and there, but there are no significant discussions of her or her career. I checked both Parizaad Kolah and Parizad Kolah. Suggest redirect to The Great Indian Laughter Challenge. ... discospinster talk 20:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 20:46, 30 August 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 05:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Harvington School (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 a primary school is sourced to two inspection reports and the school's own website. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and not found any independent sources to add. I do not think the article meets WP:GNG or WP:ORG. It has been tagged as needing more citations since January 2021. I cannot see any obvious merge candidates. Tacyarg (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

It looks like the article is going to take some work, though: here's two reliable sources saying it was founded in 1893: StAnselm (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
The other school name variations to search for included "Harvington College", "Harvington Prep", and "Harvington Preparatory", and given that the school's history spanned over a century, it was absolutely essential to search across multiple databases and books (as StAnselm did). Cielquiparle (talk) 23:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Yet another variation is "Harvington Girls' School" which seems to have been used briefly during the Fookes years. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Are theese more than passing mentions? if so, i'd vote keep as well. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 14:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 20:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep in light of numerous in-depth sources found by StAnselm about this 132-year-old school, as well as others such as this 1940 article on Harvington School re-opening and changing leadership/direction following its WWII evacuation, and this 1959 obituary about the former headmistress, which includes extensive detail about the school's evolution over the 48 years she was headmistress. Harvington Prep also received extensive media coverage on its April 2022 announcement that it would merge with nearby Durston House in September 2023. I have now rewritten and expanded the article significantly, so that it no longer reads like an advertisement (which was a serious problem previously), and have also included enough historical detail to potentially justify keeping this article even after it merges with Durston and "disappears". Cielquiparle (talk) 23:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Found yet another in-depth article published in 1970 when the headmistress retired and the parents formed a trust to purchase the school, which includes a lot of rich historical detail now cited within article. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:36, 4 September 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:41, 30 August 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:12, 30 August 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


Margaret 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)

The subject of this article was a Red Cross worker during WWII. She appears to be best known due to her diaries appearing in the Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library. But I don't believe this is enough on its own to grant notability.

While this person (or people with similar names) do appear to have some coverage, I can find nothing substantial. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator. While having a diary published or writing memoirs isn't enough to confer Knowledge (XXG) notability, DaffodilOcean has conducted some excellent research and editing to prove the subject is indeed notable. Chase's writing received attention in contemporary press reports, which is enough for me. Therefore I'm withdrawing my nomination. --MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, and United States of America. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep - She is also the author of her memoir ("Never Too Late"). She is mentioned (unsurprisingly) in multiple documents from the US national archive (e.g. which tells us there are papers in addition to the proofs and copy of her memoirs). She is a primary historical source. The nom.'s rationale is that she is best known for keeping a diary (deemed worthy of accession to a presidential library). Clearly keeping a diary - especially if the diary is published is enough to meet WP:GNG as few would argue that Anne Frank does not meet WP:GNG, and likewise Samuel Pepys, and no doubt others. Of course she is less well known than them (and they are the subject of secondary treatments), but her diary is an important primary historical source and notably accessioned. There should be no doubt that it, and therefore she is notable. I do see that the page is in a very poor state, but the existence of the memoir itself provides plenty of material (primary sourced). Whether she has attracted any biographers, I do not know. She gets a mention here and is the kind of subject that may well attract the attention of historians. Sources do not need to be in the article to meet WP:GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:55, 30 August 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Yaroslav Sychyov (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)

Contested draftify. Part of a spree of badly sourced BLPs created in the past 7 days on Russian footballers who happened to have played a small number of games in the Russian third tier.

WP:SPORTBASIC clearly states that Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. which is not the case here. WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:FPL are both deprecated (for what it's worth, this would have failed NFOOTBALL anyway as only the top 2 tiers are FPL). Google News has one trivial mention and the other 3 hits are about namesakes (and are passing mentions anyway). Nothing found in a Russian search either. Spiderone 19:16, 30 August 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 Military patrol at the 1924 Winter Olympics. History under the redirect should sufficient sourcing eventually be IDed Star Mississippi 03:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Goffredo Lagger (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 athlete. WP:BEFORE search didn't bring up third party sources to establish notability. With no medal record, doesn't meet WP:GNG. A redirect to Military patrol at the 1924 Winter Olympics would also make sense as an alternative to deletion. SPF121188 18:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Chrobek is now a redirect. Witkowski is less clear. In any event, see WP:WHATABOUT. Cbl62 (talk) 05:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep I expanded the article. In any case, the biathlete has nothing less than the other biathletes participating in the olympic competition (this: Military patrol at the 1924 Winter Olympics), whose "beautifully" pages remain. In my opinion, it should also be considered that the article is present in three other Wikipedias, even if I will be answered that in these the only Olympic participation is a sufficient requirement for the encyclopedicity but with us, after 15 years, this is no longer the case from today. --Kasper2006 (talk) 04:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your expansion efforts. However, WP:SPORTBASIC expressly states: "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." In this case, the sources you have added represent database sources rather than do not constitute WP:SIGCOV. Also, the fact that stub articles may exist about Lagger on other Wikipedias (e.g., here) does not alter the need to establish notability. Cbl62 (talk) 05:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
In my opinion you are wrong (you took a quick look and didn't stop). I added two authoritative sources, the first from a follow up site directed by an important journalist of Il Fatto Quotidiano (Clean Play - For those who really love sport) and the second even from the Fiamme Gialle website. --Kasper2006 (talk) 05:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Respectfully, the two sources you are now highlighting may be significant coverage of the "military patrol" event (the proposed redirect target) but not of Lagger individually. They each contain only a single passing references to Lagger. Such passing references are the antithesis of WP:SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 05:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 18:28, 30 August 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 04:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Atizaz Habib Khan (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 notability requirements as it fails WP:NCRIC.  Hamza Ali Shah  14:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 18:16, 30 August 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 07:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

UrduPoint (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 media outlet, I checked under the urdu name/spelling (اردو پوائنٹ) and found even less sourcing, which indicates to me that this is a complete notability fail despite the many attempts to spam it crosswiki. PICKLEDICAE🥒 18:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Unfortunately, not much evidence of notability. The previous AfD nomination was spammed by unexplained Keep votes, whose only rationale had to do with alexa rankings, and OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I highly suspect paid editing is involved here... Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Strongly Keep We have already discussed traffic and other things like Urdu point was among less than one dozen sites that are freely available in Pakistan on internet.org, in the previous nomination. After that now UrduPoint is the Official digital media partner of Multan Sultans in Pakistan Super League, the biggest sports event in Pakistan. There are 7.43 million subscribers and 2.29 billion video views of the UrduPoint Youtube channel. Facebook fans are also in millions. Here are some very credible links who source UrduPoint 1(Tribune), 2 (Dawn), 3 (rt.com) and 4 (unodc.org).--Ameen Akbar (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
    Facebook fans, traffic is worthless. PICKLEDICAE🥒 21:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, I know, but it give you little idea of its popularity. Its notability is not completely based on social media. UrduPoint is among top website of Pakistan since 22 years. Ameen Akbar (talk) 07:52, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - What we should not expect is a direct significant coverage of a news site on other rival news sites. Obviously, the competitors don't acknowledge each other's existence in the field. Therefore, we should look for separate criteria for a media outlet like UrduPoint. I have two points to make:
  • It is notable that the site is referenced as a reliable source in other national and international news media as mentioned by Ameen Akbar: 1(Tribune), 2 (Dawn), 3 (rt.com), and 4 (unodc.org)
  • Many Wikipedians (including me) find and cite UrduPoint as a reliable source while creating Pakistan-related articles. Deleting a news site's page will close the door to other content as well and this will definitely hurt the expansion of Knowledge (XXG). There must be a tool to find out how often UrduPoint has been cited on Knowledge (XXG) and this should be seen as a consensus of the community over a news source.

Insight 3 (talk) 03:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep, as per User:امین اکبر and User:Insight 3 above. USaamo 06:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I was not able to find anything significant on UrduPoint but Google Books points to a number of reliable books that cite it. I'm basing my weak keep argument on those high-level citations but I know this is not enough, and thus I don't have any problems with deletion either. Just adding my two cents, being considered a reliable source does not make any website a notable one on Knowledge (XXG). However, I agree that there should be some considerations about notability criteria about news portals. Why would any news portal (independent) think to cover any different news portal? ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with the comment that "we should not expect direct significant coverage of a news site on rival news sites". It is one of the largest and oldest digital media site in Pakistan. Thanks Fifthapril (talk) 13:43, 5 September 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Wolfgang Arndt (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)

advertisement for alt med practitioner. (This may be the first I've seen-we usuallly get MDs) The refs are absurd. DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 30 August 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 12:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Royal Exhibitors (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 production company. Imperfect Boy (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Beccaynr (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting as nom has been blocked as a sock
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Work 17:52, 30 August 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Howler (error) (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 isn't an article at all, but a loose collection of anecdotes on the general concept of error, with nothing to unite them beyond the use of the synonym "howler". The issues were thoroughly documented a decade ago on the talk page by User:Jnestorius. Some sourced bits and pieces may be mergeable into various articles in Category:Error, but this collection as such should not be in mainspace in the meantime; it can be userfied if desired. —swpb 17:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  • The claims in this proposal are supported with nothing more than flat statements of personal views, largely counterfactual. For example:
    • This isn't an article at all, but a loose collection of anecdotes on the general concept of error, with nothing to unite them beyond the use of the synonym "howler"
      Apart from the fact that the term is not used as a "synonym", which in any case does not in itself disqualify the material in the article, it is used as a term for a category. In context the term anecdotes as applied here, is nothing short of hand-waving denigration of relevant examples presented in appropriate contexts. Abuse is no substitute for criticism. Anyone claiming that there is nothing to unite them implicitly adopts the onus of demonstrating the lack, given that every example presented was shown in a particular context.
    • It also is wrong in claiming that there is nothing to unite them, and in the implied assertion that only one category of related items may be dealt with in any single article. The article in fact contains about nine distinct, but related, discussions of aspects of categories of howlers in the senses dealt with, each one thoroughly ref'd and with examples. Categorised illustrative items in context are quite distinct from a loose collection of anecdotes on the general concept... of anything. Granted that it takes a certain degree of comprehension to appreciate unifying themes, the lack of perception of the contexts only supports the attack if lack of the themes can be demonstrated; not necessarily in formal symbolic logic, but certainly in simple illustration.
    • The issues were thoroughly documented a decade ago on the talk page by User:Jnestorius
      They were nothing of the kind. Typical complaints were "original research", in response to correct references. If every reference to supporting material is to be regarded as OR, that would not leave much in WP. Then, given a reference, jn could do no better than carp: ...Hunt and Ash's books; this may prove that they wrote about howlers, but does not establish their prominence. How prominent do they have to be to be cited as references accessible to online users? jn cited the absence of the word "howler" in one dictionary, when it appears in others; that sort of thing is what we are to expect in "thorough documentation"???
    • Hardly any of jn's points survived refutation, and the remainder would not justify deletion of this article. If arbitrary sniping were to justify deletion, then hardly any valuable articles in WP would survive at all.
    • Some of jn's "issues" were simple incomprehension: where the text refers to Richard Feynman's "perfectly reasonable deviations from the beaten track", jn pointed out that RF never used the word "howler", when the quote had nothing to do with the context; RF was referring to the exact opposite.
    • In short jn's "documentation" were generally without merit, especially in context; most of them were dismissed out of hand, and the rest did nothing to justify deletion.
    • There have been a number of additions to the article since its first publication, and I have not checked them all; if it should be shown that some of them were indeed anecdotes with no substance worth discussion or adding anything to the readers' conception, then the appropriate response is a bit of editing, not deletion of the whole article.
    • The idea that the article could be included in a general article on "error" is perhaps worthy of discussion, but it is not as simple as it sounds. "Howler" is not a simile for "error": not every error is a howler; "howler" is a category of error with its own history and subtexts, as illustrated by the examples jn tried to dismiss as OR.
    • More relevantly, and possibly more validly, though this article does mention some related terms such as "boner", there are articles under similar terms. Error is not one such, and I suggest that its categories are so far removed from the sense of this article that it would be a disservice to the user to unite them. Blunder and Boner are not much better, though the idea of unification of some of them could possibly be discussed. I suggest however, that the user would be better served by hatnotes or links referring to the independent articles. The user might not want to wade through pages of discussion of different senses.
    • Please describe what exactly "userfied" means and implies. If it means anything like "made more useful and helpful to the user", I can only applaud, but justify how and why. JonRichfield (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
"Userfied" means moved into the User namespace, where it is not part of the encyclopedia and not indexed by search engines, but accessible to editors. —swpb 19:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. Once you strip away all the WP:OR, this is a pure WP:DICDEF. There is no real topic here...it just boils down to "sometimes people make major errors...here are some times when people used this particular synonym to describe them", if even that. For just one example of the egregious OR, take the section on ghost words. Nowhere do any sources describe this in relation to any "howler" phenomenon. The entire article is essentially a personal reflection essay, trying to tie together unrelated ideas where people just happened to use a specific word to refer to the general concept of "big mistake". 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Userfication per my comments from 10 years ago. I didn't bother engaging further with JonRichfield way back then because I got the impression it would take much less effort to appeal to other editors than to try to change JR's mind. Other editors will be able to judge which of JR and me better refuted the other's points in 2012. As regards JR's points in 2022:
    • Anyone claiming that there is nothing to unite them implicitly adopts the onus of demonstrating the lack No, per WP:SYN it's up to you to find a WP:RS that does unite them. You can't offer original research and suggest that anyone with a degree of comprehension can appreciate unifying themes; you need to cite an external source that actually does the unifying.
    • Typical complaints were "original research", in response to correct references To take one of many such examples, the only reference given for It is very likely that such mock self-mockery gave rise to the term Irish bull (as opposed to just any bull), which is reflected in works such as Samuel Lover's novel Handy Andy. is publication info for Handy Andy, which is "correct" as far as it goes but does not offer any evidence for the primary assertion "It is very likely that such mock self-mockery gave rise to the term Irish bull". In statements of the form , for example <ref>specific instance publication details</ref> there is no reference for .
    • How prominent do they have to be to be cited as references accessible to online users? There is no problem using Hunt or Ash as references for claims about howlers, but there is a problem using Hunt as a reference for claims about Hunt, or Ash as a reference for claims about Ash. ("accessible to online users" is irrelevant per WP:OFFLINE.)
    • jn cited the absence of the word "howler" in one dictionary It was your article text that says This article deals with the slang term in a sense that does not appear explicitly in the third edition of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (reprinted as corrected by Charles Talbut Onions 1967). It does however appear in more recent dictionaries. All I did was point out that it is irrelevant to mention a dictionary which omits the term.
    • Hardly any of jn's points survived refutation. As you remark later, most of them were dismissed out of hand, which is not the same as refutation.
    • Some of jn's "issues" were simple incomprehension If a reader fails to understand something one has written, one possible response is "this reader is too stupid or lazy, so their incomprehension can be ignored". A more useful response is "I must try to express myself more clearly to avoid such incomprehension".
    • Please describe what exactly "userfied" means and implies. Knowledge (XXG):Userfication
    jnestorius 20:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
    • I've changed my recommendation to Userfication. I think there is potential for an article restricted to "schoolboy howlers"; to get it started, JonRichfield may be the most knowledgeable on the topic. jnestorius 23:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete for similar reasons to the soon-to-be-deleted Preparation (principle). Complete unsalvageable original-synthesis WP:FRANKENSTEIN of everything called a howler. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:04, 5 September 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Tejas Thackeray (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:NOTINHERITED. Sources provided coverage to this person because of his father Uddhav Thackeray than the subject himself. Wareon (talk) 16:45, 30 August 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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

I am unable to find any coverage in reliable sources that indicates that WP:BIO or WP:NARTIST are met. SmartSE (talk) 14:53, 30 August 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Australian Baseball League Championships (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 incomplete article that would be better off as a list of champions. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:49, 30 August 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Tomás O'Maoldomhnaigh (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'm unable to find any coverage that would indicate that WP:NARTIST or WP:BIO are met. SmartSE (talk) 14:46, 30 August 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 2010–11 Australian Baseball League season. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

2010–11 Australian Baseball League regular season (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 need to have a separate "regular season" article on top of 2010–11 Australian Baseball League season. Merge any information deemed valuable and delete page. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Merge and redirect per nom, unfortunately not good enough to stand on its own. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:19, 31 August 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. Seems that workable coverage is discoverable. What matters isn't whether suitable sources are in the article already, but rather what can be discovered. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Marta Yanci (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)

|BLP with the only reference her own website Rathfelder (talk) 10:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment This academic text mentions that she has her own cooking show. Perhaps not the same Marta?
PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 13:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
As per the old version cited by @Kj cheetham, that is the same Marta. PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 13:39, 30 August 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 Glass Harp (band). (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Daniel Pecchio (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)

Violation of BLP. No significant coverage DavidEfraim (talk) 11:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC) struck confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:13, 30 August 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 01:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Chris O'Dea (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. Obscure filmmaker. More a hobbyist. Been on the cat:nn list for 10+ years. Never been updated. No coverage. Best documentary is a department prize at uni. Nothing of significance. scope_creep 10:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:11, 30 August 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:51, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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

An article on a business person. As noted on the article Talk page, there have been multiple instances of previous articles being deleted, under this and a variant name. (The present instance was created by Wiki.server92911, as was a previous version, with subsequent editing by Wikiserver2022, with both accounts removing notability tags.) Such coverage as is provided in references and found in searches only mentions the subject in relation to his spouse's parents, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Given the history, including a previous AfD ceasing after a CSD deletion, it seems worth taking this to a full AfD decision as to whether the subject is biographically notable. AllyD (talk) 12:36, 30 August 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 disambiguate. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 12:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Touch the Sun (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 lack of notability. Found no sources covering the album. At the very least I doubt it's notable enough to not be disambiguated while the TV series and the song are. QuietHere (talk) 12:23, 30 August 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 12:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Actors Movement Studio (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'm unable to find any coverage which indicates that WP:ORG is met. The article was seemingly created by an employee and most of the content has been unsourced for the last 13 years. SmartSE (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Doesn't appear to have been any significant cleanup/change since the Template:COI tag was added over a decade ago which is never a great sign to me. QuietHere (talk) 03:59, 31 August 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 12:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Jacob Hoff (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)

Actor BLP doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO- lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:56, 30 August 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 12:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Bear Smart Initiative (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 was reviewing this article and removing advertisement-like and primary-sourced sections when I saw that was how most of it was written. After a clean-up, it seems to fail WP:GNG, minor mentions in references online. Nythar 10:52, 30 August 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 06:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Camaquito (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, promotional article, minimal sources I could find. Nythar 08:57, 30 August 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 06:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Telecommunications in Martinique (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)

On the question of whether any article is possible on Telecoms here, the jury is out. I expect a wider article is possible, although perhaps taking a broader view of the issue, or as a paragraph in an article of the place. However this article is not that. Entirely unsourced, even if the figures were right, they are clearly out of date and what is presented is of limited significance. There is no curated information, no lead, just numbers that are all wrong. This must surely be a case where WP:TNT is required. I would suggest merge is not appropriate here as there is simply no mergeable content. Any attempt to merge would damage the merge target. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:57, 30 August 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 06:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Cachet Raynor (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:BLP1E; although the subject has multiple reliable sources, most originate from a single, non-notable, social media event. Nythar 07:49, 30 August 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 Blue Dragon Children's Foundation. ✗plicit 05:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Michael Brosowski (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. Not independently notable from Blue Dragon Children's Foundation, which he founded. Loksmythe (talk) 05:32, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:04, 30 August 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. BD2412 T 02:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Yuhanon Mar Meletius (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)

Couldn't find sources to meet WP:GNG. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

And this has now become a classic WP:HEY article. StAnselm (talk) 17:15, 1 September 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 lunar eclipses in the 21st century. Liz 04:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

June 2057 lunar eclipse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON. Needs significant in-depth secondary coverage. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:33, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:55, 30 August 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 lunar eclipses in the 21st century. ✗plicit 05:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

February 2056 lunar eclipse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON. No secondary independent in-depth coverage, only data related to the prediction. Best to merge into a list. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:27, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

This page was made because if I didn't create it, nobody would have for years. I added an external link. Eric Nelson27 (talk) 01:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
This page: Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/May 2086 lunar eclipse will give you an idea of why this has been nominated. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:29, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
@Eric Nelson27:, your argument is precisely what the essay WP:TOOSOON is about: If nobody would create it for years, and nobody read it for years, then at present we have no need for a standalone article about it. I personally hope and am optimistic that Knowledge (XXG) will continue to exist for decades to come; so when in let's say 2050 people start to become interested in the next lunar eclipses, and some newspaper reports that "in 2056 there will be one" – then, but only then, will this article here make sense to be created, as it has nothing else notable about it (as opposed to, say, the Heat death of the universe, which also lies (even further!) in the future but is actively being talked about already). I am aware you meant well, and it's a shame that your hard work should be gone for now (to be ressurected in 2050?), but it's better for the encyclopedia.
@Rsjaffe: Since you pointed to the other deletion discussion which was about an article nearly identical to this one, and ended in a merge, why did you not consider merging this as well? I don't think you have to go through AfD for that, and I don't see why you would expect this one here to go any different from the other one. Not that I'm angry, I'm just curious about why you chose this path. --LordPeterII (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
I might have made a mistake. However, I did this because the author probably would have objected to merge, and we would have ended up here anyway. This seemed quicker. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Hmm, yeah, if you put it that way it seems reasonable. I hope we can get some sort of "precedent" here, so maybe for the other "non-imminent future lunar eclipses" (I think there are some more around) a regular merge would suffice. --LordPeterII (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
I haven't even tried working on articles already in Knowledge (XXG), just new articles. There's lots on future eclipses, e.g., May 2170 lunar eclipse. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:55, 30 August 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 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines national football team#Coaching history. Liz 05:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:52, 30 August 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. The source analyses are persuasive. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep - Per @Ortizesp:. Clearly significant figure in St Vincent and the Grenadines football (confirmed by 6), 2nd most capped Saint Vincent and the Grenadines international ever with 63 appearances and 6th highest Saint Vincent and the Grenadines international scorer ever and definitely has offline sources, having consistently scored during an extensive pro career abroad and played 16 years for national team with double digit caps and been only Vincentian to ever play in Middle East. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 02:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
    Your source is a database, which cannot be used to gauge WP:SIGCOV Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep meets wp:anybio by 63 international appearances for the national team which is fully recognised by FIFA for 34 years. Few info on the Internet but there should be option to find and create significant coverage per WP:Hey. Few years ago ENwiki was lenient for footballers who played few matches for national team not recognised by FIFA.Dawid2009 (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
    WP:NFOOTBALL has been phased out. Your rationale is no longer valid. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. One non-trivial source is not enough for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 01:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete, per JoelleJay. BilledMammal (talk) 05:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment How about this google books source? Velox is also mentioned in some English books and broadly covered in LAtimes , I think all those books and sources are better than news coverage (suggested above, partly reliable). What I can see "keep" is reasonable option, eventually redirect to national team to keep content in history but certainly not delte. I recently supported deletion of many footballers at Afd but I have really too serious doubts to remove soccer player with (!) 63 official international appearances! Dawid2009 (talk) 06:47, 4 September 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 05:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:51, 30 August 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 newspapers in Bangladesh. Selecting Redirect as an ATD in case more reliable sourcing becomes available in the future. Liz 06:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The Daily Tribunal (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 Daily Tribunal which has received no independent coverage in reliable sources. If you look at the "newspaper" it is a collection of plagiarized articles presented as their own. The claim that it is the 5th highest circulating English language newspaper in Bangladesh could not be verified and is inaccurate according to the List of newspapers in Bangladesh. Bangladesh is a Bengali-speaking nation as such, the largest circulated Bengali newspaper sells more than half a million copies, while the largest circulated English newspaper, The Daily Star, sells a little over 40 thousand.

The creator has been trying to write an article on the newspaper and its editor for over a year. Both are non-notables. The persistence shows clear evidence of conflict of interest. Not a single independent reliable source has been shown to mention this "newspaper" let alone provide the significant coverage needed to pass notability guidelines. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Generally, most of the newspapers in Bangladesh do not want to write anything about other newspapers. As a result, it is usually difficult to find reference. In addition, it is jointly the 5th largest English newspaper in Bangladesh as per the government list. However, the article can be kept. Sakib214 (talk) 07:50, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Difficulty in finding references is not an argument in favor of keeping an article. Even if the other newspapers don't write about this newspaper, there might be magazines, books, or independent reliable websites that do. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 05:33, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Redirect to List_of_newspapers in Bangladesh. The UNB reference, which gives the circulation numbers used in the article, shows that it's the ninth largest. It can't be both the fifth largest and the ninth largest, although it's likely the two sources refer to the circulation at different points in time. Without qualifying that in the article text it seems to contain information that contradicts its sources, and in any case there isn't really enough reliable information to justify a standalone article at this time in my opinion. WaggersTALK 11:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
    The circulation numbers of The Financial Express and The Daily Sun jointly bagged 2nd position (41,000). In this way The Independent, The Daily Observer and The Daily Bangladesh Post bagged 4th position (40,550). In the same way The Asian Age and The Daily Tribunal bagged 5th position (40,500). More than one newspaper bagged the same position according to the circulation numbers. That's why it creates confusion. But this happens for the newspapers. Sakib214 (talk) 15:34, 30 August 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 Poison Ivy (character)#In other media. Liz 06:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Poison Ivy in other media (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)

What makes this pass WP:NLIST? Nothing I can see. Why was it split off from Poison Ivy (character)? Length? The solution is to cut fancruft (note that Poison Ivy article doesn't even have a reception section, it's all plot summary and fanboy's OR). Also, effectively this is very similar to "Foo in popular culture", listing the character's appearances in various media, violating WP:IC/MOS:POPCULTURE. Quite a few articles in Category:Batman in other media are indentical, too. Sigh. The best I can say is that it should be merged back to Poison_Ivy_(character)#In_other_media, and if anyone has concerns about length, just delete crufty, unreferenced plot summary that abounds in both articles. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:25, 30 August 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. Nominated by a confirmed blocked sockpuppet with no remaining deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 22:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Redveil (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)

Unable to locate WP:THREE in the article. Fails GNG DavidEfraim (talk) 06:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 05:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Keep per Doomsdayer's list of sources, easily clears WP:SINGER. QuietHere (talk) 03:44, 31 August 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 06:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL Dr vulpes 05:11, 30 August 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 dams in Japan#Miyagi Prefecture. Liz 06:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Kamiohsawa Dam (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 claim or evidence of notability that would satisfy GEOLAND or GNG. This appears to be a rather small and insignificant dam copied over from a database listing. –dlthewave ☎ 05:09, 30 August 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 dams in Japan#Miyagi Prefecture. Liz 06:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Yamanashi Dam (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 claim or evidence of notability that would satisfy GEOLAND or GNG. This appears to be a rather small and insignificant dam copied over from a database listing. –dlthewave ☎ 05:07, 30 August 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 06:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

List of 2022 This American Life episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
List of 2021 This American Life episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOT. This is nothing but a list of episodes with no encyclopedic value. MB 03:21, 30 August 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 05:59, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Essential Teachings (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)

Although the Dalai Lama is notable, individual publications are not notable simply because he is the author. In this case there is little to say about this volume, which is why it remains a stub after 12 years. There is nothing that makes this book notable beyond being teachings of the notable figure. It is not widely cited or the subject of independent analysis. The book is already cited on the Dalai Lama page so there is nothing here to merge. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Just to add, I oppose merge or redirect in this case, and this is why I went to AFD and not a bold redirect. "Essential Teachings" is so generic a title that I don't think it is reasonable that the redirect goes to the Dalai Lama. That would seem to violate WP:NPOV because it could be read as Knowledge (XXG) saying that essential teachings are the property of the Dalai Lama specifically. I think it needs to be straight deletion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:16, 30 August 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. This is a great example of a case where it's not the number of !votes that count but the content and policy basis behind the discussion itself. At one point the discussion looked like it could have been closed as a WP:SNOW keep. However it is telling that 10 days after the carefully reasoned analysis from HighKing and others that challenges the basis of the previous keep !votes, there hasn't been a single argument put forward to counter the case for deletion. WaggersTALK 13:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

UP Halcyon (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)

A previous AfD was closed as redirect, but overturned and relisted at deletion review. I am filing this new AfD as a procedural nomination only; I offer no opinion on the notability of this article. Please see the linked AfD and DRV to review the discussions there. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Hey SBKSPP, just to clarify. At the DRV, some editors (who are much better versed in the minutae of Wiki processes that others) pointed out that the original argument for deletion (that there was no sourcing) as provided by the original nominator had been addressed - therefore the AfD should be closed. While I don't agree with that reasoning - an AfD evolves and develops and we had moved on to examining sourcing - it was decided to open a new AfD. The arguments at the previous AfD do apply to this one as you can see from my response below. Also, no, if this page ends up being deleted, attempts to recreate it will result in actions to prevent the page from being created and might also result in actions taken to prevent editors from recreating this topic, even under different article titles. HighKing 20:30, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
I'd have stood with my vote if only it was relisted. If this page ends up being deleted, anyone can create a redirect out of it anytime. But times have changed since it was re-nominated. I believe per above arguments it now meets NORG. You can never change my mind. SBKSPP (talk) 01:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep per above as already meets the criteria standards after a revision fixed. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Pinging previous participants who may not be aware of the DRV and this relisting (which in my opinion should have been done when this new AfD was created. Whatever). Pinging Lenticel, Oaktree b, Dream Focus, MrsSnoozyTurtle, JWilz12345, Superastig HighKing 19:55, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
    IMO, the previous discussion should've been relisted. With that, the issues in the DelRev can be easily pointed out there. This discussion seems to lose steam after the article was renominated. ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 04:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment still not seeing notability. Sources are brief mentions. Could be a subsection in the College's article perhaps. Oaktree b (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete In the previous AfD I provided a detailed analysis of why the sources (including the nine additional references) fail NORG criteria for establishing notability. At the end of the previous AfD, Rublamb said to "agree that more sources are needed to prove notability". Great! Yet I note that no additional references have been added since the previous AfD and there's a bunch of editors !voting to Keep and repeating the previous simplistic reasoning. Lets be clear, especially in light of the previous AfD. Reasoning such as "credible sources", "new sources", "now has nine references", "meets the criteria standards", etc, fail to address the elephant in the room from the previous AfD - that not a single reference meets NORG criteria for establishing notability. From the previous AfD, Rublamb put forward a number of arguments as to notability - it appears to me from the reasoning provided above that the Keep !voters have decided to simply parrot those reasons and other comments from DRV. I'll therefore address the arguments put forward by Rublamb previously (and to a lesser extent the previous arguments from Jax MN but which also applies to the Keep !voters above too).
    • When Rublamb says that the sources qualify as ;;"indepdendent and reliable";; and that those ;;"citations back much of the previously unsourced content of the article, and also document the work undertaken by the organization";;, that's an important part of writing any article and a good thing. But, that is mixing up the difference between references used to support content in the article and references used to establish notability. While just about any reliable source may be used for the former purpose, not all sources may be used to establish notability. For example, Rublamb says that two of the added sources (out of the nine that Jax MN mentions above) "prove that this group has partnered with" some organizations. Great. That's using sources to support content as per the former purpose, but that's not the same as saying the also fulfill the latter purpose. Establishing notability requires sources that meet certain additional and more stringent criteria.
    • Rublamb also said in the previous AfD that those sources "collectively builds a case for notability". That comment demonstrates a misunderstanding of NORG criteria - we don't examine sources collectively. In the previous AfD I posted the requirements from NORG but for convenience, here are some of the pertinent points again. WP:SIRS says that *each* source (for the purposes of notability) must meet *all* the criteria. Failing any one of the criteria (e.g. failing CORPDEPTH or ORGIND, etc) means that source does not help to establish notability.
    • Rublamb said that "a university and its student organizations are independent of each other". There's a couple of things to say about this. First, that's not exactly true in this case. The university itself decides which student organizations exist - the following appears on the university website: "Student organizations will only be considered by the college if it complies with and abides by the rules set by the university and the college". Can't therefore say that the two are independent much less unaffiliated which is important because the test established in WP:ORGIND requires specific content (which must be in-depth and significant) that is attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.
    • Rublamb previous said "UP Halcyon cannot control what the university PR office writes" which is true but shows that there is a misunderstanding of the criteria. The "importance" of the publisher is largely irrelevant - it is the content which is important. For example, you can have an article written by the New York Times but that doesn't automatically establish notability. We look at the content. If the article doesn't have the type of in-depth original and independent opinion/analysis/fact checking/investigation/etc we require, then the NYT article will not assist in establishing notability.
In summary, none of the arguments bear up to scrutiny. None of the Keep !voters can point to any specific reference which meets NORG criteria for establishing notability. Not one. The topic fails NORG. HighKing 20:26, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there is sufficient input here, @HighKing:'s note about a belated notification has merit, so making sure interested editors can weigh in.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:14, 30 August 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. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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

No indication of notability - 19th is hardly a significant world cup ranking. No WP:SIGCOV located on a search. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Knowledge (XXG):Notability (people)#Basic criteria says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
    1. "Tenpin Bowling: Yeung gives perfect reply". South China Morning Post. 1988-09-12. p. 37. ProQuest 1538686460.

      The article notes: "Banned kegler Melody Yeung dealt the Hongkong Ten-ping Bowling Congress (HKTBC) a slap in the face when she won the AMF World Cup selection competition at Kwai Fong Bowling Centre yesterday. The HKTBC banned Yeung and fellow national team member Norideen Kitchell from all international competitions, so it is unlikely that the Asian Amateur Championships' gold medalist will be flying Hongkong's flag in the finals in Mexico. ... Yeung was banned until the end of next year for accepting a television station's interview without informing HKTBC officials ... Yesterday, Yeung again proved she is the best woman bowler in the territory with a nine-game score of 1,862, including a 120 points bonus, to earn the top seed position for the step-ladder final."

    2. Dykes, John (1987-11-30). "Tenpin Bowling: Experience tells as Lau repels Pang's challenge". South China Morning Post. p. 38. ProQuest 1538325458.

      The article notes in a photo caption: "Melody Yeung on her way to retaining her women's title in the San Miguel Hongkong Open yesterday, where she beat second seed Carmen Tang." The article notes: "In the women's final, Melody Yeung demonstrated her current dominance of the sport by successfully defending her title. Yeung who earlier in the month came sixth in the World Cup in Kuala Lumpur, saw off second-seeded Carmen Tang in the final by 215 pins to 205. ... but Yeung, who had scored an impressive 2,263 total after six rounds, kept her form to lift the coveted trophy."

    3. Kitchell, Norideen (1987-05-16). "Tenpin Bowling: Gunderson grabs title". South China Morning Post. p. 20. ProQuest 1538233740.

      The article notes: "But she has yet to confront Melody Yeung, who together with Che is considered Hongkong's two most outstanding woman bowlers."

    4. Lakey, Chris (1988-08-11). "Bowling: National trio lose appeals". South China Morning Post. p. 30. ProQuest 1538659356.

      The article notes: "Hongkong's top woman player Melody Yeung, who captured a gold medal at the Asian tournament, was suspended until the end of 1989 for accepting media interviews without official consent following her singles victory. ... But Yeung and Cheung are not as lucky because they have been told that they cannot bowl at the Singapore International Open Championships or the Star Open in Bangkok this month. Yeung was scheduled to play in both tournaments ... The two, however, have indicated they will go ahead with their trips, although they cannot bowl."

    5. Sallay, Alvin (1994-10-11). "Melody right on song in bid for medal". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2022-08-28. Retrieved 2022-08-28.

      The article notes: "Melody Yeung Ka-ling yesterday kept alive Hong Kong's hopes of winning a medal at tenpin bowling when she finished in fourth place at the end of the first eight games of the women's Masters competition. ... Melody is the only Hong Kong competitor in the women's event to qualify for the Masters, by virtue of finishing among the top 16 bowlers after the total scores of each bowler in the singles, doubles, trios and fives had been added up. In other words, consistency is what matters, and so far Melody has been consistent, even if she has nothing to show for her efforts."

    6. Dykes, John (1988-08-12). "Banned Melody pins her hopes on legal alleys". South China Morning Post. p. 32. ProQuest 1538659307.

      The article notes: "Top international Melody Yeung is set to take her battle with the Hongkong Tenpin Bowling Congress (HKTBC) into the courtroom. The HKTBC on Sunday handed Yeung a 16-month ban from international competition for accepting media interviews without official consent during the FIQ Asian Amateur Championships in Hongkong last month."

    7. "Melody: Melody strikes winning chord". South China Morning Post. Agence France-Presse. 1987-11-10. p. 36. ProQuest 1538313205.

      The article notes: "Hongkong's Melody Yeung performed superbly in first-day action at the women's World Cup tenpin bowling championship in Kuala Lumpur yesterday. The 26-year-old sales clerk defied the hot conditions to end the day in second place after six games, just 35 pins behind unfancied Singaporean Narisa Prateep. Yeung claimed 1,132 pins in her six games and was well satisfied with her display. The Hongkong bowler said she found the conditions in the alley extremely hot."

    8. "Tenping Bowling: Yeung falters at last gasp in World Cup". South China Morning Post. 1987-11-15. p. 18. ProQuest 1538977659.

      The article notes: "Hongkong's Melody Yeung, who was the leader after the first round, failed in her bid for a medal when she finished sixth in the World Cup tenpin bowling final in Kuala Lumpur yesterday. Yeung missed the cut-off by just three points to end with 1,440. The Hongkong girl was prominent at all stages of the competition at all stages of the competition but failed by a whisker at the last gasp."

    9. "Bowling: HK glory bid still rests with Melody". South China Morning Post. Agence France-Presse. 1987-11-11. p. 36. ProQuest 1538313774.

      The article notes: "Hongkong's Melody Yeung slipped two places to fourth at the women's World Cup tenpin bowling championships in Kuala Lumpur yesterday. The 26-year-old Yeung finished the day's play with 2,207 pins and dropped two places from her first-day finish, but is still in a strong position with the final six games to be played today."

    10. "Bowling: Melody's on song for title". South China Morning Post. 1988-05-02. p. 40. ProQuest 1538625366.

      The article notes: "Melody Yeung outshone the men on her way to the women's Masters title at the SCAA Annual Championships yesterday, completing the 16-game rolloff with a creditable 203 average. Yeung was unchallenged in the first phase of the competition, topping the chart with an eight-game total of 1,597 and beating Asian Games gold medallist Cat Che into second place by 65 pins."

    11. "Yeung knocked out". South China Morning Post. 1999-08-31. p. 28. ProQuest 2026074213.

      The article notes: "Hong Kong Tenpin bowler Melody Yeung Ka-ling's title bid in the Women's Masters Cup at the Asian Tour (Hong Kong) tournament ended when she lost 213–199 to Chinese-Taipei's Wu Yu-ling in the semi-finals at the Mei Foo Super Fun Bowl. Yeung, who retired from the Hong Kong team a few years ago, was the only SAR bowler to make it into the top-14 Masters event."

    12. Kareem, Nazvi (1994-07-26). "Territory gambles on Sunny shining". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2022-08-28. Retrieved 2022-08-28.

      The article is about Bowling at the Asian Games in 1994. The article notes: "Fung was delighted with Hong Kong's performance last week with Franco Lau narrowly pipped for the gold medal in the men's Masters and Melody Yeung winning gold in the women's event with Cat Che finishing third."

    13. Lewis, Tommy (1995-05-02). "Top bowlers hurt in crash". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2022-08-28. Retrieved 2022-08-28.

      The article notes: "Four of Hong Kong's top ten-pin bowlers were injured when their taxi was involved in a head-on collision outside the AIA Building in Stubbs Road yesterday. Angela Lau, Melody Yeung and Cookie Lee, who are Hong Hong's three national representatives and Semon Cheung, who is in the national pool and the daughter of Hong Kong's gold medallist Catherine Che, were taken to the Tang Shiu Kin Hospital. Ms Lau, who suffered head injuries, Ms Yeung who lost a lower front tooth, and Ms Lee who was bruised, were treated and discharged."

    14. Sallay, Alvin (1994-10-12). "HK pair reach last eight". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2022-08-28. Retrieved 2022-08-28.

      The article notes: "Despite a brave attempt by Melody Yeung Ka-ling, the Hong Kong's tenpin bowlers will return home empty-handed. Melody, the only local woman in the last event, the masters, finished in sixth place and thus failed to qualify for the finals. Only the top three bowlers out of a field of 16 qualify for the masters final. Melody totalled 2,992 after 15 games. But that was not good enough to get her into the last three, as she was 61 pins off third-placed Irene Garcia of the Philippines."

    15. "Golden girl Che leads Asian bid". South China Morning Post. 1988-06-08. p. 34. ProQuest 1538638858.

      The article notes: "Backing Che in the women's team are twice World Cup player Melody Yeung, Anna Tong, Judy Lo, Sandy Fong and Carmen Tang. Yeung, who also performed at the Asian Games, should be the bowler to watch as she topped the Hongkong team's selection trials and only narrowly missed the cut for the step ladder final at the Hongkong Open." The image caption notes, "Hongkong's Melody Yeung, tipped to perform well at next month's FIQ Asian Zone Championships."

    16. "Tenpin Bowling: Melody ready take on the world". South China Morning Post. Agence France-Presse. 1987-11-14. p. 20. ProQuest 1538314471.

      The article notes: "Hongkong's Melody Yeung improved on her eighth position to finish fourth yesterday and qualify for the semi-finals of the women's World Cup in Kuala Lumpur."

    17. Kitchell, Norideen (1987-12-20). "Tenpin Talk: Franco captures Masters crown". South China Morning Post. p. 14. ProQuest 1538661645.

      The article notes: "Melody Yeung, Hongkong's hottest woman bowler, is expected to make a bid to rejoin the national party in which she was a member last year. She did not take part in the selection for the 1987 squad but has vowed to make a return because it will give her an opportunity to win a ticket to the Olympic Games."

    18. "港楊嘉玲獲女單金牌" . Ta Kung Pao (in Chinese). 1988-07-12. Retrieved 2022-08-28 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
    19. "卓伶保齡賽昨擧行，黃少偉楊嘉玲奪標" . Ta Kung Pao (in Chinese). 1987-07-13. Retrieved 2022-08-28 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Melody Yeung (traditional Chinese: 楊嘉玲; simplified Chinese: 杨嘉玲) to pass Knowledge (XXG):Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for time to review Cunard's sources since they were just added.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:09, 30 August 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. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Roger Williams (organist) (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)

Clean-up template has not seen better sourcing forthcoming over the last 7 years. Though Williams has clearly had a long and respectable career at the University of Aberdeen, and has had the occasional gushing article in the local Aberdeen press, I don't think he meets WP:GNG as a musician nor an academic. His biography is entirely unsourced and the Aberdeen University articles are, well, not independent of their employee. Sionk (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Wales. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep - added 3 more citations. I'd point out that notability is not dependent on whether editors bother to update an article; and that it is normal to source basic facts of a career from CVs and similar employer-based websites, especially for academics where other sources for such information usually don't exist. Williams has certainly had a distinguished career; he has certainly been awarded an MBE; and he is both well-known for his many performances (at Aberdeen and elsewhere), and he has taken the unusual step of commissioning new organ works from numerous other composers. I've added some more facts and three new sources, have removed some uncited claims, and have cited several existing claims. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your efforts, but I raised the Afd on the basis of lack of notability, not lack of verification. Listings announcements from his employer(s), websites of non-journalistic organisations, don't prove notability. They simply prove he exists. Generally on Knowledge (XXG) not even OBE's confer notability, so well done to him for the MBE, but... Sionk (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment another fellow with a common name, all I can find are links to the university or yearbook-type items. Even searching with his full name doesn't pull up much. He's on Tidal and quite a few other streaming sites, but not much I can find for notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 18:34, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
His MBE designations isn't much help, it's the lowest order in the award and there are over 100,000 recipients. Certainly a respectable award, but hard to pull up information based on that alone. Oaktree b (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
I've searched using a selection of keywords including "organist", "Aberdeen", and the names of the various institutions mentioned. Seemed to work. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, please review article changes since the page was nominated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 21:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:07, 30 August 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. Sandstein 09:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Darkness in music (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)

largely unsourced- there's no "darkness in film" article or anything similar HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 02:31, 30 August 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.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑