Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 April 23

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 02:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Abenojar (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)

claimed to be the first Filipino to summit Mount Everest, but no other sources exist for anything else. The article is heavily WP:REFBOMBed and larded with irrelevant and exaggerated content to the point that 95% of the sources are either WP:PRIMARY or not about him at all. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 23:57, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Checked the revision history and it turns out I created this entry, but it doesn't seem like the content added over the years has improved the quality of the article at all. Currently, no third-party source could reliably corroborate the claims in the entry, so I'm inclined to agree with the proposal to just delete this. 5xG (talk) 02:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fire departments of Morris County, New Jersey (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)

Unsourced and unclear how this meets WP:NLIST. Unable to find independent sources that have written about them as a group. S0091 (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 02:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mekhis Qandakeba (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)

Doesn't appear to have significant coverage. I can't read Georgian, but did try searching for მეხის ქანდაკება, and couldn't find anything much. PepperBeast (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mahali Selepe (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 religious singer. Lacks any significant coverage. PepperBeast (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Qetrani (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)

Doesn't appear to be notable. Got a couple of media mentions as a leader of anti-Qaddafi military defectors, but I couldn't find anything beyond that. PepperBeast (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Libya. PepperBeast (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I tried to find more up-to-date information on him and could not. Basically this is a snapshot article from 10 years ago which does not give any good context on Qetrani before or since. The sourcing even 10 years ago does not distinguish him enough to justify an article, and we really need to be able to say what his current status is to justify having a BLP. He was a low level person in an insurgency that ousted the figure they were opposed to. Nothing suggesting he is actually notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 13:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Party Fouls (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 that this band is notable. PepperBeast (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. Copying directly from a US Government source is lazy, but allowed. For future reference, the preferred venue for copyright concerns is WP:Copyright problems rather than AfD. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edward D. Hays (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 passes WP:POLITICIAN as a former member of the US Legislature. However, the reason I nominated this article for deletion is not about his notability. Rather, it's about my concern about copyright violations. Currently, the article has only one reference, https://bioguide.congress.gov/search/bio/H000403. When I opened it, parts of its text looked similar to the content on the Wikipedia article. After that, I decided to run some plagiarism checkers, which did not give me any useful results (Earwig's Copyvio Detector and Duplication Detector were supposed to be my best bet but were not working). Then, I came across this site, which also has text that looks similar to Wikipedia's article. Is it a WP:MIRROR though? Anyway, I decided to check the revision history of the article and saw that its first revision looks copied and paraphrased from its only source. In other words, there isn't a less-copyvio revision I could revert to. I would appreciate it if anyone (myself included) could find any unique sources. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 21:58, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)*Comment - LPS and MLP Fan, shoddy a practice as it is, copying a US government publication isn't a copyright violation. The copyed document is in the public domain. 174.212.236.66 (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Bioguide.congress.gov is in the public domain because it is a work of the US federal government, so there are no copyright issues with copying from/paraphrasing it. I've added Template:Bioguide to make clear where the content came from. Famedborn.com is clearly a mirror: all of its content is taken from Wikipedia articles. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As has been pointed out, the original source is not copyrighted as a work of the US government. Sometime there simply aren't that many ways of repeating the same biographical information... Atchom (talk) 02:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep members of congress are default notable, full stop. I would like to see much better sourcing. I am convinced that there will be better sourcing from contenporary sources. He is by far and away clearly notable. All members of national legislature that we can verrify we keep articles on. The style here and the sourcing need improvement, but AfD is not for cleanup.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just found this [1] which is a published obituary for him in the New York Times. It says he was "assistant attoney general". I am not sure if that was his exact title, or if this is a reference to what he did when serving in office. I am sure we can find published references to him, since he was twice elected to congress and served in congress for 4 years. His being mayor of Jackson, Missouri, a city then of about 2,000 or a little less might not be much, but that is the county seat of Cape Girardeau County. We might be able to dig up some sources on his career even before he was elected to congress. I have improved the article a little, but it still needs a lot more. For example I can see the New York Times obituary exists, but I do not have access to it. Here [2] is the political graveyard link, but it may just be based on the congressional bio.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have edited the article to make it more readable. I moved from 1 paragraph after the opening to 4. I added some links, and made it more clear that Hays' moves until he went to congress all amounted to moving within the same county.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly meets WP:NPOL. Sourcing can (easily) be improved. KidAdSPEAK 19:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of feature films based on cartoons (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:INDISCRIMINATE seems to apply. It's a long list of films barely related to each other so doesn't seem useful Indagate (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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


The result was delete, without prejudice against restoration to draft if requested. Perhaps an article can be written on the subject, but the consensus here is that this is not it. BD2412 T 05:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Superheroes in animation (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)

Superheroes have been in animated works, but no sources seem to discuss the overall topic of "superheroes in animation". The only sources cited are two reviews of individual shows that do not discuss the greater topic as a whole. The article is full of WP:OR by suggesting that action based cartoons like Biker Mice from Mars are "superheroes". Would suggest a merge to List of superhero television series, but every sentence of this has been unsourced since 2009. If there is a coherent topic here, then WP:TNT is the better solution. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 19:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Reddit#Other features. Star Mississippi 02:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reddit Public Access Network (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 subsection of Reddit. Sources are Reddit itself or do not discuss the topic. Prod declined with suggestion to merge, but I see no content worth merging. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 19:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I declined the prod. I believe a short paragraph at Reddit#Other features would be in line with the existing content there. Techn1ciaN-A1- (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Chris Wade (writer). MBisanz talk 17:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dodson and Fogg (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 is the page for a musical project. While it has had several well-known guest musicians, and has produced a prolific catalogue of music, it doesn't seem to have garnered any media coverage beyond a handful of reviews in minor publications and the occasional play on specialist music shows. I can't find anything that would satisfy the criteria listed at WP:BAND. As an AtD, the page could conceivably be redirected to the page for its founder member Chris Wade (writer), although that page also has questionable notability. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 02:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ezina LeBlanc (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)

Very heavy on WP:REFBOMB and WP:PEACOCK. Current sources are passing mentions. Previously deleted in 2008 so ineligible for prod Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 18:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. There was consensus that this is a valid topic for a list. However, there was also consensus that the list is too inclusive - even that some items do not belong at all. After trimming the list to some criteria it is likely to be much shorter. What those criteria should be and whether the list is then short enough to be merged back in to the main article can be dealt with by ordinary editing. SpinningSpark 18:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Just a list of mostly non-notable court cases. Too irrelevant to bother with a merge. There is no precedent of such a list, as it violates WP:IINFO Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 16:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 16:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, problematic, because as TenPoundHammer comments, there is no precedent. But the issues are (1) getting involved in litigation is a major purpose of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (which is notable and has an article), and (2) 75 of these cases have been deemed notable enough to have their own articles, but (3) the current list is misleading because on my cursory check of some items in the list, often the EFF isn't mentioned as "involved" in any formal sense, it's just expressed an opinion on the case.
The nearest analogy I can think of is a film actor, whose output is films. We would normally list their films, either on the main article about the actor, if there are not too many, or we'd break out onto a separate list if the list becomes too long (e.g. Patrick_Stewart_on_stage_and_screen). Because the current list is malformed and over-inclusive, my feeling is delete the list, and merge very selectively any genuine cases in which the EFF played an active role into a sort of "caseography" section added to Electronic_Frontier_Foundation. There is no point in listing every case in which they've been "involved" in the sense of issuing some statement or having an opinion, because it's their job to have an opinion on every such case. Elemimele (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 18:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep WP:NLIST says, Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability, and this list could be developed, perhaps with IRAC-style paragraphs for the cases, including ones without sufficient sources to warrant a standalone article. There are also already about 73 blue links in the article by my quick count, which seems like a lot to incorporate into the article. WP:NLIST also says, Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists, and as a group, for example, in 2006, the EFF is described by the San Francisco Chronicle as having "gone to court for hackers, programmers, inventors, challengers to patent and copyright restrictions -- for the most part, the gadflies and small fry of the computer age, confronting barriers built by government and, increasingly, by private industry", and in 2013, the EFF is described in The New York Times as "a longstanding civil liberties group that focuses on rights in the online world." The list therefore seems notable and appears to have informational, navigation, and development purposes. Beccaynr (talk) 01:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or weak keep The list is in questionable shape, but there is precedent for this with List of court cases involving the American Civil Liberties Union. The EFF isn't as high profile as the ACLU. But we also have a comparable list for List of court cases involving Alliance Defending Freedom, which I think still meets our bare minimum standards of notability. I take the opinion of the article creator AlasdairEdits under advisement and think that a merge could be the best path to improving this article. But otherwise, the article should be drastically rewritten and cleaned up as described by Beccaynr, with very little to WP:PRESERVE except the blue links. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 17:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn per addition of sources. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 17:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with the Band: Confessions of a Groupie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Only one review cited. Deprodded with a second "review", but perusal of that article finds it to be an editorial that talks about the book for two sentences and then wanders completely off topic for the rest of the page.

I found several sources that say "Pamela Des Barres, author of the best selling memoir I'm with the Band, did blah blah blah", but nothing about the book itself. It's just parenthetically mentioned to big her up every time an article about her is written. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 16:58, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elon Musk books (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)

Inappropriate use of a disambiguation page. Even as a mere list of books about a topic, there's no precedent under Category:Lists of books. Arbor to SJ (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Manjula Damith Siripala (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 sources do not demonstrate WP:GNG and I was unable to find any significant coverage in a Google search and got absolutely nothing from Google News and ProQuest. Source analysis to follow. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:54, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.dailynews.lk/2021/05/04/sports/248238/nalandian-anuja-played-sri-lanka-distinction Yes Yes No Mentioned once No
http://archives.dailynews.lk/2001/pix/PrintPage.asp?REF=/2008/04/29/spo03.asp Yes Yes No Mentioned in passing twice No
https://atkinsonrugby.com.au/teams-atkinson-past-players.php No No No No info about him No
http://www.srilankarugby.lk/Articles/View/2563 Yes Yes No Mentioned once No
https://www.sundaytimes.lk/001022/sportsm.html Yes Yes No Mentioned once in passing in reference to an U21 game No
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/75509690/sri-lanka-cricket-supporters-finally-get-reason-to-cheer-at-nelsons-saxton-oval Yes Yes No Mentioned only once No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:58, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus as to whether to keep or merge. With no one else arguing for deletion, this conversation does not need to be atAfD and can be handled editorially Star Mississippi 02:54, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural depictions of Matthew Shepard (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)

Yet another textbook example of "X in popular culture" being used to mean "literally any work of fiction that name-dropped this". Wikipedia is not TV Tropes. Examples like "a gay man is brutally murdered in a way that mirrors Matthew Shepard's death" and "Shepard's manner of death is mentioned in United States of Tara, when Marshall is cautioned about his relationship with another character" are entirely subjective Most of the examples are not cited and do not stand on their own. The few that do are already sufficiently mentioned in their own articles and/or that of Matthew Shepard. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 16:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Music, Television, Popular culture, and Lists. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 16:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_April_23#Category:Songs_in_memory_of_Matthew_Shepard
  • Keep, this list contains mostly substantial and justifiable entries, and is long enough to remain spun out from the main article Matthew Shepard. – Fayenatic London 20:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How are they "substantial" though? 99% of them are unsourced. And I just pointed out a few that have nothing to do with Matthew Shepard whatsoever and are just people claiming that it's "similar" to his situation. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 20:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that this can be dealt with mostly by cleaning the article and removing anything that cannot be sourced. This should be limited to only those works that were about Shepard or where he was clearly indicated to have been an inspiration. For example, if we can find a RS where Tori Amos states that the song "Merman" is about or heavily inspired by Shepard - or that she changed it to honor him akin to "Candle in the Wind", it should be included. If it's just that she dedicated it to him, then that's not something to include since there were likely many singers who dedicated performances to Shepard, as they rightfully should. We can also help find sourcing - I started with the book section since some only have a single source and I'm finding that there's many that do appear to be quite notable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 19:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to article on Shepard himself, and probably limit to what is actually sourced. I see no good reason to split this off as a seperate article from the article on Shepard.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though cleanup is needed. Tenpoundhammer already removed some of the more major issues mentioned. There are enough rigorously verifiable cultural depictions in the article now to justify a keep, and more still to be summarized. I would support a heavy trim of the TV and Music sections, which appear largely unsourced and unexplained. But, part of Shepard's notability is his ongoing inspiration of a vast amount of art. More than twenty years later, this legacy is receiving ongoing coverage in reliable sources.
    This article is a list by another name, and the list's grouping is covered extensively by reliable sources.
    • Casper Star Tribune (pt. 2) lists numerous works of art, summarized with "Artists have used theater, paintings, scultpure, film, books, poetry, music and even teddy bears to examine Shepard's story."
    • Duluth News Tribune: "so much art"; goes on to list some
    • Wyoming Public Media: "Shepard's death compelled a lot of artists to respond in unique ways over the past twenty years. There are countless paintings, musical interpretations, poems, and theatre." It goes on to list many, including a passing mention of the Six Feet Under episode TPH removed (not enough to truly verify, though)
    • WBUR lists a few, saying Shepard "inspired an outpouring of responses from artists over the past 19 years"
    • Global News: "His story also spawned several plays and films — including the acclaimed The Laramie Project and the made-in-Toronto TV movie The Matthew Shepard Story — and inspired songs by artists like Elton John and Melissa Etheridge." The piece goes on to discuss the documentary Matt Shepard is a Friend of Mine.
    Much of the unverified content I spot-checked is verifiable, and I wasn't looking at the works that seem obviously connected, with Shepard's name or Laramie in the title. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge (do not delete), at least some of the content is worthwhile keeping, which parts exactly is up to editorial discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Víctor Turpo (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 article says he "is a Peruvian world-renowned artist in still life art since 1970 and one of the leading plastic artists in Peru", but I can't verify any of that. I can't find any significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Peru. SL93 (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. He has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. There are no references in the article and I can't find anything online. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reads like WP:RESUME. Peacocking present as well. Non-notable individual with insufficient sourcing to meet the standard for an article. A google search did not turn up anything of additional substance. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC.
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. I contemplated a relist, but given the language issues I think that's just kicking the can another week. Star Mississippi 13:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shi Nguyen-Kuok (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 actual source and potential COI/autobio. Fails to meet WP:PROF I think. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 14:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. plicit 07:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phyllis Shalant (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 anything like significant coverage. Non-notable childrens' author. PepperBeast (talk) 02:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regards notability, I added a list of five awards she has received for her work as well as a citation to a 2000 interview in the New York Times.

She has well over a dozen publications, not all of them cited in the article.

She certainly is notable as a New York writer of pedagogical books.

The definition of notability can include success of a local writer with national publications and doesn’t necessarily require that one be the most notable in their field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Botendaddy (talkcontribs) 04:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. While merely publishing books is not sufficient for WP:NAUTHOR, I think that the PW and Kirkus reviews do meet the requirements WP:NAUTHOR. Given the age of much of the work, it is likely that other reviews exist that have not been uncovered. The NYTimes interview [6] further supports. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The reviews of her books establish notability as informed by WP:AUTHOR CT55555 (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the Wikipedia Library includes: five reviews in School Library Journal (for The Society of Super Secret Heroes, Bartleby of the Big Bad Bayou, When Pirates Came to Brooklyn, The Rock Star, the Rooster, and Me, the Reporter, and Shalom, Geneva Peace), a brief biography in The Writers Directory (2018, via Gale), a review in Booklist and Multicultural Review for When Pirates Came to Brooklyn, reviews in Book Report of Shalom, Geneva Peace and The Great Eye, a review in Library Talk of Bartleby of the Mighty Mississippi, an interview with some independent content: "For a Book, Going Where the Turtles Are" (NYT, 2000, via Gale), and Booklist reviews for Bartleby of the Big Bad Bayou (via Gale) and The Society of Secret Super-Heroes (via Gale). ProQuest offers additional sources, including reviews from The Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books. WP:AUTHOR#3 appears well-supported. Beccaynr (talk) 03:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. North America1000 14:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the People (2005 film) (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)

Film appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a BEFORE to meets the notability guidelines. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:55, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) Слава Україні! 06:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shubhra Gupta (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 does not pass general notability guidelines or WP:ANYBIO. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. DMySon (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. Indianexpress: a biography profile which is not independent of the subject, hence failed WP:GNG.
2. thereviewmonk: a self published biography profile on a non reliable website which is not meeting WP:SIGCOV.
3. harpercollins.co.in: Again a bio profile which is not independent of the subject and does not pass WP:GNG.
4. fipresci: a self published bio profile not independent of the subject failed WP:SIGCOV.
DMySon (talk) 02:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Foreignpolicy: Just a passing mention, but we can think to consider this.
thehindu: No in-depth coverage, just a passing mention.
ft: Couldn't check due to It's paid subscription, if anyone having its paid subscription, please let us know.
DMySon (talk) 07:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can view a different FT article on ProQuest, where she is quoted for her expertise: "Hindu nationalists take aim at Bollywood" (Oct 17, 2020, e.g. discussing the BJP and Bollywood, "...said Shubhra Gupta, author of 50 Films that Changed Bollywood.") I'm not able to view the Foreign Policy article, but The Hindu seems like more than a passing mention because it is a paragraph about her, in the context of the commentary of the larger article. Beccaynr (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America1000 14:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Collin D'Cunha (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 topic does not receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and hence fails WP:GNG. I have even doubt while the topic is meeting WP:FILMMAKER. DMySon (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Consensus is it isn't notable, and there isn't consensus on a redirect target. Star Mississippi 12:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos cloud (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)

Clearly non-notable — a bit of email spam that went around enough to get Snopes and one blog to write something about it, and was used as padding in a book “this year in astronomy” (see talk page). No lasting influence, no significant coverage, nothing to say about it beyond what Snopes did. JBL (talk) 12:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 13:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Sikeston, Missouri (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 local politician statcruft/listcruft Dronebogus (talk) 11:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Durindaljb: I get that must be quite disappointing. Perhaps some of the sourced information could be merged to Sikeston, Missouri? AusLondonder (talk) 13:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. consensus is there isn't coverage of these mayors Star Mississippi 03:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Jackson, Missouri (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)

Part of a series of statcruft for mostly non-notable local politicians. Dronebogus (talk) 11:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 03:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of actors who have appeared in multiple Best Picture Academy Award winners (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:NLIST and is utter trivia. Can you see someone putting this "accomplishment" on their resume? What's next, List of actors who have appeared in multiple movies with Best Actor Academy Award winners? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial and WP:NOTINFO.—Mythdon (talkcontribs) 20:20, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence that the topic of the list represents a notable topic outside of Wikipedia. The "List of foo that also bar" type topics are rarely notable as a list, even if "foo" and "bar" are both notable things. This fits that kind of random intersection of topics, and violates WP:IINFO for that reason. --Jayron32 13:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. plicit 10:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of female movie actors by name (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 fail to see the rationale for this list's component sublists, and therefore this page. It's hopelessly incomplete because there are a lot of actresses in the 100+ year history of cinema, so a violation of WP:SALAT, i.e. "lists that are too general or too broad in scope". Also it adds nothing that a category wouldn't provide other than years. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick perusal, it also appears that only actresses who appeared in English-language films are currently included. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
List of female movie actors by name: A
List of female movie actors by name: B
List of female movie actors by name: C
List of female movie actors by name: D
List of female movie actors by name: E–F
List of female movie actors by name: G
List of female movie actors by name: H–I
List of female movie actors by name: J–K
List of female movie actors by name: L
List of female movie actors by name: M
List of female movie actors by name: N–O
List of female movie actors by name: P–Q
List of female movie actors by name: R
List of female movie actors by name: S
List of female movie actors by name: T–V
List of female movie actors by name: W–Z. Ajf773 (talk) 10:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You were supposed to infer the sublists are included in the nomination (so I wouldn't have to go and manually add them). But I guess I have to. [Sigh] Clarityfiend (talk) 10:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'Tis done. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I reversed the copy/paste parts. Fixed now. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. plicit 10:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

NO evidence of notability. Refs show that he has authored some books in his speciality but no interdependent and reliable refs. Searches reveal little better ,although there may be better Turkish language sources. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   10:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of English cricketers (1787–1825). Liz Read! Talk! 05:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

not notable, made just 6 appearances in cricket matches 200 years ago, nothing else is known Artem.G (talk) 08:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 09:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

No evidence of lasting notability for this murder. No legislation came out of it, nor any indication it will. Star Mississippi 14:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talkcontribs) 20:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:NCRIME. Per sourcing. Article needs work indeed, but Afd is not a clean up service.BabbaQ (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi BabbaQ, I am hoping that you (or any participant in this discussion) could more specifically explain which sources, per the guidelines referenced in WP:NCRIME, could improve this article. Is there WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, with further analysis or discussion, or WP:INDEPTH coverage that puts events into context, or per WP:GEOSCOPE, sources demonstrating a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group, or per WP:LASTING, any sources that may include effects on the views and behaviors of society and legislation? Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Analysis of the case's potential impact on tourism in Prachachat Business[9] and BBC Thai[10]. The latter also includes an overview of tourist murders in Thailand. The article has been updated since the start of this AfD with information and a reference on the court verdict in March 2022. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:48, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The BBC Thai article is published on August 6, 2021, (translated: "More than 24 hours have passed since the body was found."), and focuses on the details of the discovery of the body. This is not continued coverage and does not assess lasting or larger impacts. Including an overview of other tourist murders is not WP:INDEPTH per WP:NCRIME, because Media sources sometimes report on events because of their similarity (or contrast, or comparison) to another widely reported incident. Editors should not rely on such sources to afford notability to the new event, since the main purpose of such articles is to highlight either the old event or such types of events generally. The Prachachat Business article is published on August 7, 2021 and is focused on potential impacts on tourism, including if police do not solve the case, but does not demonstrate that there were impacts, also noting (translated) "The current spread of COVID-19 In Thailand with a large number of infected people It is a problem and obstacle that foreign tourists are reluctant to travel to Thailand." Beccaynr (talk) 13:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still need consensus of whether WP:NCRIME applies and whether there's a lasting effect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 09:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 13:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sajjad Jani (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)

Of the five sources currently cited, two are from IMDB, two are primary, and the last appears to be a list, not of which contribute to notability. He has only dubbed three films and has worked on four TV shows, which I'm pretty sure is nowhere near meeting the threshold for actors. I could not find any reliable sources covering him. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 08:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. plicit 10:35, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khowailed Ayyadah (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 professional appearances to date so would have failed under the old WP:NFOOTBALL guideline. Arabic searches in Google News, Google and DDG yield nothing of note so I'm not seeing a WP:GNG pass. I've also checked all of the foreign language Wikipedia articles and can't see any indications of notability there either. Given that the article has lasted such a long time across multiple versions of Wikipedia, I believe that there must be some reason for the article but I can't find anything so sending to AfD to get proper consensus on this one. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to World Flying Disc Federation. Liz Read! Talk! 04:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert L. "Nob" Rauch (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 is a mess, starting from the unclear issue of whether this article covers one person or is a mix of biographies of two (a financial executive and a ultimate frisbee player). The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. References are mostly press releases, the BBC piece doesn't seem to mention him, and the best we have are the passing mentions in a New Yorker piece. His biggest award, as reported, is the Ulimate Frisbee Hall of Fame inclusion: [11] but that doesn't seem sufficient IMHO for NBIO criteria of a major award/recognition. Thoughts? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Route of Che (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 does not seem to be an independently notable topic, rather it's what tour companies call a tour. No significant secondary coverage notability. There is some coverage of the "Che Guevara trail," but again, mostly in tourist brochures with no WP:SIGCOV. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 13:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 14:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hold off deletion for the moment. On thinking about it I recognize that my main reason for not wanting to put this into English immediately was laziness. I hope to start on this tomorrow (it will make a change from endless revision of the entries in the List of biologists). If nothing useful emerges before the end of April feel free to delete the article. Athel cb (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep! I have now rewritten the English article on the basis of the Spanish version, so I'm changing my vote to Keep. I'm not entirely happy with it — too much emphasis on tourism and not enough on the events and the people involved. Nonetheless, I think it is now improved to the point where it doesn't need deletion, and I hope others agree. I expect I'll do more work on it. Athel cb (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I accidentally deleted the Afd tag, which Praxidicae has restored. Sorry, that wasn't intentional. Athel cb (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third relist: the !vote following the nomination provides no guideline- or policy-based rationale for deletion, and the article received a rewrite based upon the Spanish Wikipedia article (diff) during the course of this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:21, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 03:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voodoo Robotics (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)

End-to-end WP:PROMO. Improperly sourced, lacks WP:RS. Fails WP:NCORP. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Born (rapper) (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:SINGER; current sources are either not significant or not reliable, and a WP:BEFORE search doesn't find any. BilledMammal (talk) 02:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. plicit 03:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Carroll (Irish musician) (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)
Time Is a Thief (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
We're Not Strangers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Zoax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Zoax (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable musician. Has worked with several musicians but is not notable on his own. Including his two bands and their albums, both tagged for notability for years. Searches on GNews turned up nothing for "Adam Carroll" + "Time Is a Thief" or "Adam Carroll" + "Zoax". All sources cited in all of these articles are WP:PRIMARY. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 01:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: The Zoax album had a couple reviews cited, but most of them seem to be from unreliable music blogs that publish user-submitted content and/or were 404. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 01:35, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. plicit 03:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Three Stooges 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)

Yet another "X in popular culture" that conists of a list of random references to the work. Fails WP:IINFO, WP:SALAT, WP:V. Even admits to its unverifiability with the passage "The hardest references to spot are the ones where only the names may be used such as a group of three being called Moe, Larry, and Curly." Wikipedia is not TV Tropes. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 01:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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