Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 14	August 16 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy keep. Not just per WP:SNOW, but nominating at the midst of the recent controversy—which is a bad look for him—is not a great look for Wikipedia (i.e. might comes across as retaliatory). El_C 22:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)‎[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Linus Sebastian

AfDs for this article:

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

Sourcing does not suggest independent notability, especially for an individual. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep wikipedia is making a mockery of itself at this point. You wanna have an article for a lollipop lady nobody has ever heard of (bUt ShE hAs aN MbE!1!!) and delete the profile of an entrepreneur and famous television presenter with millions of viewers? What is wrong with you guys!?!? 87.196.74.168 (talk) 00:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies, particularly those on whataboutism and notability for people. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please, remain civil and assume good faith. —siro χ o 03:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

what does that have to do with the keep message? Sebbog13 (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the more appropriate question is what does the rest of what was posted after the keep itself has to do with the article in question. Both the responses by Siroxo and ElijahPepe were applicable. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Technology, Internet, and Canada. Skynxnex (talk) 03:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All things considered this seems to be a rather major and well established youtube channel host. I do however feel that the article needs to be cleaned up with additional focus on his channel ("Linus Tech Tips"). Articles such as TheNeedleDrop or Philip DeFranco may serve as good comparisons for the scope of articles that cover large-but-not-massive youtubers. A MINOTAUR (talk) 04:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NoteThere is extensive focus on his/his company's numerous YT channels and company in Linus Media Group. Shifting that focus over to the article centered around him would be a mistake, extend well beyond the scope of the individual, and would take away from the LMG article. I would urge against this. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 13:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NBIO:

"This YouTube Star Is Also a Retail Empire (Published 2022)". 2022-02-15. Retrieved 2023-08-16.
"Surrey man's tech-tip series achieves YouTube success - Peace Arch News". www.peacearchnews.com. 2017-01-26. Retrieved 2023-08-16.
Nast, Condé (2021-12-26). "Meet the 'Influpreneurs': The new breed of YouTube influencers staffing up and building business empires". British GQ. Retrieved 2023-08-16.

Jumpytoo Talk 04:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clearly meets WP:NBIO. Linus is a notable person per WP:CREATIVE. I think it is self evident that "become a significant monument" is clearly met. Not really sure why this is being proposed. If you made this in good faith, you should probably start going through and creating AfDs for pretty much any YouTuber (like Marques Brownlee). He's also commonly cited in various media outlets for issues facing YouTube creators, like YouTube is demonetizing videos about coronavirus, and creators are mad. Lightcrowd (talk) 10:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only two sources that mention Sebastian specifically are a NYT and a Kotaku article. Most other sources are primary, which does not suggest independent notability.Cortador (talk) 11:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's also other sources, such as an Inc. Magazine article. If anything, this wiki article just needs to be expanded/TLC. I can find references to Linus in BBC, The Verge, Arstechnica, CNN and a few other news websites (prior to 2023). Seems to meed NBIO to me. I think a cleanup template message is more appropriate (too many primary sources, expansion, etc) is more appropriate. If the primary host and creator of the multiple Linus Media Group channels isn't notable enough, then I feel like it sets a precedent for more AfDs for other notable content creators across Wikipedia. Lightcrowd (talk) 12:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I just wanted to mention this nomination may (or may not, I do not intent to accuse people) be influenced by a recent controversy and some YouTube & Reddit drama involving the subject's behaviour (The gist of this drama is that he made huge blunders in a video about a startup's prototype and then bashed the startup and refused to fix the errors, auctioned off the prototype without permission, has a history of making basic mistakes in his videos, and recently a former employee has alleged mistreatment at this guy's company). So I would suggest that some admins and more experienced editors be on the look-out for randos commenting here without any other contribs. Tube·of·Light 12:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The original nomination was over 7 years ago, and Linus' notoriety has certainly only increased since then. Yes - the sourcing lends itself to not being the highest quality article, but not at all warrants an AfD nomination, and can likely and rather easily be fixed such as Lightcrowd mentioned above. In reality, this AfD is quite possibly retaliatory in nature due to recent controversies. If there were a way to nominate an AfD for deletion - this nomination would be a prime candidate. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 13:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article clearly passes WP:BIO. Since the first nomination for deletion, the article has been improved and most sections are properly sourced. 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 14:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs improvement but meets WP:BIO AfD is overly extreme. UndeadAnarchy (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Are you kidding me? Linus Sebastian is severely notable as a person, he's been talked about in mainstream publications including the New York Times and The Verge, and this article has existed for years. This AfD is in my opinion a joke. Doesn't help that it was made after the Gamers Nexus controversy as well, making me think that there is some sort of ulterior motive behind this AfD, to let out some internal anger re: said controversy. I'm voting Keep purely because this AfD comes off as nothing but a joke as well as Linus just being severely notable as an individual. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 20:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

A. Linus is a notable person.

B. The article needs improving, not deleting

C. There are sources for Linus across various internet sources and news sites.

D. I think that this has been inflated by recent controversy. Jguiii (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable figure in the realm of both PC/technology and YouTube, per WP:NBIO and WP:WEB. Genuinely surprised to even see an AfD on him in the first place, considering there are sources about him from The New York Times, Kotaku, PC Gamer, Mashable, Lifehacker, The Washington Post, BGR and Ars Technica among other sources editors already pointed above. I hope this gets closed as a Snow Keep. PantheonRadiance (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2023 (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. There are some suggestions to merge, but there is disagreement over the respective target. In any case, a decision and action to merge does not require administrator intervention, so this AfD can be closed. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Orikhiv

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

For almost a month, something like 90% of the references in the article have been completely broken and unidentifiable due to a ProveIt bug. Even if you do count the unverifable stuff, there is really not much here. Most of it isn't even near Orikhiv, making it not really a "battle of Orikhiv" at all - just scattered bits of fighting in the area that are mostly covered much better in 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive anyway.

I'm not really sure what exactly to do with this article. Draftification is an option, as is massively changing the scope to cover the broader 2023 eastern Zaporizhzhia campaign and/or merging with Battle of Huliaipole. If none of those end up happening, then maybe we can just delete it and put any salvageable bits into relevant notable articles. HappyWith (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Russia, and Ukraine. HappyWith (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The corresponding articles in the Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedias have lots of references, including (in the Russian) several daily updates from the Institute for the Study of War such as https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-january-22-2023 These could replace the references to the main page of https://www.understandingwar.org/ in the existing English article. If you Google "Battle of Orikhiv" https://www.google.com/search?q=Battle+of+Orikhiv there are many references from reliable sources, including The New York Times. If ProveIt is broken, tell its maintainer what needs to be fixed. References have to be verifiable, but that doesn't mean they have to be easily verifiable. Print-only references and ones in languages other than English are perfectly valid. Whether the battle really is best named "battle of Orikhiv" or something else, that's a content matter rather than something for AfD. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the corresponding article on the Ukrainian Wikipedia is just covering various bombings and shellings, with zero mentioning of actual military engagements. Meanwhile, the Russian Wikipedia article has like five sentences covering actual fighting, none of which is near Orikhiv and is much better covered in 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive. Those articles would probably fail AfD too. HappyWith (talk) 03:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A merge to Southern Ukraine campaign is a valid WP:ATD. There is generally a higher barrier-to-entry with these Rus-Ukr battles for standalone articles due to their recency (WP:NOTNEWS applies), so coverage needs to be beyond just merely daily updates and needs to contain some sort of significance through (preferably academic) analysis. I haven't really looked into this article yet, but am just laying my general thoughts out. Curbon7 (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is in a bad state, however I'd say the fighting here was notable on its own. Orikhiv was the center of the failed russian winter "offensive" in Zaporizhzhia. I imagine fighting must've also taken place during the initial moments of the war. If we have articles for fighting in Vuhledar and Huliaipole, Orikhiv should also have one. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 10:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just made an effort to make the citation standard less horrible. Quite a lot is sourced to a single ISW daily briefly, which my revision makes entirely evident. Concerning the previous comment "If we have articles for fighting in Vuhledar and Huliaipole, Orikhiv should also have one." I regard this mode of logic dangerous. According to Buridan's ass, you sometimes have to draw lines between things that are arbitrarily close together (otherwise you can box yourself into unlimited scope creep). Better that each case is tested against the merits separately, unless case A ≫ case B (much greater than) clearly demonstrates inconsistent application of the standards. My own bias favours splitting, not on the basis of the size of the split item, but on whether the boundary is prominent and well delineated. If no two people put the cut anywhere near the same place, all you have is a problem. However, with a clean enough cut, even a small excision can usefully stand apart. — MaxEnt 16:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 01:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I don't think there is an argument that this subject isn't important is whether or not the sourcing and content is adequate. This really rests on the dialogue between Eastman and HappyWith. Whether or not other Wikipedia's have decent sourcing should not affect what is in the English Wikipedia's version of this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially merge this to Zaporizhzhia front per talk page discussions. It should not just be deleted though in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 05:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would theoretically support this too, but there is no article with that name. HappyWith (talk) 01:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd like to mention that since the removal of all unsourced info, the article now has literally nothing in it involving any "battle" beyond sporadic terror shellings by Russia.

The fact that it has not been improved in the many months since creation - and the weeks since this deletion nomination - makes me really doubt that there is any good sourcing out there with which this article could be improved. This was confirmed when I googled "battle of orikhiv" and found basically no significant coverage in any reliable English-language sources. Isn’t this a pretty clear delete per general notability guidelines? HappyWith (talk) 01:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator as wrong venue. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bankruptcy of Penn Central

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

Propose merge into Penn Central Transportation Company. This article only had 3 paragraphs about the bankruptcy. The rest is about the Penn Central Transportation Company. Not sure this calls for a standalone page. Longhornsg (talk) 22:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. Will properly nominate at WP:RfD. Longhornsg (talk) 22:42, 15 August 2023 (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 Manic Street Preachers discography#Extended plays. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Know Our B-Sides

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't satisfy WP:NALBUM, just as it didn't satisfy it in 2012~~, when all relevant material was merged into Manic Street Preachers discography~~. Restore Redirect to Manic Street Preachers discography#Extended plays. Muhandes (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - this single stands out as one of only 2 ever released exclusively in Japan. The discography is also incomplete without it. Also, there is an article and a discog template entry for Further Away as well as Life Becoming a Landslide and this has never been nominated for deletion. So, by the same logic - both Nobody Loved You and the Know Our B-Sides EP should both be kept. This track isn't some unofficial, non-authorized 12" whitelabel, it's an officially released single - but according to some Wikipedians, it doesn't count because it was only released in Japan. Should we remove the tracklistings of the Japanese album versions because they don't count too? Wikipedia specifically aims to not solely focus on the English speaking world as reiterated in . Finally, as per Wikipedia:Notability (music), "Specific to recordings, a recording may be notable if it meets at least one of these criteria: The recording has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it.". This has been satisfied because it appears on reputable Japanese sites. Furthermore, "the recording has appeared on any country's music chart". This single has, so it has satisfied two conditions where only one is required for notability.

Finally, @Muhandes: stated above "...just as it didn't satisfy it in 2012, when all relevant material was merged into Manic Street Preachers discography.". Why are you making statements that aren't true? None of this article was merged into the above, other than the title of the EP and the year. Your point is null and void because it's just not true Apeholder (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Apeholder (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

@Apeholder: The title of the EP and the year are all the relevant material. If you find that offending, I will strike it out as it is immaterial. The material part is WP:NALBUM which is not satisfied. Muhandes (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Muhandes: the title and year is clearly not enough to satisfy your "it's contained elsewhere" assertion. Where does it say that those two pieces of info are enough? This EP has satisfied various conditions of the criteria you specified Apeholder (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Apeholder: I'm not sure what you are repeating this, I stroked out that "assertion" because it is an immaterial part of the nomination. The nomination is due to WP:NALBUM not being satisfied. Show that it is satisfied by editing the article, and I will be very happy to withdraw this nomination. Muhandes (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Muhandes: I have read WP:NALBUM that you keep referring to: "That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article." By this logic, none of their singles should be included on Wikipedia. Also, I have read the First deletion discussion you referenced, but again nobody was able to describe why this article should be deleted but that the rest are notable enough to keep. One person even says "I Googled it and couldn't find much". It's a Japanese only release and Google shows you English articles! Of COURSE they wouldn't find much! There are also far more references to notability for this release than most other Manics articles. The release is notable enough to be included on WP as any others are, and it does not make sense having an incomplete discography on here because someone is being over-zealous when it comes to interpreting WP guidelines. I would love to hear an explanation. If this can be satisfied, then yes the article should be deleted.Apeholder (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Apeholder: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Muhandes (talk) 17:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Muhandes: It's also nothing to do with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - the examples given all take unrelated articles as justification for an article to stay up. The existence of Further Away shows this EXACT type of article exists already, not similar or totally unrelated as your example shows, but the EXACT same. The fact you offered this as a counter argument suggests you are either being very disingenuous or don't know the first thing about the subject matter. Also, have you noticed how I'm giving you extensive replies, and yours are pretty much one-liners with stuff that's not even relevant? So far you have said things that are clearly false and other things totally unrelated.Apeholder (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP if the other single mentioned above is also the same thing as this single is, then why is that somehow accepted but this isn't? We need a complete discography. Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.147.104 (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— 109.78.147.104 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more substantive input. Previous relist failed to actually transclude this to the July 20 log so it got lost
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirct per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 22:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. A WP:BEFORE search shows little to no sources, and if the article is to be kept, then the unreliable references (Discogs, Rate Your Music, etc.) need to be removed, but I'm inclined to redirect. Tails Wx (they/them) ⚧ 08:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. A similar case to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hams That Couldn't Be Cured but the consensus here is to Draftify so I'll carry that out. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Three Little Bass and the Big Bad Gar

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

Disputed draftification. Fails WP:NBOOK, lacks any sources. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify since the article creator incorrectly moved it from draftspace. ArcAngel (talk) 22:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that draftify is ideal in such a case. It does not seem to meet WP:NBOOK at this time (it's on several self-published blogs and listicles so it may one day meet NBOOK). If the creator does not want it draftified, a delete outcome would be ok. —siro χ o 04:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (rather than draftify): the creator has already disputed draftification, and I see no evidence that this was done 'accidentally', so we must assume they object to this being moved to drafts (again); hence the only feasible action is to delete, as the article presents no indication, let alone evidence, of notability of any flavour. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - There almost certainly are sources. The story belongs to a distinct sub-genre, which is Three Little Pigs parodies. The author does not have ownership and does not have the right to object to another draftification. The author should be warned that another move to article space without passing review may result in a block. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point about WP:OWN, thanks for raising it. And incidentally, it may be possible to construct a Three Little Pigs parodies list article that could be where this ends up eventually. I haven't sought sources for such an article yet, so I am unsure. —siro χ o 18:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify + also support the suggestion that the author be given a warning. Suitskvarts (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to the book's Amazon page, it was written by an eight-year old boy, illustrated by his mother, and self-published. --76.14.122.5 (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2023 (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. I usually support Draftification but this has been contested twice already. Should the article creator want to continue working on this article in Draft space, hopefully by finding a few reliable sources to verify this subject's notability, let me or WP:REFUND know by making a request. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Hams That Couldn't Be Cured

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

Disputed draftification. Fails WP:V therefore not (yet) appropriate for main space 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Comics and animation. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: practically unreferenced, hence no evidence of notability, despite 5 months in the making and two AfC declines. Already previously draftified (twice), so deletion is now the only option. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources, no claim of significance. Os ari us 11:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - Unreferenced in its current form, and so fails verifiability, but sources almost certainly exist. This belongs to a distinct sub-genre, which is Three Little Pigs parodies. The author should be cautioned that another move to article space without sources will result in sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, films are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist — they have to have notability claims that would pass WP:NFILM, and they have to have WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about the film to verify that those notability claims are true. But this demonstrates neither of those things — and it has already been draftified twice and the creator is simply moving it back into mainspace himself without listening to the reasons why it was declined at WP:CFD, so just redraftifying it again would be unproductive.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write a properly sourced article about it that actually contains a notability claim, but this ain't cutting it in this form. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. When deciding whether to issue a warning to an author, it makes sense to consider this AFD along with another: AFD:The Three Little Bass and the Big Bad Gar. Suitskvarts (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Terri Blackstock

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

Fails WP:NBIO; no sources found in searches other than book selling and promotional sites. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 21:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Christianity, and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - author has won multiple awards, including the Christy Award. LadyofShalott 02:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of the two "awards" she has won are well-known or significant. (from WP:NBIO: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor,") The Christy Award is another article which should also be deleted because it has no Reliable Sources; with the only search results for that being promotional publishing houses. Same for her other "award". ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 05:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Has no WP:RS and fails WP:NBIO. I agree that the awards are not significant enough. Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 15:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Based on my initial search, she has 17 reviews from Publishers Weekly. Beccaynr (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At the Wikipedia Library, there are also multiple reviews from Library Journal and Booklist, and I have expanded the article with a biographical source that includes information about her early life, education, career, and more awards/industry recognition. Beccaynr (talk) 02:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR - while this source is titled Author Q&A: Terri Blackstock (Clarion Ledger, 2017), it also includes a biographical and career profile, starting with, "With 80 titles to her credit and 7 million books sold over more than three decades, Clinton resident and New York Times bestselling author..." and lists awards. Publishers Weekly also has a 2014 profile of her career based on an interview; she is also mentioned in a Publishers Weekly article, Christian Fiction Keeps Its Allure, "HarperCollins, which publishes Christian fiction under its Thomas Nelson and Zondervan imprints, is coming out in 2018 with [...], and If I Live (Zondervan, Mar. 2018), a romantic suspense novel by Terri Blackstock, who has sold more than seven million books and hit a number of bestseller lists", which seems to be more than a trivial mention. Her winning of a Carol Award in 2011 is also covered by The Christian Post; Publishers Weekly reports generally on the Christy Awards [1], so this is further independent recognition as an industry/genre award. Beccaynr (talk) 01:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I continue to update the article (including to add multiple reviews to multiple works), I found a Library Journal review (Vol. 136, Iss. 15, Sep 15, 2011, ProQuest 888171376) that refers to Blackstock as, "Christy Award winner Blackstock", which seems to further support the noteworthiness of the award. Beccaynr (talk) 00:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding those sources; while you're at it and familiar with Christy Award sources, could you add those to that article if it can establish notability for that article? I was next going to put that one up for deletion, because I couldn't find any sources, but that would save us all time if sources you already found can establish notability for that article. Thanks! ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 23:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also added sources to the award's parent organization, without yet checking the Wikipedia Library for either; both articles are on my watchlist and I have some thoughts about potential expansion and organization, and we could talk more at the Talk pages (after some further research). Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 01:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources listed by Beccaynr support that WP:NAUTHOR is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion and now used in the article so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per edits since nomination, that show the notability. Suitskvarts (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simpich Character Dolls

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

I've done my own WP:BEFORE and the most substantial coverage I can find is this. I'm not seeing enough sources that would qualify under WP:NCORP. There's some further context at User talk:Clovermoss#Question from Simpich2 (03:02, 29 July 2023). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Colorado. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sufficient publicity in the byline media: [2], [3], [4]. Suitskvarts (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Some of the text looked a little promotional, but that's easily fixed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a WP:BEFORE suggests that the company, people involved with it and the dolls themselves are notable. The last source listed above (The Advocate) is excellent. This source is not bad [5] There's a lot of information in print, we can find some of it via TWL: [6] [7]. There's other verifiable information we can use that is not as in-depth, such as [8]. There's some travel guides with info on the company itself, would have to investigate the independence [9][10]. The article as it stands is WP:IMPERFECT but not promotional, overall it complies with our WP:PAG and does not warrant deletion. —siro χ o 00:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone for finding the significant coverage I was looking for. I really wasn't able to find anything but the one source myself so I appreciate the extra eyes that were able to. Liz, does it matter if even I agree with the !keep voters at this point? Ideally I'd like their before process so I can get tips on finding what I missed, but I can query that later. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:20, 23 August 2023 (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 Guttman Community College. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stella and Charles Guttman Foundation

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

I am unable to find evidence this foundation meets N:ORG. This piece from the Times about the new community college is GNG/ORG level coverage, but it's mostly about the school, not the Foundation. The rest in the article and found online is press releases announcing their gifts. They're an active Foundation, but do not appear to be notable. I don't think a redirect to Guttman Community College is particularly helpful to the reader, but not against it as an ATD. The article has existed for about ten years so think it merits more than BLAR. Star Mississippi 21:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and New York. Star Mississippi 21:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Guttman Community College where it could be condensed down to a sentence or two. Graywalls (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on redirecting to Guttman Community College?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 00:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Guttman Community College - looks to be the best option as per ADT. Although this book provides some information about the foundation I don't think it is enough. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:52, 25 August 2023 (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 Governance without government. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zero world government

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

As I hadn't heard of the term "zero world government" before, and I noticed the single cited source in this article didn't mention it, I looked into it on Google Scholar. This search only turned up 3 results for the term, none of which go into further depth on it than a definition.[11] On the other hand, the other leading term "governance without government" (which already has its own article) turned up 14,500 results,[12] while the term "governance beyond the nation state" turned up 2,110.[13] As there appears to be no substantial coverage in reliable services of the term "zero world government", I propose this be deleted and any (little) relevant information from this article merged into the article on governance without government. Grnrchst (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Grnrchst (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Governance without government: The article literally mentions "governance without governance" as an alternative description, yet does not expand much on the existing article. Os ari us 11:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Osarius. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. No evidence of major usage outside of Wikipedia.130.132.173.198 (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Osarius. There seems to be hardly anything there that isn't covered in the G without G article ++Lar: t/c 14:24, 22 August 2023 (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 Presidential system#Presidentialism metrics. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Presidentialism metrics

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

Not a notable topic; only content is basically a republishing of one organization's "Presidentialism index", no hits elsewhere. Looks like it was created by V-Dem, so it will remain a republishing of their index. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 19:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Social science. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A source in the article links [14] which discusses a couple other metrics "prespow1", "prespow2". I realize this article is nearly 2 months old without an update adding those, but it's possible this could be fleshed out to not jus be a republish of a single index. —siro χ o 20:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the editor's other article Democracy indices (V-Dem), or delete. I'm not even sure what any of this means, except the only definition I find of "indice" that it's another word for "index". — Maile (talk) 22:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other presidentialism metrics/indices/scores before V-Dem are used in literature like presidential power scores.^[1] But I agree there was no progress adding those, so I'm ok with

Merge back into Presidential system#Presidentialism metrics. HudecEmil (talk) 07:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment: Support merge. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 12:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Presidentialism#Presidentialism metrics. There is no additional information to merge, the bulk of this article is already taken from Democracy indices (V-Dem). - Indefensible (talk) 05:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect is fine as WP:ATD. —siro χ o 06:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing new here, or something of substance, at least. A Redirect would be the merciful choice since a merge would only move source-unsupported text elsewhere. Why do we create such airy pap, one wonders. -The Gnome (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The index itself is of questionable provenance and methodology, and the sources for it are weak, narrow and not really helpful to understanding the subject or the more general topic. Merging would simply move the problem and the monumental (and monumentally uninformative) table. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Doyle, David, and Robert Elgie. "Maximizing the reliability of cross-national measures of presidential power." British Journal of Political Science 46.4 (2016): 731-741.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting discussion. It's clear that the outcome here will be a Redirect or Merge but we have 3 different target articles proposed and it shouldn't come down to the closer doing "Eeny meeny miny moe".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in addendum to my !vote, I think the target should be Presidentialism#Presidentialism metrics. Whether it stays there long term or moves to another article is more of page-level editorial decision, but that's the most precise merge/redirect as of this discussion. —siroχo 20:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur with siroxo's suggestion for a redir target. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 21:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Presidentialism#Presidentialism metrics. Per nom and others, not notable enough to warrant a standalone article. Per siroxo, this would be the most precise merge/redirect target. Sal2100 (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Siroxo and Sal2100, that page is a redirect. Did you mean its redirect target, Presidential system#Presidentialism metrics? I have a script installed that shows redirects in a different color (in this case, green). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, sorry, my eyes read the same word and didn't notice the redirect. Yes I do mean that page. —siro χ o 00:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. I meant Presidential system#Presidentialism metrics as well. Sal2100 (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2023 (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 Jinx (band). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coco Mosquito

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Croatia. UtherSRG (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{R from member}} Jinx (band)? --Joy (talk) 19:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jinx (band) per Joy - not notable enough for its own article NotAGenious (talk) 11:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Found a couple of interviews, one quite detailed [15], [16] but not much else. Seems to be quite well known. Perhaps there is more out there with the right person doing the search. Redirect otherwise. scope_creep^Talk 07:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject clearly does not meet the criteria set by WP:GNG or even WP:NCREATIVE for independent notability. We often operate as article creators under the implicit assumption that Wikipedia is some kind of directory; it is not. Many musicians or, in general, artists, might be important to us personally but this means little in terms of the project. -The Gnome (talk) 12:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jinx (band) Elttaruuu (talk) 14:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematical challenges

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

For most of this article's existence since its creation in 2006, it's been unsourced. Now (following an apparent copyvio of some encyclopedia.com article), it's sourced, but just barely. However, this isn't my main concern. Rather, I'm concerned that the article is quite unfocused and off-topic. It veers between math problems given in school, math competitions, and open conjectures, with no particular attention given to each. Since these topics are quite disparate and have little in common, I don't think there's any way to make this into a proper article, so I suggest deletion. However, I'd be open to replacing this article with a disambiguation page or setindex, or redirecting it somewhere. Duckmather (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Duckmather (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsourced, rambling essay that conflates various unrelated topics. Nothing could really be written about this subject without either violating WP:NOTDICT or duplicating the content of other articles. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig, there are a number of notable mathematical challenges as linked in the article. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 23:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig (preferred, if possible) or Delete... the article is really quite disjointed. Not sure there's much saveable other than the list of challenges. ++Lar: t/c 14:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would anyone volunteer to turn this article into a disambiguation page?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: it's too ambiguous a term for a disambiguation page. A mathematical "challenge" could be a competition, an unsolved problem or a solved problem. In other words, a mathematical challenge is maths. — Bilorv (talk) 23:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non of the two references makes the case for the article. Cinadon36 00:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aivita Muze

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

I tried draftifying the article only to find out that it was too old. My rationale was that the subject isn't fully notable enough per sources. The sources in the article are only her agency and the (which only verifies work but does not establish notability) and a press release from the brand Hugo Boss. The Vogue source is the image from her walking the runway for a notable fashion house but like I said before that only verifies work rather than showing notability as if she had been chosen for one of their 'Top X models of the season" articles or if they did an article about herself. I tried looking for sources in Latvian to no avail which brings me here. Trillfendi (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Latvia. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources have not got significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV). Not notable enough. Shadow345110 (talk) 00:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:29, 19 August 2023 (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!} 19:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kevena Reid

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

The subject has made at least four appearances for the Jamaica women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Jamaica. JTtheOG (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:14, 16 August 2023 (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. ✗plicit 23:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tosh Masson

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NFOOT and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sikhism, Football, United Kingdom, and England. UtherSRG (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC too, the only sources I could find were passing mentions NotAGenious (talk) 11:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep updated with more sources, WP:BASIC says for sports people "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject." 1 in depth source is required which this definitely has. As first Sikh player in English top flight rugby I think it is quite likely there are more off-line sources available to improve the article in future.Skeene88 (talk) 13:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks to be just enough to satisfy GNG. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:30, 22 August 2023 (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. This could be a No consensus but most of those advocating Keep are Weak Keeps and those arguing for Deletion make legitimate arguments that this brief article isn't suitable for the project. No penalty on a future article if this individual ever does something truly notable. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nagendra Rai

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

Maybe pass WP:SIGCOV, but he is mainly notable because he is the nephew of Bihar's former Chief Minister, Lalu Prasad Yadav. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 15:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "nephew of Lalu Prasadh Yadav" can be found in almost every source's title. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 15:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, India, and Bihar. Shellwood (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 18:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, examination of the sources in the article demonstrates SIGCOV well beyond relationships. There are multiple events with SIGCOV. This not BLP1E and it doesn't fall afoul of WP:CRIME, because they are known for multiple criminal events, not just one. There may still be BLP issues to clean up. —siro χ o 21:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though sources are not sufficient, yet it is a notable topic.-Admantine123 (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject fails WP:GNG. This is about yet one more run-of-the-mill criminal, whose sole claim to infamy are lame reports of his arrests and bookings. These are never enough as notability criteria: Otherwise, Wikipedia would be choking up with biographies of every criminal under the sun. Thankfully, Wikipedia is neither a directory nor a criminology journal. And we certainly do not post up random information! Finally, it is telling that contributors to this AfD admit we dot have sufficient sources, yet they still assert this is a notable topic. -The Gnome (talk) 16:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 00:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Seems to qualify WP:SIGCOV; I am not in favour of deletion! Ekdalian (talk) 13:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; fails WP:CRIME, specifically in that the victim is not notable, and the motivation or execution of the crime was not unusual. ~T P W 17:59, 29 August 2023 (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. This AFD has been open for three weeks now and I don't see a consensus. No comments made since the last relisting so I'm closing this as No consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Florentine flogging

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 12:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, no indication of notability. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Unsourced and is written like a "how-to" instruction. I just removed the link under References, because it was an advertisement for an individual. — Maile (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, per above. Yeah there may be sources, but it is written like a game guide/how to. Draftifying could be a possibility. Brachy08 _(Talk) 00:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, per below. It can do some cleaning up. Brachy08 _(Talk) 06:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ I say merge main parts into relevant article(s) and leave a redirect. Stop with this speedy delete for all sexual articles. Biofase ^flame| stalk 21:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have there been a lot of "speedy delete" for those types of articles? — Maile (talk) 00:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually yes. It is common for new sexual or sexuality related articles to be the subject of speedy delete requests. It does not fit the criteria for speedy deletion. Wikipedia policy is to rather try and improve articles. If something isn't sourced then add a source, if an article is lacking then tag it appropriately so it gets more attention and only remove dubious statements, if it's not large enough for its own article then include it in others. Biofase ^flame| stalk 13:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is hardly a new article. It's been tagged for lacking notability since 2010. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 18:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references, including ones from Rolling Stone and Cosmopolitan (magazine). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Changing to keep with the recent changes. Biofase ^flame| stalk 08:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It can do a bit of cleaning up, so I’d recommend to draftify it. Brachy08 _(Talk) 23:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep New edits suggest notability Belichickoverbrady (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Impact play (with anchor). Of the four sources provided, the two which are independent reliable sources only mention it; the other two sources are more in-depth but are both specialised sites which offer classes in the technique (might well be expert, but aren't edited). The documentary mentioned in one of the Rolling Stone article might -- might -- be a sufficiently significant RS, but that would still leave WP:GNG clearly unmet. Even if evidence of notability were marginal, WP:NOPAGE and WP:NOTHOWTO also applies. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:31, 15 August 2023 (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!} 05:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Affairs

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

Article about a group that does not appear to meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Tennessee. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The article has been expanded since the AFD nomination but unfortunately, additional sources supporting notability were not included in this update.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - band is not notable enough and article sounds like an advertisement. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:39, 21 August 2023 (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) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 00:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Mediation Centre

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

Fails WP:NORG, refs 1-2 are to parent organisation and 4-7 are the organisation, source 8 404s so I cannot review it, that leaves source 3. a before search for sources came up with unreliable sources such as social media etc. or partial matches such as the Singapore Mediation Convention. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Singapore. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Agree that the sources used are Primary. I find this one [17], don't think it's enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I even used newspapers.com and newspaper-archive.com via the Wikipedia Library and found only partial matches. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a seminal organisation in the mediation profession of Singapore. See [18]. Google scholar also reveals:

[19] - SMC is the only centre in Singapore that allows mediations to be recognised by a court order
[20] - SMC mentioned as an "important development" in the history of ADR in Singapore
[21] - Chapter 2 is about the approach SMC mediators take
[22] - talks about SMC, its history and importance
[23] - mentions SMC
[24] - talks about SMC

See also: [25] - SMC develops an ADR process for .sg domains Dawkin Verbier (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

your source 1, singaporelawwatch has Copyright 2023 by Singapore Academy of Law which is the parent organisation thus not independent, 2 and 5 are from the singapore academy of law journal which is published the singapore academy of law, source 3, 6 and 7 are mentions thus not SIGCOV required for notability and your 8 is a brief paragraph. So in total your sources do not showcase how WP:NORG is met as they are a mix of mentions and non-independent coverage. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with your analysis of source independence. See WP:ORGIND and WP:Independent sources. The fact that SAL is the parent organisation of the SMC does not ipso facto make the SAL Journal dependent on the SMC. The SAL Journal is a peer-reviewed academic journal that is remotely operated from the SMC. To claim dependence here would be like saying that, since Conde Nast owns both Bon Appetit and The New Yorker, The New Yorker's coverage of BA is always non-independent. You need to show how the coverage of SMC in the sources you claim are "non-independent" are actually as such; to my mind, they are factual, in themselves show how the SMC is notable, and do not demonstrate any undue attention given. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some additional input regarding the sources in the discussion would be good.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Actualcpscm (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be enough reference coverage to support notability of the subject:
Keep - although some quoted material is primary, overall there is still enough that can be used to support the article in my opinion. This was just a quick search too, I am sure more searching would yield additional sources. - Indefensible (talk) 04:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Assessment of recent sources found would be useful for a closer to see.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

a review of the sources presents by Indefensible
- the first straittimes source is about the Singapore Construction Mediation Centre not the Singapore Mediation Centre and only mentions SMC in passing
- the todayonline source is about an ADR scheme authorised by the SMC and only mentions the SMC itself in passing
- the globallitigationnews sources is a bout a high court case and only mentions SMC in passing
- the second straittimes source is mixed it begins being about the SMC for the first 4 paragraphs but morphs into a general piece about the rise of acceptance of mediation in Singapore in general.
- the asianscientist piece is an interview with prof Eunice Chua and only mentions SMC
- the borneobulletin piece is a short article on an event hosted by the BDAC in collaboration with SMC and mentions that they were collaborating and that SMC's principal trainer was a guest speaker.
so in total the sources presented are yet again more mentions of SMC which don't count towards notability. the second straittimes sources would count towards notability if there was more WP:SIGCOV, passing mentions fail SIGCOV required for WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the 1st ref: "More than 4,000 matters of various kinds have been mediated at SMC since it was established in 1997. Construction disputes make up about 40 per cent of the cases each year." That seems fairly significant in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
that is not what is meant by WP:SIGCOV, that sentence counts as a mention. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have to interpret what the mention is saying, not just count the number of words. Anyway, that was just regarding the 1st ref, have to review the rest again. - Indefensible (talk) 18:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources listed above are enough to meet WP:GNG. Given the location, I think it likely that coverage in non-English sources could be significant, but it's unnecessary to search as there's enough in these English-language sources to meet WP:GNG Jacona (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2023 (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. czar 03:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Stepp

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

Non-notable session musician. Once played in The Spinners backing band, but none of his primary projects seem to pass WP:NMUSIC. No independent sigcov to establish notability apart from that, just his own website and some blogposts. Jdcooper (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Indiana. Jdcooper (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Actualcpscm (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only one article detailing his recovery from COVID-19 is not enough to establish notability. Sgubaldo (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Per WP:BANDMEMBER I wouldn't be opposed to a redirect to The Spinners (American group), although he isn't even named in that article currently, so perhaps not. Uhai (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2023 (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!} 19:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty District

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

Fails WP:BAND, didn't sign to a record label, no songs made charts. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 18:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 18:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - band is nowhere near notable enough, article has no sources and 2/3 external links are dead. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not mean to steer discussion away from this AfD's article, but I wanted to note that I took the liberty of nominating the albums in the band's discography for deletion as well: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Gangsters from the Dirty District. Sgubaldo (talk) 22:08, 20 August 2023 (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 I think a 3rd relisting would not bring forward any futher comments. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kavana Sarma

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and India. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Does not appear to pass WP:NACADEMIC. Properly assessing against WP:NAUTHOR would need Telugu news/literary sources. The te-wiki version of this article is not promising, and nor is a search for the Telugu versions of his name and pen-names. On the other hand, there are two reviews in the national The Hindu newspaper which are linked from his site[26][27], and neither of these reviews are visible from a search -- even directly on the site. Given that he has been writing since the 1970s and online coverage is obviously deficient, a weak keep on NAUTHOR#3 grounds based on the visible reviews plus the selection of his work for translation (see [28]). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails both and WP:ACADEMIC, as the above contribution by Hydronium Hydroxide also relates. -The Gnome (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:25, 22 August 2023 (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 UK Independence Party. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Veterans Against Terrorism

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

I am not sure this defunct oranisation passes N:ORG. The only source that mentions it in detail is the express.co.uk article. Vice mentions it in passing. Most of the sources lead to the dead website. Qcne (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT So I originally created this article just as a redirect to go along with this edit but when that edit was deleted in this diff the redirect no longer linked to anything about Veterans Against Terrorism.

If the article is to be deleted then I would request that the material in it be reinstated as a redirect to the history section of UK Independence Party to avoid WP:NOTCENSORED being breached. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Vintage Feminist I think that's a good idea. A subsection of the UKIP article makes sense. Qcne (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khingz

AfDs for this article:

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Promotional piece showing some local fame. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, United States of America, and Washington. UtherSRG (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All we have are reviews of albums, some of them not even exclusively about our subject's creations. Nothing on Khingz that would support independent notability. Subject fails WP:GNG and, by a mile, WP:NCREATIVE. -The Gnome (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet the criteria of notability, per the comments made above. W.G.J. (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. CSD G5 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Turkestan Offensive (1724)

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

Hoax suspicion. There is only one source in the article without specifying the page, I could not find the fact on the Internet. The article itself is empty, does not contain a description of the exact events, we are simply presented with a fact. The author focuses all his attention on the infobox, where the sacred "KAZAKH VICTORY" appears for him. Kazman322 (talk) 10:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Kazakhstan, and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 11:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreliable, not properly sourced, and the info box reeks of OR. Mccapra (talk) 08:15, 16 August 2023 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 01:14, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Esmaili

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

Article was an unsourced BLP for many years and eventually deleted via WP:PROD in March 2021, with just this source. A few days ago, on 15 August 2023, it was recreated as a translation from the French Wikipedia, with two obituaries as sources. I am having trouble finding anything further, and I am skeptical that this French translation addresses the notability issue that resulted in the last proposed deletion. The only thing changed was the subject had passed away. Was someone who wasn't notable due to having only one source would suddenly become notable upon his death because he has two obituaries? He may well be notable but the sources are likely to be in Persian. He might even meet WP:MUSICBIO in Iran, although evidence of that is scant. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Iran. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the subject was apparently a lesser government minister in the national culture ministry, and there seem to be a decent number of search results including several obituaries which suggests notability. Also found these biography overviews https://www.beytoote.com/art/artist/biography-mohammad1-esmaeili.html and https://www.hamshahrionline.ir/news/170929/%D8%B2%D9%86%D8%AF%DA%AF%DB%8C%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%87-%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%B9%DB%8C%D9%84%DB%8C-%DB%B1%DB%B3%DB%B1%DB%B3 which seems to further support notability, although no idea how good the sources are. - Indefensible (talk) 04:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as this discussion was already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option and right now, only the nominator supports Delete. Here's hoping we hear from a few more editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as this is looking more and more like No Consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My review of the sources doesn't support the idea that the article subject as a "lesser government minister" — rather, they read more like he was a senior employee within the ministry of culture. The sources provided do not appear sufficient to indicate notability. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:31, 11 September 2023 (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. I'm closing this as Keep as the Delete opinion is a Weak Delete, the article is no longer unsourced and we have at least two enthusiastic editors who can work on improving this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Fildes

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Unsourced bio. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 11:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, England, and Canada. UtherSRG (talk) 11:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've found a Beaton portrait in the National Portrait Gallery, and there's an intriguing Central Office of Information documentary Designing Women (1947 film), starring her with Joyce Grenfell - see BFI and the note on her talk page (and the nonRS IMDb). It does look as if much of the content of the article was added by likely COI editor User:SonsPaulandNicholas and SPA User:Jmcmurrah, but it all seems reasonable and most of it likely to be verifiable (well, perhaps not the family story about "My Portia"!) Pinging @PatGallacher: who created the article,in case it's no longer on their watchlist. PamD 09:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've fallen down today's Wikipedia rabbit-hole and the 1947 film is no longer a red link. PamD 13:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: nothing in the Globe and Mail's archive.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 09:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A basic internet search helps define WP:Notability. This actress has pages of search results for her acting work. I added her television work in the UK as well, one broadcast was from a live performance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlighsky (talk • contribs) 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 12:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Of the sources provided only one is usable for notability [29]. The others are simple mentions without commentary or databases. The level of work seen in her IMDb profile (nor the theatre work mentioned there) is not enough to presume notability in the absence of multiple independent, reliable sources that discuss the subject in more detail than the ones we have. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 00:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Hoo boy. So, I found a lot of mentions of her. I'm thinking she does qualify for Wikipedia:NACTOR based on the number of productions.

The stage performances (none listed in the article) that I've found so far: Rodney Ackland's dramatization of Crime and Punishment; The Rivals; Ring Round the Moon; Noel Coward's Point Valaine; He Who Gets Slapped; Hamlet (1945); The Return of the Prodigal; A Trip to the Sourdough; The Relapse.

Mentions in Theatre Arts magazine in reviews of productions she was in:

-January 1945 (v 29, # 1, p 61) "Chanticleer Theatre" by Raymond Leader. Noted as part of Greta Douglas' troupe with Margaret Gordon, Peter Noble, Robert Marsden and Alan Adair. Also noted she was invited (whole troupe, actually) to play on Shaftesbury Ave.

-January 1946 (v 30, # 1, p 23) "English Spotlight: The Rivals" by Leslie Stokes. Mentioned as new actress.

-October 1946 (v 30, # 10, p 594) "Crime and Punishment". Mentioned as one of the "other actors in the large cast" of production of Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment.

-November 1946 (v 30, # 11, p 640) "Gieglud as Raskolnikoff" by James Reynolds. Mentioned as performance being ineffectual.

In Drama magazine:

-Summer 1950 (v 1, # 17, p 11) photograph for "Ring Round the Moon" with Paul Scofield.

In Variety:

- September 3, 1947 (v 167, # 13, p 117) Production of Noel Coward's "Point 'Valaine" at the Embassy theatre.

- October 1, 1947 (v 168, # 4, p 182) review of While I Live (misspelled as "While I Love")

- June 1, 1949 (v 74, # 12, p 259) review of Kind Hearts and Coronets.

In Films in Review:

- September 1950 (v 1, # 6, p 32) review with cast list of Kind Hearts and Coronets.

In Punch:

- July 10, 1946 (v 211, # 5506, p 37) review with cast list of stageplay of Crime and Punishment.

In Saturday Review:

- July 15, 1950 (v 33, # 28, p 30) review with cast list for Kind Hearts and Coronets.

In Ciné Revue

- August 26, 1976 (v 56, # 35, p 20) review of Kind Hearts and Coronets. (in French)

Playbills / cast lists:

- the listing of players in the 1946 London production of Rodney Ackland's dramatization of Crime and Punishment.

- United Artists pressbook for Kind Hearts and Coronets. (already listed in article as film)

-- Also in Photoplay from Jul-Dec 1950, p 199; The Film Daily from 1951, p 190; a copy of the screenplay with cast list from the production

- Showman's Trade Review of While I Live (already listed in article as film)

- listed as playing Consuela in "He Who Gets Slapped" in 1947, with plot description on page 199; a review on pages 219, 315-6; and a picture on page 281.

- a review of "The Relapse" (and the cast list).

-- a second on this production, and cast list, with a photograph

- in Claire Bloom's autobiography: 1, 2 productions (I'm not logged in on IA, atm, so I don't have the play names, sorry).

- cast listing for "Ring Round the Moon"

-- Also in the Christopher Fry Album

-- A copy of the stageplay with the cast list from the production.

- cast list for The Rivals and for Ring Round the Moon.

-- Also a picture for The Rivals, and notes on the September 25, 1945 production.

- as Ophelia in Hamlet.

- photograph with John Gielgud in The Return of the Prodigal; review of A Trip to the Sourdough.

- cast list for Coward's Point Valaine.

- - - - -

This isn't even close to everything that came up in the search, just what I've looked at.

- - - - -

I also found a one line mention about a "Four Seasons Ltd", which was apparently a theatre troupe she was part of at the Duchess Theatre in London.

Getty Images OIM20 (talk) 03:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking she does qualify for Wikipedia:NACTOR based on the number of productions. WP:NACTOR#1 says The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions (emphasis mine). I agree she has had multiple roles. How many were significant roles in notable productions? - UtherSRG (talk) 11:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Characters she played on stage from the cast lists linked above:

Hamlet: Ophelia.
Crime and Punishment: Sonya. Character analysis: Cliffs Notes; Spark Notes
The Relapse: Amanda. Wikipedia article on the play lists it as one of the three main roles.
The Rivals: Lydia Languish. Lincoln Center Theatre shows it as one of the main roles in the play.
Ring Round the Moon: Diana Messerschmann. Oxford Reference and New York Magazine have it as a main role.
Point Valaine: Elise Berling. Wikipedia article on the play - this was the premiere London performance. Again, it is one of the main roles in the play. OIM20 (talk) 13:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but was it a notable production? Just because the play itself is notable doesn't mean every production of it is notable? Your high school could put on a production of the same play and that (very likely) is not notable. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well Point Valaine obviously is a notable production (the London premiere), but are you actually suggesting that performing on London's West End is equivalent to a high school production?

I'm not being facetious; I'm new to AfD and I thought providing a response on a relisted discussion would be more helpful than one that others are more likely paying attention to. So I'm actually asking. How notable does it need to be for it to be relevant?

From what I've read, the burden is on the person wanting to keep the article to prove significance, so if I'm to do that, I need to know what the determining factors are.

Also, should I be providing a detailed analysis of each link? I thought a summary would be fine b/c that's how I noticed it was done elsewhere. Is the burden higher on relisted discussions? OIM20 (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should check out WP:NFILM for notability for films, etc. Actors gonna act... that doesn't mean they are notable. This is why we have WP:NACTOR. Start with that and NFILM to start gaining an understanding. As for relisted discussions, that just means no conclusion has yet been reached, and the closer doesn't see a need for an immediate ending; no additional burden is levied. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Can I assume that "film" can be replaced with "stageplay" for most of that, or is there something separate for stage performances?

_________________

@Dusti, @Liz - Since I need to prove that the performances themselves were significant despite the fact she played on London's West End, can I have a couple of days to go through the rest of the 260 returns on Internet Archive to determine how many are movie reviews, how many are play reviews, and then where, when, and how significant each stage performance was? I don't know that I can finish that by the 30th when this is set to close.

If the above is any indication, there's a good mix, and a lot of the references will be for the same performances.

(And I do know that at least one is actually a film that's on IA's servers. So there may be others that are similar content and not useful for showing she should remain due to Wikipedia:NACTOR.) OIM20 (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OIM20, please stop. AFDs are a forum for presenting arguments for a particular outcome for an article, typically based in Wikipedia policy regarding notability and sources that suport claims of notability. It's not the location for presenting article content so do not list every role this actor ever had. It will not convince other editors to suport your position which is usually how deletion discussions are determined. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Okay. OIM20 (talk) 03:58, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - inadvertently left out He Who Gets Slapped: Consuelo. Wikipedia page on the play - main role. It's in the fifth paragraph of this section that one of her performances of the play is discussed, but not the one in 1947 I linked to information on above. OIM20 (talk) 13:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is now. It was a long time ago, but notable. Johnbod (talk) 03:45, 29 August 2023 (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. If there was more than one editor advocating Keep, I'd close this as No consensus but this discussion has been relisted three times with limited participation and I have to close it as Delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Renjilal Damodaran

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:FILMMAKER. Not received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Just passing mentions. The Doom Patrol (talk) 11:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, India, and Kerala. The Doom Patrol (talk) 11:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets criterion#3 for Creative professionals: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)".-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 12:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:GNG. An "important figure"? "Originated a significant new concept, theory, or technique"? "Created a significant or well-known work or collective body of work"? His "work has become a significant monument? "No" to all, so he fails WP:NCREATIVE as well. -The Gnome (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't find sourcing for this person. The assertion above that Criteria 3 is met, needs an explanation; what did this guy do to merit the "keep"? Oaktree b (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, ’this guy’ has directed 2 notable films and written one. See his Filmography please. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 00:54, 23 August 2023 (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) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 20:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tom George Kolath

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:FILMMAKER. Not received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Just passing mentions. The Doom Patrol (talk) 11:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, India, and Kerala. The Doom Patrol (talk) 11:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as significant coverage in The Hindu here, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
very weak Keep Might meet criterion#3 for Creative professionals.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 12:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Among all the producers listed for deletion by the nominator, he has the most notability. Besides significant coverage in The Hindu article as above, he produced two major movies, one of which won the national award. He was also one of the leads in Akale, and had small but notable roles in Finger Print and Black (2004 film) Jupitus Smart 23:47, 19 August 2023 (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. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 07:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Kumar V.R.

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:PRODUCER. Not received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Just passing mentions. The Doom Patrol (talk) 11:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, India, and Kerala. The Doom Patrol (talk) 11:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep: May meet requirements for Notability of Producers for Kuttavum Shikshayum (2022 film).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 12:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:06, 15 August 2023 (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. I'm going to put this out of its misery as clearly jo one wants to close this. That in itself signifies a clear lack of consensus.

This is the kind of AFD where genuine issues raised about the scope and upkeep of an article don't grip against the discussion. I have also seen this kind of thing renominated later on and found much less community indulgence if the core issues haven't been addressed in the period between discussions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of dive bars

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

Arbitrary list; violates WP:NOT - Wikipedia should not be used for arbitrary lists of "stuff". Clearly started by someone in the Pacific Northwest region of the US and would be a complete mess if it ever became comprehensive. WP:NOTDIR. Skyerise (talk) 12:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Strong delete. This is an infinitely expandable list. It's like Seattle hipsters trying to emulate Jorge Luis Borges' The Library of Babel and its infinitude of books except with sticky floors and sweaty drunks. We don't need a list of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 13:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my goodness. I mentioned "Seattle" randomly, perhaps because I saw a picture of Linda's Tavern and the first link was to a Seattle bar. I just now saw that @Another Believer, the article's creator, lives in Seattle. This was not meant as a personal jab. My apologies.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not offended, though I disagree with your assessment. Portland and Seattle have lots of dive bars! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: while I remain a "delete" because of the list's unconstrained scope, I'll note that this is otherwise a fine article. Nice pictures. All of the entries meet WP:NLIST. The topic overall meets WP:NLIST -- that is, it's a notable. Sticky floors - each one notable.

--19:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Strong Keep. Helpful list of notable dive bars, based on Category:Dive bars. Wikipedia has many lists of notable restaurants + List of bars, not sure why this one's any more arbitrary than those. List should be sourced and expanded. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bar and grill restaurants suggests otherwise. Skyerise (talk) 13:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Skyerise: Well, yeah, I see how "bar and grill" is more arbitrary. There's no Bar and grill restaurant or Category:Bar and grill restaurants. That's not the case here. "Dive bar" is a specific concept. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the category not adequate? Skyerise (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Your argument seems to be that as there are other lists just as worthy of deletion we should keep this one. Athel cb (talk) 13:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I said. Please don't put words in my mouth -- I don't think all restaurant lists are worthy of deletion. I said if this list is arbitrary then so are many others. Care to comment on the appropriateness of this list specifically? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Total lack of any attempt at summary or citation. Skyerise (talk) 14:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the list could be improved. That doesn't mean it should be deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I guess future !voters would take note of improvements. I can only !vote based on what I see. Skyerise (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really how AfD works but ok... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Took just a few minutes to add 30+ sources to the article, which could still use further expansion and improvement. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a valid reasoning for deletion yourself. Why? I Ask (talk) 18:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an infinitely expandable list that violates WP:NOT. The Banner talk 13:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This would apply to any list of restaurants on Wikipedia. If the list of dive bars got too long, we could fork based on geography. Not a strong argument for deletion, IMO. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should tell that you wrote or strongly contributed to all these bar articles? The Banner talk 15:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't write all of them, so no... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTGUIDE, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE since what qualifies as a "dive bar" is fairly subjective and thus expansive. Also vaguely promotional, in the sense of "my favorite bar is important enough to be listed on WP". As for these other lists with similarly vague criteria for inclusion, delete those too. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep We have:
List of bars
List of pubs in Australia
List of former public houses and coffeehouses in Boston
List of pubs named Carpenters Arms
List of pubs in Dublin (city)
List of fictional bars and pubs
List of pubs in London
List of award-winning pubs in London
List of pubs in Norwich
List of pubs in Sheffield
List of pubs in the United Kingdo
List of barbecue restaurants
List of buffet restaurants
List of cafeterias
List of casual dining restaurant chain
List of restaurant chains
List of chicken restaurants
List of coffeehouse chains
And many, many more after that.

There's a strong case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT going on here. Literally none of the above delete votes have any real rationale that doesn't apply to essentially every list of food-and-beverage establishments here on Wikipedia. Perhaps the only somewhat valid point is that the term can be subjective, but if there is strong sourcing about each entry being referred to as a dive bar, then of course it would merit inclusion here, and can have references reflecting that here as well. Easily done.

ɱ

(talk) 15:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those are also infinitely expandable lists and I'd be fine if somebody wanted to delete them too. List of pubs in Norwich is an example of a more confined list which doesn't have that problem.

Wikimedia has another project, Wikivoyage, that's much better for local listings (although not lists).

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...And most lists are "infinitely expandable" if you want to keep wikilawyering. The point is that we only include entities with Wikipedia articles and reliable sources to match. Nobody's suggested deleting List of cocktails, which technically can be expanded ad infinitum, but the point is that we curate it to only include the most notable of drinks. The same can be done, and is being done, here.

ɱ

(talk) 18:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

+1, completely agree, and this list is not promotional in any way. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Might I also note that we need more content and organization on bar and cocktail culture here, not less. This is a move backward. Content on the food & bev industry is incredibly ramshackle here compared to, say, science or history topics, and I think the culture of Wikipedians hurts that, you see any sort of for-profit establishment and read everything, even a simple sourced list, to be "promoting" it. $ɱ$ (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is difference between coverage of bar and cocktail culture or the food and beverage industry and coverage of individual small businesses for the most part only covered by routine local sources. I'd love to see encyclopedia articles on the bigger picture, not so much on individual companies (or mere links thereto) that don't say anything about the "culture" or "industry". To begin with, a better Dive bar! I mean, that's a pretty generic term that's easy to throw around and has a degree of subjectivity, unlike those you've listed. Reywas92^Talk 18:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how "dive bar" is any more subjective than "pub". ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all dive bars are pubs, aren't they? Per the article "Dives [dive bars] are like pornography: hard to define but you know it when you see it". That's pretty subjective. Skyerise (talk) 18:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To me, all dive bars are bars. Someone else would need to explain the differences between a bar and a pub. I only add "dive bar" to entries when sources describe the establishment as such. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then why is this not simply a section of List of bars, like "Biker bars" and "Gastropubs" are? Skyerise (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A collection of dive bars undoubtedly meets WP:NLIST (e.g., [30]), and it only contains notable entries, making it far from indiscriminate. Heck, there's even a whole book on Seattle dive bars alone: Seattle's Best Dive Bars. Not seeing any real deletion rationale, especially if the list is kept to notable entries with sourcing describing them as dive bars. Why? I Ask (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nom here. Is a case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Subject is quite subjective and just because WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST with regards to similar lists doesn't mean this one should stay. User:Let'srun 19:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MJ, as the page meets the standards for list articles on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, of course. There are really two key points here -- 1) WP:NOTTRAVEL, which specifically calls out this kind of information: "Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like." And probably more importantly, as others have also noted, 2) "dive bar" is an inherently subjective term, with no clear definition. The fact that people write schlock like "the best dive bars in city X" listlcles (and even travel guides) doesn't justify a list of every bar that you can find that someone once deemed a dive bar. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a poor deletion rationale. WP:NOTTRAVEL does not apply as it is explicitly a list of notable restaurants which is allowed (no telephone numbers, star ratings, explanation of food, etc.). And being subjective means nothing either, otherwise List of movies considered the best would not have been kept seven times. We have reliable sources to designate what a dive bar is. Why? I Ask (talk) 11:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being subjective means everything. There are NO reliable sources for determining what qualifies to be on this list. It's a vague descriptor term that people apply loosely without any agreement about what it actually means from one person to the next. If one person out of ten calls bar X a "dive bar", while the other nine disagree, and happens to toss it in a travel guide, book, magazine article, or listicle, then it still shouldn't be on this list. But we'd never know that, because no one ever goes out of their way to say that bar X isn't a dive bar, or even attempts to classify bars as "dive" or "not dive". This is exactly the sort of dreck that fails NLIST completely. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument falls apart based on dozens of other deletion discussions where lists based on subjective criteria are kept. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Side comment. People, please stop saying "infinite". There have only ever been and only ever will be finitely many bars on Earth. While the number may be large, it's still finite. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It only list those which have their own Wikipedia article, making this a valid navigational and informational list. Category:Dive bars exist, and list articles are more useful than categories since more information is shown, making it easier to find what you are looking for. If a reliable source calls something a "dive bar", then its a dive bar. There has never been a rule saying a list article shouldn't exist because someone thinks its "infinitely expandable". Only dive bars notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article are listed here, not everyone that ever existed. Dream Focus 08:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a valid navigational list, and the category should also be deleted. See also my comment immediately above about why someone simply labelling a bar as a "dive bar" is woefully insufficient. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To help see just how asinine the claims of "it's not subjective, just go with teh reliable sourcez!!!11" is, I picked one entry more or less at random (Donnie Vegas, whose notability I question too, but that's a side point). The sole reference for it, [31], says all of "In short, Donnie Vegas has the soul of a dive bar." That's it. It has the soul of a dive bar. Well kiss my grits, that's good enough for me! But now I've got a new concern. Maybe we should spin out List of bars that aren't dives but have the soul of one. The possibilities are endless. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MILL and WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NPOV (per IP, what even counts as a dive bar? Besides “teh sources” that happen to call Snooters or Pete’s Pub n’ Grub a “dive bar”) Dronebogus (talk) 08:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've got an essay that doesn't really pertain to lists; a 'travel guide' guideline, which a list of places all over the U.S. and potentially the world would fail by definition, and NPOV, which, how does a list present a point of view? If you think it's biased towards PNW articles, looks like you're gonna need to pony up and start writing about other notable places.

ɱ

(talk) 03:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I hate this kind of article, and clearly this particular version needs a lot of work, but the topic meets WP:NLIST. I find references to WP:NOTGUIDE unconvincing; a list of businesses is in my opinion clearly not a culinary guide. Suriname0 (talk) 03:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Infinitely* expandable list with no standard definition for inclusion -- even the Dive bar article is fuzzy on what qualifies. That leads us to INDISCRIMINATE, and that lack of specific focus is enough to kill off NLIST. I will also support IP...158's NOTTRAVEL and Let'srun's NOTDIRECTORY. And before you get all WP:WHATABOUT on me, (1) I would have the same !vote for 'List of Bars' and 'List of Pubs in the UK'; and (2) most of the rest of Ɱ's list (like "award-winning pubs in London" and "pubs and coffeehouses in Boston" and "fictional bars and pubs") are specific. 'Dive bars' is not. *Note for IP...158: Sorry, but they open new bars every day thus 'infinite' is a viable adjective, especially since the arguments above for 'keep' seem to think that if any source calls a place a dive, it's eligible for this list. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 00:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The arguments here that are based in policy (and not the ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT opinions or fears of infinite expansion) are focused on whether or not this article is appropriate per WP:NLIST. I don't see how this list of a type of bar falls into the four examples provided in WP:INDISCRIMINATE as it is not a database, list of statistics or summaries or a log. All of the locations on the current list have supporting articles on the project so are considered notable, the question is whether a standalone list of a type of facility is appropriate. While I don't have an opinion of what should happen to this article, this relisting statement might be seen as expressing a POV so I'll let another administrator close this AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep seems a rather unmanageable list, but the discussion above sways me. We have a category for dive bars, why not have a list? Oaktree b (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am not talking from IDONTLIKEIT. I like dive bars, and I even like some of the ones on the list. My objection is policy-based and rooted directly in the text of WP:SELCRIT: "Selection criteria... should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources." [emphasis added] Even the Dive Bar article doesn't know what the term means. Explain to me how this is unambiguous: "The precise definition of a dive bar is something on which people rarely agree, and is the subject of spirited debates." I will withdraw this objection when someone unambiguously defines the term in the main article and thus this list. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 22:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Last1In. The meaning of a dive bar is not clear-cut, and I don't think just having a source using that term is adequate selection criteria for a list here. The criteria for this is overly broad – this adjective can be used for many places that are dated, dark, cheap, local, simply decorated, or otherwise downscale or generic. Quite a few of these are cafes or restaurants known for food, which practically flies in the face of the descriptions at dive bar, like Nacho Borracho which isn't even a bar at all, but a restaurant that serves alcohol! I've even been there (and a lot of other dive restaurants just like it). I guess one dive-y thing about many of these is that they only have routine local coverage and are hardly notable enough for their own articles. Reywas92^Talk 23:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - The objections seem to be surmountable with inclusion criteria. It's not infinite because we can just use the WP:CSC. It's easy to decide what's a dive bar because we can say there must be sufficient sources calling it a "dive bar" to be listed as such in the lead of each article (or something like that). Of course we shouldn't have a list of all dive bars, but Wikipedia is full of lists of notable examples. Only weak because I'm only 75% convinced of my "sources call it a dive bar" argument above -- as per dive bar, "The precise definition of a dive bar is something on which people rarely agree", which makes it tough, but if sources carry us forward enough to have an article on dive bars and a category for dive bars, a list seems ok. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The point on sourcing is on point. I wonder how many of the list would remain if we were to require two sources for each bar listed. Would there be any left? Skyerise (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lest we forget, newspapers are not secondary sources, they are primary sources per policy in most instances. In the case of this list, there are two sources that might be argued to fall under the Historical Reports exception. Otherwise, the list is a collection of the primary opinions of newswriters based on a nonexistent definition of 'dive bar'. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requiring two sources for every item definitely seems like moving the goalposts here. You shouldn't change the requirements, they should be consistent with other articles like this one. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not only moving the goalposts, but also incorrect in suggesting that the stricter source criteria would eliminate all entries. Dive bars do exist, and some of them are indeed notable. I don't know why that's so bothersome to some editors. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that dive bars 100% exist. So do bad restaurants, some of which are also highly notable. The reason we should not have lists for either is that there is no encyclopaedic (unambiguous) criteria for either. The fact that the current list article uses WP:PRIMARYNEWS for nearly all cites is a side issue that can be resolved with good research. But that research is for naught if we can't define the term per SELCRIT, something no one has done. That is literally my only argument here. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Completely arbitary inclusion criteria potentially that could lead to an enormous list of junk. Its scrap. It the complete ass-end of Wikipedia with no historical value , useless to man and beast. scope_creep^Talk 22:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongly disagree. Not arbitrary, because "dive bar" category and list inclusion are based on what sources say about each subject. Also, not prone to becoming a list of junk if maintained properly. Also, not without historical value; dive bar is a level 5 vital article, so there's clearly value in covering the topic. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I'll try and take the parts of that one at a time. • Inclusion is arbitrary because there is no definition of 'dive bar' in any reliable source. • Most sources currently used are WP:PRIMARYNEWS and all suffer from the same lack of definition. By analogy, reviews in perfectly respectable magazines that call a movie 'obnoxious' would not substantiate creating a List of obnoxious movies. In both cases, one or more primary sources use an undefined term to make the claim. • Until there is a definition of a dive bar, the list cannot be curated proprerly and thus will become (or is already) junk. How would you challenge an editor adding a local Slug and Lettuce based on a single newsrag review calling it a dive? You couldn't, since the entire rest of the article is similarly sourced. • Dive bar is an encyclopaedic article because it explains what dive bars are and what reliable sources say about them. It does not try to enumerate which bars are dives, something this list is claiming to do in wikivoice. In fact, that article explicitly states that there is no definition. There is simply no way around SELCRIT on this one. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree with the concerns above that the definition of a "dive bar" is not clear enough to merit a list like this. The fact that this list contains everything from joints that only serve alcohol to fairly popular restaurants signifies that there's no real way to determine an inclusion criteria here that doesn't indiscriminately include random establishments. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTDIR. An exhaustive list would contain thousands of entries, and a source describing an establishment as a "dive bar" is a hand-wavy and arbitrary criterion. — SamX [talk · contribs] 06:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why so many people make the argument "that an exhaustive list" would be too long. That's so obvious. So would literally any other list on Wikipedia like this. Which is why this is relegated to notable entries. That's not a reason for deletion. Similarly, if a place is advertised as a dive bar, in the book New York City's Best Dive Bars ISBN 9780970312532, and has an entire The Guardian article, then I'm pretty sure we can call it a dive bar. That goes past what is needed. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even a list containing only notable entries would be incredibly long if we include every single establishment described by some listicle as a "dive bar". List of restaurants advertised as dive bars could maybe work, but that's outside the scope of this discussion. — SamX [talk · contribs] 14:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, totally disagree. I would very much welcome expanding this list with other notable establishments which have been described as a dive bar in secondary coverage. I've seen much, much longer lists on Wikipedia. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which leaves a list of zero bars, since there are no secondary sources cited in the current article. Not one. That's beside the fact that no one has defined (or apparently can define) the term. At least SamX has suggested a list that could meet SELCRIT. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what else to say except I disagree 100%. There are notable businesses which have been described as dive bars in secondary coverage, whether you want to acknowledge it or not. This is a fact, not a matter of debate. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided two books in my comments that list and discuss notable dive bars in two major cities. Those could easily be considered and used as secondary sources. Books published by reliable presses and articles by major newspapers can also hardly be called listicles. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, because to be notable, it actually has to be notable. A single listicle does not count toward notability. It needs multiple reliable sources. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An exhaustive list would contain thousands of entries Yes, and if it included imaginary bars, that, too would be inappropriate. Thankfully, it's neither. Straw man argument. a source describing an establishment as a "dive bar" is a hand-wavy and arbitrary criterion - it's WP:V. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems like some editors are focused on the potentiality of an endless list instead of actually evalutating the existing sources used justify each list item. In fact, the discussion seems to have focused more on the idea of this list than the sourcing that that is present in the article. I thought the focus was supposed to be on notability not whether or not Wikipedia should have an article on Dive bars. As I said, I'll leave this discussion to another closer to handle. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the 'infinitely-expandable' commentary is a fuzzy way to invoking SELCRIT, like saying, "If we can't define what should be in the list, we can never remove things that should not be there." I think the Dive bar article is important, but that article itself shows why a list of dive bars is not: The precise definition of a dive bar is something on which people rarely agree, and is the subject of spirited debates. By analogy, Calvinball is a good article, and List of Calvinball venues is not. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 11:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Infinitely expandable list, spam magnet, no clear criteria for inclusion, inclusion likely to be unverifiable or POV, need I go on? Stifle (talk) 08:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because half of those points, as already pointed out, aren't actually points. I'm fine if there's the argument that setting clear inclusion criteria would be difficult (although, I personally disagree as I have found plenty of secondary sourcing). But as Liz pointed out above, claiming that it's infinitely expandable or even a spam magnet is disingenuous. It's not, and the latter point (being prone to spam) isn't even an actual reason for deletion. Why? I Ask (talk) 08:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would be FANTASTIC. When you post the sources that give an unambiguous, objective definition of a dive bar, I think this entire AfD goes away. If you could add them to Dive bar as well, that would be ideal. Thank you! Cheers, Last1in (talk) 11:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Completely disagree with Stifle. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: demanding an unambiguous definition of "dive bar" is unnecessary; the inclusion criteria should be that each venue has received significant coverage in reliable sources because it's considered a dive bar. The problem, as others have pointed out, is that the sourcing for the included items is shaky at best. From a policy standpoint, the question is whether this is much of a list if we strip out anything that only has passing mentions, rather than significant coverage. I haven't had the time to do that review, but from what I read in this discussion, I'm not alone in that.~T P W 20:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Montesino

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

The subject has made at least six appearances for the Cuba women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Cuba. JTtheOG (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not finding anything significant in my searches Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with everyone else. Fails WP:GNG Whitemancanjump23 (talk) 08:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yoanna Calderón

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

The subject has made at least six appearances for the Cuba women's national football team (as per Soccerway). No indication of notability. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Cuba. JTtheOG (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Delete per WP:GNG Os ari us 11:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:14, 16 August 2023 (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!} 19:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leida Chirino

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

The subject has made at least four appearances for the Cuba women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 17:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Cuba. JTtheOG (talk) 17:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 07:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Job Ross House

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Building not listed on the NRHP. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, United States of America, and Oregon. UtherSRG (talk) 11:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:39, 15 August 2023 (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!} 21:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information fuzzy networks

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Unsourced, but has two external links that may have been intended as references. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. UtherSRG (talk) 11:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Artificial Intelligence, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Statistics and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Robotics. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The title is wrong. It should be "info-fuzzy networks"; the longer name is something people say because they read about it on Wikipedia [32]. Either way, there doesn't seem to be much secondary literature, i.e., things not at least co-authored by the originators, Oded Maimon and Mark Last. Most of the existing text is opaque not-prose. The second external link, "A Comparative Study Of Artificial Neural Networks And Info Fuzzy Networks On Their Use In Software Testing", is a dead link that turns out to be a master's thesis [33] (generally not a great kind of source) supervised at least in part by Last (so, not independent). XOR'easter (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The page title can be changed if it's decided to Keep this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Research goes back at least to 2001 - https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4757-4911-3_9. Seems like a borderline case. - Indefensible (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - this basically seems to fail meeting the essay WP:NSOFT after further consideration. All of the sources appear to be WP:PRIMARY with no further referencing to support notability, so the article may be promotional to highlight the authors' work. If anyone finds additional sources, please send a ping. - Indefensible (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2023 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sadanandan Rangorath

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BASIC. Not received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The Doom Patrol (talk) 11:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, India, and Kerala. The Doom Patrol (talk) 11:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets criterion#3 for Creative professionals: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)".-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 11:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:GNG. Invocations of WP:NCREATIVE are erroneous: An "important figure"? "Originated a significant new concept, theory, or technique"? "Created a significant or well-known work or collective body of work"? His "work has become a significant monument? "No" to all. -The Gnome (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This could have been closed as no consensus but I figure another week is okay to see if we at least get a little more participation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 20:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references seem to be adequate. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Considering the references; seems to marginally pass the criteria! Ekdalian (talk) 13:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree with Mushy Yank on WP:NCREATIVE; at least 1 of those questions listed by The Gnome could be answered with "Yes" since the work has its own article on Wikipedia, demonstrating notability for the purposes here. There also seems to be some negative press https://onlookersmedia.in/latestnews/aashiq-abu-sidharth-bharathan-warns-film-aspirants-stay-away-lucsam-sadanandan/, https://onlookersmedia.in/latestnews/salt-n-pepper-producer-lucsam-sadanandan-rangorath-accused-of-cheating-rs-4-lakhs/ regarding the subject which could be added to the article. - Indefensible (talk) 01:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 07:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

N.M. Badusha

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

Fails WP:BASIC. Not received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The Doom Patrol (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, India, and Kerala. The Doom Patrol (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 11:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:33, 15 August 2023 (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. There is continuing opposition to merging this material, but a clear consensus that this is not an appropriate article subject. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology

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

There are no secondary sources that meaningfully discuss this website. This article has lacked sources for over a decade. The edit that reverted the proposed deletion contained an admission that the reverter was not aware of any relevant secondary sources. The fact that a source is cited does not make it notable. The only potential target for a redirect does not mention this article's subject, so a redirect is unwarrented. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 17:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Religion, Websites, and Massachusetts. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 17:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I agree that secondary sources about the actual encyclopedia are not easily found (I have not encountered any). But secondary sources citing articles within the encyclopedia are easily found (any search on Google Books demonstrates this). Besides, the notability criteria for this should for WP:NB (which is "instructive by analogy"), and is therefore deemed a reliable source as a widely cited academic work. —Caorongjin 💬 18:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The proper answer to a lack of secondary sources isn't to come up with some other justification. It's that an article on this subject cannot be sustained, and I'm somewhat startled at hearing the article creator admit that there never were any valid secondary sources. A citation to an article within this encyclopedia is a WP:NOTINHERITED issue. Ravenswing 06:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And as that section reads: "four of the notability guidelines, for creative professions, books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances". What I am suggesting is inherited notability as a book, that is highly cited, per WP:TEXTBOOK (as suggested below by @A. B.. —Caorongjin 💬 16:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question: might this book qualify under WP:TEXTBOOK?

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 13:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Couldn't find any mentions in RSes and doesn't meet any of the criteria at WP:NBOOK. It also doesn't appear to meet WP:TEXTBOOKS as it hasn't been published by a university press or gone through the associated peer review, I haven't seen any evidence that the website is widely cited in academia or the media, there are no sources to establish how influential it has been, and it has not been the subject of study in any educational institutions. Shapeyness (talk) 13:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Modern Theology (journal), which is the primary source of writers for this work. Not notable, but quite possibly noteworthy. BD2412 T 04:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like that link was made in error, as I could not find any evidence of a relationship between the project and the journal. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 03:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ~~Wesley J. Wildman~~, rather Wesley Wildman. Oppose merge to Modern Theology (journal), which I don't think is actually connected, rather a set of seminars at Boston University of a similar name is connected to the journal. I've deleted the wikilink to Modern Theology (journal) from the article. --Jahaza (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

corrected as per Liz's note that Wesley J. Wildman is a redirect.--Jahaza (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus and two different Merge targets suggested (although Wesley J. Wildman isn't a viable one because it is a redirect)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see whether there is support for a Merge or Redirect to Wesley Wildman as there is opposition to a Merge to Modern Theology.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Ravenswing. A lack of secondary sources is and should always be a hard stop. - car chasm (talk) 07:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lechitel

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:N, WP:RS. Couldn't find any more information about it after searching online, and no sources are listed on the article. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 16:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 16:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can only find their website, and back issues at Issuu, nothing else for notability. Nothing in the Bulgarian wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is possibly notable (exists since 1991 and is kind of popular among older people) but I can't find good sources. --Nk (talk) 06:39, 16 August 2023 (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 2009 North American Christmas blizzard. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Midwest Blizzard

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

Long lost and forgotten article that only has a single source and other than meteorological information, the article does not really state what impact the storm had to satisfy WP:NOTABILITY. Noah^Talk 16:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Greenland, Canada, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (“long last and forgotten” is not a reason for deletion.) A WP:BEFORE shows a range of coverage New York Times, well sourced article, short 2009 description. With the damage and deaths it meets WP:LASTING. 109.37.150.153 (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2009 North American Christmas blizzard, which appears to be the same storm.152.179.246.14 (talk) 10:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2009 North American Christmas blizzard per the above. The keep !vote cites 3 sources but two of these are primary and the other just a list. However the merge target has a couple more secondary sources. I expect that one would be kept if taken to AfD. However this one appears to be an inadvertent CFORK. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2009 North American Christmas blizzard per the above. ++Lar: t/c 14:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2009 North American Christmas blizzard.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. CSD G7. If the page creator wants this restored to User or Draft space to use for a future article, contact me or WP:REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Imagination philosophy

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

...Imagination philosophy is/was a Wikipedia Article in a PmWiki format, "https://www.pmwiki.org/". Please "Delete" my "edits" to this existing Article titled "Imagination philosophy". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnbiology (talk • contribs) 20:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be an essay and is basically incomprehensible. Asparagusus (interaction) 16:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be an outline for an article that was never written. "Philosophy of imagination" might be an appropriate topic, but it's not at all clear whether that was the author's intention, so better to delete than to try a redirect or keep and improve. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be an incomplete draft with no indication that, if finished, it would be a qualifying page. Appears to be a personal "theory"(?) by the page creator. Nothing of value. A MINOTAUR (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete an Existing "PmWiki" Wikipedia Article Titled Imagination philosophy, please check out the original PmWiki Article...The title "Imagination philosophy" in Wikipedia can not be linked or cited...this was only an attempt to hyperlink the title....This is/was an attempt to make an existing 'reference' page into a Article page...for citing and linking purposes only....This also was a response to 'Wiki discussion' about the Article "Imagination" combining related topics... If you can hyper link the title of the original, please do it. I'm sending this 'talk' to my sandbox for help, to make "Imagination philosophy" an Article some day. ThanksArnbiology (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide more information about the the original PmWiki Article, or perhaps a link? I did a search and forgive me but I couldn't find what you are talking about. I just want to be sure that this article is not a copy of the text from another site. That will be against the rules of Wikipedia. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)...The link to PmWiki... [1] Arnbiology (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...:*:I am raising this point because this article you created has a lot of text in the form of ... 51 KB (6,431 words) - 04:58, 8 August 2023. If you are directly copying from a different site. In most cases, this is not allowed. Please read Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...I was not copying, please "Delete" my "edits" to this existing PmWiki Article titled "Imagination philosophy"Arnbiology (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify. It's an outline for an article that hasn't been written yet, and doesn't belong in mainspace. (I've no idea what "PmWiki" is.) Maproom (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...I was not outlining, I was trying to hyperlink the title only, please "Delete" my "edits" to this existing PmWiki Article titled "Imagination philosophy"Arnbiology (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

THIS IS A LINK TO PmWiki...[[34]] Arnbiology (talk) 19:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

::Liz, Please "Delete" my "editing" of the 'original' PmWiki "Imagination philosophy" Article...Please do not "Delete" the original page; It is a existing PmWiki Thumbnail Article that I was trying to hyperlink the title of-for easier access to the Article. In the discussion here, there seems some confusion about whether this is a Article or an edit...it's my editing that should be "Deleted"...I am moving to a sandbox to learn about Hyperlinking 'PmWiki Thumbnail Article Titles'.Arnbiology (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the page, I think it fits speedy delete per G1. At this point, I believe that the state of the article is quite confusing and hard to make sense out of it, which fits the criteria of WP:G1. However, I think this is the very first article of a new user, so I am willing to !vote Draftify !voting speedy delete G1 per creator request. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 15:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete please...This was an existing wiki promotion Article in Wikipedia? Apparently now in conflict with Wikipedia. I did know this while I was trying to edit and link its title for easy access in Wikipedia. Arnbiology (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. TheLonelyPather (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added speedy deletion template per your request. TheLonelyPather (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not an encyclopedia article. It looks like a new editor was just trying to organize their notes. Elspea756 (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2023 (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. czar 03:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CM Elangovan

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

Per Wikipedia:NCREATIVE and WP:Too early, draftify till more films with articles release. DareshMohan (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep have done 3 more films and have realible links.
Comment Entire article relies entirely on one interview. Passing mentions add no notability.

Rule	Result
The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or	No
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; or	No
The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); or	No
The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.	No

DareshMohan (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please sign comments in deletion discussions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very, very low-key films + limited sourcing on wide coverage. Neutral Fan (talk) 14:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:TOOSOON. May be notable in the future, but not now. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:06, 29 August 2023 (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 St Hugh's College, Oxford. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

St Hugh's Boat Club

AfDs for this article:

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

Listing since a G4 was declined due to the information added on Weiss (I assume). From a WP:BEFORE, not much has changed has changed since the last AfD. I'm not seeing any WP:SIGCOV on the club itself. The information of Weiss doesn't make the club itself notable. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 16:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, and England. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 16:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the St. Hugh College article. Not notable without the context of the school. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is suggested that this article should not be deleted for the following reasons:

1. SHBC alumni include American Olympic rower Anders Weiss who has his own Wikipedia page.

2. It is extremely common for Oxford college boat clubs to have their own Wikipedia page at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_University_Rowing_Clubs

3. It is suggested that all Oxford college boat clubs should be included to make Wikipedia more comprehensive.

4. Members of SHBC compete in the world-famous Oxford vs Cambridge boat race with a television audience of ~6 million. See for example the 1982 race at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boat_Race_1982 where Boris Rankov represented St Hugh's with a record-breaking fifth race, later recognised by Guinness World Records. Oxonwiki (talk) 11:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Point 1 doesn't mean we should have an article for the club, per WP:NOTINHERITED. Point 2 is just WP:OSE. Point 3 doesn't comply with the need for them to be notable, articles should only be created if notable. Point 4 is again WP:NOTINHERITED. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read the article on St Hugh's Boat Club. I have added more information regarding the Club's history and the awards it has won.

Most notable change is the fact that St Hugh's Women First VIII were the first and only women's crew to successfully bump a men's crew (magdalen m4) during the 1975 Summer Eights. This event significantly contributed to the creation of Women divisions for all subsequent Summer Eights (1976 onwards) and Torpids (1978 onwards).

Additionally, the St Hugh's Women's Eight also won the College Div B in the first ever Henley Women's Regatta in 1988, another notable achievement by the club. Whyartlife (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will note here that there is still no significant coverage of the club. The bulk of the references added are either for alumni (WP:NOTINHERITED) or published by St Hugh's. As there is no WP:SNG for rowing this article has to meet WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (my emphasis). I'm still not seeing that. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 17:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Before I address your points, may I disclose that I am not a paid editor and am not being paid to edit the St Hugh's article. I do however am connected to the Boat Club as I am a member of the club and have participated/represented the club in recent events. As a result, I am trying to show how our club has a rich and notable history, especially regarding women's rowing at Oxford.

Regarding your point about significant coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the subject - The Times has mentioned St Hugh's Boat Club multiple times during their coverage of the Eights Week, most notably during the years 1975, 1982-84. You can find reference to this at this website: http://eodg.atm.ox.ac.uk/user/dudhia/rowing/bumps/e1982/ which is an archive of all Summer Eights and Torpids Bump charts reconstructed by Anu Dudhia, who has stated that majority of the information for the years 1900-1995 came from " the bumps charts printed in The Times newspapers". This is referenced on the Bump Index website here: http://eodg.atm.ox.ac.uk/user/dudhia/rowing/bumps/.

Additionally, the St Hugh's Boat Club also produced the Women's crew which won at the first Henley Women's regatta in 1988 in the College Eights Division B. This can be proven by looking at the HWR results archive website: https://hwr.org.uk/results-archive/

I hope this is sufficient information proving why the Boatclub has notable history, seeing as there is proof showing that St Hugh's Boat Club women have been rowing even before women's rowing was introduced to the Olympics in 1976. This can be seen here: http://eodg.atm.ox.ac.uk/user/dudhia/rowing/bumps/e1975/ Whyartlife (talk) 08:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your first point is the The Times has mentioned the club. If you will read our guidelines on significant coverage, you'll find that a mere mention is not enough: we need coverage on the club, not mentions. As for your other points, unfortunately these mean nothing since Wikipedia does not have a special notability guideline for rowing so we must use the general guideline, and we are still lacking that crucial significant coverage that would pass that. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 10:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Times has covered the club throughout multiple days as the Eights Week as proceeded. You can go on the site I cited previously and see for yourself. As per the notability guidelines, significant coverage doesn’t need the source covering the topic to be the main topic. The Times doesn’t target the club for its main coverage, that is true. The main coverage target is Eights Week/Torpids, but in doing so it does cover the Club and its performance during the events and how the club won Headship. Winning the Eights Week is a significant and notable achievement as Eights Week itself is a notable competition seeing as it has its own article on wikipedia. There is also coverage by the Daily Telegraph alongside the Times. Additionally, there is no original research being conducted to verify this, only a few google searches. As far as I can see, this should be meeting Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines. Whyartlife (talk) 08:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that The Times article from 1983 contained in the below website provides significant coverage for the club in a reputable newspaper:

https://www.sutori.com/story/shbc-a-history--et3i3ZN8NKqrxq2irj2SLSi3?fbclid=IwAR2haOjUMrk4M7tpZ_B_N2ewC9XWESwex2GT6VvqzP1foLMpGw924x6ILx0 Oxonwiki (talk) 01:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect not notable enough for an independent article, doesn't look like it would meet WP:GNG. Also, please protect the redirect to stop this being recreated again. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally sources have been added to the article which hopefully should meet WP:GNG requirements. Whyartlife (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that The Times article from 1983 contained in the below website provides significant coverage for the club in a reputable newspaper:

https://www.sutori.com/story/shbc-a-history--et3i3ZN8NKqrxq2irj2SLSi3?fbclid=IwAR2haOjUMrk4M7tpZ_B_N2ewC9XWESwex2GT6VvqzP1foLMpGw924x6ILx0 Oxonwiki (talk) 01:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How can you be sure that this was published in The Times? I doubt "St Hugh's DevSec" is an independent source. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 07:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely important article. Boat Clubs mean a lot in Oxford. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:152:4F80:CF80:79FB:D1BD:DED0:D0BD (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really how AFD, nor how Wikipedia works. Is your claim verifiable by Wikipedia:Reliable sources (see the lead section)? This deletion discussion is about whether the topic is notable in terms of Wikipedia or not. Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process might be able to help you. NotAGenious (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Disclosure, I am a current member of the St Hugh's Boat Club and have conducted research and added more relevant information regarding the club's history which should hopefully meet all requirements. Additionally, I am new to editing in Wikipedia so not fully up to speed regarding most of the short-forms and conduct, so please do bear with me. I do have a vested interest in keeping the article and have presented more data so a more informed decision can occur. Whyartlife (talk) 17:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)— Whyartlife (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as a lot of editing has occurred on this article since nomination, please evaluate its current condition.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: fails GNG, as most Oxford boat club articles probably do. There's no significant coverage from sources independent of St Hugh's. Those interested in the history might want to start their own wiki on Oxford sports and societies, but Wikipedia isn't that place. — Bilorv (talk) 23:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - every other Oxford college boat club appears to have a page, including e.g. St Benet's Hall and Regent's Park. I don't see the point of deleting one and being inconsistent. Either have articles for them all, or have none and delete the lot.

(Just on another note - shouldn't it be moved to 'St Hugh's College Boat Club'?) FieldOfWheat (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @FieldOfWheat, the existence of other articles is generally seen as a poor arguement for both deleting or keeping an article. If you have concerns about the notability of other articles, then that should be voiced in discussions concerning those articles. All the best, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 16:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems you have an agenda. Every time someone puts an argument for keeping this page, up you pop to try and void it. I have no concerns whatsoever about the notability of other articles - if every other Oxford boat club (indeed every other Oxbridge boat club) is notable enough to deserve a page (as they all are), so does St Hugh's.

Leave it alone, and don't question me about keeping this page, or I might ask you why you're so keen to delete it.

FieldOfWheat (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you that I have no agenda here: please don't cast aspersions. I'm merely trying to explain the policies on which we should base rationales in these discussions. You (and other editors in this discussion) are new to AfD so I thought explaining and responding to these points would be helpful and useful. Regardless, I will not be replying to any more of these points, even if I feel it will help. Thanks, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 20:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between a Redirect/Merge to St Hugh's College, Oxford and Keeping the article. I asked in the first relist if there could be some evaluation on the work to improve this article since the nomination but it seems like most opinion has been about whether or not Wikipedia should have articles on this subject, with limited discussion on the current state of this article and its sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Source assessment table. Based on sources in the article, redirect/merge seems reasonable, but I haven't sought out more sources so I won't bold a !vote. —siro χ o 04:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:siroxo
British Rowing[35]	?		address, location etc	✘ No
Wood, Tessa[36]	school publication reporting on school subject	?		✘ No
facebook	?	WP:UGC	?	✘ No
Sutori[37]	?	UGC		✘ No
St. Hugh's College Chronicle (all of them)	school publication reporting on school	?	?	✘ No
thames.me.uk (both)	?	?	database entry for a few specific races	✘ No
eodg.atm.ox.ac.uk (both)	?	?	several database entries over time for specific races	✘ No
[38] Henley Women's Regatta	?		database entries on races	✘ No
[39]Thames Ditton Regatta	?		database entry	✘ No
Goodbody, John[40]			no mention of subject	✘ No
"Good luck to Anders Weiss!"	school publication	?	?	✘ No
The American[41]	entirely an interview with member	?		✘ No
Sam Marsden[42]			no mention of subject	✘ No
"BBC investigated ..."[43]	?	?	passing mention	✘ No
Guiness[44]			no mention	✘ No
Rachel Quarrell[45]			no mention	✘ 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}}.

Merge to college article pro tem - Oxford colleges have always given rise to lots of writing and I've no doubt that it would be possible with time to pull together enough independent sourcing to support a separate article. It would be a shame to lose this content in the meantime. Ingratis (talk) 08:20, 5 September 2023 (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 O'Day station. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

O'Day, Manitoba

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

No evidence that there was ever a community here. Natural Resources Canada lists it as a "railway point", so it's likely duplicate of O'Day station. –dlthewave ☎ 15:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 15:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another article on a location that is little more than a word on a map. Completely non-notable and nothing found that isn't sourced from WP or Via Rail, which only proves existence. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 17:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the associated census district 23 - please see the very lengthy station-by-station analysis of stations and associated “towns” on the railroad to Hudson’s Bay that I posted previously at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Silcox station. I spent hours researching this points along this line. This location is a signpost in the middle of deep boreal forest and bogs. There’s no town. It’s many kilometers from any settlement. The flag stop serves the occasional canoeist or trapper. Look at it on satellite imagery and you can see there was never anything there.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 13:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A. B., I'm not sure I follow the logic of redirecting a rail point to a census district. –dlthewave ☎ 03:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is or was a railroad station article that should have been redirected to our article about the Winnipeg to Churchill train. (I’m on the road and using our awful mobile editor, so it’s hard to type here and check the status of the O’Day station article). There were a bunch of these “station” articles generated for signposts.

Then there town articles created for each signpost “station”. So far, those town articles that have been redirected have been redirected to the census division.

This is the O’Day “town” article.

All these articles are problematic nullities - stories of imaginary towns and railroad stations.

I’m flexible with how we get rid of them - redirect to the census division, railroad line, or train. Or, just delete outright.

I appreciate your work on this problem.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My concern with the town articles is that there's no "town" source; someone took the same railway point entry and created both a town and railroad station article for each one. I'm flexible on the outcome as well, but I think they should be treated as duplicate railway points rather than towns/communities. Safe travels - I'll try not to bother you with anything too complicated! –dlthewave ☎ 03:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to O'Day station or Redirect to same, or Delete all seem reasonable options. My preference order is given. ++Lar: t/c 14:39, 22 August 2023 (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 Lamprey station. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lamprey, Manitoba

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

Duplicate of Lamprey station. The "history" is a generic description of the Hudson Bay Railway. –dlthewave ☎ 14:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 14:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing found except sites that apparently scrape from the WP article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the associated census district 23 - please see the very lengthy station-by-station analysis of stations and associated “towns” on the railroad to Hudson’s Bay that I posted previously at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Silcox station. I spent hours researching the points along this line. This location is a signpost in the middle of deep boreal forest and bogs. There’s no town. It’s many kilometers from any settlement. The flag stop serves the occasional canoeist or trapper. Look at it on satellite imagery and you can see there was never anything there.

The station should be redirected to the article for the train.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 13:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that the location and station are separate entities to be directed to different targets. They use the exact same sources (Geographical Names Data Base and VIA Rail) which only mention the rail point/station. I think that these are all duplicates that should be redirected to the railroad if not deleted outright. –dlthewave ☎ 14:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lamprey station or Redirect to same, or Delete all seem reasonable options. My preference order is given. ++Lar: t/c 14:39, 22 August 2023 (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 15:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tintumon

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. UtherSRG (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. While I'm unfamiliar with the subject, I can't seem to find much. Granted, I feel there may be sources out there, so if anything winds up from others' searches, let me know and I'd be willing to change my vote. Pokelego999 (talk) 02:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient WP:SIGCOV that can be found. Looks to be a neologism or thing made up. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 15:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Tilsner

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, and Journalism. UtherSRG (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks coverage in independent sources to meet WP:NBASIC. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:50, 19 August 2023 (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 15:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Ties That Bind (novel)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and France. UtherSRG (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NBOOK. That being said, don't confuse this book with The Tie That Binds (novel), which also needs a bit of a fix. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and perhaps create a disambiguation on The Tie That Binds (novel) with redirect to to author Vanessa Duriès. A MINOTAUR (talk) 17:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm finding no significant coverage or reviews on the book in English sources. Its possible that there may have been greater coverage in French sources, but I did notice that the French Wikipedia also does not have a stand alone article for this book, and merely redirects to the author's page where the book is covered as part of her biography. I'll hold off on making an "official' recommendation for deletion in case any editors that can read French are able to find any reviews/sources, but if not, I agree with A MINOTAUR that deletion and then adding a hatnote to The Tie That Binds (novel) to direct readers to Vanessa Duriès would be the best option. Rorshacma (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2023 (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 15:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Thomas (Irish footballer)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. The single reference is a match programme, which fails WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, and Ireland. UtherSRG (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:SPORTBASIC. The absolute minimum criteria of SPORTSBASIC is that "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources". That is not met. Nor, in my own BEFORE searches, can I find anything other than trivial passing mentions in fan blogs (like this scarcely fleeting mention). There's nothing to expand the article beyond the sub-stub we have (or support even basic biographical details like DOB, death, etc). Guliolopez (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A pretty common type of article, a sportsbio with references to either match programs or databases. From my searches, I could not find anything that comes close to SIGCOV. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probable keep I think it's highly probable this is an important historic figure in Irish football. I found one source, although it is The Sun! [46], But winning all those honours means something. I believe this is all about digging deep and finding those offline sources. He clearly seems an important figure with two clubs of Bohemian F.C. and Shelbourne F.C., I did also have a dig at google. But it's a tough one for sure. But if this is deleted then this is really sad for wikipedia. Govvy (talk) 15:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:14, 16 August 2023 (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. ✗plicit 01:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Milun Tesovic

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. All but perhaps one reference fail WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Yugoslavia, and Canada. UtherSRG (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - there are some news articles beyond those in the article ([47] [48] [49]), but I'm not sure their inclusion would be enough to pass WP:SIGCOV regardless. Sgubaldo (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 15:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Some coverage [50], second is a trivial mention [51] Oaktree b (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Significant coverage in a couple of sources and brief coverage in a few others. --Griboski (talk) 02:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:18, 29 August 2023 (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. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 01:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Taylor (producer)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as well as the AllMusic staff bio referenced in the article the HoustonPress piece archived here is significant coverage imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 15:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:18, 29 August 2023 (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 14:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Buike

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

Article about a non-notable musician per WP:NMUSICIAN. He has had no significant accomplishment of tracks of repute. The sources are all promotional/PR Puff pieces. Jamiebuba (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Nigeria. Jamiebuba (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With these Nigerian sites that appear to be "pay to play" in what are otherwise RS, I'm unsure how we can judge a truly notable artist from the puff they publish. That said, this appears to be puff pieces and I'm not seeing that this artist has charted or won any awards of note. Social media personality is likely the clincher for non-notablity, but I'm willing to revisit if others have a different argument. Oaktree b (talk) 16:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Let's analyze whether the subject, Chibuike Promise Obi (stage name Buike), meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for musicians:

Published Works: The article includes references from notable sources such as The Sun Nigeria, Punch Newspaper, The Guardian Nigeria, Vanguard News, and more. These sources provide coverage of Buike's music career, releases, and achievements. But according to @Oaktree b, they might just be "pay to play" Y

Chart Performance and Record Certifications: There is no mention of Buike having a single or album on a national music chart, or having a record certified gold or higher. N

Concert Tours: While the article mentions Buike's music being streamed and on playlists, there is no indication of non-trivial coverage of an international or national concert tour.N

Major Record Label Albums: The article mentions Buike releasing songs, but it does not specify whether these releases were on major record labels or significant indie labels.N

Prominence of Style or Local Scene: There is no mention of Buike being one of the most prominent representatives of a particular music style or being the most prominent in a local music scene.N

Major Music Awards or Competition Wins: There is no mention of Buike winning or being nominated for major music awards, and there is no information about him winning a major music competition.N

Music for Notable Media Works: There is no information about Buike's music being featured in notable media works.N

Radio or Television Exposure: There is no mention of Buike being placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network, nor is there mention of him being a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment.N Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you're asking that we delete it? That's the conclusion I draw from your discussion above. Oaktree b (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://sunnewsonline.com/with-music-nigerian-entertainer-buike-is-on-to-something/	Reads like a press release. Not attributed to any author, potentially a paid piece.	? Reliable only according to this brief discussion; this was never analysed to properly establish reliability.	Just barely	✘ No
https://schoolnews.info/buike-biography-net-worth/amp/		No indication of reliability or editorial oversight		✘ No
https://punchng.com/odd-jobs-funded-my-music-career-chibuike-obi/?amp	Basically an interview	? Same as source 1		✘ No
https://newtelegraphng.com/blossoming-music-career-chibuike-obi-shares-grass-to-grace-story/	Reads like a press release. Not attributed to any author, potentially a paid piece.	?		✘ No
https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2023/07/03/singer-buike-storms-music-scene-with-boss-debut-single	Promotional / paid	?	Just barely	✘ No
https://guardian.ng/arts-2/in-boss-buike-speaks-on-self-confidence/	Likely promotional, see this discussion	Not for promo pieces		✘ No
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2023/07/nigerian-artist-influencer-buike-strides-into-afrobeats/	Reads like a press release. Not attributed to any author, potentially a paid piece.	? Same as source 1	Just barely	✘ No
https://newsghana.com.gh/nigerian-rapper-and-songwriter-buike-on-to-something-with-music/?amp	Likely a paid piece	Allows submissions from anyone, unclear editorial oversight	Just barely	✘ No
https://newsghana.com.gh/nigeria-musician-and-entertainer-buike-lights-up-music-scene-with-boss/	Likely a paid piece	Allows submissions from anyone, unclear editorial oversight		✘ 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}}.

Source assessment by Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 10:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the available sources are suitable for establishing notability; it's clear that the majority are paid promotional pieces. Accordingly, the subject fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:BASIC, as we don't have sufficient appropriate sources to establish notability under those guidelines. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 10:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. CSD A11. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correctional pedagogy

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

Seems to be an essay with opinionated phrases. No sources. Possibly WP:DRAFTIFY, but I don't know what someone could do to fix this. Asparagusus (interaction) 13:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My analysis:

- The article itself is unsourced and badly formatted. An argument of WP:TNT could apply.

- I did a google search on "correctional pedagogy". My search results were full of "prison pedagogy" or something similar. However, this article talks about a pedagogy for children with developmental disabilities. The article thus fails notability. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per original. Essay (rather literally: seems to read like a school essay being copy and pasted) regarding phrase with seemingly no significant/real use in the world. A MINOTAUR (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bordering on SPEEDY A11. Unsourced, NN, likely OR if not A11, and horribly written. Quick search yields nothing that could reasonably be used to recreate or improve this article. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: I'll be bold and tag this with A11. BangJan1999 01:18, 17 August 2023 (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 Characters of The Legend of Zelda#Impa. ✗plicit 14:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Impa

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

Having hard time to find sigcov on a quick google search. Article mostly relies on Valnet sources at reception, thus failing WP:GNG. SyFy Wire is the only valuable source, but only that isn't enough. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 13:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 14:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Characters of The Legend of Zelda#Impa. The article simply relies far too much on content farm sources from the same group of websites. I assume that the creator, Fieryninja was unaware of this, but content farms publish insane amounts of fictional minutia, and should not themselves be what an article relies upon to prove notability, as is rapidly becoming a more and more common problem. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Characters of The Legend of Zelda#Impa, per Zx. I'd like to keep this around, but the current sourcing state just isn't doing it, and I don't believe there's enough SIGCOV to buff the article's current state per a search. Ping me if something turns up and I'd be willing to change my vote, though. Pokelego999 (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Characters of The Legend of Zelda#Impa. Looking back, there is not enough significant coverage for this character. Fieryninja (talk) 05:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom, plus creator self admits a lack of coverage. NegativeMP1 (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Characters of The Legend of Zelda. Article relies on poor-quality video game content-farming "journalism" that doesn't demonstrate notability. – dudhhr^talk _contribs 23:12, 20 August 2023 (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 Sirius XM Radio channels#Former channels. ✗plicit 14:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

XM Deportivo

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

Couldn't find many secondary sources about this defunct satellite radio channel in English or Spanish beyond routine coverage. Thus, it fails WP:GNG. In addition, the article creator was banned for vandalism. Let'srun (talk) 12:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United States of America. Let'srun (talk) 12:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or redirect to List of Sirius XM Radio channels#Former channels: there is insufficient significant coverage to merit any actual notability, but this seems to be the logical alternative to deletion for otherwise non-notable SiriusXM channels (if not associated with another notable parent entity). (It doesn't appear to currently be mentioned there — though a similar channel called "Radio Deportivo" that was shuttered in 2004 is — but what little potential sources exist for this channel might at least be enough for adding it there.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Sirius XM Radio channels#Former channels – There's no indication of standalone notability under WP:GNG here. I'm not sure we should merge content that has no sources whatsoever, so a redirect seems appropriate. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 10:07, 22 August 2023 (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 E!. ✗plicit 14:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

E! Entertainment Radio

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

Not enough secondary coverage to meet any of the notability guidelines. Let'srun (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United States of America. Let'srun (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any material that can be sourced into E!, otherwise delete. A satellite radio channel devoted entirely to running the audio of E!'s television programming does not seem likely to be independently notable of E! proper. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to E! – No indication of standalone notability under WP:GNG. I don't think we should merge any of this content given that it's completely unsourced. A redirect seems fine, though. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 10:05, 22 August 2023 (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. RL0919 (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Majid Sajadi

AfDs for this article:

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

BLP of an apparently non notable person. Many of the refs provided have nothing to do with the subject. Likely promotional spam. Moved to draft but moved back without improvement. Mccapra (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just realised there is an open AfD for this from yesterday so there is clearly some gaming going on with recreation. Mccapra (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Links from the Tehran Times used in the article are about the Sports Minister, not this person. I'm not seeing notability; this is likely PROMO. I can't find mention of this individual in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment unable to understand how come 2 AFD’s are existing at the same time? Also this article was already deleted under A7, so I requested speedy under the same, and that tag got removed by some other user as creator can’t remove it. Also it’s poorly sources and absolute failure of GNG Wikipedian (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was speedy deleted but immediately recreated Mccapra (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete per other discussion. I'm fine with A7 if someone wants to add it back. —siro χ o 15:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For convenience, here's what I had in the other discussion: "Subject does not meet WP:BIO including WP:NACTOR and WP:BASIC. Also violates WP:NOTWEBHOST" —siro χ o 18:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article creator is persistently vandalising the page by removing the AfD template despite several warnings to stop and reversions by several editors. Mccapra (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve blocked them for that. Courcelles (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This is for what we have A7. Okoslavia (talk) 22:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity page for a clearly non-notable individual.-KH-1 (talk) 03:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources, or if there are sources, they are promotional and/or the style is unclear, and the person is not notable enough. HarukaAmaranth (話) 23:56, 17 August 2023 (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 11:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pemba (red panda)

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

Not notable for anything except maybe dying unexpectedly, and even that received minimal news coverage. Groupthink (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Biology. Groupthink (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be a common red panda name [52]. I was thinking a redirect to the zoo, but there isn't coverage for this animal. Oaktree b (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG; there's also multiple unrelated red pandas named Pemba (as per Oaktree b and this article). Sgubaldo (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2023 (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 against a standalone page, and title is an implausible search term. I can provide a userspace/draftspace copy to anyone who wishes to develop content toward a merger. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fox Kids (Australia)

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

Tagged for notability since 2015, and no indication that it meets WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search yielded no usable results either. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 08:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 11:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Actualcpscm, I tried to add more references to the article, and I also listed it on WP:RFU last week. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 21:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find any in-depth, independent third-party coverage. TarnishedPath^talk 10:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant information into Fox Classics history section. Happily888 (talk) 10:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 20:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not find coverage to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed @Happily888 added 5 references to the article just now, so it now meets WP:GNG. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 06:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fully 54 of the 7 references in the article are links from Foxtel. TarnishedPath^talk 07:00, 28 August 2023 (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. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nut hand

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

No footnotes for most of the content, references to a few websites on etymology or poker glossaries (two out of three seem to be dead or broken anyway). The article doesn't make the case for its topic being notable, and my BEFORE just shows some mentions in passing. Suggest redirecting to Glossary_of_poker_terms#N. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely meets GNG. Article clearly needs work, but WP:NEXIST for sure. This concept goes beyond jargon and dicdef. It is heavily analyzed in poker literature, especially Omaha and Texas Hold'em variants. While a true etymology may be hard to document (would take some deeper reading of secondary sources), the various folk etymologies are quite storied (and verifiable as folk etymogologies) as well, though care will need to be taken to avoid UNDUE weight. I think the title is probably fine, but the best alternative would be the nuts if we want a more common term, and a better one for finding sources.
lots more books with pages about the concept... so here's at least a couple initial examples on the folk-etymological side.
1. folk etymology
2. some more folk etymology

—siro χ o 05:55, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I won't repeat siro's masterful source analysis, which is convincing. I will note that nom's claim that the article doesn't make a case for its notability is irrelevant. Notability isn't related to the state of sources in an article but to the availability of sources in the world. In addition to Siro's work a quick Gscholar search shows there are many technical and mathematical discussions of this key concept. Central and Adams (talk) 06:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. The so-called "sigcov" isn't. You want to have the nuts, or better yet, the absolute nuts, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTGUIDE. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a guide, but it can most certainly cite reliable guides that explain why a concept is notable or verify facts necessary to the article. We cite textbooks frequently, we cite independent software texts, etc. Even the article as it stands, such as it needs to be improved, is not a guide. Game-related concepts can be notable without requiring our article to be a guide on how to use the concept, compare this article to en passant, checkmate, batting (baseball), three pointer, field goal, etc. —siro χ o 10:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom - seems to be a WP:DICDEF. I don't see sigcov in the links either - just usage of the term, meaning that adding them to the article would be WP:SYNTH. SportingFlyer T·C 13:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given they are all referring to the same concept, we can attribute and quote without drawing further conclusions of our own to avoid issues of SYNTH. —siro χ o 10:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep the term is too complex to be a strict dictionary definition (at the least nuts vs. absolute nuts, vs. the (mis)use as "best hand possible hand right now" needs a lot of words and probably examples). And the GNG is pretty easily met as almost any poker strategy book is going to spend time explaining the concept and how it impacts strategy (e.g. [53]). And there are tons of such books. (As a note, in context it's generally just called "the nuts" rather than "nut hand"). Hobit (talk) 13:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems like a standard encyclopedic term. KatoKungLee (talk) 15:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Torn between Keeping this article or Redirecting it with a dispute over the value of sources provided.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (or selectively merge) to glossary of poker terms. Doesn't really need more than a paragraph. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Imo it probably needs at least 2 or 3. The nuts, absolute nuts, and current nuts would all need to be covered. A bit about how they are each played and the etymology should also be there given we have plenty of RSes that cover those topics... that's going to be more than a paragraph... Hobit (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is WP:NOTGUIDE. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NOTGUIDE is NOTSALIENT. The sources discussed above contain mathematically based definitions and analyses of the topics mentioned by Hobit rather than pure unanalyzed advice such as one would expect in a guide. Central and Adams (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have a very detailed article on checkmate. Do you feel that runs afoul of NOTGUIDE? Again a lot of sources exist and have been provided. Hobit (talk) 07:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Apologies in advance, I don't mean to BLUDGEON, but I'm truly confused by the direction this discussion has gone at this point. I refer to articles like Check (chess) or Checkmate, which are reasonable analogues in chess. Those could be redirected to a glossary, and those rely on guides and even provide a small amount of guidance as is necessary for understanding of the concept. But we recognize these concepts as being notable in their own right such that a mere glossary entry would not do them service. This concept has been a foundational aspect of poker for decades, and is constantly referenced in many forms of literature related to poker. You'll rarely find a poker broadcast without the announcers mentioning the concept. Beyond what folks above have mentioned about in-depth analysis beyond what a guide would offer, the term and concept are both analyzed beyond the game, and beyond poker culture itself, for example:

Here's a cultural analysis of the terms influence at poker tables [54]
Here's a text that explains the concept in-depth, and then uses the concept to analyze public policy decisions [55]

Even within the game aspect of Poker, there's also substantial disagreement in how to play the nuts -- when to bet or raise, and how much. (just one quick example from proquest [56]) We can provide tertiary coverage of this concept highlighting the disagreement among professionals and those who have analyzed the game, beyond what glossary entry could accomplish. If it seems like I've only provided a handful of sources in this discussion, I apologize, I have yet to conduct an exhaustive search for sources, because it's infeasible given how many reliable sources exist for the subject.

I cannot see how we'd be improving the state of Wikipedia by redirecting this article.

—siro χ o 18:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a counterpoint - considering I can't access those sources apart from the abstract, where the term is not used at all in either article - a Google Scholar search brings up precious little about the term, about 16 hits when adding the word poker, mostly definitional, excluding one about plywood. Considering the discussion is about whether this should have a stand-alone page, that it's at the moment completely definitional, and fits neatly into a glossary of poker terms, I see no great loss from redirecting this. SportingFlyer T·C 20:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your perspective and explanation, I have a better understanding of the argument now. FYI, you should have access to ProQuest via WP:TWL —siro χ o 07:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this is a case for WP:TNT. If you found some good sources, perhaps you could try to rewrite this from scratch. What we have is a mess with three footnotes including "Etymology Dictionary's entry for "nuts" and "The Phrase Finder's entry for "dog's bollocks""." Seriously... a classic case of TNT needed, IMHO. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I personally would have no issue if someone wants to WP:HEY the page or recreate a better page if this isn't kept, conditional on better sourcing being found. SportingFlyer T·C 12:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think comparing this to entries like Check (chess) or Checkmate is useful, because both of those have extended use outside chess, even though their meaning derives from the game. On the other hand, one could argue that the use of "nuts" has an analogue in daily speech - "Have you seen Dave's new car. It's the nuts!" which goes back further than the article's claim of late 20th century (useful link with examples back to 1917 here. So there's an argument that the article could be expanded on that basis, since there is at least some real-world link. Black Kite (talk) 09:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are we sure the usage of that phrase in speech has to do with poker and not ... other things? An etymology dictionary talks about it being slang for dual male body parts. SportingFlyer T·C 09:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Article may meet GNG per siro's source assessment, but the citations throughout the article are far too sparse. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a reminder, WP:N is the bar for inclusion of a topic. And that is about sources that exist, not ones in the article. Hobit (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't "the topic is notable but the article is far from being in an acceptable state at the moment" precisely what draftifying is for? TompaDompa (talk) 01:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see WP:TNT. Sometimes starting from scratch is easier than telling folks - go and improve this mess. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is not in a great state but it is better than nothing. A redirect to glossary of poker terms with a selective merge is also acceptable, but not in my opinion strictly necessary. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Plenty of discussion, but still no agreement in sight.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Like siroxo, I'm a little confused that this discussion is still ongoing. WP:GNG is clearly met, so the topic is appropriately notable. This does not need to be draftified to be cleaned up either. There seems to be no real policy (or guideline) basis for redirecting or deleting this, so why would we? Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 10:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The folk etymology is shaky... but the first part of the article stands alone well, and per the analysis of notability above, it seems like this is an easy call to keep it. ++Lar: t/c 14:46, 22 August 2023 (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. Should never have been relisted once much less twice. A merge can be discussed on the talk if needed, but there is clearly not consensus to delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Minato Ward elevator accident

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

WP:NOTNEWS. This article seems to be a summary of news events rather than an encyclopedic article. I don't think this topic is encyclopedic, WP:N gives a presumption of notability, not a guarantee. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 23:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:PERSISTENCE, the most applicable notability guideline for this type of thing. Coverage more than 5 years after event: [57][58], ~9 years after [59], coverage ~10 years after [60]. Current consensus allows for events to be covered by Wikipedia articles. Beyond WP:N, WP:V (and WP:NOT), all of which this article meets, we don't treat topics as encyclopedic or otherwise. If you think the article can be improved, either do so, tag it, or discuss it in the talk page. —siro χ o 02:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Japan. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My first instinct was that this is just another random non-notable news story that someone made an article for, and that's probably what it was when the article was created. But the sources provided by Siroxo suggest that this has since had long term effects in Japan and has become a regular subject of study. I wouldn't object to a merge if there's an appropriate target, but I don't see Elevators in Japan being a viable article any time soon. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We could merge the information into List of elevator accidents, because while almost no single accident might be notable enough for expansion into its own article, the whole collection and how safety practices changed in the elevator industry might be worth noting. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 13:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 01:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:00, 15 August 2023 (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 University of California, Irvine. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

University of California, Washington Center

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

No refs on the page for many years. Seems unlikely that a university internship programme is notable - I can't find refs that would meet the GNG. JMWt (talk) 07:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 07:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Washington, D.C.. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Most sources I found are primary sources published by UCI or other institutions. Would also be open to merge to University of California, Irvine. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2023 (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. I don't see a consensus here but this is not the type of discussion that I think will be clarified by additional time gained through relistings. The only thing that seems clear to me is that this article needs some serious work. Whether or not it is renamed can be determined on the article talk page. If this article isn't improved, I can see it returning to AFD for a second evaluation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Movement to reform sex offender laws in the United States

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

This article isn't about an actual movement, and has no sources about a movement. It's a wp:coatrack of arguments against sex offender registries, relying on a lot of wp:synth to string together unrelated references How I could just edit a wiki article (talk) 07:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As explained, this is just a WP:COATRACK and lacks sources besides. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 07:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, Popular culture, Sexuality and gender, Social science, and United States of America. — Karnataka ^talk 08:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: is it just me or does this template and its articles seem a little POV?
- Template:Sex offender registries in the United States

It's on this and similar articles.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has been raised at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Movement_to_reform_sex_offender_laws_in_the_United_States. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Sex offender registration. Indeed, not a single source mentions the word "movement" in their heading, and GS has only a single hit for the "Movement to reform sex offender laws in the United States". This might be a notable topic, and perhaps this movement is better known under a different name, but as written, it suffers from reliance on news sources. This type of topic should be written based on academic literature from social movement studies and similar. WP:TNT applies to some degree, but I'd prefer SOFTDELETE approach - something from this might be usuable for other articles or for a future, academically-focused rewrite. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have been mulling over a response to this, and while I agree with you merge is probably the best possible outcome here I'm stuck on a few points:
- while there is not a lot of support for there being a movement that seems to be semantics as there is a persistent set of organizations (see[61]) and activities aimed at the goal of reform;
- this article describes a USA-based phenomenon and set of actors, but whats described in sex offender registration is international with a rambling policy argument at the end; these would have to be reconciled because adding a "calls for reform" section would overlap some of the policy arguments;
- there's a benefit to having a single-purpose article because it would allow discussion, for example, organizations like National_Association_for_Rational_Sexual_Offense_Laws which differs in its non-support of changes to age-of-consent laws, and as an umbrella organization doesn't suffer from the same notability issues as the two other orgs which were nominated for deletion by the same nominator[62][63]
I would note there's more than a hint of POV-pushing in the deletion nomination: @How I could just edit a wiki article was registered on 16 July as what seems to be an SPA relating to sex offender registration laws, now blocked[64] ~~for unspecified abuse~~ apparently based on evidence of sockpuppetry. We should be cautious about letting AfD become an instrument for suppressing discussion of unpopular activity, especially when the core complaint is one of article quality and not the substance of that activity. Oblivy (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Back in 2016, there were three articles split off from the main article Sex offender registries in the United States. The first is Effectiveness of sex offender registration policies in the United States, the second is Constitutionality of sex offender registries in the United States, third was Movement to reform sex offender laws in the United States. There was a previous discussion Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_57#Sex_offender_registries_in_the_United_States, but this link no longer works because it was archived ~~(if there an easy way to find archived discussions, please drop a note on my talk page!)~~ Denaar (talk) 23:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC) (found it with the search bar on the noticeboard) Denaar (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment - all three pov forks were written by the same person, and have the same pov, which matches their talk page. I think we should probably delete them all and let someone recreate them from an academic view if they'd like How I could just edit a wiki article (talk) 06:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Rename - There really are efforts to reform sex offender laws, I've heard about it in news reports, and I think some groups are reasonable, some groups border on advocacy, and I don't see any reason not to report on them. At the same time, "Movement" is the wrong term, but it was an attempt to describe the contents of the spin off article. I also think this needs to be re-added to the main article, with a "see also", it needs to be clearly noted as a spin off, with a "see also" back to the main article as well. Otherwise a merge back into the Sex offender registries in the United States article seems appropriate. "Sex offender law reform in the United States" seem more neutral as a spin off term? Denaar (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support keep/rename if the name was right -- not sure about reform as there's not much prospect of reform just calls for it. But the article itself is out of date and lacks a section laying out positions. An argument section was deleted at some point in the past but it was short. If recreated, such as sectioin could collect some of the complaints - stigma, difficulty accessing affordable housing, this[65] issue with joining Nextdoor that I found by searching WP comments, conflict with notions of rehabilitation, etc. It could also host "academic" material other commenters have suggested is appropriate for this article. I saw something about controversy over the NARSO annual meeting (IIRC mayor sent them a letter of support) which got press coverage and could help bolster notability.

It's nearly 5 days since the AfD was brought - it looks like merge is the frontrunner. Is there a way forward to try to WP:HEY the article so people will support keep/rename? I can't say I'm super excited about working with something that looks like reducing consequences for rapists and child abusers, but this issue does seem to actually implicate fairness/effectiveness and the nomination itself strikes me as POV in the wrong direction. Oblivy (talk) 05:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning toward "Keep with the right name" if we can find one - and thank you for the WP:HEY - I do think the article needs to be updated, normally I'd work on it but I just committed to another big project. I think a student created a lot of this, they aren't editing much anymore, and so the information is out of date - how much activism is going? Did any of it work? Many USA States already have Romeo and Juliet laws to carve out exceptions to the law. Denaar (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename I have done some digging and found that on 1 July 2023 the 7.8Kb arguments section was blanked by a now-blocked SPA, A person from nowhere. Again, this is a checkuser block so I can't see the evidence, but that editor has a strikingly similar edit history to How I could just edit a wiki article. Here's the edit summary:

"Wp:OR, none of the references were about the subject of the article, each was meant to defend the subject of the articles views instead."

I restored that section and edited it, adding a few scholarly cites (there are A LOT of academic sources out there). Most of what was deleted was not WP:OR but citations to independent media articles and while I haven't had a chance to look at all the cites the ones I did supported the text. I took out the word "movement" wherever it appeared except the lead and infobox. There was some (not a lot of) POV in the text and I've tried to tone it down, but if there's a balance issue then I would think opponents' voices should be easy to find.

The remaining question would be what to rename it to. Although @ Denaar suggested ""Sex offender law reform in the United States" perhaps ""Calls for sex offender registry reform in the United States" would be more accurate. I'm open on this one.

To the closing admin As we're at the close-or-relist date, I'd suggest this be relisted on grounds of WP:HEY

One more comment: looking at the history of these blocked editors I found they and another editor recently blanked a bunch of what looks like good sources on Effectiveness of sex offender registration policies in the United States (hat-tip to Denaar for mentioning the history of this article above). I'm worn out from thinking about POV -- grownups can talk about difficult/controversial subjects without being advocates, but for sure there are balance/undue/advocacy issues at play. I'm not going to tinker with that article now, but at some point it should probably be merged with this article. Will see how this discussion goes first, and maybe (maybe) drop a note on the talk page.Oblivy (talk) 08:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and restored the article Effectiveness of sex offender registration policies in the United States to the most recent version prior to the blanking edits, since the edits seemed to be POV-pushing and were made by two accounts banned for sockpuppeting. Vontheri (talk) 14:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here. First, this article can't be Redirected or Merged to Sex offender registration as that page is a redirect. Also, I think any article rename has to be a discussion that occurs in the event that this article is Kept. If it is Merged, Redirected or Deleted, than the title won't be terribly important.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a coatrack. Portions of the content may be salvageable and merged into any of a number of relevant articles, but a detailed review of the article as it stands leaves little doubt that this is a POV fork for the purposes of advancing a particular narrative regarding laws regarding these kinds of offenders. The positions are not contextualized within the larger issue in an encyclopedic manner and particular statements are clearly cherry-picked to advance the arguments of a particular minority activist viewpoint. It's not remotely neutral and it violates a bevy of policy points regarding forks of this nature.
As a side note related to the appropriateness of the article (but independently of concern in any event), does anyone else find that image to be a major concern. Let's assume for the moment the license on the photo itself is valid: I'm still very concerned about our using the picture of a child (even limited/non-identifiable portions of a child) on an article such as this. The subject matter of that photo feeds into the serious concerns about the neutrality of this content as a whole, but quite aside from that, without having clear documentation of a release to use a child's image (again, even a partial image), I'd say we have ethical and policy issues quite separate from any validity of the CC particulars. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the image, I had reinstated the image box as it existed before the section containing it was blanked by two now-blocked accounts, one of which brought this nomination. I did consider the propriety of including the picture from a privacy perspective, but the likelihood of identifying the child seemed pretty remote. Nevertheless I can see your point and have removed the image. It's not used anywhere else on the site so if you feel strongly about the image itself perhaps it should be deleted.

I'm afraid I don't understand how this fits within the COATRACK essay as it's pretty short and focused on one topic. As far as cherrypicking, the article is about reform so it will naturally focus on those views. Certainly there are other anti-reform views out there and those could be added. There's no "anti-minoritarian" policy on WP, and WP:NOTCENSORED seems to preclude such arguments. Oblivy (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any reasonably real danger of the child being identified, as his face was blocked in the image. However, I do think the image was from a non-neutral POV. I also had a problem with the image's description saying the toddler was protesting. I don't think a child that young (he looked about 2 or maybe 3 at the most) would be developmentally capable of truly understanding what he was "protesting", and certainly wouldn't have been old enough to write the sign himself. He was being used by someone else (presumably his parent(s)) who was protesting. It was right to remove the image in the spirit of neutral point-of-view, but not for reasons of privacy concern.

I think removing the image was a good first step to improve the article. Deleting the article would be unnecessary and detrimental to the encyclopedia. It's a notable topic that should have an article. The article needs work, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. We can't delete an article just because it's about a topic we don't like or have strong objections to. Vontheri (talk) 11:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree 100%. Oblivy (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article may need some editing for NPOV, but the fact is that such a movement does exist, and whether we like it or not, it is notable and should be described and documented. Vontheri (talk) 05:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But does any sort of organised movement exist as the title suggests? It would need to be TNT'd in order to be remade into an acceptable article. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That depends how one interprets the word "movement". Just how "organized" does something have to be before it becomes a "movement"? There are high-profile people (at least high-profile within relevant circles) who are calling for such reform, for example Patty Wetterling. I would be fine with renaming the article, but deleting it entirely seems detrimental and unnecessary. Vontheri (talk) 04:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Addition to my previous comment: Also, does the word "movement" necessarily imply "organized movement"? A movement can be a movement without having central organization. Otherwise, the term "organized movement" would be redundant and unnecessary to exist as a term. The title "Movement to reform sex offender laws in the United States" only implies that there are people advocating for it, it doesn't necessarily imply organization.

That said, I am fine with the name being changed as long as it is to a relevant and unbiased name. I just don't think the article should be deleted. Vontheri (talk) 06:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found an organization that should confirm the existence of a "movement": Women Against Registry. Vontheri (talk) 08:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this movement is significant and notable enough to deserve an article. GeodeRose (talk) 06:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added two more sources to the article, including an opposing view. As noted in the first relisting comment, questions about renaming the article need to wait although I agree with @Vontheri the meaning term movement is fairly expansive.
Comment After reading the article completely and more in-depth, I am more convinced than ever that the article should not be deleted and that it really isn't even problematic in its current state. Sure, it can use some work, but so can most Wikipedia articles. Given the topic of the article, of course it is going to focus more on arguments against sex offender registries/laws. There could and should be some more counter-balance given to the article, but it's really not anywhere nearly as radical or as biased as was initially implied. The main issue was the overly-dramatic picture of the toddler, but it has now been removed. Let's all remember that the article was nominated for deletion by a now-banned account, and if you look at the banned accounts (note plural) edit histories, then it doesn't take long to see that this editor was on Wikipedia primarily, if not solely, to make changes to fit their personal political views. Vontheri (talk) 08:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A bit off-topic at an AfD but proper consideration should be given to whether we need four articles about U.S. SORs. The 7-year old forking argument is a distraction. But something is wrong here, not about POV/undue but it's bad to have things scattered all over the place. Constitutionality article has a long discussion about effectiveness data, for example).

An argument could be made for merging some of it into Sex offender registries in the United_States but that's already 3500-odd words, of which 800-odd relate to the three forked topics. Effectiveness is 2500 words, constitutionality is 2150, this one is 640. Even with some trimming de-forking is likely to end up at 8000. I could easily see merging effectiveness into this one (subject to post-AfD rename away from "movement") then keeping constitutionality as its own article.

When this AfD is over I'll put a comment on the talk page to try to get some consensus (not ruling out being bold, but this topic trips some red lights for folks). Oblivy (talk) 04:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm mixed on that one. On the one hand, the four topics do have discernible differences that could merit separate articles, but there is also much overlap. It's a borderline case, but I could see an argument for merging this article with "Effectiveness", although I'm not quite sure what an appropriate title for the article would be in that case. I think "constitutionality" is probably distinct enough that it should remain as its own article, but if it is merged, it would probably make the most sense to merge it into the "movement" article. I think "constitionality" and "effectiveness" are distinct enough from each other that they deserve separate articles; but that creates a bit of a fallacious sort of situation in which "effectiveness" and "movement" could be merged together, and "constitutionality" could be merged with "movement", but "constitutionality" would not be compatible enough to be merged with "effectiveness". All three of those can't be logically satisfied.

It is unfortunate that so many people can't put their emotional reactions (or "red lights", as you put it) to a topic aside and neutrally and factually work to document phenomena and build an encyclopedia, not only in regards to this topic but in regards to so many varied topics that people have strong feelings about, though this topic is probably one of the most severely affected by emotions in that way. Vontheri (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment. This isn't quite the right place for this discussion, but I wanted to raise it. Hopefully this will end as a keep or no-consensus, and then we can discuss how to put the articles on a good footing (and after they are cleaned up and merged if that’s possible, candidly, I'm going to go work on something else) Oblivy (talk) 23:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I only see two votes for "delete". Unless something radically changes over the next few days, then the article won't be deleted. Once this sock-puppet/POV-warrior initiated time wasting is over, then we can work on actually figuring out a direction forward for the article, as you said. Vontheri (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Vontheri’s comments. There is more than enough sources to support this subject. Elttaruuu (talk) 11:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above.★Trekker (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2023 (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. This AFD discussion has been relisted twice and still no additional sources have been brought in this conversation to demonstrate notability exists. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Rennert

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

Non-notable business figure. No WP:SIGCOV or WP:RS about him, only claim to fame is taking over the business that his notable father started, but WP:NOTINHERITED. Longhornsg (talk) 06:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Finance, and United States of America. — Karnataka ^talk 08:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article also only has a single source. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 00:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is plenty out there to meet WP:SIGCOV if one searches for Ari Rennert Renco. It appears that the nominator and TheLonelyPather may not have looked for these sources, per WP:BEFORE. AfD is not clean-up! It should also be noted that the article has had 1,875 pageviews in the last 30 days, so our readers are interested in the subject. Edwardx (talk) 23:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Edwardx:, I did do a WP:BEFORE, which comes up with no WP:SIGCOV from WP:RS that is not about the subject's father, who does have [[WP:GNG], or the company itself. If I'm missing something, please share. Longhornsg (talk) 03:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. If you have found sources that represent SIGCOV, please share links to them so other editors can assess them. Being vague and saying sources are out there is not an indication that, as avowed, these sources exist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:24, 15 August 2023 (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 Mesoamerican writing systems. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Writing in the early Americas

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

One year old article that seems to be a violation of WP:REDUNDANTFORK with Mesoamerican writing systems (only region in the Americas with pre-Columbian writing). Poorly sourced as well. Humsorgan (talk) 05:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Humsorgan (talk) 05:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it's a bit much to say the article is "poorly sourced" when you removed all of the better sources before nominating for AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 06:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is fair criticism, but I only removed sources relating to the last third of the article because it seemed out of scope and had bits of original research. I think there is an even stronger case to be made for that version. I.e. it contained statements like "Literacy was and still is a symbol of humanity, and freedom." I only nominated the article after finding the other page. Humsorgan (talk) 09:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: An earlier and longer version of the article can be seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Writing_in_the_early_Americas&oldid=1164964405 Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mesoamerican writing systems. Seems to me that the topic here is notable and seems to be taking a slightly different tack to Mesoamerican writing systems - however I don't see a conceptual difference between the two pages, so presumably a merge in one direction or the other would be preferable to unnecessary forks. JMWt (talk) 08:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article seems to want to be about 'Indigenous writing systems of the Americas' but since there is nothing that connects say Maya hieroglyphics with the Cherokee syllabary either historically or conceptually, it's sourceable, non-OR topic collapses to Mesoamerican writing systems of which it is a redundant fork and unlikely search term. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per JMWt's logic. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2023 (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. ✗plicit 11:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Valiollah Khakdan

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

Unsourced article, and very difficult (if not impossible) to find sources for it. I'm not sure it passes WP:BIO. Losipov (talk) 03:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Film, Iran, and Azerbaijan. Losipov (talk) 03:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete The Persian page does include some references, but even those seem pretty scant and don't seem to pass WP:BIO. StereoFolic (talk) 03:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Important Iranian art director. See here or here for example. Or even here for information. He is credited for "production design" for notable films (https://mubi.com/en/films/the-bride-of-the-sea/cast ; https://mubi.com/pt/films/the-midnight-terror etc), which makes him meet requirements for notability of Creative professionals. The page needs improvements. As is the case with various pages on Iranian cinema.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 15 August 2023 (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 with snow. (non-admin closure) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 21:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chohong Museum of Finance

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

I think this museum is now defunct, and I can't find any mentions of it online in either English or Korean. toobigtokale (talk) 04:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. toobigtokale (talk) 04:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not able to find any sources, perhaps closed per nom. - Indefensible (talk) 04:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand from the corresponding article in Korean, ko:한국금융사박물관 Machine translation: https://ko-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%ED%95%9C%EA%B5%AD%EA%B8%88%EC%9C%B5%EC%82%AC%EB%B0%95%EB%AC%BC%EA%B4%80?_x_tr_sl=ko&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good find, thanks toobigtokale (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. Seems to have sufficient notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain. Good find. The Korean wiki article is also unreferenced, but I found some coverage of the subject online including: https://sedaily.com/NewsView/268JMUKYQ3 and https://m.weekly.cnbnews.com/m/m_article.html?no=145524. - Indefensible (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and South Korea. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources do exist on this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources cited by Eastmain and Indefensible above appear to be sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 21:48, 17 August 2023 (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. First, I appreciate the detailed deletion rationale provided by the nominator. I wish this happened more often. However, the overwhelming consensus here is that this article should be Kept, however it needs a lot of work, perhaps even a full rewrite. This point of view to Keep was strengthened by additional sources found by participants during this discussion which hopefully will address some of the concerns of the nominator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sans (Undertale)

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

Character likely fails standalone notability and falls under WP:FANCRUFT. Most of the article is unsourced plot summary or reception that can be included on the Undertale game article, and this article itself is a disorganized mess. Full source analysis:

In appearances; Most of the plot summary is completely unsourced. As for the sources that were there, 1 is citing something related to Papyrus, 2 is just fan theories that don't give very much, and 3-8 may be the definition of a WP:REFBOMB. All it does is demonstrate that Sans got a Mii costume in Smash and his boss fight was remade in Fortnite (odd thing to document in a section meant for official appearances). This REFBOMB takes up a fourth of the articles citations (6/24).

In Development, literally nothing is cited to the character himself. 9-12 are for Megalovania.

In Reception:

13 praised all of the boss fights in the game, this is not notability for his boss fight.
14, yeah he's a fan favorite, but this is just a Q&A with the developer Toby Fox with little substance. Doesn't talk about the questions received. Might be WP:USERG.
15 says nothing except about how he is introduced in the game. This is the most character reception any of the reception sources contain, and it is solely because he is included in a "top video game characters of the decade" list. Nothing about his character is said.
16 is decent reception for his boss fight, but nothing about the character himself.
17-18 are repeats and are just fan art showcases. Same with 19, except 19 is extremely confusing. 21-22 is a poll among a single internet community. These are USERG.
20 is funny but this isn't character reception.
23 may as well be primary.
24 is about Megalovania.

Summary: Out of 24 sources, 6 are part of a ref bomb, 6 more are USERG, and 5 are about Megalovania, which I believe may as well be its own topic due to its history preceding Undertale.

So there is no critical analysis on this character, and WP:BEFORE turns up nothing on WP:VG/SE as well as Google Scholar at first glance. Until I removed them, there were also originally sections from The Gamer and Screen Rant in reception, which may have given the illusion of notability despite them being unusable in those situations. There are also numerous grammar mistakes and weird organization problems, such as "the subject of much fan art" and Megalovanias appearance in Taiko no Tatsujin being in the Development section. This article is likely WP:FANCRUFT and no evidence of standalone notability exists, possibly violating the "Article criteria" under WP:VGCHAR. NegativeMP1 (talk) 04:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. NegativeMP1 (talk) 04:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per other commenters. Pokelego999 (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looking at Scholars, I found [66] and [67]. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 04:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how I wasn't able to find these when I looked, these seem like they could be useful and one even says a lot about Flowey. A broader consensus is probably still needed though, and I still question how much could truly be done. NegativeMP1 (talk) 04:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The scholarly sources are very strong evidence Sans is notable due to his 4th wall-breaking nature in a similar manner as Flowey, even putting aside the Megalovania popularity. I don't have any prejudice towards a merge to a character list if one were created, as the sourcing is still fairly weak (IMO, even the merged Toriel was stronger source-wise) but deletion? Certainly not. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Recent finding of scholarly sources should be enough to hold its notability. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 13:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the scholarly sources. I think because Sans is a large internet meme, the article has plenty of WP:SIGCOV, but there are a lot of unnecessary sources. Conyo14 (talk) 17:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The "Reception" section of the article should be rewritten to remove the nonsense fanart gallery and "this guy dressed up as him" sources and replace them with the actual sources providing scholarly analysis, but the sources are out there, so deletion should be off the table. No prejudice against any subsequent discussion of creating a "Characters of Undertale" article to merge this to in the future, but as that article does not exist yet, Keeping is the best option now. Rorshacma (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note List of Undertale and Deltarune characters has now been created by myself, so make of that what you will as a possible target. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Scholary sources for video games, including one which looks written by a non-academic/student, with low journal impact keeping WP:FANCRUFT on the site? Not buying it. We can redirect to the character list page as a compromise. SportingFlyer T·C 12:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still agree with the nom's source analysis, and only one of the scholarly sources found might count towards WP:GNG as one wasn't written by someone who had completed a degree. We still have no sources to keep this article on, and no one else has identified any which might. SportingFlyer T·C 12:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The existence of poor quality and unreliable secondary sources amidst other mainstream sources sufficient to establish significant coverage should not endanger an article. That said, as a comment, caution should be exercised when relying on in-depth academic papers to establish notability particularly where the scholarship has the tenor of primary research. I don't think those papers alone would strongly contribute to a justification to keep an article. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 03:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG based on sources.★Trekker (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rewrite There are some sources here underutilized, and a more thorough rewrite focusing on Sans himself would yield better results. Right now as the article is written it's propping itself up on Megalovania's notability which isn't doing it favors.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rewrite The article is in need of some TLC, but the character itself is notable. The argument that a lot of the sources "are about the boss fight, not the character" does not hold water with me, because you can't separate one from the other - each of the encounters in Undertale is tailored to the characters in them. ReneeWrites (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The point I was trying to convey when I made that argument was that the sources didn't talk much about the character itself outside of the boss fight, which the article needed more of. NegativeMP1 16:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sans appears to be covered enough to meet SIGCOV. I've also found some interesting info from these books. SWinxy (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep For the reasons ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ pointed out, and the fact he is frequently cited on prominent gaming magazines. Seekallknowledge (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2023 (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 Luxembourg women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anouchka Besch

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

Redirect to List of Luxembourg women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least nine caps for the Luxembourg women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 04:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Luxembourg. JTtheOG (talk) 04:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect' as above. Giant Snowman 21:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nayelis López

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

The subject has earned at least one cap for the Dominican Republic women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG JTtheOG (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Dominican Republic. JTtheOG (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and the three references are a PDF of a player list, a stat site, and a full replay of the game on YouTube. Yeah, it's that bad. After a quick search, I found some more stat sites, but nothing outside of that. IncompA 03:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yelena Cardeso

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

The subject has earned at least one cap for the Cuba women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 03:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Cuba. JTtheOG (talk) 03:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. The two references are stat sites, nothing special, and like the nomination, I was unable to find any sufficient coverage. But I did find... A THIRD STAT SITE! YIPPEE! IncompA 03:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Zim Afro T10

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

Minor cricket tournament, we don't need articles for every individual season of this tournament, as they don't pass WP:GNG. Most other T10 events don't have individual season articles (apart from Abu Dhabi T10, which is questionable anyway), as there simply isn't coverage of local T10 tournaments like this one. Regardless of the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zim Afro T10, this season article should be deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket, South Africa, and Zimbabwe. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect with a very partial merge of the dates and venue, result, leading run scorer and wicket taker perhaps - i.e. a two to three sentence paragraph - to Zim Afro T10 would seem to be a possibility as well. I can see a delete, but perhaps redirect will help stop recreation? Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- That depends on whether Zim Afro T10 is kept or not. If that article is redirected, then redirecting this would be inappropriate. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, quite. It took two sentences to summarise the first edition there by the way. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references seem to indicate that it passes WP:GNG. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Which specific references show significant coverage of this particular season that warrants a separate season article? Joseph2302 (talk) 11:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm with Joseph here, I really don't see great quality references throwing a tonne of coverage at the tournament. I see Indian fan sites, a couple of articles at Wisden that are marginal in terms of GNG coverage (floodlights is the best one), tweets and YouTube, but not a lot of substance. I wouldn't usually be tempted to do that "source analysis table" bs that people do, but this is really marginal for me Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily passes WP:GNG. It's a professional tournament which was significantly covered throughout the week and a half it ran in places like the Chronicle [68]. SportingFlyer T·C 15:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"It's a professional tournament" isn't a reason to keep this. Coverage of a match like [69] is just WP:ROUTINE. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage from Zimbabwean newspapers. Cursory google shows international coverage from The Indian Express, Sportskeeda and india.com, none of which are exactly small sites and shows significant coverage both inside and outwith Zimbabwe. MsJoat (talk) 11:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should have this article merged into the Zim Afro T10 article, and as more seasons get played, have them integrated into the article. --WellThisIs TheReaper ^Grim 16:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Would be good to have less encyclopedic nonsense like these articles. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 22:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It received considerable coverage in newspapers in Zimbabwe, India and even Bangladesh. ≈ MS Sakib «TalK» 01:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 02:46, 15 August 2023 (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. I closed the previous AFD as Redirect which was later undone. This time, there is more advocacy for Keeping this article. Those seeking to Redirect this article can propose this on the article talk page but this discussion needs to be closed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Hill, 9th Marquess of Downshire

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was recreated but still doesn't meet WP:BIO due to a lack of significant coverage from multiple, reliable secondary sources. The subject doesn't get a pass at WP:NPOL due to never sitting in the House of Lords.

The only piece of significant coverage for this individual comes from a local newspaper. A source assessment follows. See also the previous AfD for a review of other sources.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Pilaz
"Marquess of Downshire" in Debrett's Peerage (Debrett's, 2019), pp. 2398–2402			passing mention	✘ No
"The Marquess of Downshire", The Daily Telegraph, 25 February 2004, accessed 13 February 2023 (subscription required)			passing mention	✘ No
Chris Berry, "Influence from high places to bang the rural drum", The Yorkshire Post, 2 August 2014, accessed 13 February 2023			significant coverage, but only local coverage	? Unknown
"Downshire, 9th Marquess of, (Arthur Francis Nicholas Wills Hill) (born 4 Feb. 1959) company director and landowner" in Who's Who online edition, accessed 13 February 2023 (subscription required)	WP:PRIMARY - written by the subject of the article and equal to a self-published source, per WP:RSP consensus	not reliable per 2022 RfC		✘ No
Annabel Sampson, "Why Harrogate is the chic capital of the north", Tatler, 31 March 2021, accessed 13 February 2023			no mention of the subject	✘ No
Grace Newton, "Clifton Castle: Privately owned stately home in the Yorkshire Dales to open its gardens to the public this weekend", The Yorkshire Post, 10 June 2022, accessed 13 February 2023			passing mention	✘ 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}}.

Pilaz (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Ireland, and United Kingdom. Pilaz (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Yes, never a member of the House of Lords, so it's just a question of WP:N and the GNG. Agreed that Who's Who does not count towards notability, but the articles in The Yorkshire Post do. The Tatler article does in fact mention the subject, as "the Marquess of Downshire" is this one. Not much there, but it verifies something in the article, which is what references do. Debrett's is independent of the subject and has editors. As I see it, he meets the test of WP:N, which is about verifiability and not importance. If the page is not kept, it is all relevant to Marquess of Downshire, a notable subject, and should be merged there, with a redirect, as the present peer is an integral part of that history. Moonraker (talk) 04:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with Debrett's is the lack of WP:SIGCOV: you get a name, title, DOB and descendants on p. 2999, and that's it. This is routine information, hardly "more than a trivial mention". Even The Guardian agrees that this source is "a bible stripped back to its begats. Outsiders can be frustrated by the lack of the colourful narratives that they suspect must be behind a lot of the begetting." Debrett's also cannot count towards the GNG because it is not a secondary source: it's a tertiary source, much like other reference work. Pilaz (talk). 10:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Family coverage on Wikipedia should only be included to support an already notable topic, so it seems odd to consider a WP:TERTIARY source like Debrett's with no SIGCOV enough. Pilaz (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, one local piece with non-trivial coverage is not enough for GNG. Edit: Redirect. JoelleJay (talk) 23:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JoelleJay you agree then that The Yorkshire Post is non-trivial coverage. It is a regional rather than local newspaper, and the GNG does not distinguish between national, regional, and local sources, so the question is whether it is a reliable source, and it meets all the tests. Pilaz says it is "significant coverage". And then there is Debrett's Peerage, which has biographies as well as genealogy. Pilaz does not dispute its reliability, and I agree, but there is a misunderstanding in the words "passing mention", as Debrett's has nearly half a page about the subject of the article, which is not trivial. NB, what the GNG requires is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and defines "significant coverage" as — "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Moonraker (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem to have access to it, what does Debrett's actually say beyond his genealogy, and is that info non-routine? WP:N requires article subjects also pass NOT. JoelleJay (talk) 00:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JoelleJay it's a short biography. I would say more, but the copy I have access to is in a library in Oxford and I am in a different place now. Moonraker (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Marquess of Downshire - WP:ATD and plausible search term. Ingratis (talk) 08:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as mentioned above -- Theoreticalmawi (talk) 16:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Moonraker. estar8806 (talk) ★ 19:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Marquess of Downshire. Spleodrach (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - an ongoing RSN discussion on the nature of Debrett's Peerage has uninvolved editors stating this is a tertiary source. Pilaz (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 3rd and final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 02:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Moonraker and from what I gather this is an active and notable person, much of the deletionist view is nitpicking about the importance and nature of sources. His activities are better sourced than the political careers of some elected hereditary peers in the House of Lords. Killuminator (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, if we are nitpicking, you can tell us which sources help satisfy the GNG. Unless you are just arguing WP:ITSNOTABLE + WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Pilaz (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I could have done that but I'm not going to given your second sentence. Killuminator (talk) 04:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It could have been helpful for the !keep case, because right now the rough consensus is that there's only one source which passes the GNG, which is the Yorkshire Post. Pilaz (talk) 09:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No one seems to disagree that The Yorkshire Post piece is solid, and Moonraker says Debrett's Peerage has a half-page biography of the subject. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 12:08, 21 August 2023 (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. Not a satisfying conclusion for anyone, I might imagine, but a consensus has not formed, and I do not have confidence that any further relisting would lead to one. While there have been substantial concerns raised whether this list can be appropriately scoped, there is not enough support to form a consensus for outright deletion. I would very much encourage the participants here to discuss ways to address the concerns many editors raised during the discussion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Islamist terrorist attacks

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

This is a POV fork of List of terrorist incidents and a mess of WP:OR. Many of the citations used don't refer to the person/s carrying out any of the attacks as being Islamic. Any content that isn't irredeemably biased or original research belongs in List of terrorist incidents along with all other terrorist incidents. This page should be deleted and set to redirect to List of terrorist incidents. AlanS^talk 09:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, Terrorism, and Religion. AlanS^talk 09:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that List of right-wing terrorist attacks also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.

Note that List of left-wing terrorist attacks also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.

Note that List of thwarted Islamic terrorist attacks also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.

Delete/Redirect per nom and also WP:OR. It's a narrow scope that promotes the idea that a religion is a notable topic from the main list. Conyo14 (talk) 05:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If there are problems with original research or accidental inclusions of unrelated events, then that should mean the article ought to be fixed, not that the page as a whole should be deleted. --Dynamo128 (talk) 09:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Agree. Just a casual sampling of the entries here immediately shows the WP:OR disaster at work. The first entry is on some communal riots that are far removed from the sense of "Islamist terror attack"; the next two are by the Black September Organisation, which was a nationalist, not Islamist group. That's a huge WP:V fail just three entries in. And yes, any historical attacks that are indeed notable enough will appear on the main list of terror incidents; indeed, I'm sure that actually Islamist examples are already more than amply represented there, such that this list provides no additional value. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect. The term "Islamist terrorism" is really problematic, because it suggests a direct connection between a religion and terrorism. Islam as a whole rejects terrorism, as do all major religions. Just as it would be anti-Semitic to refer to an incident of Israeli settler violence against Palestinians as "Jewish terrorism," it's Islamophobic to refer to terrorism by a Palestinian or Saudi as "Islamist terrorism". NightHeron (talk) 10:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you've confused Islamist with Islamic. It would be more analogous to say Zionist terrorism rather than Jewish terrorism. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am aware that there's a distinction -- a Distinction without a difference. I very much doubt that the average Wikipedia reader knows any difference in meaning between the two words. Nor does the average editor. My evidence for the latter conjecture is that the article List of thwarted Islamic terrorist attacks (article was recently deleted) with the word Islamic, not Islamist, ~~has been~~ was on Wikipedia for 7 1/2 years. NightHeron (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: See Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks where I agreed with concerns that the Munich massacre was motivated more by nationalist extremism than religion. It isn't in doubt that some people have done crazy or wicked things and believed that religion justified it, but some of the entries here are a poorly sourced hotchpotch.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More than some by my assessment. It seems there are a lot of entries where there is a presumption about a person's religion based on their nationality and therefore their motives. AlanS^talk 11:04, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While 9/11 is clearly Islamic extremism, I have to agree that there is serious confusion and uncertainty over what is really a right-wing, left-wing or Islamist terrorist attack, resulting in a lot of WP:OR, and in the case of the first two aforementioned articles, tit-for-tat POV-pushing. While I cannot take a position due to me not being an expert in terrorism, I observed a lot of confusion in the right-wing list, resulting in multiple additions and removals of selected incidents believed to have a motive widely (and understandably in the current context) associated (but not always) with right-wing extremism, such as anti-Semitism. --Minoa (talk) 11:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As Dynamo128 typed above, "If there are problems with original research or accidental inclusions of unrelated events, then that should mean the article ought to be fixed, not that the page as a whole should be deleted."-1Firang (talk) 01:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC) Blocked editor. AlanS^talk 06:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your talk page shows that you've recently had a topic ban for India and Pakistan related topics. Additionally that you've been in disputes with other editors regarding Rape in Afghanistan, Stoning in Islam, Rape in Islamic law and History of slavery in the Muslim world. AlanS^talk 02:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It may be worth noting that a sub-list exists at Islamic terrorism in Europe#List of attacks. TompaDompa (talk) 07:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rename it List of terrorists attacks by Islamic extremists. We have an article for Islamic extremism. Dream Focus 09:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This might work for attacks by groups like al-Qaeda and Islamic State, but the article has become a hotchpotch of attacks that were not motivated directly by Islamic extremism.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The issues with original research or accidental inclusions of unrelated events, can be fixed in normal editing.The article passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pharaoh of the Wizards: This is a list article, so the appropriate guideline is WP:NLIST. You would need to provide evidence that at least some of the list entries have been discussed as a group and under a similar name ("Islamist terrorist attacks") by multiple reliable sources. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This clearly passes WP:LISTN and clearly there is sourcing in multiple reliable sources that attacks by the Islamic State, Boko Haram, the Taliban, and al-Qaeda is Islamist terrorism.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or WP:TNT. IMO the concept is notable enough for a list but there is a lot of original research going on here and the content is, dubious, to say the least. With better standards it could be a page. Disagree with the above saying "Islamist terrorism" is an inherently problematic term, though PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or WP:TNT. Changed my mind, topic is too useful to delete. Needs much better page standards and a cleanup, though.PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The other terrorist attack lists are tenuous, but "Islamist terrorism" is a specific category that's widely recognized and used by reliable sources. Lists like this are good to have, because they provide an alternative to newscrufty articles about non-notable attacks that don't have long term sociopolitical effects. If the list needs cleanup or better sourcing, then AfD is not the correct venue. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect: It is quite contentious to place a group of people into a category of extreme as this. It would be more appropriate to include extremist in the title, but this is also an apparent fork full of WP:OR. Conyo14 (talk) 21:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize I voted twice here. Conyo14 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic is notable and encyclopedic. However, strongly enforce WP:DUE on the page; as I have raised previously we have an issue with items being included in lists without meeting core policies of WP:OR or WP:NPOV. Correcting that broadly is a difficult task, but hopefully we can correct it here. BilledMammal (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep topic is notable and meets WP:GNG.115.96.0.250 (talk) 08:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSNOTABLE, lol — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comment at the "left-wing terrorism" AfD — this is more clearly-defined and less-obvious POV or OR. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 16:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per Dunamo. 208.87.236.201 (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC) Blocked IP. TarnishedPath^talk 16:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are a couple of IPs above. One has only ever edited in this AfD and the Sandbox. The other IP has been blocked in the past as it was determined to be an open proxy. AlanS^talk 00:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the topic is notable on all levels and pertains to a highly noteworthy feature of security threats to millions of people around the world. Many of the assertions made in favour of deletion are specious including one commentator stating that the term used for the title is problematic (when it is supported by very many books and publications over the last few decades) and another concluding inaccurately that the first three entries are representative of the remaining 100+ in the list.--Scootertop (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete such a list is indiscriminate. Most of the coverage focuses on Islamic terrorist attacks on western targets, but the vast majority of targets by Islamic terrorism is against other Muslim/Middle eastern targets, due to geographic and security considerations. Would such a Wikipedia ever convey that weight is dubious because of the WP:OR research concerns. I am persuaded by similar arguments at Left/right wing terrorist AfD discussions. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as a list with poorly defined scope. The boundaries between Islamic religious terrorism and terrorism committed by Muslims and violence committed in the name of Islam that isn't necessarily terrorism are extremely blurry. There are plentiful sources about each of those topics, and our page on Islamic terrorism can explore that nuance, but the material is very poorly suited to a list. The AfDs for left- and right-wing terrorism are an entirely different case; those were ostensibly about phenomena, not lists of incidents, and we do have a comparably article on the phenomenon. A lot of the "keep" votes above are applying arguments from different topics that are not sufficient to justify this list specifically. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't follow any logic in your argument. The sources used in the list aren't "blurry". We don't delete articles on WP because they need improvement and you haven't made any recommendations. 212.26.68.44 (talk) 04:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It means that most terrorism is perpetrated based on complex blends of motives that often don't readily lend themselves to sloppy editorial pigeonholing and broad-brush generalization. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Islamist terrorism is a notable topic with many incidents to list. It is certainly more clearly defined in scope than, say, List of foiled right-wing terrorist attacks. --Local hero ^talk 02:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Local hero, interesting that you mention that list. Someone else mentioned in another AfD that it should be examined for the same concerns which have so far led to three other lists similar to this one being voted to be deleted. AlanS^talk 05:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So go vote on that too, and judge by individual merit here, per WP:WAX. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Local hero:, you're quite right that Islamic terrorism is a notable topic, and there are incidents that are unquestionably Islamic terrorism that we can and do mention there. This, however, isn't that article; this is a list of events that supposedly constituted Islamic terrorism, and it isn't a list we can ever have clear inclusion criteria for. I note that the other list you mention was deleted, for similar reasons. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete/ Redirect: At a bare minimum, this article needs WP:TNT. It has gone off the rails by including incidents that were not clearly motivated by religious extremism.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ianmacm, you've voted in this twice. Probably easy to do when it's been relisted. AlanS^talk 13:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I didn't intend to !vote twice, but my basic views on this are still the same.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I presumed you didn't mean it. I'd suggest you strike one of your votes. AlanS^talk 13:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as I voted above. There are a lot of entries and the vast majority, including all the recent ones are fully sourced in line with WP guidelines. The article would benefit from inspection of some entries or perhaps removal of some of the earliest entries on the list.--Scootertop (talk) 13:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Scootertop, you've voted in this twice. Probably easy to do when it's been re-listed. AlanS^talk 13:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ps, when I went through the article I saw a many entries where it seemed there was a presumption (based on the sources) about people's religion based on their nationality because in a lot of sources Islam or that they were Muslim was not mentioned. At the very least this need WP:TNT. AlanS^talk 13:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this particular AFD has been messy due to the different !votes. There is at least some consensus for WP:TNT, but wow is this AFD getting confusing. Conyo14 (talk) 05:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies; I've changed my statement from a vote to a comment if that's okay.--Scootertop (talk) 10:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All good. TarnishedPath^talk 09:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on all counts. AlanS^talk 06:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and remove any and all questionable entries per Dynamo128 and Scootertop. The topic is notable, and there is enough here worth saving. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 08:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable topic has WP:SIGCOV coverage.Tigerrises (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This topic is notable. BadhonCR (talk) 08:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you read WP:ITSNOTABLE? — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is a very contentious topic. Consensus appears to be leaning KEEP at the moment. Relisting to try and generate more solid consensus and discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 02:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems a bit unwieldy when the first sentence says there have been 48 000 attacks between 1979 and now (when it was written). Are we really going to a 40-thousand something item list? This should be broken down into countries or continents or something. As it is, it appears to cherry-pick some attacks while ignoring most of the other ones that are out there. Oaktree b (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely agree with the nom - this has WP:OR and WP:NPOV issues - Vanamonde has made the argument better than I can, but even if this passes WP:GNG (just because they're all sourced?) WP:NOT can still exclude a notable topic. SportingFlyer T·C 12:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see any issue with notability. If there are issues with the content then that should be resolved on talk page. ScriptKKiddie (talk) 10:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment clearly notable topic passes WP:GNG and WP:LISTN issues with the content including inclusion criteria can be discussed in Talk. Every list has issues with inclusion criteria.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Every list may have issues with inclusion criteria, but most lists don't have the fatal flaws this one has. Groupthink (talk) 09:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This is a mess of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH that is consequence of an ill-defined set. TarnishedPath^talk 11:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria states: "Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous [and] objective..." The loaded term "Islamist" fails on both counts, as the opening paragraph of its article clearly illustrates: "There is no consensus definition of Islamism, which has many varieties and alternative names, and some have objected to use of the term, either for its being derogatory, or so broad and flexible as to have lost its meaning." Groupthink (talk) 07:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect I see no reason for this article to be maintained. In principle, I question the encyclopedic value of making lists of terrorist attack by religious affiliation. In practice, making such a list is an endeavor that invites OR. And in reality, as it stands currently, the article is an unmitigated disaster. So I don't support re-writing or rehabilitating it. The best way forward is to delete the article/redirect it to list of terrorist attacks. Pecopteris (talk) 08:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Arguments in favor of keeping this list based on notability are all irrelevant straw man assertions and should be disregarded. The issues at hand are OR, synth, and NPOV. Groupthink (talk) 09:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have concerns with a number of editors that have extremely short editing histories, who have voted to keep using extremely short justifications along the lines of 'article passes WP:GNG' or 'article has WP:SIGCOV coverage'. TarnishedPath^talk 11:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect. Motives behind many attacks are notoriously hard to ascertain. The motives of the actual perpetrator and of the terrorist outfit that will have commissioned the act are often complex and may differ (e.g., ideology; revenge; competition; financial gain; mental disorder; etc,). While some media are often very quick to offer simple explanations, an encyclopaedia should require a higher bar than what such a short list is able to offer in this article. Hence my !vote: delete/redirect due to sourcing and SYNTH problems. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect Pinning down inclusion criteria for this and similar lists is always going to be difficult and result in misclassifications and OR.Selfstudier (talk) 11:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:SIGCOV almost nil synthesis in the article and clearly sourced in Reliable sources hence not OR.115.97.235.163 (talk) 11:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the above IP ~~has already~~ appears to have voted already as IP 115.96.0.250. Refer to IP lookups from here and here demonstrating both IPs geolocate to Chennai in India and both are owned by the ISP Hathway Cable and Datacom Limited. TarnishedPath^talk 12:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can we possibly do a checkuser on some of the IPs and the keep !votes that give parroted reasoning? Conyo14 (talk) 22:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have Islamic terrorism article, so the bias, frankly, I see more on the part of those who want to remove the list under discussion, than their opponents. Suitskvarts (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The motivation for removal is more based on the WP:OR it entails. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- And the list needs to be improved, not erased. Suitskvarts (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  That is impossible due to the the flaws in its premise, and any efforts to do so would be polishing a turd. Groupthink (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect The list is a mess. Identification of a given attack as being relevant to this list is also problematic. ++Lar: t/c 14:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep content issues are not a reason for deletion. Islamic terrorism is, for better or worse, the category of terrorism most people think of when you say the word and the most well-known and widely-discussed motivation for terrorism. The vast majority of the attacks that fall under the list's scope can be very easily categorized (who wants to bet that IS and al-Qaeda motivations aren't radical Islamism?), and the edge cases like Black September's attack can be dealt with via normal content editing. AryKun (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep' I can't find any argument that would make me want to delete this. scope_creep^Talk 17:11, 23 August 2023 (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 02:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ninja of Heisei

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

Sources are from 2017, when subject was arrested. No newer sources (unless someone can find in Japanese) about a conviction, so not sure this passes WP:SUSPECT or even WP:BLP1E. Longhornsg (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It's not BLP1E as it doesn't meet criteria 3 -- the individuals role was both substantial and well documented. Now, it's pretty well-reported that the suspect willingly confessed to the crimes (eg. [70]), so a minor rewording and it would almost certainly not violate WP:SUSPECT. Moreso, it is line with a criteria of WP:CRIME For perpetrators ... The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual. The only real concern is sustained coverage. Given that the subject is Japanese, I'll lean towards it being likely we're just having trouble finding them in English. —siro χ o 02:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has coverage including https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/japan-s-ninja-cat-burglar-umasked-as-74yearold-man-a3667581.html and https://time.com/4997946/ninja-of-heisei-thief-japan/ to establish notability and verifiability. Interesting subject whose inclusion contributes encyclopedic information. - Indefensible (talk) 04:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, famous crime. Fulmard (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Duran Duran's charity concert at Villa Park 1983

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Duran Duran's charity concert at Villa Park 1983

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

It's just a article detailing a concert that happened in villa park. seems fan made, no real substance, not really a WP:N thing. New3400 (talk) 01:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing found in Gnews or Gnewspapers. There might perhaps be coverage in British newspapers at the time, my Gnewspapers seems to be limited to American/Canadian sources. I'll keep looking. Oaktree b (talk) 01:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Well, it happened [71] but those are photos of the event from a newspaper. This has a little info [72], one of the seven notable events at the area [73], [74] coverage from the football club about the event. Oaktree b (talk) 02:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And this [75] Oaktree b (talk) 02:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets both WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. There's coverage across 4 decades. Book published by Hachette from a couple years ago [76] with several pages of sigcov. Birmingham Mail had coverage ~30 years after [77], Birmingham Post had a small amount of coverage 22 years after [78]. —siro χ o 02:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GNG WP:EVENT. Re "article detailing a concert that happened in villa park" well, yeah, that's what it's meant to do. I've never really understood the argument "fan made" - if you have no interest in a subject matter, why bother creating an article? — Maile (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2023 (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. Procedural Keep, no deletion rationale provided by nominator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zakaria Silini

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

Reason Fxxkingbay (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. No deletion rationale provided. —siro χ o 03:00, 15 August 2023 (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline McGowan

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet any WP:GNG as a former beauty pageant contestant. Let'srun (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Oregon. Let'srun (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems to be a case of WP:BIO1E. If someone believes that this article should be kept, could you please list the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination. Fails WP:GNG, but I'd argue against WP:BLP1E as she also gained some fame from her Miss America 2012 competition. Of course, the majority of the references are passing mentions, although I noticed 2, 3, 11, 13, and 15 are not. After a quick search I did find some interesting things including her... staring down the scope of a .50 caliber sniper rifle, which is actually on Commons, funny enough. IncompA 03:42, 15 August 2023 (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 00:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kylie Kofoed

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

Subject fails WP:GNG as a former beauty pageant contestant. Let'srun (talk) 00:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Idaho. Let'srun (talk) 00:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination. Article fails WP:GNG and both references in the article are passing mentions. After a quick search, a couple of results for her and her image pop up but the rest were different people with the same name. In other words, there's a severe lack of coverage. IncompA 03:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: i haven't waded into beauty pageant AFDs in a few years, but i will note she wasn't just a contestant, she was a winner, she was Miss Idaho 2010. I'd redirect there as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sierra Sandison if there's not enough to keep.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with the above. Fails WP:GNG Whitemancanjump23 (talk) 08:29, 20 August 2023 (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!} 00:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guinwa Zeineddine

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

A lack of WP:SIGCOV to meet the GNG for this former beauty pageant contestant. Let'srun (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Nevada. Let'srun (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsure of the quality of these sources: [79] and [80]. Second is trivial coverage; not seeing GNG or BLP as being met. Oaktree b (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2023 (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 00:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Douma

AfDs for this article:

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

Lacks sustained WP:SIGCOV to meet any notability guideline. Falls into WP:BIO1E Let'srun (talk) 00:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Canada. Let'srun (talk) 00:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would encourage AFD nominators to use plain English rather than cryptic "Lacks sustained WP:SIGCOV .. Falls into WP:BIO1E", etc.
I challenge both reasons. From a few-second search through Google books, I get two top hits [81] [82], which are two recent books published by UBC Press. Both have a chapter on Linda Douma, claiming that her win of Miss Canada and her activities afterwards were significant contributions to the Canadian pageant title and the feminism movement. Materialscientist (talk) 00:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Shoutout to Materialscientist for finding these sources. This type of sustained coverage from reliable sources proves the long-term impact she had. If this is the kind of coverage she has received just in the past three years, I can only imagine how much there is overall, especially in contemporary sources. Of course, this was all already laid out in the first nomination not even one year ago. JTtheOG (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hate to do the standard "per x" thing response, but in this case I have to !vote like that. Thank you to Materialscientist for showing that she does indeed have good coverage. She clearly has had an impact on feminism in Canada as evidenced by the sustained coverage in multiple books. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources provided above demonstrate notability based on long-term impact. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to the sources found by Materialscientist. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:52, 19 August 2023 (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.

[1] Doyle, David, and Robert Elgie. "Maximizing the reliability of cross-national measures of presidential power." British Journal of Political Science 46.4 (2016): 731-741.

[1]