Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 24 August 26 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Democratic Party of Afghanistan

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

Having gone through the party website, both the old one and new one, I'm convinced that this would be a one-man outfit at most. It does not appear to be a serious political organization, the tone is often incoherent and just weird, such as making claims to have 117,000 members or listing members of a future government. Soman (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It fails WP:SIGCOV. Nothing in-depth could be found for this political party. Nihonjinatny (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2024 (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. Views were unanimously against an outright deletion, but split between keeping this as a standalone page and merging into Pavel Durov. Many !votes on both sides were discarded as not being based on policy or guidelines. Those include votes based solely on things such as, "let the news evolve", "this article urgently is important", "too early to delete this article", "this article will expand fairly soon", "unprecedented event", "to save server space", "because there is a Pavel Durov article", and "Snow Keep" (that's not how WP:SNOW works).

WP:ARTICLESIZE tells us we may merge the two articles, but says nothing about whether we should do so. The situation with WP:TOOSOON is trickier. The essay focuses on verifiability, not on content forks or splitting articles, as some here correctly noted. If verifiability was an issue here, then the essay advises us to draftify the article, not to merge weakly-verified content elsewhere.

Had views been evenly split between Merge and Delete, then merger would be the obvious ATD. But in the absence of consensus to merge, and with no views to delete, the only valid outcome is the same as if this were a merger proposed on the article's Talk page, that is, no merger takes place.

The massive participation suggests that nothing will be gained by relisting this, but due to the rapid pace in which this story is developing, renomination is allowed as soon as significant events justify it.

Thank you, Liz, for reverting the improper page move. Owen× ☎ 12:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arrest of Pavel Durov

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

This is a recentist fork of material that really belongs in the main Pavel Durov article, which is easily short enough to be able to accommodate it. This article should be deleted, and the content merged to Pavel Durov. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: The article creator's edit summary for the creation includes the line " I created the article because I think its relevance as a billionaire behind a free-speech associated messaging platform will lead to long discussions and many details about the nature of the crimes and reactions from libertarians and debates and potential protests against the arrest." This looks like an obvious violation of WP:NPOV and WP:RGW. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Crime, Business, Internet, and Websites. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Pavel Durov: I was in the process of creating a merge discussion when this AFD was created. I think the content in Arrest of Pavel Durov can easily be explained in the context of Pavel Durov and a merge would not cause any article-size problems in Pavel Durov. It strikes me that having a separate article for Arrest of Pavel Durov is engaging in WP:RECENTISM and runs contrary to WP:NOTNEWS. I don't see that the separate article passes the ten year test. TarnishedPathtalk 23:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:CRYSTAL, I tend to agree, however, I suspect that this article will continue to expand with the eventual inclusion of court proceedings, aftermath, and precedence. It seems more likely than not that this event will only evolve and even its current form will be able to stand on its own. Let’s suppose for some reason he were released tomorrow I could see a reason for AfD, but then we’re really talking about CRYSTAL territory.
    Giving consideration behind the prolific use of Telegram and Pavel’s involvement with the business, and with the charges being levied against him I don’t see how his arrest (and subsequent actions) won’t have lasting WP:IMPACT. Kcmastrpc (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it does quickly result in a merge, any future discussion on splitting the article if there were any future significant developments (e.g. extradition to US, shutdown of Telegram) should not be prejudiced on the mere basis of this AfD. - Mailer Diablo 16:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree. However, I feel that such events are sufficiently uncertain, and potentially far in the future, that their possible existence is not a motivation for keeping this article now. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm entirely familiar with GNG. I think it was WP:TOOSOON for this WP:FORK of the main article. On the other hand, I don't think you should be invoking WP:SNOW any time soon - look at the number of Merge !votes this attracted in its first 12 hours. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it was merged (and I think this event is probably too big now - and developing exponentially - for that), this redirect will be kept, and hence the SNOW. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not developing exponentially. It's growing approximately linearly, mostly by having tenuously related material and the opinions of Russian government proxies added to it. There doesn't seem to be any more news about the case itself for the time being; we probably won't get that unless either the French government charges him, or the Russian government formally requests his release. As it is, we've got a very one-sided article that is a clear violation of WP:NOTNEWS (as well as all the other issues noted above). GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would respectfully disagree with your assessment of how quickly this event is developing, but regarding your second point about the article quality, remember WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedia, not a campaigning newspaper. We're not here for what could happen, we're here for what has happened, and at the moment that's not enough to merit a separate article. If it's important for the world to read about Durov's arrest, how does putting that information in his main biography stop the world from reading it? (And I really don't think you mean 'neuralgic'.) GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, is my discussion given. 181.39.69.107 (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A very high-profile case involving multiple countries and one of the most used apps in the world. If he's suddenly released without charge we can always reconsider. Johndavies837 (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge — Precedent shows that it is difficult to sustain articles where the arrest itself does not bear any meaningful significance; compare this article to Arrest of Sam Bankman-Fried, not Arrest of Imran Khan. The argument could be made that Russia's response heightens this article's notability—though it is expected of Russia to leverage the situation—but as it stands, there is not enough information to sustain an article without adding unnecessary information such as Russia blocking Telegram in 2018. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do find it notable that a large proportion of the current article is responses from within Russia, especially (though not only) from people who are either associated with the Russian government, or not notable. Who on earth is 'colonelcassad', who seems to think George Orwell was pro-censorship, for example? While you could totally merge the whole current article into Durov's main article, I think that in practice some judicious editing would be better. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - WP:TOOSOON to have separate article. If it becomes significant, it can be split. Autarch (talk) 03:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Take out the background and reactions, and you have a simple "person was arrested without incident" paragraph that should be covered in the bio article. The reaction section is very puffery at this point and does not show that this will have any significant long term effects. Now, if this leads to him ultimately being convicted in a well-covered trial, then we can talk about a separate article, but a simple arrest is not something that needs a separate article at this time. To also add, there is no evidence there is enduring coverage of this, which means it fails WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG for notability. Just being covered by the news is not a reason to create an article since WP is not a newspaper.Masem (t) 03:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only adding that whole some details should be added to the bio article, the bulk of this should be at Telegram since the arrests stem from the service's policies, of which he's being the CEO is being held responsible for — Masem (t) 19:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Pavel Durov. This event is a news story with only news sources, and it is certainly in no way independently notable of the man himself. Zero reason for this to have its own article at this time. If you believe that this could be notable in the future and we need to wait for more info, that's further evidence it shouldn't be an article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge GNG isn't the issue here, it is whether this merits a stand alone article right now. Given the lack of secondary sources I cannot see how this merits a stand alone article given articles should be based mostly on secondary sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not similar to that at all. For a start, Crowdstrike is not made by Microsoft, and is a clearly distinct topic from Windows, so such a merger would be obviously inappropriate. For another thing, the Crowdstrike outage grounded entire airlines and caused global disruption. So far, this arrest is inconveniencing exactly one billionaire. I still don't see how this fork is justified - this information would be better merged into the main Pavel Durov article, except for the increasingly irrelevant laundry list of reactions, which should largely be deleted. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable self-sufficient exessevely sourced subject. The text is already looking larger than original Pavel Durov article text. --ssr (talk) 10:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because people keep adding useless non-action, talk-only, reaction stuff to the article. This is the "cheap" way to make any topic seem important, to catalog every possible reaction mentioned out there, but that's not encyclopedic, we should be documenting long-term aspects and any actual action-driven responses that would have an impact. — Masem (t) 12:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      News-like activity on Wikipedia should be handled by Wikinews, as the rule WP:NOTNEWS literally and correctly concludes. After that, the notable output should be absorbed in Wikipedia with Wikinews keeping archives of the news processed. And that is the clear rule: WP:NOTNEWS. Why it is not obeyed? As long as it is not, the limitless "deletion nominations of news events" with, as you said is the true "useless non-action, talk-only, reaction stuff". The community, or the WMF just have to make the rules obeyed correctly. Their own rules. BTW, the article will be kept. "Useless" were (will be) all efforts to delete it, starting with this nomination and votes "delete" and "merge". Just useless. --ssr (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is involving one of the most used messaging apps, and deserves it's own page. The page is well sourced, and it seems early to delete this article, as the story is still evolving. OnlyNanotalk 13:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's too early to have this page, as the story is still evolving. The alternative is that every single time a news story breaks anywhere, we create an article as though it's going to be the next big thing, and then go back and delete the ones that turn out not to be. That's ridiculous. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Yes, there are many sources covering this, but that doesn't mean it needs its own article. If it turns out that this has a significant lasting impact, then we can create a separate article, but it is too soon to determine this. As for the size of the article, much of the background section would be covered in Durov's page, while most of the reactions section can simply be deleted. Gödel2200 (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The event is recent but has received broad coverage in reliable sources (notability criteria). Its verifiable with reliable references. Generally adheres to NPOV. No Original Research. Adheres to BLP guidelines. I would argue that the article is too small, as it could benefit from additional context, especially regarding the legal implications and historical precedents for such an arrest, but the quality is currently more than acceptable relatively speaking. As time passes it should be evaluated for recentism, ensuring that it maintains relevance over time, but in its current state, there seem to be many large institutions and people that believe this to be a significant event. With regards to Merge: The broadness of topics included (social media, moderation, regulation, free speech) and the already extensive coverage would be an indication of this being suitable as its own article, and something broader than what is suitable on the bio of one man. The fact that there is some fluff only necessitates the pruning and improvement of the article. 148.252.104.241 (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Pavel Durov. This is a fork of Pavel Durov, and the question is not whether there is notability for the information. The question is whether this is a bad fork. Is it a POVFORK? Perhaps, if we say the coverage of this one event of this notable individual has become skewed out of proportion with the subject's importance. Even if not a POVFORK, it is a redundant fork, because this can and should be contained in a section about Durov. There are no strong reasons for an article split. The parent article is not too long, and this would be a strange split in any case. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SIGCOV and WP:TOOSOON. The incident should have an article on their own. It's unnecessary to merge back into one article because it would be difficult to navigate. Ahri Boy (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How on earth does WP:TOOSOON support keeping this article, which was definitely created too soon? And it's our duty as editors to make the articles easy to navigate; we could improve this content by cutting out most of the increasingly irrelevant 'reactions'. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also frustrating that my !vote directly above this one points out that SIGCOV is simply not the correct consideration here. This is a content fork. Also what secondary sources do we even have about this arrest? It all looks like news reporting to me. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the “Background” and “Arrest” sections are already way too long to be properly merged into the main article, and they contain very relevant information about the whole story. Without those details, I’d struggle to understand why he was arrested in first place.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if we copied those in without change, those sections contain under 900 words. The subject's page is currently under 1800 words. The combined article would still be at the very short end of WP:SIZERULE. No split is justified on size. And bear in mind that as much of that information is already on the parent page, we don't need to copy it in, even assuming it is all even due. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If we merge this into the parent article, we'd run into the problem of undue weight. I really don't think that he's notable for his arrest so that a large chunk of the article documents it. In case it is, then the split is justified.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The BG info would not be needed. The reaction section here is absolutely overloaded with useless reactions (particularly on yet if he will be actually charged rather than just detained) Masem (t) 20:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Masem. It is a curious argument that we should keep an article because it contains information that would be undue for the subject. That's a delete argument. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that the article is too long to be merged into a parent article which is not much longer in its current shape (I'd have probably supported a merger had the article been much shorter but still clear enough to explain what happened.). Masem is right that some content may be redundant and should be removed, but that should be discussed on the article's talk page with a proper action before this RfD concludes. The worst-case scenario is to wait for this RfD to conclude with a "Merge" result and let the closing admin merge only parts of the article without discussing what's relevant to remain. That's practically censorship.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is AfD, not RfD. The closing admin will not carry out the merge. If this AfD closes as merged, a closing admin is likely to just place a header on the article indicating the decision, and then it is up to any editors to complete the merge. When a merge is carried out, some or all of the content on this page may be copied to the merge target. Undue information and repetitive information need not be merged. See WP:MERGE. I think you are arguing against that outcome under a misapprehension about the process. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't buy it (this sounds like 'let's first agree to merge and then decide what to merge'). Please first remove the unnecessary content from the article to convince me support a merger. I simply can't support merging the article in the current shape.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's never been a requirement that when merge is suggested as an option at AFD to pre-determine what needs to be merged. A good merge argument at AFD will include what probably can be merged and what can be left behind, as that strengthens the merge rational, but its not a requirement to do so, and if an AFD closes as merge with no clear indication of what should be merged, then a talk page discussion can be opened to determine that, if no editor is bold enough to make the merge themselves after the AFD closes. Masem (t) 00:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: Yes, the event is wholly notable, "it's important", or whatever, but this is regardless an unnecessary fork of the article on the human being; even if we were to merge every word of the arrest article into the main article, we would be well away from having any size concerns, and I do not expect such extensive merging to be necessary; around half of this arrest article covers reactions that could be trimmed to two sentences; the same goes for the "background". If anything, it is WP:TOOSOON to have an article, not to delete one; Wikipedia policy is not to "create an article on everything that gets a mention in the news" and then see if an article is really necessary, but the other way around. I don't see any further developments happening very rapidly; he was arrested, some people said "this is a bad thing", and that's about it for now. If somehow Telegram were to shut down following Durov's arrest, I would support a "2024 Telegram shutdown" article with section on Durov's arrest, but for now we do not need an article on an inconsequential arrest. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the standard procedure is to put it as an addition to the person's article and if it turns out that there is a reason it can become a separate article. Pallikari (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to save server space. Nashhinton (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: the server space is just fine. Don't worry about it. Kline • talk • contribs 18:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As proposer, I encourage any closing admin to disregard the above !vote, as the stated rationale is wrong. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not independently notable; the arrest of Pavel Durov is only notable because it happened to Pavel Durov, about whom we already have an article. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge The usual violation of WP:NOTNEWS of constructing a bloated bio-fork out of every news story of what is surely just the first step in a significant episode in this fellow's life. "no deadline" cuts both ways: there's no penalty for waiting for a story to resolve itself before writing about it, especially since we don't actually have any real idea of how significant this is going to turn out to be. Edit it down to a more succinct and encyclopedic level of detial and put it in his bio for now. Mangoe (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh, no need to be in a hurry to merge. This is most certainly a notable event which raises this guy's profile to the level of Assange and Snowden. The bio of the "Mark Zuckerberg of Russia" was only about one-third the size of Zuck's bio before Durov's arrest. Merging would fix that discrepancy if nobody insisted on culling the content due to "undue" and "BLP1E" concerns. That's a big if. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the argument is to keep information here because it might be culled there as undue, then this is a WP:POVFORK. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the summary of this article in Durov's bio should have the same POV as the detailed article here. Just a matter of WP:Summary style. wbm1058 (talk) 01:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Summary style guidance is about splitting an article when the parent becomes too large to contain the whole. That clearly does not apply here. The parent article can contain a full encyclopaedic coverage of the event of his arrest in his article without coming anywhere close to a size split. His article is the place for this. There is no merit in making the reader read a second page for relevant encyclopaedic coverage of this event. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That may be technically true today, but seems unlikely to still be true a week from today. Hence my "no rush" vote. Seems a pointless exercise to merge now, only to be forced to split it back a week or two from now. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge because there is a Pavel Durov article.→StaniStani 01:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge now while the scope is limited to Durov. Sure, as a Telegram user, I also worry about the implications of Durov's arrest. Yet, who's to say it will make waves in the world in the way that Assange and Snowden's actions had? What if things just return to the status quo? If everyone's fears do become true and the repercussions grow beyond Durov, we can always fork to the larger perspective. For comparison, look at Snowden's article versus the 2010s global surveillance disclosures. Spade6179 (talk) 03:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep and don't merge (though obs the main bio needs a small summary). Already massively independently notable at the time of the nom, and each passing hour adds stacks of new sources to the already overwhelming keep case. There's all sorts of notable aspects much covered in an article on the arrest rather the min bio - such as calls for tech innovators to relocate from Europe to US, the pov that the arrest was justifiable for crime fighting & internet safety reasons - and then the counter arguments to all of this. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-familiarise yourself with WP:SNOW. At the moment there's a reasonable number of opinions on both sides, with a variety of justifications, and both positions come with a viable course of action. This isn't snow territory at all. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those are the alternatives. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's WP:CRYSTAL - at the moment it's only growing because people are stuffing more reactions and responses into it. Some are overkill, the rest would be fine in the Pavel Durov article. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's really not unprecedented. A lot of people are using words ('unprecedented', 'exponential', for example) without reference to what they actually mean. There are plenty of precedents, including some that are being cited by other Keep !voters. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if charges are laid and bail is refused as the situation will become similar to Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange or if this incident leads to the shutdown of Telegram, but merge if bail is provided or released without charge and no substantive changes are made to Telegram. Yes the article in its current form is very poorly written and needs a substantive rewrite, but that alone isn't grounds for outright deletion. - Mailer Diablo 16:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion may run its course before the answer to this becomes clear; that's part of why I'm proposing the merge. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think everything seems to be too rushed, give a few more days than usual for this AfD to settle before closing. We run the risk of this discussion coming back quickly and repeatedly in one form or another if the discussion is not allowed to settle. - Mailer Diablo 21:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is literally the purpose of this discussion. Or are you saying you only believe in Merge !votes that specifically cite WP:TOOSOON? GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it's also still not independent of Pavel Durov. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't. Plenty of people, including rich and famous people, have been arrested in the past. And it's still not separate from the biography of the person it happened to. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. First thinking is `keep' in view of current attention, but a comparable event in the past, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Khodorkovsky#Criminal_charges_and_incarceration, lacks a separate page, and in the retrospect this looks adequate. Comech (talk) 13:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Per reasons above based on WP:TOOSOON, most notably due to WP:ARTICLESIZE. The combined size of this article and Pavel Durov is only 4,400 words, thus per WP:SIZERULE noting that "Length alone does not justify division or trimming", the current split is unnecessary. Despite GNG and SIGCOV for a standalone article, it appears that many readers are not finding the content they are looking for based on page views, only around 4%. [3] It would therefore benefit the reader for this articles information to be within the BLP article, assuming that the spike in hits to Durovs page is due to his arrest, which I believe is fair to assume. I otherwise don't believe this is a NOTNEWS issue, and arguments for RECENTISM otherwise appear weak due to the likely historical significance of such an arrest. To otherwise counter Cameron Dewe, CRIME only applies to "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial", thus is not relevant to this discussion, as Durov had a BLP article prior to his arrest. This is also a misinterpretation of BLPCRIME; it's not assumed someone arrested is accused of a crime by default and documenting an arrest by no means violates this policy. He has otherwise been charged with 12 counts. CNC (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for now, though I'd support a separate article if the trial receives significant, long-term coverage and/or results in Telegram being shut down. JSwift49 18:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At first I also did not recognize resons for such an article. But after closer inspection - of the notability of the event - and the article itself, I am really supportive. And naturally hoping that others vote only after being familiar with the matter. IHaveBecauseOfLocks (talk) 19:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. The event is still going on, and “Arrest of Pavel Durov” will move on to Prosecution, Trial, Verdict of Pavel Durov. We cannot predict the whole story for now thus it’s impossible to appropriately write a standalone article.  Nihonjinatny (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move > Arrest and indictment of Pavel Durov or Merge: Based on new reports of Pavel Durov being formally indicted by French prosecutors on six criminal charges related to complicity, being placed on judicial supervision after paying a 5 million Euro bail, and being banned from leaving France, and based on similar articles formats' such as Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange, with Indictment and Arrest swapped due to the ordering of events in Durov's case if the article is moved instead of being merged. Since bail was posted, merging could be considered if the arrest and indictment on their own are not exceptional enough.
Sources: [4][5][6][7] Noble Attempt (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: outstanding article with sufficiently thorough coverage. I disagree to delete or merge, the Page length is more than 43K (in bytes)
QalasQalas (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any claims that this is a "major event" are in the realm on WP:NOT#CRYSTAL as we have no idea what impact this might have. It could have one but we cannot speculate as WPians. Masem (t) 13:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a major event in the sense that the person is famous, the arrest resulted in numerous reactions by global leaders and influential people who raised concerns regarding the freedom of speech, and the global media paid careful attention to it. I'm wondering how this event doesn't deserve a stand-alone article based on notability when we already have articles about a violent arrest of a 27-year-old white man in Mulberry, Arkansas and an arrest of a 33-year-old shop-lifter from Walmart in Greenwood Village, Colorado.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While OTHERSTUFFEXISTS should not be used at AFD, in the case of those two the attempt to arrest was violent making the arrest attempt newsworthy, though I would still leave open the question if either have shown enduring coverage since these events. Here because it is only an arrest (one completed without incident), we really have no idea what impact it will have, it is all speculation how this impacts Telfram and social media in general. Masem (t) 13:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The arrest itself has already made an impact given the names of the political figures, human rights activists, scholars and businesspeople who made statements in response to it. As the story further unfolds (he may be released or taken to court), we can expand it with all additional information and change the article's title. If this eventually impacts Telegram or the social media in general, that should be treated independently and documented in a separate article.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reaction sections of just commentary are not indications if long term significance, and are used often to prop up claims of notability. Just because we have media trying to fill 24/7 coverage with anyone they can find talking about a subject doesn't mean we need to treat that as notable. If there was an actual impact like Russia cutting diplomatic ties with France over the event, maybe there would be something. But in taking a "how would we have written this 10 years from now" view, this article is excessively overloaded with unnecessary detail for an encyclopedia, and the simple relevant facts can be covered in existing articles. Masem (t) 14:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s a valid point for most articles of the type “Arrest of X” or “Death of Y”, which don’t demonstrate any long-lasting impact years after the events they document happened. The real problem is that we frequently run AfDs to discuss the notability of articles involving famous people, while similar articles involving unknown people go unnoticed and remain on the encyclopedia.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that there was no biography articles about that 27-year-old white man from Mulberry, AR, or about a 33-year-old shop-lifter from Colorado; that's why standalone articles appeared... Comech (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s a terrible argument. It means that arrests of minor local criminals are more notable than arrests of notable people.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which goes to my point above that for those articles, the long term enduring coverage of the event really isn't there and these likely should be deleted. At least here, we have two existing articles where this can be covered (his bio and Telegram) Masem (t) 19:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m in favour of deleting all such instances, but we need to work out a more systematic approach. We really have the problem of such articles being swept under the carpet for years.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Major Sunni-Shia Conflicts (7th Century-Present)

[edit]
Major Sunni-Shia Conflicts (7th Century-Present) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed draftification (which I struggled to find amongst the welter of moves!). Fails WP:V, entirely unreferenced. Draftify pending references since there is likely inherent notability. WP:DRAFTIFY means I cannot do this unilaterally and a consensus must be formed to do so. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted this page move. It's disruptive to move articles being discussed at an AFD while the discusion is ongoing. It really messes up the discussion closure with XFDcloser. Liz Read! Talk! 03:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Mobaraki

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

This was deleted in 2022 with editors noting that they couldn't even find basic stats pages. It's been recreated with no additional evidence that this football player passes WP:NSPORT, much less WP:GNG. The only sources are WP:ROUTINE coverage of matches and transfers in Iran; no WP:SIGCOV at all and not even any of the common stats profile pages. There's also insufficient evidence for the claim he plays or played for Sporting CP B; the only source for that claim is this dodgy-looking article, but this player has never appeared on the Sporting CP B roster or anywhere on Sporting CP's website. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:18, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: the person lacks significant, in-depth coverages, he hasn’t the notability to merit a standalone page. Violates WP:NOTPROMO. Nihonjinatny (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Psycho Tour

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

Does not meet the guidelines for WP:NTOUR. Redirect removed twice by IP so here we are. Coverage I find is all churnalism based on the recent announcement. CNMall41 (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this should be deleted. There are other tours like this that have articles with one or two sources and they still remain. We're talking about a tour here, not a whole article. This will be starting in almost two months and more sources will definitely be added. You could tell me what other information I can include and I'll be able to do it. Thank you! 64.189.246.115 (talk) 03:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There could not be any significant, in-depth coverage, per WP:GNG, for a tour not yet happened. The topic fails WP:NTOUR, and the article violates WP:NOTPROMO. Nihonjinatny (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Social disorganization theory

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

Not structured like an encyclopedic article, and while this topic might be notable, this appears to be a case where I would just WP:TNT and start over. Almost no inline citations, a bit of possible WP:SYNTH, and WP:MOS violations all over. Best to reduce to a stub, draftify, or delete. Awesome Aasim 22:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but improve. The article seems failed WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, it pushes away unprepared users. But the theory itself is relevant to everyday life, with RS such as this one and skillful writing, it could be a very interesting piece. I’m not against the suggestion of WP:TNT, though. Nihonjinatny (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2024 (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. Editors think deletion or a merge is unnecessary or misguided as the subject of this article and the proposed target article are two different substances. Other possible merges can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 03:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slime (homemade toy)

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

Article already exists at gunge; I propose we delete/redirect this article to the aforementioned page. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 16:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 25 August 2024 (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 restore and close‎. Closing this as involved as an obvious hoax troll created by a now-globally-locked LTA. (non-admin closure) C F A 💬 00:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Make You Dance (song)

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

WikiText2007 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: You have not placed a reason. Replace PLACE REASON HERE with a valid reason. WikiText2007 (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2024 (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. Complex/Rational 22:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of important publications in geology

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of important publications in geology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Currently this article is an WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:coatrack. There is no clear criteria of what counts as a "important publication" and no prose explaining why an entry is noted enough to be included. Vast amounts of the list is unsourced. The previous discussion, which closed as "keep" in 2011, did not adequately address the WP:Indiscriminate concern. Foundational works in geology already have a place in the History of geology article. the majority of the list is POV inclusionism with no Secondary or tertiary coverage actually calling the entries out. Kevmin § 22:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --- I attempted to rescue this list article in January 2023 so that it obeyed a reasonable list selection criteria and was not indiscriminate. My rescue attempt was reverted by another editor, and no one else appeared to want to clean it up. I believe that the topic of the list is notable, but the article as it stands is hopeless. — hike395 (talk) 04:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We've been here twice before, and not much has changed. I think it's time to pull the plug. --Licks-rocks (talk) 10:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the nomination and above comments. The list is too indiscriminate to save. The Morrison Man (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rather than an indiscriminate list it is an incomplete one. Critical advances in science are numerous and often explicitely recognized with a certain lag. There has been an effort in the article to explain with sourced material why each publication has been important for the science of geology. I doubt the pro-deletion camp so far has any real grasp of the science of geology because I havent seen an objection or discussion around the inclusion of speicific objects. If anything this article could be split up as some subjects like geophysics, geochemistry or geomorphology are often considered apart of geology. Lappspira (talk) 05:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lappspira, Per wp:Civil, comment on the proposal, and do not WP:Casting aspersions or make personal attacks.--Kevmin § 19:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This list has no value in Wikipedia and it is considered vague in the sense most of the content is unsourced. Galaxybeing (talk) 07:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete primarily due to WP:INDISCRIMINATE already discussed. What opposition to deletion I've seen here so far would run counter to WP:CRYSTAL policy. KoA (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am changing my opinion from the previous AfD, based on intervening developments and the lack of movement towards making this list not an OR-fest. Personal opinions about what publications are "important", even if backed up by paragraphs of rationale, are not a suitable basis for a Wikipedia article. I'd be open to changing my mind again if we had multiple reliably-published sources that explicitly tallied the most significant publications in the field — "top 10" lists, to put it coarsely. Otherwise, we just have a bizarrely heterogeneous list (both Lyell's Principles of Geology and the "Defining study of Zeolite facies metamorphism"?). If geologists themselves don't find that enumerating historical publications is a good way to think about their field, then we shouldn't be presenting it that way. It would also be within policy to first write articles about the notable books and then assemble a list of them. I suspect that that approach would be more beneficial for students of the subject and its history, as well. Overall, we're in a situation where the current text is unsuitable and the article title probably needs to be less opinion-pushing. So, I have to come down in favor of deletion, although I do still think that a policy-compliant and useful list of noteworthy geology publications could in principle exist. XOR'easter (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Important" is dubious and even if it has been made clear then still it looks like a catalogue. >>> Extorc.talk 04:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks sources and/or criteria for inclusion, leading a a largely indiscriminate list. While the topic (i.e. foundational texts in geology) is notable and might be worth it's own article apart from History of Geology, this article is not it. That a different article, with different sources, at a different title might be appropriate is not enough to save this article. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:00, 1 September 2024 (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! 23:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

POPin

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

nonnotable business --Altenmann >talk 22:07, 25 August 2024 (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'm on the fence regarding G5, but as the AfD has run its course, and there's a consensus to delete, there's no need to adjudicate on the speedy aspect. Owen× ☎ 12:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Felix LaHaye

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

This businessperson biography fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Despite being a WP:REFBOMB, sourcing is limited to WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS, media WP:INTERVIEWS, unreliable sources (a la Forbes Contributors) and affiliated sources (profiles on his university's website) to synthesize notability that doesn't exist. There's only one source that gets close to WP:SIGCOV (here) and even that is mostly interview-based. The 30-under-30-type awards received do not meet the award test of WP:ANYBIO. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Canada. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Video games, Advertising, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly speedy delete in accordance with WP:G5. This article existed as a many-times-declined (and recently rejected) Draft:Felix LaHaye. After I indef-blocked the creator Isabelle Blake as an undisclosed paid editor, a long-dormant account Captanhook77 suddenly "woke up" the same day and unilaterally copied the draft to article space. This just smells suspicious. If the same person isn't controlling both accounts, it's possibly a group of undisclosed paid editors working together. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no connection to Isabelle Blake, and am not being paid to do this. I am an esports aficionado from Quebec. As we are a small bilingual nation there is not a lot of people in the esports space, and Felix LaHaye has a strong degree of notoriety here, hence my willingness to help create this page.
    The Isabelle Blake article clearly did not meet the criteria, so when I saw it rejected, I decided to create a better article by doing research to find strong sources to support, which I confident I did.
    Lastly, the article seemed to have been accepted, with close to a dozen contributors participating, until it was recently moved to Draft after 6 months. I assumed this was an error, as not reason was then provided, and I simply moved it back. Captainhook77 (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When a draft isn't merely declined but rejected, that means stop, don't go on, look for another subject to write about. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry but this is important to our community.
    Lahaye is one of the very few Quebecers that has achieved this level of success in this industry. Just listen to the interviews and see.
    This is important for us, and he definitely matches the criteria. Maybe you don’t know of him, if you are not French Canadian and that’s perfectly ok, but saying he does not is simply inaccurate. I also personally think asking to write about something else because you don’t like the topic is rather rude and inappropriate and does not seem to respect wikipedias mission and criteria for positive discussion.
    Thanks Captainhook77 (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Importance to your community is irrelevant to Wikipedia. What matters is our policies and guidelines for inclusion. This discussion has nothing to do with not liking the topic; the nominator and other participants here are indifferent to the topic, we are concerned about compliance with policies and guidelines. The only person making an WP:ILIKEIT argument is you. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. – Pbrks (t·c) 14:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Journal de Quebec and La Presse are both top 5 newspapers in Quebec, which both created profiles on LaHaye, including in print. Similarly, some of the TV coverage highlighted is on Radio Canada, and TVA, in prime time slots, on the most watched programs in the nation. These are some of the main points supporting notoriety criteria being met.
While other elements are more in the realm of "mentions" those are solely provided to support specific elements of activity, which are frequently conducted under the organizations LaHaye leads.
Lastly, the article seemed to have been accepted, with close to a dozen contributors participating, until it was recently moved to Draft after 6 months. I assumed this was an error, as not reason was then provided, and I simply moved it back. Captainhook77 (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
The article has strong sources that are at the top of reputability in Quebec, from the most read newspapers to prime time television coverage. Captainhook77 (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(They mention La Presse but there's no source there in the article.) None of these satisfy the test of WP:SIGCOV in independent, secondary reliable sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:
    • Journal de Quebec: is not just an interview. Whilst Felix LaHaye is frequently quoted, the most significant facts about Lahaye himself are given by the journalist, whilst LaHaye comments on the evolution of the industry itself.

Here is the La Presse article that I had originally included, which seems to now be missing. I am happy to re-include it: https://www.lapresse.ca/affaires/techno/2023-07-05/vie-numerique/attraper-la-generation-z-dans-son-milieu-naturel.php

I am having a hard time understanding how these high notoriety publications would not meet the independence and notoriety criteria, as they are fact checked by the editors. Whilst self interviews, should not "count" as meeting the criteria, it seems clear that given the scope and notoriety and from the direct responses from the journalists there is no doubt here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainhook77 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of this article, like the others, is made up of LaHaye's quotes. That's why it can't be used for notability -- it's primarily him talking about himself, not other people talking about him. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree.
As someone from Quebec familiar with those programs being a frequent guest and having print features does validate a strong degree of notability. Seeing how they talk about him and to him also a strong indicator in my eyes.
Do these articles validate the facts, that would be a separate debate on whether Lahaye has notoriety for Quebecers. Captainhook77 (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't how Wikipedia defines notability. If the coverage is primarily about what the subject says, that doesn't count. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@2603:8001:9500:9E4D:D38:E457:5015:34BA If you are @Captainhook77, please log back in and comment under your username. Otherwise, you are violating WP:LOUTSOCK, which is a form of disruptive editing. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for flagging this. I made that comment indeed. Thanks Captainhook77 (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then please listen to the interviews and read the articles. They are not primarily about what he says. They are mostly high notoriety profiles that match the publication’s formats.
I understand that a lot of it is in French, and if you don’t maybe speak French then it is harder to grasp and that’s ok.
But saying it doesn’t match the notoriety is inaccurate.
I don’t understand why would want to remove something when it is clearly well known in Quebec and that there is more than significant evidence to prove it. Captainhook77 (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:Golden Rule. Interviews do not count toward notability. Being famous or well known in a local region doesn't matter without significant coverage that is independent of the subject. Notability on Wikipedia isn't the same as famous. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:34, 29 August 2024 (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pietro Dib

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

I don't find that he meets the notability policy; I couldn't find any sources. فيصل (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia version of this page may have potential sources. -1ctinus📝🗨 21:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BISHOPS. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:23, 31 August 2024 (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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oskar Kind Bakkevig

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

Non-notable undrafted college hockey player, virtually unsourced BLP. Fails the GNG; complete lack of significant coverage to the subject in multiple reliable sources. Deprodded by the article creator with the edit summary "he has played 2 games in of of the major professional leagues (Swedish Hockey League)," but the creator is well aware (through a long history of their submissions going to XfD) that simple league participation was deprecated from NSPORTS years ago now, and articles on athletes are neither exempted from the GNG nor from the requirements of BLP. Ravenswing 19:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that that policy had been changed. I know that the the DEL and Slovak league had been downgraded but I was under the assumption that appearances in leagues like the NHL, KHL, and Liiga were still considered sufficient since the notability guidelines make no mention of the "major" leagues. If that is not the case, than Oskar Kind Bakkevig would not meet notability. However, I think it would help if a list of leagues where appearances alone constitute notability were placed in Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Ice hockey, or that it is not accepted in and of itself. Assuming that everyone knows when changes occur or what changes have occurred will result in miscommunications such as this. PensRule11385 (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Easy: there aren't any. Period. In ANY sport. And as it happens, NHOCKEY does in fact reflect the deprecation, and has for years now. It's incumbent on all editors (especially those actively creating articles) to be mindful of notability standards, and refreshing your knowledge would have been a good thing to do before deprodding. Ravenswing 02:56, 26 August 2024 (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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Farmelo

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this footballer who appeared in one pro game as a teen. JTtheOG (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom, also adding that a BLP needs much better sourcing to stay online.
Kingsmasher678 (talk) 22:26, 25 August 2024 (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 draftified‎ by the author, so procedural close. (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 09:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Alan Dixon

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

WP:BLP of a smalltown mayor, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NPOL #2.
As always, the notability test for mayors is not automatically passed just because the person exists, and requires significant press coverage supporting a substantive article about his political impact: specific things he did as mayor, specific projects he spearheaded as mayor, specific effects his mayoralty had on the development of the town, and on and so forth.
But there's virtually nothing like that here: this consists mainly of unsourced biographical background about his childhood and educational and premayoral career credentials, before dispatching his mayoralty with a short section stating that he was elected but saying nothing of any substance about his work in the office. And the sole reference in the entire article is a primary source table of the election results themselves on the self-published website of the county elections office, with not a single hit of WP:GNG-worthy media coverage in any reliable sources shown at all.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced better than this, and it also warrants mention that this was created by an WP:SPA whose edit history has revolved exclusively around this page and the virtually identical duplicate Draft:Michael A. Dixon. Bearcat (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iupwarrior2 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, you must post to the bottom of this page, not the top.
Secondly, please familiarize yourself with our rules around WP:AUTOBIO, under which you're not allowed to start your own article about yourself.
Thirdly, please also read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which explains why the existence of another article about somebody else is not a convincing argument in and of itself as to why your article should also exist — Sara Innamorato's article cites proper reliable sourcing to establish notability, and contains content about the political impact of her work in the job she holds, both of which your article is missing. As I already explained: the key to making a mayor notable enough for a Wikipedia article is not just to show that he exists — it's to demonstrate that he has WP:GNG-worthy coverage about him, in reliable sources such as news media and books, that enable us to write a substantive article about his work in the mayoralty. This article, however, is almost entirely about your childhood and educational and family background, not your work as mayor, and cites no reliable sourcing to support any of the content with — and people (regardless of their occupation) are never entitled to keep Wikipedia articles written and sourced like that.
It's not a knock against you as a person, but the article has to comply with our content standards. Hope that helps a bit. Bearcat (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am having doubts this is the mayor, it sounds like text pushed through a LLM. – The Grid (talk) 16:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings again,

Thank you for providing some, fairly blunt, recommendations on my page.

I removed my initial message from the middle of the page, entering my letter from mobile obviously didn't show me anything in the window when I typed out that message, there was an empty input box only. It's also reproduceable, so maybe place a bug ticket for that.

I have removed it from public view, and back to my personal sandbox - you no longer need to be concerned about, my "terribly not notable" opinion of my presence here.

In the future, choose your words more professionally, opinions are not necessary, just provide the actions that need to take place, and thank people for their contributions. iupwarrior2 (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2024 (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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Murshid (TV series)

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

References are unreliable as they are churnalism and WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Tagged for notability hoping better sources would be introduced but tag was removed without improvement. The only bylined sources I found were this which is churnalism based off a press release (there are a few others you will find in a WP:BEFORE, and this which is three paragraphs and about one of the actors (only a paragraph about the series). Likely WP:TOOSOON since it hasn't even been released. CNMall41 (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The web series have efficient reputed news media links. There is no promotional materail. There is no reason to delete it. Please keep the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arshadkhanwriter (talk • contribs) 19:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify or Redirect to List_of_ZEE5_original_programming#2024. The series has not been released yet. 9 sources on the page and of that no. 3,6,7,8,9 are unreliable sources and others have no significant coverage. Maybe after the release the series might get better coverage in reliable secondary independent sources and if so, I would reconsider my vote. RangersRus (talk) 13:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC) Changing vote to Keep. Series got significant coverage after release with many coming from reliable sources. I too added two reviews under reception after review and cleanup of unreliable sources. Editors can add more reliable sources for further expansion but so far good enough to pass notability. RangersRus (talk) 12:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, some of the existing coverage is now on the page. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 06:38, 30 August 2024 (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. czar 18:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jasper Rees

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

Sources included do not prove WP:GNG. Ktkvtsh (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2024 (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 18:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CPKC (disambiguation)

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

Unambiguous. I've deleted the WP:PTMs from the dabpage (CPKC Police et. al.) and the only thing left is CP/KC, which is trivially mentioned at CP/M. That one can be addressed by a hatnote, if that. 162 etc. (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2024 (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. czar 18:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Union of Scranton

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in independent reliable sources. I can find mentions (such as [10], [11]), but not more than that. toweli (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2024 (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 18:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pulling a stroke

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

This article is essentially a dictionary definition with a couple of examples of usage; see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It has been tagged for improvement since 2011. Perhaps it should be redirected to Practical joke or Scam or something like that. —Bkell (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This reeks of 2009 Wikipedia in all the wrong ways. -1ctinus📝🗨 16:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not enough information to justify an own article on this phrase. The article is basically just an explanation on what it means and an irrelevant list of it being mentioned in TV shows. The history/origin of this phrase is not mentioned anywhere in the article, which is why I think it can be deleted without any real loss of relevant, encyclopedic content. --Mondtaler (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This isn't the dictionary, we have a site for this. I would support moving this article in some form to the dictionary, however.
Kingsmasher678 (talk) 22:39, 25 August 2024 (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. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edwardsville Formation

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

There is insufficient WP:SIGCOV of this geological formation for a standalone article under WP:GNG. A stable redirect to Borden Formation#Edwardsville Formation has been repeatedly undone, but despite ample time the editor has done nothing to add additional sources or expand the stub. I propose an AfD consensus to firmly establish the previous redirect, not to preclude expansion in the future should SIGCOV be produced. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The redirect was not stable, it was reverted once thus contested, you then reverted back to the redirect with an invalid reason and instead of discussing it at the talk page, you have decided to take it to afd. This is the standard article size and layout for geological formations. That you appear to not know this suggests that you are just going to random pages to "curate" without appropriate knowledge. Also afd is not about article quality. Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also my revert of the redirect was not contested by the person I reverted. Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also WP:NGEO is an SNG, thus as a geological formation this meets NGEO as an SNG, GNG is not necessary. Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please, WP:NPA and WP:AGF. I do not visit "random pages to 'curate' without appropriate knowledge" and I would ask you to strike that remark. New page reviewers may patrol in whatever categories they wish; I have been focusing on the list of unreviewed articles created by blocked users (an area that tends to include a greater share of articles requiring reviewer attention), and that's why this one turned up. As for whether stub length is standard for geological formations, that appears to be untrue (see New Albany Shale, Pocono Formation, Burlington Limestone, Surprise Canyon Formation, Bear Gulch Limestone, Huntley Mountain Formation, Madison Group, Rockwell Formation, Mauch Chunk Formation, and the page I propose redirecting to, Borden Formation, just to look at Mississippian formations in the U.S.). It is also an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. If the sourcing is truly limited only to supporting a permanent stub, then the subject fails the WP:NOPAGE test of WP:GNG: "Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page .... Sometimes, when a subject is notable, but it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to write about it, editors should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of creating a permanent stub." Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ramp Creek Formation, Muldraugh Formation, Salem Limestone, Ste. Genevieve Limestone, Warsaw Formation, Keokuk Limestone, Fern Glen Formation, Pierson Limestone, Reeds Spring Formation, all Mississippian formations in the US, all stubs. And to show that it's not just a US thing Meledis Formation. Stub articles form the majority of geological formation articles. And WP:GNG is not necessary when an SNG is met. Hence why SNGs exist. Lavalizard101 (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're still making WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments. Regarding the SNG claim, the SNG is unclear about whether geological formations are geographical landforms and thus subject to the SNG. If there's a demonstrated consensus that NGEO applies to geological formations, then I will withdraw the nomination. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently providing examples of the majority=OSE. Lavalizard101 (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just found Wikipedia:Wikiproject Geology/Notability#Stratigraphic units, while an essay this provides evidence that formations are presumed notable.
As for sources I just did a Google scholar search and came up with [12], [13], [14] and [15] within a couple of seconds. Obvious WP:GNG is met. Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of those links is broken, and I reviewed the others in my BEFORE search. As I mentioned upthread, NOPAGE offers additional considerations if an article cannot be built out beyond a permanent stub. You have not addressed this part of the argument. However, taking the WikiProject essay on notability you offered as representing some degree of consensus on the application of NGEO, I’ll withdraw the nomination. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2024 (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhimmath

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

Disputed draftification, albeit a few months ago. This is a WP:ROTM charity, albeit performing a useful role. Nothing about it is shown to pass WP:CORP. WIkipedia is not a directory of charities, however useful they are. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:29, 25 August 2024 (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 14:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulrahman Rashid

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

He has only played 21 mins of professional league football to date and none of the sources come even close to establishing a passing of WP:SPORTBASIC. The best Arabic source that I could find was Raya, which mentions him once only. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:13, 25 August 2024 (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 14:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NNI News

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

This is one of many news agencies in Pakistan, but it doesn't seem to meet the GNG or even NORG which passes WP:SIRS. Most of coverage is routine and focused on the agency's own people. For example, this which says A photographer of NNI news agency ... also lost their lives in the same incident. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:21, 11 August 2024 (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 12:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:38, 25 August 2024 (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. Complex/Rational 12:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Jungle

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

Promo piece on a non-notable marketing agency. Sources don't come even close to establishing notability (most don't even work), and a BEFORE search finds nothing better. Fails WP:GNG / WP:NCORP by a country mile. I was going to request A7/G11 speedy on this, but I guess it deserves at least a discussion, given that it's survived 12 years to get this far. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:25, 25 August 2024 (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 Nordic race. as an ATD Liz Read! Talk! 08:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continental Nordic race

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

The article fails WP:GNG, all its source are primary sources from about 100 years ago, written by "race theorists" (see Scientific racism). We already have Nordic race and that seems enough. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:58, 25 August 2024 (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 deleted‎ by Jimfbleak per criteria A7 and G11. Page was perfectly eligible for speedy deletion. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 08:18, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oscareduardo10 (Influencer)

[edit]
Oscareduardo10 (Influencer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. The subject of the article, appears to be promoting themselves, and I believed there is a strong possibility that the creator of the article is the same individual as the subject, raising concerns about self-promotion and conflict of interest. Additionally, the references used in the article are not reliable, including social media links and self-published sources that do not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for verifiability and reliability. Indo360 (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2024 (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! 08:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enciclopedia Combi Visual

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. I found a handful of citations to what might be this book, but not very many. Nothing else. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly non-notable. Provides no useful information and no citations, and there don't seem to be readily found sources. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 22:51, 25 August 2024 (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! 08:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Osyana

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

Reviewed for NPP. Does not pass WP:NBOOK. There doesn't seem to be a lot about the book? There is a decent amount of things in press, but it all appears to be press-release type material (which doesn't count for Nbooks) from the publisher with little information that is more than it exists. There are more press release type materials that said there was going to be a movie to be released five years ago, but that never happened so that criterion of nbooks does not apply. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:34, 25 August 2024 (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! 09:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Rowley (writer)

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

Help! Can't find any reviews of the Beatles books written by this guy, hence failing WP:NAUTHOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least two sigcov reviews of his books on ProQuest. 1 for Beatles For Sale, 1 for All Together Now. That's not quite there but I can't do an in depth check now - however, it's not nothing. I will vote after I have done a better check. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does one of the ProQuest articles include a review from The Spectator? A review for All Together Now shows up in Google Search, but it's a dead link and not archived from what I can tell. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Significa liberdade Yes, that's one of them. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA: Is the other the review in Goldmine? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Significa liberdade Yes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2024 (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 2004 Madrid train bombings. Liz Read! Talk! 09:02, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal Zougam

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

WP:BLP1E. Merge content where appropriate into 2004 Madrid train bombings, then redirect the page. Longhornsg (talk) 06:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment judging from the Spanish article, it's likely that if the main article was brought to FA level comprehensiveness a biography should be written on him per size split reasons, given that he is one of the key figures in one of the deadliest terror attacks ever. So, if this is merged, I would not oppose it being split out again at some time. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, he does have (not counting life sentences), the third longest prison sentence of all time. I feel that is perhaps a claim to notability. From what I'm looking at an article could definitely be written on him - BLP1E is for low level crimes, not ones that kill nearly 200 people. The other two conditions of the policy are the person being a "low profile individual" (he is not) and that the event not be a SIGNIFICANT historical event in which the role of the person is well documented (he is). So he does not fail BLP1E. With more notorious cases there are often the sources to write both, and the reason he is the one with an article is because he seemed to be one of the more prominent figures. Same reason we have an article on Mohamed Atta. So either keep or merge for now. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2024 (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 2004 Madrid train bombings. Liz Read! Talk! 07:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2004 Madrid train bombings suspects

[edit]
2004 Madrid train bombings suspects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete or redirect to 2004 Madrid train bombings. Besides the WP:BLP considerations, absolutely no need for a separate page for this content per WP:PAGEDECIDE. Longhornsg (talk) 06:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the main article. Not actually as many BLP issues as I thought from the title, just a list of those convicted + one high profile very studied false arrest. The main article actually does not have a list of the men convicted of directly perpetrating the attack. The other sections are perhaps unnecessary but I feel a list of the main perpetrators would improve the main article. It appears unsourced but it is sourced to the Guardian article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:01, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:26, 25 August 2024 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 09:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge Aided Retrieval in Activity Context

[edit]
Knowledge Aided Retrieval in Activity Context (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:PROMO and fails WP:GNG. KARNAC was mentioned in one promotional article in 2001 ([16], which was mentioned in WP:PASSING in one Radio Free Europe article 4 years ago, with no update as to whether this software was actually created. Longhornsg (talk) 05:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There is sigcov in a 2009 book for two pages but it is discussed seemingly as a kind of hypothetical-ish thing. Discussed in several books from the 2010s as well, i less lengthy pieces. I would argue it is at least somewhat notable as a proposal - there is a decent amount of newspaper criticism of just the concept. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Carboni

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

Not yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO. Her main claim to notability appears to be her collaboration with Mick Simpson, whose own notability remains unclear, but in any case on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. The only coverage I could find of her in a WP:BEFORE search is in music blogs, with no significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Wikishovel (talk) 05:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The production of this artist is wide and easily verifiable on all music distribution platforms. We are not talking about self-productions but about productions of a real and recognized music label. The same streams and visions are public and demonstrate the truthfulness of what is written. Furthermore, the sources, although considered "secondary" are reliable and truthful. I believe that the request for cancellation is excessive.. 2A0D:3344:244D:4410:D521:A9AE:8355:ADEC (talk) 10:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC) — 2A0D:3344:244D:4410:D521:A9AE:8355:ADEC (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The production of this artist is wide and easily verifiable on all music distribution platforms. We are not talking about self-productions but about productions of a real and recognized music label. The same streams and visions are public and demonstrate the truthfulness of what is written. Furthermore, the sources, although considered "secondary" are reliable and truthful. I believe that the request for cancellation is excessive.. Salvacarb (talk) 18:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC) — Salvacarb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per nom. Jdcomix (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please, explain the reasons.. 2A0D:3344:244D:4410:C50B:417B:1664:DB7C (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The "keep" votes above (hint: if you want to look like two different people, say two different things) show no awareness of Wikipedia policy. This is not a promotional service in which you can copy the singer's website and list all of the streaming sources where her songs can be found. This is an encyclopedia in which someone has to qualify for an article by earning significant and reliable coverage in independent media. She does have a few album reviews (already cited) but I could find nothing else that provides verifiable or significant biographical info. Otherwise she has succeeded in plastering her name across self-created sites and retail platforms, but Wikipedia is not part of that scene. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I also couldn't find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. toweli (talk) 14:51, 29 August 2024 (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 The Smurfs characters. Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brainy Smurf

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

Reviewed for NPP. This article was AfD'd previously in 2011, where sources were presented, however I do not believe any of these sources actually help its case given modern standards. All of the sources presented were passing mentions where the character is used as a brief mention with no sigcov. Following this discussion of keep, a discussion to merge was had on the talk page, which reached a conclusion to merge. This was undone recently under the grounds that the character is important and has other language articles, which does not help it pass the GNG. Redirect to List of The Smurfs characters? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:45, 25 August 2024 (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! 03:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Playware Studios

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

Basically per WP:WEBHOST. This article has been tagged as possibly having been "created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use" for over seven years with no resolution of that tag. Notable or not, Wikipedia should not maintain content that violates its terms of use for such a length of time. BD2412 T 02:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep: I do not think a possible conflict of interest alone is a sufficient AfD reasoning, many articles were probably written unknowningly with a conflict of interest. Probably notability issues, but some projects received press coverage. IgelRM (talk) 11:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:11, 25 August 2024 (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! 07:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Destra Corporation

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

Basically per WP:WEBHOST. This article has been tagged as possibly having been "created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use" for over seven years with no resolution of that tag. Notable or not, Wikipedia should not maintain content that violates its terms of use for such a length of time. BD2412 T 02:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a consensus to Keep this article but the nominator brings up serious concerns that I don't think have been addressed. I guess the question is, if an article started as a possible paid editing project how long is that stigma retained? Does it remain even after regular editors have contributed to the content creation?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I reviewed Doc James' links. I could not access the first one, Special:Undelete/Domenic Carosa. I accessed the second one, User talk:Miseauxnormes and found a lot of deletion notices. Based on these links, I still do not see evidence that these editors had a conflict of interest with Destra Corporation. It will need to be explained more clearly to me.

    Even if those editors had a conflict of interest with the subject, the article was created by the established editor Lester (talk · contribs) who no one has accused of having a conflict of interest with the subject. There is no support in policy or precedent for deleting an article created by an established editor with no conflict of interest with the subject after some editors who are said have a conflict of interest with the subject contributed to that article.

    Cunard (talk) 00:19, 26 August 2024 (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! 00:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Williams (actor)

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

I can't see that this has WP:SIGCOV in multiple independent reliable sources or that they meet WP:NACTOR. The article itself lists roles in multiple TV series and TV movies, however I can't see reliable sourcing to support the claims. The only independent reliable source which has SIGCOV I could find in an WP:BEFORE was this. TarnishedPathtalk 01:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Draftifying an article this old is pointless. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion is divided between Draftify and Delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per nom and per WP:DRAFTNO, articles older than 90 days shouldn't be moved to draft. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 05:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DRAFTNO does not say, ‘Articles older than 90 days shouldn’t be moved to draft.’ You may have been misunderstood it. It is a guideline for new page reviewers, stating, ‘Do not draftify articles older than 90 days without discussion through AfD. If there is consensus to draftify, then it will be draftified.’ GrabUp - Talk 11:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While WP:DRAFTNO does pertain to new page reviewers, I do think the general idea that draftification should be used for newish articles holds. I don't think it's appropriate to draftify biographical articles which have failed to established the notability of their subject after almost nine years. TarnishedPathtalk 12:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just here to clarify the WP:DRAFTNO; not commenting to the AfD. GrabUp - Talk 12:14, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I do not see a compelling reason to draft. Drafting is good when an article is not quite yet ready for main, but will or could be ready soon. I do not like to draft when there is a lack of sourcing and/or meeting the relevant notability guideline. If we draft, this article is likely to either end up back in main before it's ready (and then possible end up back at AFD), or sit in draft and end up deleted in six months. The subject does not meet notability and there is no indication they can or will do so in the near future. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:06, 26 August 2024 (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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 09:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Crestoran Odyssey: Heroes Inception

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

This article was PROD'd but the tag was removed by the article's creator who is also the author of this book. Given that it is self-published, I don't believe it has been reviewed or meets WP:NBOOK. Obviously, COI involved here and all of the editor's content creation. I know that this is not a valid deletion rationale but I thought I'd point it out in this statement. Liz Read! Talk! 02:34, 25 August 2024 (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 see a consensus to Keep this article, especially after article improvements and the new sources found. It's especially notable that a few participants change their "vote" from Delete to Keep after changes to the article. Liz Read! Talk! 00:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Richard Swanson

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

Minor flash-in-the-pan news of the wierd, rightly forgotten…except, of course, on wikipedia. Qwirkle (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC) Qwirkle (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This was on Wikipedia's main page today, under DYK. So, on one hand, there were enough reviews and checking at DYK for this to be approved on the main page. On the other hand, you want us to delete it as soon as its main page appearance is over. I think if it was notable enough for the main page, then it's notable. — Maile (talk) 01:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Notice this is against Wikipedia’s own core principles. Wiki itself is not a useful authority for anything.
    And no, this should not have been deleted right after it infested the front page; it should have been dealt with before that. Qwirkle (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability is not a part of the DYK criteria. Articles getting deleted fresh off of DYK is pretty common. (Even GAN and FAC don't check for notability per se, and both have seen articles deleted at AfD.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 01:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete To quote the first nom, which was improperly closed: "minor flash-in-the-pan news of the weird." A human interest story from a decade ago with all the overage in that timeframe. Mangoe (talk) 02:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the editor who closed the previous discussion cited Wikipedia:Speedy keep#6 which allows for such a closure. Articles appearing on the main page shouldn't be tagged for deletion as long as they are on the main page. Liz Read! Talk! 04:05, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only coverage since the immediate aftermath seems to be routine court reporting on the truck driver's trial, all by local papers. WP:NEVENT asks us to look for "enduring historical significance" or, failing that, "widespread (national or international) impact and [having been] very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards". Neither of those standards is met here. While tragic, nothing seems to differentiate this case from many, many others of someone dying while doing something somewhat novel and then the resulting trial getting limited follow-up coverage. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 06:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep based on the potential for a much better article, although judged on current sources this would still be a delete. I'm persuaded by Govvy's link to this Grantland article, which is not currently cited, and which could easily be mined for several paragraphs of content adding both color and significance. That shows reliable source interest going beyond routine coverage.
      I am unpersuaded, however, by Oaktree b's argument that this should be scoped as a biography. Swanson was only notable for the record attempt and particularly for dying during it, and so per WP:BIO1E the article should be framed around that. It doesn't matter that his exact cause of death was routine; that's not how death notability works. There might be a case that this could be renamed to Richard Swanson's long-distance dribbling attempt or something like that, but that would effectively have the same scope, and in any case isn't a matter for AfD. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 20:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG in my view regardless of the event, also is this article suppose to be an biography? Wouldn't it be more correct to have the article re-titled? Also Upjav voted keep before the speedy keep, I would have thought it right to ping the guy. Govvy (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the tag, @Govvy. I'll review policy again per the responses to Maile since my vote was fairly similar to their vote. Upjav (talk) 23:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Death of X" articles generally boldface the person's name in the first sentence, per MOS:BOLDALTNAMES; that doesn't make this article a biography, and if it were a biography it would fail WP:BIO1E. It's an event, which makes WP:NEVENT (generally a higher bar than GNG) the controlling guideline.. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 23:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete  : I don't think his death is very notable (getting hit by a motor vehicle), but there might be a story to be told around his life and the attempt to dribble the soccer ball for a long distance... The event of his death isn't notable, but HE might be. As it stands, the articles are about his death, but they all highlight his attempt at the "record" for lack of a better phrase. Oaktree b (talk) 02:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am still confused by the delete votes, you have organisations like The Guardian, BBC, Sky News, and they are are not American publications covering the story, you have a load of sources from American ones. Then you have a really in-depth article by Grantland which is one year on after his death. There are loads of articles online about the event. so from my perspective it easily passes WP:NEVENT, so I rally am not understanding the delete arguments what so ever. Govvy (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He is notable, his death isn't. People get hit by cars daily. Oaktree b (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Govvy (talk) 12:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sufficient sourcing. GiantSnowman 19:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the issue. Notability is the issue. Mangoe (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Per WP:PIG. It is not remarkable to be hit by a car, there is only a picturesque context due to the fact that it was a person who was doing tricks with a ball. Svartner (talk) 11:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update. @Qwirkle, Mangoe, Oaktree b, and Svartner: I've now expanded the article with 491 618 words of readable prose (+83% +103%), mostly from the previously unused Grantland deep dive, plus some from the underutilized existing News Guard and Sports Illustrated cites. I'm not sure I'd call this quite the level of improvement as the canonical example at WP:HEY, but I do think the new version provides much more context as to why this death is not run-of-the-mill: The dribbling effort was receiving news coverage prior to Swanson's death, and after-the-fact coverage has included in-depth, non-breaking-news coverage by high-quality reliable sources including Sports Illustrated and Grantland, both of which articles were published a month after the fact (an eternity in offbeat-news time), with lingering coverage lasting over a year. I'm not going to say Swanson's was the most important death in human history, but I've at this point thoroughly convinced myself that this meets WP:COVERAGE's expectations of in-depth national and international coverage lasting more than a short news cycle. And there's probably still more that could be written about the death and trial; that just doesn't really change the notability analysis so I didn't focus on it. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 19:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still see the same issue: all the coverage is right about that time. I'm not seeing evidence of long-term interest. Mangoe (talk) 02:37, 28 August 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_August_25&oldid=1243531783"