Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 16	August 18 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ng Cheuk Wai

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Hong Kong. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found sources like [1], [2], [3], [4], and [5], among many many other sources. She is cleary significant figure in Hong Kong women's and international football and has an ongoing career. I look at the other Sports WikiProjects (or any WikiProject) and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 20. By the time I finish writing this, another 20 will probably be deleted. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 00:04, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 18:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above and subject is 25 with an ongoing career see little point deleting it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cham Ching Man

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Hong Kong. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough sources are available. Sources are profiles. Lovewiki106 (talk) 00:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found one source:

"成報新聞(足球女將湛靜雯讀書不忘外闖志)". 成報. Retrieved 2022-08-18.

Her Chinese name seems to be "湛靜雯" if anyone wants to keep looking. Jumpytoo Talk 03:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leung Wai Nga

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Hong Kong. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough sources are available. Sources are profiles. Lovewiki106 (talk) 00:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He Ying (footballer)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Hong Kong. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough sources are available. Sources are profiles. Lovewiki106 (talk) 00:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tang Hoi Man

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Hong Kong. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough sources are available. Sources are profiles. Lovewiki106 (talk) 00:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Hoax, block evasion, spam, etc. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WRBL -FM

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

complete and utter hoax by an lta - 97.5 R&B is a random internet streaming site - not a real station and not notable, run by some guy named Jaylon who insists on spamming us. WRBL is an AM station based in Georgia and the history here is for multiple different stations. There is no 97.5 Los Angeles (in this context) and Audacy does not own this station. So tl;dr the sources are all fake, the FCC has no record of such a WRBL FM (again, in this context) but since the creator continues to edit war to remove the tag, here we are. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Missouri. Shellwood (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note See User:85.5 FOR LA (talk · contribs) for the long and tired history of this long-running hoax attempt under multiple titles; we've been here before and the space before the dash was clear evasion. Nate • (chatter) 00:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Malta International Women's Football Tournament squads

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

Non-notable sports event roster listing. Parent article was redirected. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and Malta. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Lists of people. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not decided yet (leaning delete), but given Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 Malta International Women's Football Tournament, even with low participation, I'm struggling to see how this article on it's own is notable. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the parent article has been redirected, so this definitely does not merit being a separate article - and I don't think it's worth a redirect either. Giant Snowman 18:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of WP:SIGCOV. Doesn't even warrant merging as as already mentioned, the parent article has already been deleted. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of SIGCOV from WP:RS and certainly very little from independent sources (i.e. not from websites from FAs or social media accounts connected to participants) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interpolation (popular music)

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

WP:OR. No cites, the term exist in music, but we have an article for that - Interpolation (classical music) - which is, admittedly, poorly sourced. Acous mana 15:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Acous mana 15:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of interpolated songs. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Article now well sourced. No, the reason why interpolation (popular music) and interpolation (classical music) both exist is because they're not the same; same word but different meanings. In popular music, songs are either directly "sampled" or "interpolated" - two different terms used in music therefore own separate articles should exist. Hiddenstranger (talk) 00:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article now well sourced: not a single scholarly source on this term? An XXL cite that deals with sampling and doesn't mention interpolation? Billboard staff picks? Rolling Stone is usable, and perhaps Song Trust, but where are the solid sources that explore the origin (earliest example I'm seeing is 2003, re:Eminem liner notes) and usage history of this term as is relates to interpolation in popular music? Are you sure this isn't a technical term originating in IP law etc. rather than music production? Acous mana 11:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - A comparison has been made to Interpolation (classical music) but that article needs work too. For this "popular music" version, there are sources describing certain songs as "interpolated" but I find them using questionable definitions of the term that do not correspond with any professional musicological definition. For the popular music songs described in those sources, some might be "interpolated", but others just use really long and repetitive sampling. Meanwhile, the classical article is rather thin and it looks like its creators can't quite nail down an authoritative definition from the sources used. So I suggest a merge in which Interpolation (popular music) and Interpolation (classical music) become a combined article, to use examples from both arenas and work on a distinct definition of the term. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

tend to agree with @User:Doomsdayer520's assessment, with work, a merged article may well result in something more substantial that either of the current separate entries. I would accept this as a solution. Acous mana 18:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They were one article before, @Aikclaes: separated the two in January 2019 here. All the examples given are interpolations, including the ones you say use "long and repetitive sampling", this is because the songs do not use direct samples. All elements are replayed / recreated hence the difference between sampling and interpolation. Hiddenstranger (talk) 23:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it seems to me that some music industry lawyer thought that calling it "interpolation" would be a good way to distract from the appropriation at play; this applies equally to "sample." Imagine if the word sample never caught on and people instead asked "what drum break appropriation is that"? Rather than Whosampled? we'd have "WhoAppropraited"? Acous mana 09:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interpolation (popular music) seems more related to Sampling (music) than it is to Interpolation (classical music) and so I think Sampling (music) would be a more appropriate merge target. Rlendog (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sampling happens in classical music as well but that doesn't need a separate article. Definite vote for merge. 82.43.200.83 (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment only You think this article would differentiate between plagiarism and interpolation, after all George Harrison, only replayed the notes for My Sweet Lord but that landed him in the courts. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A more pedestrian term would be musical quotation. Interpolation is just a buzzword that folk have latched on to. Acous mana 19:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Interpolation (classical music) into Interpolation (music). I think combining them might bring something? SWinxy (talk) 06:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see more opinions on whether Interpolation (popular music) and the possible merger target, Interpolation (classical music) are discussing the same thing or are different subjects.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need some editors who are knowledgeable about music to chime in here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Interpolation in pop music is absolutely notable and a big enough scope for an article of its own. It cannot be merged into the "in classical music" article because the definitions differ. —VersaceSpace 🌃 18:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEMS

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

A search for English- and Korean-language sources turned up no significant coverage of this Korean-language TV channel in San Francisco. There were several promotional articles and interviews in Korean newspapers (hint: it's easier to search "KEMS TV"), but none of them looked significant enough to save this page. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Korea, and California. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for posterity: I discovered this article because a new FCC-licensed TV station in Utah will be getting the call sign KEMS. If this article is kept, it will likely need to be relocated in the near future to a title like "KEMS (TV channel)" to avoid an INCDAB issue a la Talk:KYTV_(TV_station)#Requested_move_18_April_2021. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also listing the Korean-language sources I did find for perusal: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator.Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nom. Fails GNG. One error 404 and one primary source does not advance notability for a stand along article. -- Otr500 (talk) 00:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Matthew Slater. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Slater

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

Redirect removed (and should be restored) to an NFL player. Matt Slater is "Special Assistant to the GM, Player Procurement" with the St. Louis Cardinals. I see no evidence of passing GNG. He has a profile with the MLB and he is mentioned in press-releases for being promoted to positions and such. These do not establish notability. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 17:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball and Indiana. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 17:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should add article has no content (aside from an infobox) or sources.. but I just want to do this by the book. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 17:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, to Matthew Slater per nom. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 14:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then create a new redirect. There is no article history worth saving, including the deleted edits. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect No pressing need to delete, although the history is useless. Ovinus (talk) 00:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. This makes the most sense. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 19:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per everyone above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trifon

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

Nonnotable Serbian village icon painter. Single source. Failed to find Serbian sources either ("Сликар Трифон", трифон иконописац) (google books does give some hits, but for a different, equally minor painter Трифон Кокољић) Loew Galitz (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Serbia. Shellwood (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator.Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Fails sourcing criteria for a BLP. -- Otr500 (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ty Mitchell

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

Lacks significant, independent coverage 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 09:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Entertainment. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 09:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender, New York, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In a rebuttal to one of his pieces on Buzzfeed, Towleroad wrote a lengthy piece about how problematic it was (here). He had a skit on SNL with actress Emma Stone; coverage of that appeared in Out, Towleroad, and Q Life Media (here, here, and here, respectively). It was the first SNL sketch to host a real-life gay porn star. He appeared on Daniel M. Lavery's podcast Big Mood, Little Mood (here). He had a role in the non-porn parody Sock Suckers by Scruff (here). He raised money for Bernie Sanders' presidential bid (here). He was named as Outs one of "The Most Exciting Queers to Follow in 2019" (here). --Kbabej (talk) 08:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per the above. I have added some of the references into the article - some of the references listed above seem to only mention Ty Mitchell in passing. – QueenofBithynia (talk) 15:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC) (edited - QueenofBithynia (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Keep I think there's room for improvement in the article, but they seem to be notable enough to pass a simple sniff test. Nauseous Man (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Kbabej and Nauseous Man, article seems short but expandable with some work. Tajaditas^(talk) 04:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Bockrath

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. The one current source is a self-published fansite. I looked for better ones and found only trivial coverage and passing mentions. Cheers, gnu 57 22:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Sexuality and gender, and Ohio. gnu 57 22:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looked all over and could only find one passing mention in a Daily Beast article [11]. Not enough reliable coverage to show notability. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 23:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hongxia Liu

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

There is nothing to indicate that the subject is notable. The subject was head of an organization of marginal notability (World Justice Project). This does not mean that the person is notable independent of that organization. The page was created by employees of the organization a long time ago. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Thenightaway (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, China, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge or redirect into World Justice Project although most of this is not notable, at least her name should be in in the organizations's article and maybe a redirect, I'm not sure. But not keep. I did improve it a bit and I did search for sources. CT55555 (talk) 03:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I concur with the nom; WP:NBIO is not satisfied. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It reads a bit like a WP:RESUME. There is a lack of independant sourcing to warrant a pass of WP:GNG. The awards gained are not enough to show notability, and neither is being a former exec director of an organisation. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:34, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's also an AFD discussion for another head of this organization[12] Thenightaway (talk) 10:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —VersaceSpace 🌃 00:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of feudal wars 12th–14th century

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

Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:OR. "Feudal war" is not a commonly recognised type of war amongst historians or other scholars. The fact that some works use the phrase 'feudal war' does not make it a type. This list could including virtually ANY war during the age of feudalism, which is very vague, although currently somewhat arbitrarily defined as 1100–1400 in Europe. Also, without justification, it states 'This list will not include religious wars.' Why not? It's just random, based on two random sources that aren't very good and merely use the phrase 'feudal war(fare)'. The scope is so vague defined and broad that it could be any type of war (except religious ones, for some reason), in any European country, at any time during 1100–1400. The potential number of items on this list is near infinite. This is just a not useful way of categorising information, no scholar will use this, no reader will find this helpful. If anything, it appears a partial WP:CONTENTFORK from War of succession#High Medieval Europe, War of succession#Late Medieval Europe, List of wars in the Low Countries until 1560, and a bunch of other articles. Anything not yet mentioned in those lists can be complemented by items on this list, but otherwise I suggest deleting the whole thing. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The author Tgec17 ignored Mccapra's warning not to publish this article due to a lack of reliable independent sources, and therefore moved it to Tgec17's draftspace: User_talk:Tgec17#List_of_feudal_wars_12th-14th_century_moved_to_draftspace. Tgec17 simply republished it by saying 'There are plenty of citations and the article is suitable to remain published'. At the time, the article had exactly zero citations. Tgec17 has a long track record of not following policies and guidelines, and ignoring warnings from other users who tell Tgec17 to comply to these rules. I wonder why this user is not yet blocked; their behaviour shows a disruptive pattern rather than a willingness to learn and be constructive. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they also violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:OR:

Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've transferred some useful bits and pieces to war of succession. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep List of nobles and magnates of France in the 13th century, List of nobles and magnates within the Holy Roman Empire in the 13th century, List of nobles and magnates of England in the 13th century, List of nobles and magnates within Scandinavia in the 13th century These are perfect valid as list articles and give a detailed chronological listing of the rulers in particular place over a particular time. At a glance you can see what is what. They satisfy WP:NLIST and shouldn't have been included in the Afd. It is absurd that they violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:OR when they all of one, in chronological order within their own group and there is a truly monumental and vast of number sources for each entry. scope_creep^Talk 08:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." Is this actually the case? I don't think "nobles and magnates (with)in [country X] in the 13th century" has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Who is and is not a "magnate" or "noble" is in dispute. E.g. does this include or exclude clergy with only spiritual power? In the HRE article they appear to be excluded (only prince-bishops etc.), in the England article they are included, with the curious rule: "Bishops who ruled for less than three years will not be listed to avoid clutter." This is pretty random. No such rule is applied to temporal lords. E.g. Geoffrey FitzGeoffrey de Mandeville, 2nd Earl of Essex ruled from 14 October 1213 to 23 February 1216, which is 2 years and 4 months. This is excludable "clutter" according to the author's own logic, but nevertheless included. Another random rule states: "Several Archbishops are not listed because they were either not consecrated, set aside within 3 years, did not rule for more than a year, or were quashed by the pope/the king." It is similar to how "religious wars" are apparently randomly excluded from the list of feudal wars. Does "nobles and magnates" include or exclude emperors and kings? The HRE article includes them, the England article excludes them. Moreover, no distinction is made between Kings of the Romans, Holy Roman Emperors, anti-Kings of the Romans, and anti-Emperors. All are given apparently equal status and validity. The articles Holy Roman Emperor, List of German monarchs and Interregnum (Holy Roman Empire) do this way better. This is just not acceptable. I can mention dozens more issues with all these lists that show they are indiscriminate (or actually arbitrarily discriminate) and based on original research of what "nobles and magnates" are, and which groups do and do not belong in that category. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:52, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Why are List of Holy Roman empresses excluded? Why are List of German queens excluded? Why are (princess-)abbesses from Thorn, Burtscheid, Elten, Rijnsburg etc. such as Ada of Holland (died 1258) excluded? Do women not count (no pun intended) as nobles or magnates? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re "Feudal war" is not a commonly recognised type of war amongst historians or other scholars.
- Civilian Victims in War, "By far the most disturbing element in early medieval feudal society was private feudal war", p. 59, ISBN 1412843758
- The Laws of War in the Late Middle Ages, distinguishes four legal states of war in the period, #3 being "feudal or covered war (guerre couverte), in which men could wound and kill without blame, but could not burn or take spoil", p. 104, ISBN 1317397592.
- The Laws of Yesterday’s Wars, again recognises the concept of private feudal war as a distinct concept, pp. 103-104, ISBN 9004464298. SpinningSpark 11:06, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are etymologically confused by the word feudal. The list refers to feudalism, which comes from Latin feudum (wikt:feud#Etymology_2), related to fee and fief, and means "An estate granted to a vassal by a feudal lord in exchange for service." On the other hand, a feud, blood feud, private war etc. comes from Proto-West Germanic *faihiþu (“hatred, enmity”) (wikt:feud#Etymology_1), and means "A state of long-standing mutual hostility". Whether a "list of private wars" or somesuch is a legitimate topic for an article is an entirely separate question from the one we're addressing here. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not confused. All three sources, to one extent or another, define it as war between vassals, as opposed to a war ordered by a Prince. Not as a private, uncontrolled feud. All three place more or less the same legal restrictions on such war. I think it is the article that is confused, not me. SpinningSpark 18:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, then this article must be deleted, or completely overhauled, to fit your definition. I think the author Tgec17 clearly meant "feudal" as in feudalism, also because the periodisation coincides with 12th–14th century, what they called "the golden age of feudalism", as that is all the intro is about. We could change it to mean "(blood) feuds" if you really want to, I just don't think that makes much sense, because many of the wars listed are not "feuds" as such at all. The article Feud also already has several lists, so if anything, I would start improving and expanding that article before creating this highly odd, arbitrary, nonsensical spin-off. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:31, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to "List of blood feuds" is exactly the opposite of what I was promoting. Neither the article as it stands, nor the sources I linked are talking about any such thing. SpinningSpark 18:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then I think you're in the wrong place. I would suggest you start writing your own article. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Apologies if I am not responding in the correct format its been a while since I took part in one of these discussions and I forgot what the exact format is. Several points were raised and perhaps I should explain the concept of the article more clearly. During the middle ages many wars which began were due to personal disagreements or feuds however this is not necessarily the case. The reason why religious wars were excluded is because they are wars based on a cause which is not initiated by a personal disagreement but rather a religious or cultural one. Similarly Mongol invasions should also be Excluded because they were not caused by personal disagreements. That is basically the concept of the article wars stemmed from personal disagreements in the middle ages. The part which makes it unclear is that sometimes the wars had multiple causes some of which were personal reasons. I have tried to use my best judgement of which wars to include but perhaps not all of them fit perfectly. So there is no question it is a clearly defined list. This concept of feudal war is well known in academic circles and I'm surprised anyone on Wikipedia would doubt its validity as an article.

The complainant mentioned inconsistencies in the articles as a way to discredit this article so I feel obliged to respond to these in this Afd; despite the fact that they are not relevant the complainant has brought them into the discussion. Namely the exclusion of several bishops and archbishops from the list, the absence of kings listed for England, and the absence of women in the lists. These inconsistencies were not done for no reason. The list of bishops is often exhaustive for 100 years sometimes reaching over 20 bishops in the century. Some of these bishops were contested or didn't reign for very long and sometimes the only thing known about them is there name. It doesn't make sense to include them it clutters the article. The complainant brought up how in the holy roman empire only prince-bishops were listed whereas in the others all bishops were listed. Again this is mainly due to the incompletition of the article but for the Empire the priority has to be on getting the high ranking magnates listed first. England and etc. mostly don't have prince-bishops so the bishops are listed instead. On the other hand the secular nobility rarely have more than 10 title holders in the century so even if there is a noble who ruled for only a few years he is still included because there is enough room for him.

During the 13th century England was a highly centralized country whereas France and the Holy roman Empire were very decentralized. England also had a very stable monarchy in the 13th century whereas the Holy roman Empire was a very unstable elective monarchy. The result was that often the rulers of France and the Holy Roman Empire were rivaled by their powerful vassals who had far more independence then the English vassals. Therefore the rulers are listed because in a sense they were magnates themselves who held supremacy whereas the king of England was in a stronger position of royal power (partly because all the land which was taken over after the battle of Hastings). As for Scandinavia again the position of king was EXTREMELY unstable often the kings would be murdered and replaced which indicates that they had stiff competition from their magnates. Also there are not many known magnates in Scandinavia at the time so it seemed appropriate to beef up the article a bit.

The reason the women were not given much attention in the original articles is twofold. One, because during the middle ages most of the time women did not hold land and were not magnates. Often when they did have a title it was as a regent and it would have been exhaustive to list every single regency. Two because the articles are incomplete as should be obvious to anyone who read them; if you think this is missing you should add it yourself.

Another thing which was mentioned was the fact that all rulers of the HRE were mentioned not just the legitimate ones. Indeed this is very appropriate for the article because it is looking at them through the scope of magnates not solely as rulers. The list of emperors gives a clear list of all the Emperors and Emperor claimants which also provides an intuitive timeline. During this time often the difference between claimants was not a clear cut and different parts of the Empire recognized different claimants regardless of which city they were crowned in. To me this was a pretty clear indication that the complainant did not understand the scope of the article because it is not meant as a list of kings but as a list of magnates; the kings also functioned as magnates in decentralized countries. There are Wikipedia lists which list the same things but under different qualifiers, this is why the kings are listed in this way because they are being listed as magnates.

It is also mentioned that religious wars were not included "without justification". It is true that there was no direct explanation why they wouldn't be included but I thought it was obvious to anyone who had read the first paragraphs of the article. Regardless I have added a justification "This list will not include religious wars because they are induced by ideological rather than personal or familial conflict".

As far as the etymology when I was writing the article I had the idea of using the word Feudal as in "feud; personal conflict" in the 12th-14th centuries which is a clearly defined list. During this time there were many of these feuds but the list is not infinite it is actually quite limited partly due to the lack of surviving documents. There are literally hundreds of Wikipedia lists which are far longer.

Another user has already explained why the article is not an indiscriminate list and I explained it too. The article also cites sources about what a feudal war is and why it is its own particular brand of war.

P.S. I wonder why the complainant felt the need to add this "I wonder why this user is not yet blocked; their behaviour shows a disruptive pattern rather than a willingness to learn and be constructive." It seems like a strange personal opinion which indicates bias, perhaps the complainant is not suitable to make such a deletion post at all. I have made many quality articles and frankly this is a bit insulting. --Tgec17 (talk) 05:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It appears from the above that the intended inclusion criteria of the creator were in line with the definition given in the sources I provided. Any issues with improper inclusion can be dealt with by normal editing. The keep rational above is tl;dr and I'm not following all of it, especially this dispute about bishops, but as I said, the article is broadly in line with sources. SpinningSpark 13:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ClinLife

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sourcing in the article is an array of primary and/or non-independent sources. Minimal non-trivial mention in news media. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 21:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and Medicine. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 21:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's a non-notable commercial subject with nowhere near enough substantial press mention.— Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 14:09, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under A11. Lack of any third-party sources and no credible claim of significance leads me to believe this was indeed made up in one day, as mentioned in the AfD. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 07:20, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LG Records

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

i fail to see how this is a notable record company or general company under either name (including "LG Rblx" which has even less sourcing.) I can't find a single rs discussing this - including the pitchfork source already here which makes no mention whatsoever of LG rblx or LG records. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searched and couldn't find any notable sources. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 22:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Multiple Instagram references; apparently fails wp:GNG. Nythar^T^.^C 08:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Zero reliable sources. As an note, I have blocked the article's creator, Notsammyray, for edit warring (and ostensibly WP:OWN issues). --Kinu ^t/_c 21:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, I did some more in depth digging thanks to the edit warring SPA who created this and it turns out that both LG Records and LG Rblx are completely made up fan crap...PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given the above and my own investigation, this probably could be deleted per WP:CSD#A11. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, whatever gets rid of it faster. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged it as such but will defer to another set of eyes as I've !voted above. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —VersaceSpace 🌃 00:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ford Thames (car)

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

This is a problematic article; It only describes the start and the first product of the marque. It only relies on 2 references, in order to provide info that is provided in a nicer way in the individual articles of the products of this brand; The fragments of unique info present only in this article are most propably wp:Synth. Was a draft originally created by a community-banned user before they were banned; when they got sanctioned, it was subsecuently both submitted and aproved by another user, in an severely incomplete state. In adition, there have been no concrete effort to improve the article, if we except the scarce random copyedit by a random user; Edits since creation are very few. In my opinion, this is a problematic article, which is better off deleted. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Products, Transportation, and United Kingdom. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 20:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The subject is good, the brand has several individual articles that could use an umbrella. If somebody grabbed a handful of flags and fired up a chainsaw they could leave a stub behind. Maybe just a glorified list. But there would be a starting point. Punching up stubs is pretty basic work.

You post "no concrete effort to improve the article" twenty-four hours after @Northamerica1000: made a GF edit, and you two had met before. I have problems with that.

I don't have the Ford Transit: Fifty Years source but I think that what you call "wp:Synth" might be closer to copyvio, and I wouldn't challenge it without the book. You may feel that it's off-topic but wp:Synth without any support?

Why shouldn't "a random user" be taken seriously, the edit meant something to them. Is the infobox good? See also? Categories? And I don't think the edits are especially low considering how few people care at all. It looks like everyone has been trying in GF to improve the article except you, you just want to throw it, and other editor's GF edits, away.

You haven't tried to improve the article, not even a post on the talk page, before you just started trying to delete it, even though the second time you knew someone was trying to fix it up. You just put your values over someone who was trying. If you didn't want to help you could have just moved on, instead of putting in the time in to destroy it.

You are clearly smart but not everybody else is. Should you judge others by your standards when you don't do it yourself? Was this inaccurate, somehow a liability, or do you want to delete it because you think it's ugly? You don't want anybody else to even have a chance? Creating and improving content is hard for many and there aren't many editors way out here. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammy D III Thanks for your insight.

First of all, let me say this: In the In adition,...are very few section, i didnt specifically talk about Northamerica1000's edit, neither i wanted to insult them (if that's what NA1000 thinks, then, i'd apologise to them). I talk about all the edits since the article was moved to mainspace all up untill i proposed this for deletion,and i called random users everybody in that timespan, not just NA1000. You can see for yourself that all of theese edits are either minor copyedits, or bot edits; even NA1000's contrubution to the article, while, of cource, in good faith and admirable, was nothing more than the adition of a "See also" type section and a copyedit: Again, that's something good, but not something that i'd consider an concrete effort to improve the article. I do not consider this as effort to be kept, because, frankly, if that was the way, most articles here at AfD should be kept, because someone, sometime. fixed a typo!

About the rest that you imply about me, well, i have considered trying to improve the article. And i found it's not worth it, for the reasons i have already laid out in the deletion statement. This is most definitely synth and not copyvio, because the original creator of the article stiched up most of the info from that source, which, even it's name implies that it's not about the Thames brand.

I didnt put my values over someone who was trying; i just nominated this article for deletion after someone made a copyedit.

And you know what, the readers deserve much better than an clearly incomplete problematic article. My opinion is that, keeping articles like this undeleted in the faint hope that someone sometime might actually want to overhaul it, instead of, let's say, deleting it untill someone decides to create a better article on the same topic, is a deeply flawed ideal. This is something not only limited to en.wikipedia, but all wiki projects in general (all theese dead wikipedias, wikitionaries, and wikinews in theese dialects of a dialects of a dialects of a minor language, with info outta 2005). Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:29, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not in any way judge NA1000's edits, I only said that they were making them when you put the article up for deletion. You said that no concrete efforts were being made when NA1000 was editing. I think that’s misleading at best. What right do you have to judge whether their edits were "concrete". ~~And I'd like to point out that NA1000 has been here forever and probably know their way around a little better than a rookie who is making enemies fast.~~

"You haven't" is hardly implying, it's saying it outright. You couldn't be bothered trying to improve content but you could be bothered to remove it.

Did you have access to Lee, Peter (2015-03-23). Ford Transit: Fifty Years. Crowood. ISBN 9781847978745. when you made that post? If so, I'm sorry, otherwise you're just throwing empty accusations around without support.

"stiched up most of the info from that source" is what we do here. If you edit you will know that.

"even it's name implies that it's not about the Thames brand". You're implying again. The "Ford Thames" 400E is the direct predecessor of the Transit and some history of the machines and market seems possible. Maybe not, but do you have the source? If so, sorry.

Your opinion is only one of 130,000 (editors) and several others are already disagreeing with it. I'm not sure what makes you think you can place your own values throughout Wikipedia. The people who make those edits, even minor copyedits, thought the article was worth keeping. Who do you think you are to just judge and throw away their work? They have the exact same rights as you do, maybe more.

~~Do you have this little respect for others in your real life? Feel free to respond, but I've had enough of your ego.~~ I continue to oppose this deletion and will discuss it with other editors. Sammy D III (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I really don’t understand why you got so passionate in your reply (especially the last paragraph). I don’t want to insult anyone, nor I wanna make enemies.

Again, let me say that NA’s edits are of course most welcome, but not something that would be sufficient to keep the article. Plus, if I were in their position, i wouldn’t really mind if my efforts were gone alongside an article, if I weren’t it’s original author and/or made a huge change to it. (It has happened to me).

About the source, I, indeed, had access to it; although no more, and I don’t remember it word-by-word. Still, I’m very confident to the fact that it’s scope was not the brand as a whole. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those two sentences were uncalled for, and I'm very sorry. I also took one out about time editing. The rest stands. Sammy D III (talk) 11:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: What is the ambiguity for using (car)? The Ford Thames included what the US terms as trucks, vans (including the 400E Dormobile Campervan), mini vans (mini-panel vans), and bigger commercial vehicles, so it would seem that "if" there was a need to disambiguate then (automobile) or (vehicle) would be more correct. I will not likely !vote as my opinion of the correct procedure would be that many start or stub class articles should be merged to a single parent article, making one far better article, and no need for a DAB page titled Ford Thames. While the average person might not know a particular model it is a no-brainer that "Thames" on the front of a vehicle is clear. -- Otr500 (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Using US "car" for a British lorry certainly doesn't make any sense. US POV: I suggest you keep "Ford", it would be much clearer than simply "Thames". Sammy D III (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It qualifies for inclusion, the problem is one of inserting sources. The fact that we have articles on the individual models Ford Thames 400E, Ford Thames 300E, Fordson E83W and Ford Thames 307E (and others under Thames and Fordson names) means the parent company is obviously notable by default. The title might need a change, but obviously the brand (the subject of this article) is notable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A brief WP:GOOGLETEST throws up three or four books on the brand as well as a bunch of articles. The fact that the article is of poor quality doesn't mean that the subject isn't notable, and the article isn't so poor in quality as to warrant blowing it up and starting over. Also, procedurally, the nominator hasn't stated a valid reason to delete the article.Fiachra10003 (talk) 03:07, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to the nom, I already blew it up without consensus here(TP too). What you see now is still terrible, but it's not what they first objected to. Sammy D III (talk) 10:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fung Kam Mui

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Hong Kong. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough sources are available. One source is a profile. Lovewiki106 (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) KSAWikipedian (talk) 22:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wong Shuk Fan

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Hong Kong. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ ~~Not enough sources are available. Sources are profiles.~~ Lovewiki106 (talk) 00:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - after checking the new sources provided below, I am changing my vote to a Keep. A few were good, but not the Youtrube videos.
Lovewiki106 (talk) 01:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @Lovewiki106:, I found sources like [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], and [19] among many many other sources. She is clearly significant figure in Hong Kong football. I look at the other Sports WikiProjects (or any WikiProject) and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 20. By the time I finish writing this, another 20 will probably be deleted. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 18:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above scrapes though WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) KSAWikipedian (talk) 22:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Wing Yan

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Hong Kong. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ ~~Not enough sources are available. Sources are profiles.~~ Lovewiki106 (talk) 00:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - After checking sources provided below, I agree that she meets notability and I am changing my vote to a keep.
Lovewiki106 (talk) 02:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @Lovewiki106:, I found sources like [20], [21], and [22] among many many other sources. She is cleary significant figure in Hong Kong women's and international football and has an ongoing career with 15 caps already. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 18:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above and subject is 25 with ongoing career see little point deleting it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep: nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). St Anselm (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Dryburgh

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

I believe this article merits deletion based on WP:GNG WP:NRV. The only sources available are entries in large databased of sporting match results. I can't find any source with non-trivial coverage (i.e. not a listing in an automated database). While WP:NCURLING suggests that sources are likely to exist based on a rule of thumb, I can't find anything and it's been 16 years since the initial creation, so as per WP:ATHLETE "the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline" I don't think this article passes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feldspar35 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC) The only other source I can find is the subjects LinkedIn page, though even that could not support much of the content that has been repeatedly added to this article. Curiously this LinkedIn page links to the wikipedia article as a personal website.[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Ireland, and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:06, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator As Earl Andrew has managed to find suitable sources I believe the threshold of notability has now been reached, thanks for putting in the effort to find those -- Feldspar35 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He does pass WP:GNG, not to mention WP:CURLING; I've added two new sources with significant coverage on him to the article. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up this article substantially today, to bring it up to standard. The two sources that I used that have significant coverage on him are the one from the Guardian (1998) and the one from the Victoria Times-Colonist from March 22 1987.-- Earl Andrew - talk 16:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The 2 new articles added by Earl Andrew would seem to satisfy notability. Lovewiki106 (talk) 00:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:GNG--IndyNotes (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, but move, which can proceed editorially. Star Mississippi 01:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Vietnam footballers born outside Vietnam

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

As with List of Bahrain international footballers born outside Bahrain (AfD), List of Austria international footballers born outside Austria (AfD) and List of Norway international footballers born outside Norway (AfD), I fail to see how this list meets our inclusion criteria. Fails WP:LISTN due to lack of coverage on these individuals as a group or set and also violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE and appears to be a non-encyclopaedic cross-categorisation. In other words, where is the evidence of detailed discussion regarding the birthplaces of Vietnam footballers? Seems to be a list for the sake of having a list.

This list is particularly indiscriminate as it is an attempt to include every single footballer that has ever gained Vietnamese nationality and doesn't limit itself just to those who played for Vietnam's national team. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Football, and Vietnam. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - As I stated in the similar Belgium AfD, unless there is significant coverage of the TOPIC of XYZ-nation footballers born outside XYZ-nation, then any and all such lists are not notable. If reliable sources can be found on this topic, please ping me back to this AfD. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jkudlick: I don't know about Vietnam specifically, but it is a notable topic for some countries. See List of Lebanon international footballers born outside Lebanon, for example. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:48, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom and above. There needs to be significant coverage, which I don’t think currently there is. However, if there are more sources are found, then I would be open to change my mind. Fats40boy11 (talk) 09:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't pass WP:GNG, just like the related AFDs. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @Jkudlick:, @Fats40boy11:, I found many many sources about the general topic of naturalized and diaspora players like [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. Naturalized and diaspora players are clearly a significant topic in Vietnamese football. Additionally, those articles are all from this year while there are many many more about the general topic of diaspora and naturalized players from the 2010s I have encountered. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of Vietnam international footballers born outside Vietnam, and keep per sources found above. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of Vietnam international footballers born outside Vietnam - we should also trim the list of all of the footballers that didn't actually play for Vietnam such as Nirut Surasiang as he is not a Vietnam international but a Thai one. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Jkudlick, Fats40boy11, and Joseph2302 following the nominator changing their vote to "keep". Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I still don't see why that renamed list would be notable either. Those sources don't clearly demonstrate this needs a dedicated list, as WP:NLIST requires. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the sources don't demonstrate notability... Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move per above. Since the nominator has voted to move, I’m more than happy to change my vote. Agree that the list will need to be trimmed of players who didn’t play for Vietnam. Fats40boy11 (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 18:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move – Given that sufficient sources have been located to demonstrate this topic's notability and that nominator wishes to move the article, I am changing my !vote to move the article. I also concur with ensuring only those who played for Vietnam remain listed. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 20:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maida Vale School

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

This is a fee-paying school therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. I am unable to locate any references that provide significant in-depth information on the company with "Independent Content". HighKing⁺⁺ 19:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There appear to be no reliable secondary sources yet: WP:TOOSOON applies. But I have a question about whether "fee-paying" is the same as "for profit"? Is the school administered by a foundation that is non-profit? I ask because the "fee paying" term does not seem to be addressed in NCORP, and GNG may apply rather than NCORP. That point is irrelevant this time around, but if the article is rewritten in a few years, it would be good to clear up that difference, which may just be a discrepancy between terms used in the UK and US. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Grand'mere Eugene makes a good point. Even within the US, there are private schools that are for-profit and those that are non-profit (e.g. Washington Post article). Cielquiparle (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out that Maida Vale Schools is owned by Gardener Schools Group, a private limited company. So in this case, seems more accurate to point to that fact rather than "fee-paying". Cielquiparle (talk) 13:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON; insufficient coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources to date. School first opened in 2021. Coverage to date has focused on plans to open school; contributed article by the headteacher in Absolutely Education and headteacher Q&A interview with blog (both non-independent and most blogs don't qualify as WP:RS); and an initial school guide review. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

World PR Day

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

Non-notable "holiday". The sources are, surprise, largely PR fluff ("it is not out of place to say that just like our heroic frontline workers, PR has carried the business world on its back from February 2020 till now") Alyo (chat·edits) 19:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sounds like a nonsense holiday. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 03:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Karavaki Lutumaibau

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

I'm afraid I'm just not finding the depth of coverage to be there for a passing of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. I also can't see how she would pass WP:NRU as she has never participated in a Rugby World Cup semi-final. Nothing in my searches seems to be anything better than a simple mention of her in a squad list, at no point is she discussed in significant detail in WP:RS. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Rugby union, and Oceania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NRU and more importantly WP:GNG. Not seeing a suitable redirect either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kegley station (Illinois)

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

No evidence of notability - neither source discusses the station in any detail, and a BEFORE check failed to find any additional coverage.

In this case, after doing a little research, I'm not sure this ever was a passenger station at all. The Edgewood Cutoff article claims that the line never had passenger service; it certainly did not by 1932, just five years after opening. (On the Eldorado District, which crossed the cutoff near the claimed location of Kegley station, there was not a station at Kegley in 1932 nor 1919.) Source #2 in the article lists all stations (i.e. points on a timetable, which includes sidings and freight stations), not just passenger stations, and that 1932 timetable doesn't indicate it as any more than a controlled siding. The image in the external link is consistent with it being a small freight station or section house, rather than a passenger station. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Illinois. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can see the article was pointlessy dePRODed for no reason. I find the arguments of the nom overwhelming in supporting deletion of this article. We can't even verify exactly what this supposed station was/is, and its factual accuracy seems poor. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tend to think that current passenger stations are presumptively notable. A demolished freight station or section house gets no such presumption from me, and I'm persuaded by Pi.1415926535's research that this is what we're dealing with. If additional sources are brought forward to the contrary, then that's a different matter. Mackensen (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Other station stubs by creator should be reviewed as well. Cards84664 19:24, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kegley, Illinois. Jumpytoo Talk 04:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It does not meetWP:GNG, no reliable sources... --Assyrtiko (talk) 06:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Pi's nomination statement, this does not seem like a station that was ever notable. If it even operated in passenger service (which I doubt), it seems to have been little more than a flag stop with a tiny station house. Regardless, there aren't any sources that actually demonstrate the notability of this station, at least not those that I could find. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Canoeing at the 2004 Summer Olympics – Men's C-1 500 metres. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Bing (canoeist)

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

a stub about a canoeist who finished ninth in the 2004 summer olympics. fails the notability guidelines for sportspeople and the general notability guideline. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 13:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and China. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 13:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Canoeing at the 2004 Summer Olympics – Men's C-1 500 metres (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Preserving the history will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. It will also allow some of the content to be used in other Wikipedia articles if the content can be corroborated by reliable sources. Here are some sources I found that mention the subject but may not be enough to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline: http://sports.sina.com.cn/s/2005-10-23/1107689858s.shtml^{Internet Archive}, https://english.eastday.com/eastday/englishedition/node20665/node20668/node22810/node92589/node92590/userobject1ai1564967.html^{Internet Archive}, and http://2004.sina.com.cn/star/wang_bing/^{Internet Archive}. Cunard (talk) 07:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support above redirect/undecided. The subject certainly doesn't meet WP:NOLY, but with the sources provided above and these three [28] [29] [30] supporting the fact that he won a gold medal at an Asian Games. For some NSPORTS guidelines this medal would automatically confer notability, but there is no subject notability guideline for canoeing. Newspapers.com didn't show anything beyond lists of the Olympic performances, which is not promising. I'm inclined to support the redirect proposed above, but would appreciate if a closing admin would take a good look at the links provided here and decide if keeping this article might be a reasonable extrapolation of NSPORTS. Toadspike (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

General category (reservation)

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

General category (reservation)

Stub article that is essentially a dictionary definition of the term, and does not provide significant coverage except to state that persons outside the general category (that is, scheduled persons) are entitled to compete against persons in the general category. Both references are reliable sources that merely report a Supreme Court of India decision that is the basis of the second sentence. The descriptions of scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, other backward classes, and economically weaker section either are substantial articles or redirect to substantial articles. This should be merged into Reservation in India. It was originally created in article space, but was moved to draft space by User:Riteshmmec, who tagged the redirect in article space for R2. The author then converted the redirect back into an article, which now cannot be moved into draft space. A stub can be cut down to a redirect by normal editing, but the author has shown that they are being assertive, so AFD is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, Law, and India. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a version of this in draft and that's where it should stay to be improved not half finished in mainspace. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 22:06, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stay in the draft for future improvement. Thingofme (talk) 00:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~This user has also created General Class, Economically Weaker Section, which should be scrutinized. Frankly all three seem like WP:GS/CASTE-themed nightmares, but~~ I have no familiarity with that topic area. (Not actually content created by this user, I apologize.) Ovinus (talk) 09:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC) Revised 06:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' to User:Ovinus - The editor has been notified of both India general sanctions and South Asian social group sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the nom Imperfect Boy (talk) 04:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. KSAWikipedian (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marta Aura

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

Not fulfilling WP:ACTOR or WP:ANYBIO guidilines Morpho achilles (talk) 07:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:The person was notable enough, with over 100 credits.

The quality of the article though asks for basically a complete rewriting. Pazguillermo (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Marta Aura was a notable actress. She had worked in a number of films. Passes WP:GNG. Article needs more citations. Nupamjo (talk) 07:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Figueredo (disambiguation)

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

Unnecessary per WP:ONEOTHER. Previous other entries have been removed. MB 14:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. MB 14:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Disambiguation page not needed per WP:TWODABS. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; neither of these is really a title match anyway. But there is not really much evidence that one or the other is the primary topic, is there? Where should the plain title redirect, or does that also need to be deleted? Dekimasuよ! 10:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sisomphone Vongpharkdy

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

Competed at the 1996 and 2000 Olympics, the 1998 and 2000 Asian Games, the 2003 Summer Universiade and 1999 IAAF World Indoor Championships but did not rank high enough in any of them to pass WP:NTRACK. A WP:BEFORE search didn't bring up enough to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Laos. Suonii180 (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 01:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Aninzo

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to enough content to justify this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARTN: "Article content does not determine notability" Robby.is.on (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - @GiantSnowman:, I found these sources which show he is notable in the Northern Mariana Islands: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 among other sources. In addition, he is a young, already internationally capped player with an ongoing career,, one of few Northern Mariana Islands players to ever play abroad athe only one in England, nd is mentioned in countless match reports and videos. I feel like the nominator specifically tries to delete only football articles en masse for no reason. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 08:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would say this very lengthy Saipan Tribune piece and the M Variety article are enough for GNG. We need to be wary that there are only two decent newspapers in his country by the looks of things so it's difficult to gain the coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources required. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC) On second thought, the M Variety source is too weak for this to be a GNG pass. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The M Variety article is almost entirely direct and indirect quotes, and should not be considered independent SIGCOV. That leaves just the Saipan Tribune interview, which has just 8 sentences of non-quoted material and only ~3 that aren't primary or non-independent (like reporting that he thanked various people). Not seeing GNG from these sources. JoelleJay (talk) 04:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 18:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I too like the Saipan Tribune 'Comfort Zone' article. The Marianas Variety article also looks significant - meeting GNG - yeah, there's some quotes in there, but there's coverage as well; I think some editors are looking too hard for reasons to delete articles. These are the two biggest papers in the nation. Nfitz (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 11:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a somewhat closer call than most of the other football-related AfDs we've seen recently, but I'm still not convinced that the available sources add up to notability. Of the seven sources cited above, four are clearly passing mentions and one is a Twitter post. That leaves us with two sources: the Marianas Variety article, which is entirely a non-independent interview (every sentence is either paraphrases Aninzo or quotes him directly), and the Saipan Tribune article, which is at best a few sentences of independent analysis. Since I've been unable to find any indication that better sources exist (either online or offline), he doesn't seem to have received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. I understand that there aren't many media outlets in the Northern Mariana Islands, but my view—and, judging from the consensus in the RfC, the view of others as well—is that hewing to the notability guidelines in cases like these is almost always going to be the best way to ensure that we're only keeping articles that can live up to basic policy expectations. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per the cogent argument by Extraordinary Writ above. Agreed that the sourcing is too weak to support even a presumption of GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I still think that the Saipan Tribune article linked multiple times in this discussion is good. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any other good sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The concerns about OR haven’t been addressed to the point where we clearly can save this and plenty of editors have concerns that there is too much OR to rescue this. On that basis this clearly must go but I do endorse the suggestion to have a discussion on how best to discuss this subject but any recreation really oughtto be based on academic sources to avoid further OR concerns Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lowland Scots people

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

Leans very heavy on Gaels. Does not seem realistic to have this article on its own. The Banner talk 10:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 10:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. When one searches for "Lowland Scot" on google search, google books, and newspapers.com, there is a plethora of sources. While the newspaper search is somewhat complicated by the appearance in the search of a racehorse by that name, there were many articles that clearly discuss Lowland Scots People, including [31]. Without going into listing all of them, there are already a large number of high-quality references, including several books by authors who have their own articles and at least one of which includes the term in the title. Many of these have been added to the article in the last couple of days. In any case, the article is currently well-referenced with plenty of significant coverage to meet the general notability guideline with ease. Jacona (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the nomination, not a letter is changed in the article and it looks like part of a thesis, not an encyclopedic article. The Banner talk 15:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  "Looks like a thesis" is not listed among the reasons for deletion. There is plenty of significant coverage from secondary reliable sources available, which is what is required to pass the notability policy as outlined in the general notability guideline. In this case, the sources not only exist, as required, but are in the article as well, which is why I voted not merely keep, but strong keep. I don't do that often. Jacona (talk) 19:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd agree that the article has the strong air of a thesis about it and seems to be advancing sources somewhat partially to support the author's personal POV, particularly as presented in the lede versus the main body. For example the Lowland_Scots_people#Lowlander_ethnic_group_formation gives, to some extent, a diversity of views as to origins but the first paragraph is categorical. There are other statements which just seem simplistic or plain wrong, such as the subjects "speak the Scots language": very many of course do, most, to some extent, on the dialect continuum but it is wrong to note it as a necessary or defining characteristic. This may be largely stylistic but the article's framing of its content by mustering which academic authority has stated what gives the article the qualities of the advancement of a case. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I got into a substantial discussion at the matching AfD for Scots Gaelic people which is closely related to this. The subject is obviously notable. The real issue is how to distribute the material between different articles. We could deal with the whole thing at Scottish people, but that article is already long. Scots Gaelic people ran into a perfectly reasonable argument from Akerbeltz that there is no distinction between Scots Gaels and Gaels in general, who already have an article, so Scots-Gaels as an article shouldn't exist; but this would remove the other half of the two articles currently covering the major Scots peoples; but that was also a bone of contention at Scots Gaelic people, about distinctions between Highland Scots and Gaelic Scots, distinctions lost in the current arrangement of articles. I am not in favour of deleting any of the current information in any of these articles, except where it can be shown to be inaccurate (in which cases it should be edited as normal). I am not opposed to some massive restructuring, but I'm not going to try to oblige someone to do the restructuring work, and I'm not sure AfD is the best place to suggest restructuring that doesn't actually involve deleting anything complete (the situation is too complex). Somehow we need to find a way to discuss the various Scottish people without grouping them inappropriately. Elemimele (talk) 13:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the topic is clearly notable (per Jacona) and therefore should have an article. There is plenty of room for improvement (especially when considered with the other related peoples articles), but that is no reason for deletion. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 13:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Delete: Lowlanders as a group of people is better covered in Scottish people and there is no content worth saving from the article as written (currently consists of unsaveable original research, deleteable per WP:NOTFORUM and WP:DEL-REASON#6). I'm also beginning to doubt notability after thinking about WP:SIGCOV a little more becuase I'm not seeing enough significant coverage to make an article larger than a short paragraph without needing to do at least some WP:OR. See discussion below. In addition, I'm not sure how it could be redirected as a subsection of Scottish people as an WP:ATD-R right now. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 16:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete the topic is more adequately treated under Scottish people. This page reads like some heavily biased opinion piece that is riddled with inaccuracies. The whole concept of trying to establish Scots and Lowland Scots as two distinct ethnic groups seems so fundamentally flawed in the first place that such a page would need really broad consensus and seriously reliable sources, otherwise it smacks of someone with an agenda trying to cultivate a split that doesn't exist. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Akerbeltz: Looking at Scottish people#Constructs of a unitary ethnicity, especially the paragraph starting with "In 2014", the groups are distinct in that one is a subgroup of another or something similar (there are references to back that up). If there is a practical and useful way to merge useful content to the Scottish people article and treat the topic there while redirecting the page title to where its covered, I like the sound of that. However, I'm not aware of such a way. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 15:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Akerbeltz and my previous comments. The existence of separate articles on supposed neatly distinct Scots Gaelic and Lowland Scots ethnic groups, outwith the naturally encompassing Scottish people article, promotes an OR proposal. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The most cursory of Google searches for "Lowland and Highland Scots" produces an enormous number of relevant hits.[32], [33], [34] etc. etc. etc.; We have to deal with this. I have no problem with getting rid of this article, but we can't get rid of it by ignoring centuries of sourcing and pretending that no one has ever proposed that lowland and highland scots are two different groups. The question of how this divide was balanced against the feeling of unity of one country is a part of Scottish history, isn't it? Wikipedia is here to say what sources have said, across centuries, not to say what we think the situation ought to be, no matter how much we hate artificial divides (I personally loathe articles that get hooked up on ethnicity). Elemimele (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OR defines itself: "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." There are lots of sources (including 34 in the article), so while not everyone likes the article, it is clearly not OR. Jacona (talk) 16:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That "Wikipedia is here to say what sources have said" is the very point. These articles indeed brandish copious sources but the impression is given of a partial emphasis and of a synthesis to present an original thesis - Wikipedia is very much not here to do that, either in distinct articles or merged into an all-encomapssing one. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How can we say this article is synthesis without also addressing Scottish_people#Constructs of a unitary ethnicity which appears to say, in the voice of several recent historians, precisely what we wish to deny here? I am becoming thoroughly confused. Elemimele (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the n-th time, yes, there is the concept of a Highlander/Lowlander and the Highlands/Lowlands. Nobody is denying that. But that's more of a geographic decriptor, not ethnic divide, certainly not in the 21st century. Secondly, yes, the article has a lot of references, but they don't necessarily actually back up the point the page author is trying to make. Just because a source says there are/were Highlanders and Lowlanders does NOT mean the source is stating they were distinct ethnicities. The whole thing is murky because (ignoring fairly clear-cut cases such as the Norse), many Scots-speaking Lowlanders are/were simply Gaelic speakers who had been linguistically assimilated n generations back. That changed the language they spoke, but does it change the ethnicity? Akerbeltz (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My position (as of whenever I hit the "publish" button) is that the topic is notable and should be covered somewhere, but the article does seem to be making a case (OR) for the author's POV. Mutt Lunker identified several problems with the text in their fist comment, and I do think they are probably right. I may change my mind as I edit the article, though. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 17:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Akerbeltz, here's a quote from Steven Danver, taken from the Scottish people article: "The people of Scotland are divided into two groups - Lowland Scots in the southern part of the country and Highland Scots in the north - that differ from one another ethnically, culturally, and linguistically". You can argue he's wrong, or writing about a past that no longer exists, but you cannot argue that he never intended to imply that the lowland and highland Scotts were distinct ethnicities. He couldn't have said it more clearly. Elemimele (talk) 21:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even the Scottish people article brings the issue of 'when' into discussion, quote in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. A lot of this stuff is not necessarily written by subject specialists. Danver may be tops when it comes to Native Americans, but a lot of the section on 'Highland Scots' reads like it was speedily researched and is full of errors. For example, his geographic placement of Gaelic-speakers as 'Northern' totally ignores Argyll, his figures for Candian Gaelic speakers conflate those of native speakers and learners of varying ability, he claims Gaelic is used as a medium of instruction in bilingual primary schools only (wrong, there are Gaelic-medium secondaries)... and that's just at a cursory glance. That's generally a problem when subject specialists try to branch out to do a 'global atlas of x', they have to condense material from other sources and that is risky. I'm not sure this particular publication by Danver counts as a totally reliable source.

Often these statements are also recursive in that some folk look at who speaks/spoke what language and immediately assume that speaking A means descent from Group A and speaking B from Group B. But that's categorically not the case. In genetic terms, only the borders strongly pattern with genetic descent from Northern Anglo-Saxon groups, the rest of Scotland is a mix of Goidelic, Pictish and Norse groupings, see this research from Edinburgh Uni. What languages Scots in 2020 or indeed in 1820 speak or spoke seems to have realatively little to do with actual descent. Akerbeltz (talk) 09:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Akerbeltz, you're bludgeoning and verging on triggering me to an ANI complaint. You can't just write off any source you don't like as unreliable, not without offering some published sources that actually support your point of view (the article you've just cited is about race and genetics, not ethnicity as defined by common culture etc., and it certainly doesn't argue for an undivided Scottish people). If you don't think Danver's right, get your own work published to refute him, and then we can cite it here. But we can't reject him (and many, many others) simply because you don't like what he's saying. Further, it doesn't matter if the division ceased to exist after the 19th Century. That doesn't mean it isn't worth writing about. We just need to say that it's a historical divide that no longer exists. Overall, this is not the way to handle an AfD. To be honest, I'm beginning to feel I've run into something political here, which is making me feel very uncomfortable. Elemimele (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Report away. And it works the other way round, there is no assumption that anything published out there is reliable, there's simply too much rubbish that nobody has the time to refute. The onus is on us to determine if a source is reliable or not. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, lifted a rock ... the Lowland Scots article was apparently written by one Harald Haarmann, who is a prolific writer and - according to the German Wiki page a major proponent of the non mainstream Danubian culture theory. I make no claims about having insights into his academic credentials overall but when someone is a proponent of a non-mainstream controverisal theory, it's at least a question mark. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sick to death of this. Have it your own way. Elemimele (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how having a non-mainstream view on a completely unrelated topic to lowland scots influences his reliability; he is a cultural scientist with a PhD. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 15:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm astonished at the resort to accusations of bludgeoning in regard to perfectly reasonable, measured and necessary querying of sources and of their application. In regard to running into something political, that's the very sense I got on encountering the two articles. I don't know whose politics they might serve as they contain elements that could be seen to serve conflicting interests but there is a distinct air of pointiness about them. I'm glad to see they are not being accepted at face value and with the provision of substance to those doubts. I would hope the accuser might reflect. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. All the arguments for delete don't seem to be based on real reasons to delete, one variation or another of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If the article "reads like a thesis" but has plenty of sources, improve it. If the article has some WP:OR, but has plenty of WP:RS, remove the OR and replace it with sourced content. There are plenty of references to establish WP:N, WP:SIGCOV, whether a particular editor likes the article as written or not should not be the issue. Jacona (talk) 14:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) - now questioning the reliability, or misuse of, sources is IDONTLIKEIT? The removal of OR is not reliant on something being put in its place. If it's OR, it goes. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say anything about bludgeoning. I didn't say anything about keeping OR. I'm sorry, but I don't understand why you're saying this to me. Jacona (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacona: It seems like @Mutt Lunker accidentally put their reply to Elemimele in the wrong place due to the edit conflict, I've moved it above your comment where it belongs. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 15:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to User:Danre98 for moving User:Matt Lunker's misplaced response.... As far as IDONTLIKEIT, my point is that those in favor of deletion's arguments are not about notability, but about the content of the article. While there may well be problems with the article in terms of WP:NPOV and WP:OR, there's really not any doubt that sources exist, some already in the article and many more available on the internet and newspapers.com. The issues with article content are reasons to improve the article, not reasons to delete it. Jacona (talk) 12:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The case for deletion is plainly not just about content but, again, as to whether it is appropriate to cover this as a distinct article, rather than within the Scottish people article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: After spending plenty of time thinking about it and time editing the article (removing OR I find as I repeatedly read it and there's a lot more I could have justifiably removed), I'm convinced that this article consists of enough WP:OR that the idea of a Lowland Scots People (as the author has written it) is origninal research, one of the things Wikipedia is not and is also WP:DEL-REASON#6. The original research is pervasive across the page, too. The topic is likely notable imo, but it requires WP:TNT (and the newspaper article might be a good place to start). ~~I won't change my !vote because I believe that a (likely stub) rewrite should happen as opposed to deletion~~ (or adding information to Scottish people); I might try to do it myself soon. The content of the article is irreparable, in my opinion. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 17:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I could be swayed into supporting a stub, provided the stubs (of course supported by refs) makes it clear this is a complex issue and not a simple case of Highland/Gael vs Lowland/Germanic Scots. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm still of the view that this would be better dealt with under Scottish people and, to me, one problem of retaining this as a standalone, even purged of OR, is the name; the notion of Lowland Scots as a "people". Lowland Scots on its own could clearly be confused with Scots (language) but we'd generally just talk about Lowlanders, so, with disambiguation in brackets, would Lowlanders (Scottish) be better? Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did say 'could' :) But yeah, you've touched on the problem. Is 'people' accurate and if not, then what? Again, not my area of expertise but there is a problem with Lowlander having pejorative connotations, to the extent that I can't see someone from Glasgow or Dundee standing up to say 'I'm a Lowlander'. Again, this is just my take, but most 'Lowlanders' would simply identify as 'Scots'. From my area of expertise, i.e. the Gaelic angle, the question is more about whether the identity of the Gael and Gaelic is still part of a Scottish identity or whether it has been disassociated. To put it another way, if you ask an Irish or Welsh native whether speaking Irish/Welsh and Irish/Welsh 'Celtic' culture is part and parcel of an Irish/Welsh identity, most would say yes, even if they don't speak it and don't play a harp (joke). But ask the same question in Scotland, you get a very complicated answer and while many if not most are broadly tolerant of Gaelic and Gaeldom these days, they don't see it as part of their own identity much. I think there are relatively few recent sources talking about Highlanders/Lowlanders are separate ethnicites because by and large, whatever the original identity of the Lowlander, this has been largely merged with that of being a Scot. Personally I've always felt that having the Scottish people page and the page on Gaels was adequate to cover this complicated issue as elegantly as possible. There's a page which is currently a redirect Highland-Lowland divide, maybe that could serve as a home for covering the Highland-Lowland thing beyond mere geography, without going into whether people still call themselves Lowlanders? At the moment it leads to Geography of Scotland, which talks about the Highland Boundary Fault but the cultural Highland line was never as clear cut as the geographic one. Akerbeltz (talk) 08:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After reading [35] and mulling over the newspaper article Jacona shared, both of which seems to give more coverage about Ulster Scots people than lowlanders of which coverage is negligible, I've come to the conclusion that any coverage should happen in Scottish people because it would be better covered there in that context, perhaps somewhere in the section Scottish ethnic and cultural groups. Even if a standalone article is appropriate, something with "lowlanders" in the title is probably more appropriate (like Mutt Lunker's suggestion), so there may be no reason to keep the article even after a TNT. I've updated my reccomendation above and struck part of my cmt above. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 16:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have a feeling this dispute may be best served by a centralized discussion, possibly at Talk:Scottish people, that addressed how to distribute this content; however, perhaps another week here will establish some consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 11:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article may have problems, but Lowland Scots are definitely a distinct group and the noms rationale is utter nonsense. SpinningSpark 17:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Bell (psychologist)

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

No demonstration of notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMIC. Edwardx (talk) 10:48, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; no properly sourced indication of notability. For the record, I'm technically the "creator" of this page, but I did so (in 2005, when our rules for establishing and sourcing notability were woefully bad and very different than they are now) only by converting the base title Andy Bell into a disambiguation page after other people had added this guy and the Ride bassist as an "other Andy Bells" coda to what was at the time an article about the singer. It's telling that nobody's ever added any proper sources to it since, but it started out as not so much my work as my correction of other people adding this content to Wikipedia badly. Bearcat (talk) 11:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Bearcat. I did not join until 2006, so things must have been even worse in 2005. Edwardx (talk) 12:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Bearcat. Articles in 2005 were not looked at with the same scrutiny as they are now. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Psychology, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 12:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Complete lack of sourcing to meet WP:GNG or WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR. Low citation counts on Google Scholar, but did notice they wrote a book: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9780203994962/debates-psychology-andy-bell. Couldn't find any significant reviews. Searching was admittedly complicated by the number of Andy Bells. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scots Gaelic people

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

Recreation of a subject earlier merged in 2019 after an AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaels of Scotland) The Banner talk 09:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 09:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is hard to consider separately from Lowland_Scots_people, also up for deletion. The problem is that the Gaels article (into which the original Gaels-of-Scotland article got merged) deals with the unity of the Gaelic peoples across Ireland and into Scotland. It does not deal with the disunity of the Gaelic Scots from the Lowland Scots. But the social relationships, histories, and differences between the lowland Scots and the highland Gaelic Scots go back centuries, have been written about by so, so many; there's no question of the notability of both groups, their interactions, and their social history. The question to my mind is more whether it's appropriate to keep these two articles separate, or to have a single article dealing with the Scottish peoples and histories (across two ethnic and linguistic backgrounds), and another single article dealing with the Gaelic peoples (across multiple nations). I am not a Scottish historian, and feel the question is too big for me. I cannot support a delete; the subject is too notable, and the material in these articles too good to lose. I cannot suggest a merge or reorganisation because this is a volunteer project and it would be a truly huge amount of work for whoever picks it up. Elemimele (talk) 13:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly doesn't make sense under the name of Scots Gaelic people. I think the issue here is POV - not in the sense usually debated about on Wikipedia but in a cultural sense. By and large, looking at it from inside the Gaelic/Irish-speaking community, there are just Gaels, some of whom happen to be in Scotland, some in Ireland. If I search for Gàidheil Albannach ('Scottish Gaels') I get 297 ghits, if I search for Gàidheil ann an Alba ('Gaels in Scotland') I get over a thousand ghits, if I put in the equivalent Irish terms, its 2 vs 1610. It goes further than that. While within each country the language is referred to as Gàidhlig or Gaeilge respectively, usually when referring to the other one, people just use the same term and append the country i.e. Gàidhlig in Scotland is Scots Gaelic, but Gàidhlig na h-Èireann (Gaelic of Ireland) is 'Irish Gaelic', and vice versa. There currently is just one article for Gaels because separating the two conceptually is not easy. The least worst name would probably be Irish/Scottish Gaels, but that does not address the fact that the way the page content is written is, well, wrong. Gael ≠ Highlander, not by ANY stretch of imagination or fact. Akerbeltz (talk) 09:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that Irish/Scottish Gaels is a useful name because it overlaps too heavily with Gaels in total. If you exclude Gaels who've moved into the rest of the world, just as all peoples move around, there isn't much of Gaelic people that wouldn't automatically fall in Irish/Scottish Gaels. No, the lowland-highland divide is of course a generalisation that's often wrong. But it's also a generalisation that's widely found in sources. These aren't great hits because they're a bit tertiary, but Britanica clearly believes in a basic South-West to North-East divide [36], and so does this article at scarf.scot: [37]. We have to deal with what sources say, even if we think it's an oversimplification or wrong. My feeling is that AfD is not a great venue to discuss this, because it's not a matter of deleting individual articles. It's more about how do we distribute a huge mass of obviously notable material between appropriately-titled articles; it can't be dealt with at the level of individual articles in the way AfD works. It would better have been a giant request for comment across projects covering Gaelic and Scottish history. Elemimele (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

clarification: by SW to NE divide, I mean a crude line running from the SW to the NE, with the Gaelic speaking people, of Gaelic origin, to the North and West, while the Scots who spread from the South being mainly to the SE side of that line. But these lines are always rather rubbish. It's insane to think that people stay in one place, unchanged, without mixing, for centuries, and it would be very socially unhealthy if they did. Elemimele (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't get what you mean with I'm not sure that Irish/Scottish Gaels is a useful name because it overlaps too heavily with Gaels in total. If you exclude Gaels who've moved into the rest of the world, just as all peoples move around, there isn't much of Gaelic people that wouldn't automatically fall in Irish/Scottish Gaels. There are Gaels as an indigenous population in Ireland, Scotland and the Isle of Man. Yes, there's a diaspora but I don't think that's hugely relevant unless we're talking about Nova Scotia. Of course they'll overlap? I mean, it's a bit like trying to say German people is too broad and we need to split this into Low German and High German people and then argue that there's too much of an overlap? But maybe I'm just not getting what you're saying :)

That aside, going purely by the sources, Scots Gaelic people seems like a totally made up term that has no basis in the literature, excluding the Wiki page and its copies, I'm not really getting any ghits, whereas there's at least some for Irish/Scottish Gaels. Akerbeltz (talk) 21:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're trying to say almost the same thing. I believe there is no point in having an article on Scottish/Irish Gaels distinct from Gaels because they are the same thing. You believe, and I'm inclined to agree, that there is no point in having an article on Scottish Gaels because there really is no such thing, there are just Gaels, some of whom happen to live in Scotland, some in Ireland (and a few elsewhere). But that isn't the subject of this article. This article, and the article on the Lowland Scots, together, are actually a review of the subject of ethnicities as a whole in Scotland, and the claims of many sources that the Scottish population can be broadly separated into two general groups, those of Gaelic origin who tend to be found more to the North and West (who in many sources get referred to (conflated?) as Highlanders), and those of Southern origin who tend to be found more towards the South and the East (whom many sources refer to as Lowland Scots). I don't think it's great to have one subject split over several articles. But merely deleting this one won't make the subject go away, and it can't be merged with the existing Gaels, because that's not the right place for the subject; it would be almost like writing an article about the French and adding three paragraphs on why French isn't the same as Belgian. I'll admit though, I have a very strong dislike of articles on ethnicity and racial types; ethnicity seems to bring out the worst in human nature. Elemimele (talk) 07:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know what a Highlander is and what it's usual definition is. I'm not questioning that. The point is though that this article claims that Highlanders = Scots Gaelic people - something that is both wrong (there are Highlanders who are not Gaelic speakers and there are Gaelic speakers who are not Highlanders) and cannot be backed up by reliable sources. The Scarf article actually makes a different point about Gaelic and Highlanders, not the one the Wiki page is trying to make. Akerbeltz (talk) 09:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so let's focus on this as an AfD. If this is to close as delete, the admin who closes it is going to need some evidence. There are lots of possible reasons to get rid of the article. (1) The proposed reason, that it existed previously and got deleted. That doesn't hold much water; articles are regularly re-written, and if they're re-written with new referencing and content overcoming previous objections, they can be acceptable; an article should be judged on its merits, not on its title. (2) Because the article is basically wrong. I think this is your main concern? At the moment, the article is bristling in references, so we can't argue it's unsourced. We need either to demonstrate that the sources are bad, to prune parts that are wrong and not sourced, and to find sources that disagree with the current ones where we believe that sourced statements are biased, misleading or wrong. (3) The article isn't the best way to handle the subject. This is what I believe. I believe that the ethnic origins of the various peoples who live in Scotland is a notable subject, and can be sourced, but that it would be more helpful to have a single article on the peoples of Scotland than individual articles on particular ethnic groups, particularly as these groups are not necessarily confined to Scotland. This article already exists, at Scottish_people, which means I'm tending towards delete, with merging information to that article. I am not sufficiently aware of Scottish ethnic issues to know what information is correct and therefore mergeable. Does that make any sense? Elemimele (talk) 12:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(note, however, that at Scottish People we have the following sentence: "From 1500 on, Scotland was commonly divided by language into two groups of people, Gaelic-speaking "Highlanders" (the language formerly called Scottis by English speakers and known by many Lowlanders in the 18th century as "Erse") and the Inglis-speaking "Lowlanders" (a language later to be called Scots)". To the uninformed reader, this looks like exactly what you contend is not true and not sourced). Elemimele (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

a) Galloway Gaelic only died out in the 18th century and is not included in ANY definition of 'Highlands' I've ever heard or read about. b) unless we're going to call the page 'Highlanders up until the 18th century' or something similar my point still stands. Yes, up until the somewhen in the 18th century most Highlanders spoke Gaelic but even back then not all, especially in the Norn-speaking areas of Caithness and most certainly these days it is NOT the case that someone from the Highlands will speak Gaelic. I wish it were so but the percentage of Gaelic speakers is very low today - which brings us to the even murkier question of whether you can be a Gael without speaking Gaelic ... Akerbeltz (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps the article shouldn't be deleted (right now) if information should be merged elsewhere. In addition, the article would probably need kept as a redirect for attribution purposes. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 14:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete better covered under Gaels Akerbeltz (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is hopelessly confused, often plain wrong and doesn't even have a grasp of its scope, with its very first sentence listing various alternative terms that mean different things, then an expansion of the definition which poorly matches these terms. This confusion would be alleviated by covering these matters at Gaels and at Scottish people. As with Lowland Scots people, it appears to have been constructed to advance an OR thesis and thus nothing is salvageable for merging. Also per the previous deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaels of Scotland. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 10:47, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per source analysis, where discussion trended strong delete afterwards. One subsequent source is possibly a press release and while the provider argues we should consider whether it is an agency report ONUS rather suggests that it is for them to make that case. In any event, per the source analysis that was persuasive of later voters, that would count as a single source and notbpass GNG Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ravalcheny van Ommeren

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and South America. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 July 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Found sources → [38][39]--MonFrontieres (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. First source above not independent. Giant Snowman 19:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sufficient sourcing shown here to demonstrate notability. Article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 21:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Monfrontieres. @GiantSnowman: I found these sources whisch show she is notable in Suriname: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 among many other sources. In addition, she is a young international capped player with an ongoing career. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Match reports/international call ups are routine coverage. Source 4 is about an entirely different player. We're left with her having flight problems and that does not go to GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 10:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mentions in Match reports and international call-ups are routine, but extensive articles about a players call-up or play in a particular match aren't. Nfitz (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are still routine coverage. Dougal18 (talk) 10:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, outside of the WP:ROUTINE coverage there only exists a brief bout of coverage concerning a single flight, leading to a WP:BLP1E failure. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with some of these references provided - especially this and that. Nfitz (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's a match report which is routine coverage. The other is about her flight problems largely quoting from her mother. Dougal18 (talk) 10:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We routinely have articles for players that score hat-tricks in competitive international matches. I'm hard-pressed to find an example where we haven't! Also, "flight problems" is a gross oversimplification of an issue that resulted in missing international matches and a boycott. Nfitz (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. She didn't boycott the game against Antigua and Barbuda or miss any other games. Other players might have but that cannot give van Ommeren GNG/SIGCOV. Dougal18 (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. But even you disagree with me, then check for other references. Here's a great 2020 one that no one has mentioned. Yes, it's because of transfer, but it's an 8-paragraph in-depth piece. Nfitz (talk) 00:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Xerxesdzb.nl is blatantly non-independent N. I can't see the rest of the AD.nl ref beyond the intro (unless that's the whole thing?). Key News does not have any coverage of her that is not primary and non-independent N. SR Herald is routine non-significant match coverage N. Voetbal Rotterdam isn't even on the right person Facepalm . Vrouwen Voetbal Nieuws 1 is a lightly refactored press release N. VVN 2 is the best of the lot, but is basically a bulked-up transaction announcement N. Culturu has a trivial transactional mention N. Sport Nieuws just mentions her name N. JoelleJay (talk) 02:17, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 08:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I concur in User:JoelleJay's source analysis. Nothing approaching direct detailing of the subject by ANY presented source material. She's a junior player; perhaps one day she'll get coverage meeting RS. Nothing yet after three relists in Summer 2022. BusterD (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JoelleJay and BusterD Andre🚐 05:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added this in-depth piece. Nfitz (talk) 00:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's identical to VVN 2, which suggests it is actually a press release rather than independent article. JoelleJay (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Around here, when different newspaper and web-based media outlets (sometimes competitors!) have the same article, it's because it's from a press agency like Reuters, API, or CP. This in no way reads like a press release - do you have any source to support that? Nfitz (talk) 01:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I note that this has been relisted several times already so we need to close the discussion conclusively. Personally I find the nominator's rationale and rebuffs compelling, but there just isn't a strong enough consensus in this discussion to warrant deletion at this time. Waggers TALK 14:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Kuwata

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

Now this is, I promise, an interesting one. Refbombed with fully 28 references, this article is of a Japanese media personality, model, and musician. The references are mostly in Japanese. Translated, they often namecheck the subject as the son of his famous baseball player father Masumi. They are almost all trivial to an almost exquisite degree. The subject's main claim to fame and notability seems to boil down to the fact that he looks, well, odd. As a media personality, model and musician he appears overwhelmingly trivial. He has appeared in some TV commercials, a web campaign for insect repellent and as a beauty ambassador for AvanTime Tone Shot Cream. With 28 references, it's almost impossible that someone won't argue that he passes WP:GNG. And yet they all amount to absolutely no substance and, as far as I can see, no evidence of notability - typical is 'news' pieces noting an Instagram post where Kuwata thanks his brother or father for their birthday greetings. Does 28 pieces of bellybutton fluff equate to "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent"??? You tell me... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Japan. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's plenty of coverage on him; a quick look at his Oricon profile shows plenty of articles written about him. lullabying (talk) 09:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your quick look is too quick. All of those Oricon "articles" are brief publicity announcements that repeat social media posts. Via Google Translate, there is one that announces a change to his Instagram in which he commented on that day's makeup (2022-06-16), one announcing that he will appear at an online event in which he will discuss makeup (2022-03-24), one about what makeup he was wearing when he appeared onstage at an event (2022-02-21) blah blah blah. Not even close to Wikipedia's standards for significant coverage. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Good luck to him as he figures out a way to make an honest living as a social media influencer. The nominator is correct on the absence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Social media posts and publicity announcements about social media posts won't cut it. This article is simply a repeat of the promotional puff pieces already plastered around the Internet by his publicist. Dude has unique facial structure though. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appear mostly name drops/he's related to xyz person articles, based on analysis above. Oaktree b (talk) 13:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maybe I haven't done the best job of showing it, but the guy is definitely notable and relevant. Ads with his face are everywhere from department store walls to point of sale displays. If you search for just マット (Matt, no surname),　he's the only human being that comes up (the other front page results are all floor mats). I haven't been checking print sources lately; I'm sure there's something better than what I found online. I don't think simply being known for a family connection should be grounds to delete, otherwise there wouldn't be articles about anyone in the Kardashian family. Londonbeat41692 (talk) 10:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For more context, I just added a reference to an interview of him that was featured in Harper's Bazaar. He was also the subject of a GQ photoshoot with a long article. Londonbeat41692 (talk) 10:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t have time to add it right now, but I just searched for updates and found he recently did a feature for Vogue Japan as well, and also is launching a makeup line which was covered in reputable media. None of it is about SNS or his family, or simply "looking odd". I will continue to improve the article as time permits; please give it a chance. Londonbeat41692 (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has significant coverage of himself, not his father, for example in English: [40], [41], [42] covering his doll-like / mannequin-like modelling. There are significantly more sources in Japanese asw well as other languages. Fulmard (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow discussion of sources mentioned in later comments
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 08:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm certain I've never before used the reason for my assertion as "per nom" but in this case the nominator has made a compelling case regarding source analysis. The subject is a mildly successful self-promoter. No claim of significance or importance. Nothing significant in presented sources which directly details. I find no fault with the assertions User:Alexandermcnabb makes above, except this: In my AfD experience, I have often seen "28 pieces of bellybutton fluff" misconstrued as cumulatively meeting a threshold of GNG. I can't see any reason this subject will mature into notability, but occasionally Wikipedia gives popular culture a bizarre pass. BusterD (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why you feel that full-length features in GQ, Vogue, and Harper's Bazaar (which are not about his father or SNS activity) are "bellybutton fluff". Some of the references might not be great, but others such as those are pretty significant.Londonbeat41692 (talk) 11:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Page creator User:Londonbeat41692's "...full-length features in GQ, Vogue, and Harper's Bazaar..." simply don't exist. 1) These are not full length features; they are interviews, photoshoots and YouTube videos, none of which establish notability. 2) The subject aspires to be a model. Appearing in such material is literally his job. He doesn't appear to be notable among Japanese fashion models, much less models getting full-length features in "GQ, Vogue, and Harper's Bazaar". 3) He seems to have gathered no cultural resonance in the English-speaking world up to this point. He seems to be a minor popular culture figure weakly covered by Japanese media primarily because of his father and his physical appearance, based on presented and found sources. BusterD (talk) 14:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I already voted above, but would like to emphasize the point that appearing in a major magazine as a model is not the same as having a reliable source publish an in-depth and significant article that is about that model. The second of those is required for notability in Wikipedia. Meanwhile, some of the "keep" voters have dug up more sources, but they continue to be puff pieces and softball interviews from outlets that merely forward a publicist's promo announcements. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:48, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The articles in the magazines I mentioned are about the model. Please look at the references again. They are not simply photos in which he appears, although those were taken for the magazine articles in question as well. Londonbeat41692 (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Unmoved mover. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Causeless cause

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

The encylopaedic topic on this subject is covered in Unmoved mover and its redirect Uncaused cause and this page makes a claim for Causeless cause being something else, viz a matter in Theosophy. However it is clearly not a major topic as the Theosophy wiki [43] does not cover it. This page has been a stub for years, and the page creator has himself twice discussed deletion on the talk page and now says he is not interested.

I considered a bold redirect to Unmoved mover but as the substance of this article claims this is a different topic, I believe a deletion discussion is appropriate. I propose deletion, and the redirect (if any) should be to Unmoved mover as there is no other encylopaedic topic. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and/or merge wherever: I either forgot unmoved mover at the time or misunderstood but causeless cause is identical: appropriate redirect there or (as had been done in the past) to own section in Madame Blavatsky or Theosophy articles--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 08:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but including information there would involve a merge. I don't think this is mergeable. I expect if you try to add Theosophy stuff on that page (Unmoved mover) it may be reverted - although you are welcome to try. I don't think the concept is notable in Theosophy even, as discussed, which is why I think deletion is called for. I oppose a redirect to a Theosophy or Madame Blavatsky article for the reasons stated. The only encylopaedic topic is the Unmoved mover. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a key topic in Madame Blavatsky's largest, most difficult book, just as unmoved mover is in Aristotle's metaphysics--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 08:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For context, my comment was made before "merge" was added in this edit: [44] Per. WP:TALK#REPLIED please avoid changing context of past discussion by changing your comments after someone else has replied. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect I agree with what has been said here. It's worth deleting this article and just redirecting the article name to Unmoved mover. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Unmoved mover as argued above; there is no content worth merging. Deleting before creating the redirect is probably not necessary but would be harmless. XOR'easter (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Redirect to Unmoved mover per above 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW delete. Clear consensus already, and to be frank this could have been G11d in the first place. — Amakuru (talk) 12:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Juiceslf (musician)

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

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

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

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

An amateur who have just started his career in 2022 doesn't either meet WP:MUSICIAN or GNG. Htanaungg (talk) 05:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. Htanaungg (talk) 05:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Was going to file this AfD myself, but I can't find any sources to show notability. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:24, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I said no to the deletion of an article, amateur who have just started his career has provided notability about his release, it should be discussed with a tagger-Chiscomalaga (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiscomalaga (talk • contribs) 13:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC) — Chiscomalaga (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete I wasn't able to find any independent sources to support notability under WP:NMUSIC or WP:BASIC. Schazjmd (talk) 14:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article should not be deleted there is some notability of released songs. a tagger should be added to improve notability-Steadee (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC) — Steadee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - We've seen this hundreds of times for new and unknown African musicians. They upload some songs to streaming services that take anything, send promo announcements to webzines that take anything, and then use those self-created sources as "evidence" that they are notable enough to promote themselves some more in Wikipedia. Now it's time for JuicesIf to get a gig that actually receives notice from anyone other than himself. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
no to delete should be discussed with a tagger and improved the article as Wikipedia is mean for improving. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiscomalaga (talk • contribs) 14:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You only get to vote once. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Complete lack of WP:RELIABLE sources. Might be WP:TOOSOON, but Wikipedia isn't a WP:CRYSTALBALL. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I worked so hard on this article. Do you really want to put my contributions to waste? give me some time to improve it.Steadee (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC) WP:NOR[reply]
- Steadee, WP:PLEASEDONT isn't a valid reason to keep. What matters is whether sources exist to show notability, not the current state of the article (as per WP:NEXIST). -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NOR Chiscomalaga (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not sufficient, WP:NOTABILITY is what's important here. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Baz supporters want to delete it because it makes Baz look bad. Steadee (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:51, 17 August 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Note - Steadee and Chiscomalaga have both voted multiple times. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G11. This guy only has 128 subscribers on Instagram, 60 on YouTube, and around 550 likes on Facebook. Quite weird for somebody who "went viral" on social media, at least according to his Wikipedia page... BilletsMauves^€500 20:54, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete The "went viral" stuff is a complete lie even I haven't heard of him. Lack of WP:RELIABLE and notability.Uricdivine^TalkToMe 22:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer. Steadee and Chiscomalaga have been blocked as confirmed socks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC, cross-wiki sockpuppetry and spam. --*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 02:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Centeredness Theory

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Part of a promotional walled garden around Zephyr Bloch-Jorgensen. Mix of promo, personal essay and original research. Many references about related facts that have no direct comnnection to this theory. Connected back to the theory in an original synthesis.

Look at "The more a person does this, the more they can maintain centeredness despite exposure to trauma and adversity, leading to greater resilience.[1][15][16][17]". Source 1 is primary. Source 15 is a project in which an originator of this thoery is involved so is not independent. And it makes no mention of centeredness let alone this theory. Source 16 contains comments an originator of this theory but makes no mention of centeredness let alone this theory. This source was published years before the theory was proposed Source 17 is an essay on resiliance that makes no mention of centeredness let alone this theory. This sort of primary or unconeccted sourcing occurs throughout.

This theory has gained no traction in the broader community. 9 cites shown on Google Scholar for the paper. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pop-psych is a high-citation field so the low citation numbers mentioned in the nomination are telling. This article is heavily referenced but most or all of the references appear to either be non-independent (e.g. the ones by Block-Jorgensen), background rather than on-topic (e.g. all the ones published before 2010), or are mostly irrelevant and mention the subject only in passing (e.g. reference 2, a book review by Rimke Groenewold). Searching the academic literature found little better. Does not appear to pass WP:GNG, and the nominator's promotional concerns appear to be warranted. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur with all the above. We have standards for the referencing of medical topics, which this is a long, long way from meeting. Even if notability could be established, a total rewrite to improve clarity and remove promotionalism would be necessary. The invocations of "sensitive dependence on initial conditions" and "catastrophe theory" are emblematic of pop-psych glurge, appropriating the language of mathematical science in order to make trivialities sound profound. This encyclopedia should not be a platform for such antics. XOR'easter (talk) 13:29, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom and the !votes above, doesn't meet our guidelines for establishing notability and given the walled garden of related articles, seems designed to promote the theory and lend credence to it and its promoters. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Last month I removed a lot of material from this article. I agree with Highking this article is jut promoting a theory. No serious psychologist would call something a "meta-analysis profile" as meta-analysis is a statistical method. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 21:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. General agreement that added sources establish that subject passes GNG. (non-admin closure) ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 16:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Óscar Linton

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:22, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Panama. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:22, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some sources found here, here, here and here. JTtheOG (talk) 07:24, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources identified by JTtheOG which constitute WP:SIGCOV. An international footballer who has played in FIFA World Cup qualifiers also takes this person past the mundane meaning offline sources are likely too. Valenciano (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per JTtheOG and Valenciano. Besides the sources above, there are many many other sources specifically about him (e.g. from YouTube, tvn-2.com, etc). He is clearly significant figure in Panama football with an ongoing pro and international career. I look at the other Sports WikiProjects (or any WikiProject) and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 20. By the time I finish writing this, another 20 will probably be deleted. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep was able to find multiple sources in both English and Spanish. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 22:17, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources provided by JTtheOG would seen to satisfy notability.Lovewiki106 (talk) 00:24, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - Although there is online coverage of Linton in English- and Spanish-language sources, I'm not finding in-depth coverage. Most of the coverage is transfer announcements or national team call-up announcements, with very little focus on his footballing accomplishments. I suspect there could be more out there, but to date, he's been playing at a fairly low level (top division in Malta and Panama, third division in Japan, plus being at the fringes of the Panama national team) so I can't be sure. Jogurney (talk) 00:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the sources JTtheOG found, I found 5 and 6 which focus more on his footballing accomplishments. There are also many many other sources specifically about him in Japanese and Spanish. Also, as Valenciano said, offline sources are likely too. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 03:59, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per sources listed by JTtheOG. Meets GNG. Indianfootball98 (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or delete, per Jogurney. The sources found above are routine, transactional, and/or heavily quote-based and do not amount to SIGCOV. Random interviews on YouTube are obviously not RS, secondary, or independent. JoelleJay (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes GNG after latest round of sources added.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 18:09, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vaidika Senjaliya

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

Not finding sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR or WP:NBIO, included sources are noted as no consensus - questionable on WP:RSP ASUKITE 17:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, India, and Gujarat. ASUKITE 17:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The Times of India is a flagship news source for India, so its use confers notability, if not reliability. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:443C:9603:3623:E956 (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:GNG: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That said, I'm not saying Times of India isn't reliable, but that we as a community have been unable to agree on whether it is. If we have other sources meeting these guidelines, the article could be kept. ASUKITE 19:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Times of India is not "a flagship news source for India". If anything, it is known for paid news, paid reviews and such. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete The subject doesnt have significant coverage, thus failing general notability criteria. Subject also fails notability criteria for actors. General comment: there have been many debates over TOI's reliability. Personally, I have come to conclusion that TOI cant/shouldnt be used to establish notability. It may be used to verify certian facts, not all though. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per these sources [45] and [46] Perhaps there are other sources in other languages in India. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One final relist, to evaluate sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As of this datestamp, not a single source applied or linked in this discussion meets the standard of directly detailing significant coverage in independent reliable sources. FTR, WP:RSNP lists TOI as "between no consensus and generally unreliable." What coverage has been presented is routine entertainment news (mostly quotes from the subject) and not direct detailing. A reasonable BEFORE finds social media and more subject-provided enagement. BusterD (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per usernamekiran and BusterD Andre🚐 05:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The overall consensus was to rename to "2034 Winter Olympics," so I will be moving it there following closing this discussion. While these particular games are a ways out, it is a similar time frame to when Los Angeles was awarded the 2028 games back in 2017. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 21:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bids for the 2034 Winter Olympics

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

Per WP:TOOSOON, we should not have an article on the 2034 Olympics bids yet until around 2027. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re-name as "2034 Winter Olympics", as we've got the 2036 Summer Olympics page. GoodDay (talk) 02:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Two countries have expressed a possible interest to bid- that is not enough content for a Wikipedia article. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:47, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re-name to achieve the main entry for the 2034 Winter Olympics. Yes, it’s too soon for the special sub-topic but not too soon for the main article. Schwede 66 17:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without prejudice to a renaming. There is encyclopaedic information about this event already and this will only increase as we get nearer to it. Deleting it now only to recreate it at some arbitrary future time is needless bureaucracy that puts the desires of some editors ahead of what is best for readers. Thryduulf (talk) 01:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to 2034 Winter Olympics per above. 12 years is quite a head start, but since there are RS which discuss the topic, I don't think it's too egregious. Moving to 2034 Winter Olympics will mesh with the system we have in place. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 12:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nominated by a sock, remaining !votes are either withdrawn or indicate Keep. (non-admin closure) HighKing⁺⁺ 15:17, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Polo International

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

Fails WP:GNG. DownAndUp (talk) 00:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. WP:NGRS says that Vanguard news is a reliable source. The promotional tone of the Wikipedia article is up for dispute, but the eleven sources appear to be generally reliable. It looks as though it does not fail GNG. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 01:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Delete per below. CollectiveSolidarity (talk). Remove !vote. I’m not going to encourage further Sockpuppetry. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 13:23, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This passes WP:GNG, could you explain why you think it doesn't pass GNG? I did a quick google news search and was able to find a few articles. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Beauty pageants, and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 09:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrs. International (pageant): "Since this is essentially an event run by a commercial organization, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP. [References] focus either on the contestants (past and present) and their "causes" or opinions or is based on PR/Announcements. Most of the references have no "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND as the content is provided by affiliated sources and the rest fail WP:CORPDEPTH as trivial content." "Sources provided mainly only reference the organization as existing and mostly talk about whatever contestant they're highlighting. Confirmation that it exists is not notability." DownAndUp (talk) 04:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with DownAndUp that NCORP, not the GNG, is the governing notability guideline here. Ovinus (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did a re-review, and think you might be right on this one. I’m disappointed that DownAndUp had to look at another rationale after he realized his original deletion methodology was wrong, but the sources I researched had merely trivial/promotional details about the company. Even if the sources are reliable, I don’t think the pageant is expressly notable. Fails WP:NCORP as too promotional and trivial. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added some more information and sources to the articles. This appears to be part of the pageant circuit where they go to multiple events a year. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strike !vote, shouldn't reward socking, whatever their aims HighKing⁺⁺ 12:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC) Delete This is a commercial organization therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. None of the sources meet the criteria for establishing notability including the newly added sources. For example, this from World Polo News is a "detailed interview" with the 2019 winner - since it has no "Independent Content" this fails WP:ORGIND. This Day Live is based entirely on an announcement and quotations with no "Independent Content", also fails WP:ORGIND. The IDN Times provides a profile of the 2019 winner but does not contain any significant in-depth info on the topic company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. This from Vanguard is a report on the 2019 event held in Dubai but again does not contain sufficient in-depth information on the topic company although it has lots of detail on the 2019 event, also fails CORPDEPTH. This from Statepress reports on a Charity Fundraising Gala Night, also fails CORPDEPTH. Finally, this from Philstar is a profile of one of the contestants, fails CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this and adding that the nominator of this and other beauty pageant AFDs was indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nominated by a confirmed sock. _-✍NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 02:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bad faith nom by sock of banned editor. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 02:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was NOT a bad faith nom. The arguments for deleting it are legitimate. Every poorly made article out there doesn't deserve a pass just because a banned editor nominated it for deletion. The article's merits deserve to be discussed BASED ON THE ARTICLE'S MERITS. There are legitimate delete votes above, based on legitimate reasons. The ad hominem fallacy ("it was nominated for deletion by a sock so it must automatically be kept") is poor reasoning when you should be focusing on THE MERITS OF THE ARTICLE, not on WHO NOMINATED IT. This is not a "Users To Be Undermined" discussion forum. It is an "Articles for Deletion" discussion forum. Discuss the article, not the nominator. StopBanningMeAlready (talk) 03:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Halpert

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

Fails wp:gng. There is no significant coverage about Mr. Halpert; only his name on patents. The article is mainly about the Chinook. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 01:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Businesspeople. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 01:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of WP:PROF, WP:CREATIVE, or WP:GNG notability evident in article or in my searching. Incidentally, for anyone else who was as confused as I by the nomination statement: "the Chinook" is not the Chinook people (my first guess), and not the salmon (my second guess). It is a helicopter. And the nomination is correct that the article, stubby as it is, is nevertheless overwhelmed by material about the helicopter and not about Halpert or his minor role in its development. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how it meets WP:GNG given the lack of independant significant coverage of the person, nor any clause of WP:NPROF. As an partial WP:ATD, might be able to merge a couple of sentances into Boeing CH-47 Chinook? -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Mallia

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. An Internet search yields no in-depth independent coverage from reliable sources. JTtheOG (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Malta. JTtheOG (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. ps NFOOTY no longer exists... Giant Snowman 18:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:25, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - semi-pro footballer that fails GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC due to an absence of significant coverage about him Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I have also moved the (born 1943) footballer to the primary undisambiguated title. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yohai Aharoni

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Israel. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yohai Aharoni (born 1986) was a bencher at top-tier clubs. Played one game in the second tier. He must have had a lot of talent at soccer but that does not equate to notability. A cool fact is that he played on many Arab Israeli teams. Soccer definitely brings people together! Also move Yohai Aharoni (born 1943) to Yohai Aharoni, as WP:PRIMARY gidonb (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:09, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Football at the 2013 Maccabiah Games

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Also per WP:NOTDATABASE. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Israel. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my previous comments. We need better-developed articles instead of these thinly sliced intersections of an edition per sport. The literature does not support that. gidonb (talk) 13:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per recent similar AFDs, we do not need a separate article. Giant Snowman 18:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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