Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 26	February 28 >

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 redirect to 2017–18 Wigan Athletic F.C. season#Statistics. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Theo Roberts

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

Re-listing this individually as per previous discussion.

Technically passes NFOOTY due to an FLT appearance, but clearly fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Shellwood (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2017–18 Wigan Athletic F.C. season#Statistics as we have done in other similar AFDs. Giant Snowman 16:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - meets NFOOTY and has sourced information on club moves. A cursory look around also shows other coverage Here, Here, Here which I suspect also covers off WP:GNG. Zanoni (talk) 07:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have to advocate a Redirect here, as suggested by GiantSnowman. I know I keep banging this drum, but we simply wouldn't have articles about players only active in this level in other countries, and such a bias is inappropriate for a global encyclopaedia. RobinCarmody (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. SIGCOV not demonstrated. The Cheshire Live pieces should be regarded as one source, as they are by the same author in the same local publication.

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Soccerway		Database	✘ No
AFC Fylde			✘ No
LFE	Charity run by EFL	Trivial mention	✘ No
Cheshire Live 1		4 sentences of local routine transfer coverage	✘ No
Tweet from @ChesterFC			✘ No
Cheshire Live 2	~ Same author and publication as first Cheshire Live source, so should not be considered separately (not independent of each other)	Still primarily routine transaction coverage, although with more commentary from author	✘ No
Atherton Collieries		~	✘ No
Dead link to player profile		?	✘ No
Mossley announcement		One-ish sentence on him	✘ No
City of Liverpool FC signing		3 sentences of transaction background	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

JoelleJay (talk) 22:30, 5 March 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 11:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ThreatModeler

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

Fails WP:NCORP. If one does a cleanup of sources there is almost nothing left to consider. Bbarmadillo (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Computing, Software, and New Jersey. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The cited sources consist largely of press releases and trivial mentions (e.g. quotes from the CEO), and my search found nothing that qualifies as significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Fails WP:NCORP. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and I can't find any, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, fails WP:NCORP. Ahmed ^(talk) 15:33, 3 March 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 11:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NOW Entertainment

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

The page's articles almost all fail notability guidelines, they almost all are trivial coverage, they almost all are not reliable, and some seem written as a promostion by someone close to the company, almost like press releases. The creator of the page's account seems to just have been created for the purpose of making this wikipedia page. The page seems to be written promotionally, furthering the COI case. Bluesfan86 (talk) 21:35, 20 February 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 February 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, Internet, and Websites. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Rollingstone looks like a good magazine but not enough. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

comment Likely a case of "Bad Faith" edit. User:Bluesfan86 got registered on 2022-02-17 and started making disruptive edits on pages. Most of their edits have been reverted. Seem their target was to delete NOW Entertainment, an old page that has been reviewed by an older editor for months now. They only targeted that page for AFD. WP:RBI should apply here.Ilsecondoordine (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are passing mentions, not about the company. Zeddedm (talk) 11:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company so WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability applies. None of the references meet the criteria especially WP:ORGIND as none include in-depth information about the *company* which is not directly attributable to the company itself or persons associated with the company. Topic fail NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:28, 2 March 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 keep (non-admin closure) Elli (talk | contribs) 19:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harry E. Luther

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

He is NOT recognized internationally. He just sounds like your average scientist who discovered a few hundred species. Plus, it has only 3 sources. Also if they were popular then why doesn't everyone know them? This just sounds not notable.

Cranloa12n (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. MB 21:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, this article dosen't pass WP:GNG. Even if more information is added, it dosen't complies with WP:ARTN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I'ma editor2022 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the claimed notability is by way of academic publications, surely the applicable notability guideline here is WP:NACADEMIC. In order to see if he passes that, some sort of assessment of how widely cited his allegedly many publications are. But as he gets independent coverage in multiple obits -- the Herald Tribune, and the Journal of the Bromeliad Society -- I'm puzzled by the logic that he's an average scientist and doesn't have the international recognition explicitly stated, and apparently backed up by those. I can't access the HT article, but the second states "In a world full of experts, there are very few authorities but Harry was one. One of the most prolific taxonomists of the past 30 years and more than that [...]". 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you a question. If this guy is "popular" and "famous" and "world renound", how come this article is so short? Is he the most famous biologist? Is he talked about in schools across the world? If you say no to the last 2, then that automatically confirms that this guy is not notable. If he was there would be world discussion, awards given out, Nobel prizes won, but no. THATS MY POINT. It doesn't take like 10 sources to confirm he's internationally recognized. Is Harry Luther a household name? No. Not internationally recognized. Simple as that. Cranloa12n (talk) 00:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was forgetting we could only even have one biologist article, thus only "the most famous" could be kept, and we have to delete all the others. "Household name" is a wildly incorrect bar to apply. Is this even attempting to apply the guidelines as written? Or am I missing some WP:POINT being made here? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
i literally never even heard of this guy until i did random article. I don't think that's called "popular" Cranloa12n (talk) 02:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"i literally never even heard of this guy" is not a valid deletion rationale. I really hope that you're just kidding? Cbl62 (talk) 05:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plus the fact that he has never won ANY awards or anything like that. He is not famous or viral. Therefore you cannot apply the term "famous" to it. Also this article in general sounds like a praise to this guy. Also like i said, if he is popular then why doesn't everyone know them. Cranloa12n (talk) 02:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a good idea to actually have some level of understanding of our inclusion and deletion policies before nominating pages for deletion. Nothing you have said is remotely related to whether this article should be kept or deleted. "I haven't heard of them" is not a policy based reason to delete an article. "They don't teach kids about him in schools" is not a reason to delete this article. "He didn't go viral" is not a reason to delete this article. "He isn't world famous" isn't a reason to delete this article. "He didn't win a Nobel prize" isn't a reason to delete this article. To be honest a lot of your comments here read as little more than trolling. What matters is whether this person satisfies any of wikipedias WP:Notability Guidelines. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 03:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've expanded the article and added sources. Meets GNG. MB 03:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and commend MB for their prompt and excellent work on this. Clearly passes GNG, and certainly appears to pass WP:PROF too: "An alphabetical list of bromeliad binomials" -- Cited by 506. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was going to say "per WP:HEY", but I think notability had already been demonstrated before MB's fine work. St Anselm (talk) 04:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MB. Cbl62 (talk) 05:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was impressed with the number of publications of the subject, the multiple obituaries in academic journals, and the amount of coverage in reliable sources found in a couple Google searches and I appreciate the work that MB did to improve the article. --Enos733 (talk) 05:17, 1 March 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!} 03:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Theodor Hassek

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

Drastically undersourced article, poorly translated from German. Ineligible for PROD because it was briefly prodded in 2011. —S Marshall T/C 23:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 23:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 27 February 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. RL0919 (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evergrande Football School

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

Not notable, no sourcing & only info seems to be from 2013, of which is not sourced. Tag has been on page since 2012. Thirty4 (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and China. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sourcing as currently written. Potentially a notable topic if properly sourced and I could potentially revisit this opinion. Frank Anchor 01:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep in light of WP:SIGCOV provided by User:Jumpytoo. This should be enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Frank Anchor 15:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The following sources provide enough coverage for notability:

Stayton, Jonathan (2016-03-16). "Guangzhou Evergrande: Inside China's $185M football factory". CNN. Retrieved 2022-02-28.
周超 (2021-10-19). "恒大足校起底！曾1年投入2亿的他们如今怎样". Sina. Retrieved 2022-02-28.
"A Billion Reasons to Believe". Bleacher Report. Retrieved 2022-02-28. - Coverage begins at the bottom third of the article.
"'Chinese football will never be the same again': How world's biggest soccer boarding school is striving towards China's World Cup dream". South China Morning Post. 2016-05-29. Retrieved 2022-02-28.

Jumpytoo Talk 07:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jumpytoo, has significant coverage and meets GNG. Giant Snowman 12:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The subject of the article does have good coverage, but the article itself really needs some expansion. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant coverages, founded by Jumpytoo established notability. Ahmed ^(talk) 14:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jumpytoo passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:06, 6 March 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yip Ho Nung

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

Fails WP:BIO. No significant coverage. Nothing in gnews or gbooks. Gets 1 hit in Trove. LibStar (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, China, and Australia. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reference of National Centre of Biography, Australian National University seems enough. National Centre of Biography definitely keeps the biography of notable persons only. We need to be considerate when trying to find digital reference of a person from last century. Cirton (talk) 08:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with Cirton. Absolutely satisfies WP:ANYBIO#C2.1.3. Cabrils (talk) 21:25, 1 March 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} 21:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexard Esther

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

Prod was disputed by creator. The two third-party sources, juno7 and lenouvelliste.com, both read like press releases. Otherwise, no depth of coverage from anything resembling a reliable source. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Haiti. Shellwood (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Given sources are press releases or some kind of gossip blog. A search turns up nothing but really poorly written PR and outright SEO dumps."...rose to prominence after her and another Haitian actress made appearance in several YouTube video that show her and the other actress was dating the same notable Haitian actor..." Not really notable at all, then. Kuru (talk) 01:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notable awards, scant coverage, fails WP:NBIO.-KH-1 (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia needs to be based on reliable 3rd party sources, not press releases and gossip blogs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is no consensus to delete this material. A possible merge or rename can be discussed editorially. Star Mississippi 02:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of winged horses

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

The page is a totally unreferenced (for the last 9 or so years) collection of original research that is not put in context. Category:Winged horses sorts what few articles are notable better. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists are always more useful than categories, and the rules clearly state you can't destroy one just because you prefer the other. I removed one bad entry, and all the popular culture entries. Everything remaining on the list has its own article stating its a winged horse, sometimes with pictures of artwork depicting it as such. You don't need to have a reference on list items when you can click a link to the main article about it to find the information already there. Dream Focus 00:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dream Focus' improvements. I don't mean to downplay them, but they are pretty obvious. I mean, we don't need six entries for My Little Pony instances, do we? Jclemens (talk) 01:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements. The current iteration that only includes notable examples with their own articles is a valid list at this point. The trivial pop culture section definitely needed to be removed for multiple reasons, but without it, the list is fine. Rorshacma (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Keep and rename to Flying horses or List of flying horses. Daranios (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC) After the trim the article's current form shows that there are enough notable examples that this list is warranted, both for navigational purposes and as an overview. The lack of references is now a minor issue only, as everything is blue-linked and references can be found in the individual articles, definitely no reason for deletion. Daranios (talk) 08:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rorshacma: @Daranios: I see nobody is reading the actual article and just blindly voting Keep. Several of the current links are incorrect and seem to have been added just to pad the list into the illusion of notability. Devadatta goes to a monk, not a horse - the horse is supposed to be the manifestation of Garuda, but is not bluelinked and very little exists about it on Wikipedia. Flying Horse of Gansu is a statuette, not a specific type of horse. Al Buraq is usually shown with a human face, and it belongs as a hybrid creature. From what I can tell The Ebony Horse does not have wings, or at least they are not mentioned as part of its description or image. That cuts it down to only 6 or so entries that are legitimately described as winged horses. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: Thanks for alerting me to this, I did some checking but obviously failed to look at all of them in detail. Overall thanks for the work of DanFromAnotherPlace, with whom I pretty much agree. In detail: Devadatta has been unlinked but has been provided with a source supporting that it belongs here; as long as it does not have its own article, I actually think its best place is here based on WP:ATD-M. Al Buraq has been described/depicted as horse-like, so I think it should be included in such a list, too. To my knowledge all winged horses are flying horses, but not all flying horses are winged. So I had the same thought as DanFromAnotherPlace, let's rename that to List of flying horses, or Flying horses (which already redirects here), to be more inclusive and therefore (given the fact that it is not overcrowded) more helpful in navigation. Then The Ebony Horse and others would fall into this slightly larger definition without discussion. Arguably, the Flying Horse of Gansu could/should then be included too, though not under "Mythology", as Zxcvbnm has noted, but under "Sculptures" or something like that. Therefore updating my !vote. Daranios (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Ebony Horse does have wings. Search that article for the word "wings" as I did, and you'll find in various places in the article it mentions different versions of the story that wings were made for the horse to fly with. Dream Focus 14:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dream Focus: All I see are other versions of the story where there are mechanical wings, rather than a horse, used. The artwork depicting the horse shows that it can fly without the use of wings. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One day, the young prince sees a wax horse with wings in the market and the king buys it for him. The prince climbs on the horse and flies to another kingdom, eventually meeting a princess. Most of the stories of it do not have wings on it. Looking over everything closer, I agree, it shouldn't be on this list, and will now remove it. It has long been in category:winged horses, so I'll remove it from there as well. Dream Focus 14:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is still a matter of cleanup, though. Six valid entries is still enough that a navigational list makes sense to have. I certainly agree that potentially renaming the list to a title that makes more sense and is a more likely search term would be a good idea, but I still more or less agree with DanFromAnotherPlace's discussion of keeping it as a navigational list below. Rorshacma (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added a couple more sources and {{cn}} tags to address some of Zxcvbnm's concerns; it's true that it's not good enough to say "everything is bluelinked" if the linked articles don't contain relevant sources. But even if a few more entries have to be removed, there's still enough here to make this a useful list. It could possibly be expanded by renaming to "list of flying horses", to include horses that fly without wings (such as Sleipnir and Hófvarpnir). Dan from A.P. (talk) 11:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DanFromAnotherPlace: Moving it to "flying horses" would definitely be a start. But I'm still having issues finding out whether the idea of a "flying horse" is notable enough to merit a list. I have found very little in books linking various flying horses together. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I also couldn't find many sources discussing the general concept of flying horses (though I only did a quick search). But "flying horse" or "winged horse" is definitely a plausible search term, and I don't think readers would be well served by being taken to the disambiguation page. WP:LISTN says: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." I think we could call this informational. Dan from A.P. (talk) 12:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: I very much think the quoted phrase from the guideline applies here. In addition I wanted to mention that "winged horses" are discussed as a group here Horses: History, Myth, Art, pp. 24-26, and, briefly here, The Natural History of Horses (very old). (There's also Magickal Mystical Creatures: Invite Their Powers into Your Life chapter 4, but I am not so sure....) Normal Google books search, there may well be more in further pages. Daranios (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of fictional horses as a section. I am not convinced we need this to be a separate list. We should also discuss the future of the similar Winged unicorn article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Piotr. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:51, 5 March 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 00:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Egan Company

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

I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Minnesota. SL93 (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of actual notability, self-published sources inserted by a COI editor, and no significant coverage anywhere that I can see. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The little coverage that I can find is announcements of acquisitions [1] and appointments [2], which fall under routine coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. The latter source summarises the firm as a "Local specialty contractor" - a company going about its business but without encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 11:30, 28 February 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} 21:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cristiano Muzzachi

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

Non-notable person. Nothing turns up in searches in Albanian and Italian language. Only sources are database entries which certainly are not in-depth and therefor fail WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Cemoere Trevaskis (talk) 20:05, 27 February 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 February 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Albania, and Italy. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article does not meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No SIGCOV, NFOOTBALL is not met either. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet GNG. Zanoni (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - 11 games in WP:FPL according to Football Database but I failed to find WP:SIGCOV so I'm neutral here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:22, 5 March 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! 16:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mikey_Likes_It_Ice_Cream

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

I'm willing to be proven wrong, but looks like a fairly run-of-the-mill ice-cream shop with nothing more than the normal publicity that I'd expect. I can't see great sources. Someone just added some information about them teaming up with Microsoft, which looked potentially interesting, but they ref-bombed it with a huge list of very weak sources, so I'm not even convinced by that. Doesn't look in any way notable. Elemimele (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, of course. Mikey's has collaborated with Geico, Microsoft, and Ewing, but more importantly it has a ton of coverage in reliable sources, including Vice, Essence, NY Post, and ABC News, among others. pburka (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just because it's a stub right now doesn't mean it can't be expanded. A quick Google search turned up dozens of articles, some almost 10 years ago and one from only 6 days ago, showing that it does have lasting coverage. >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 01:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wgullyn: I'd be really grateful if you could suggest one that's not an interview. It'd be just so good if we can get this article supported by at least one source that's independent of the subject. All four of those suggested by Pburka are interviews/churnalism and when I did my googling, all I could find was a complete plethora of almost identical interview-based pieces, and blog-type stuff about the Microsoft icecream. Elemimele (talk) 09:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of honesty, I should make it clear that I removed a sentence about the microsoft collaboration before creating this AfD because it was supported by no less than 17 citations, all of which were to interviews, blogs etc.; anyone who wishes to assess those sources is welcome to have a look at the previous version here [3]. Elemimele (talk) 09:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are some reliable sources on the topic, including The Verge NBC eater.com. Sure, there are a lot of interviews, but there are definitely secondary sources in the mix. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 13:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The dismissal of any source that includes an interview isn't supported by Wikipedia policies, and dismissing reliable sources as "churnalism" certainly isn't. Regardless, the business has also received significant coverage in Rehabilitation Is Reentry (Garot; p. 315; Routledge; 2019), and Stronger Together (Clinton and Kaine; p. 201; Simon & Schuster; 2016). pburka (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of editors fail to realise that sources may be used to support facts/information within an article - and sure, interviews are fine for that. But there's a different examination for sources used to establish notability - and primary sources (which is what an interview is) are not acceptable for certain topics, such as companies/organizations. Check out WP:ORGIND and the definition for "Independent Content". HighKing⁺⁺ 12:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, please do put the book references in. But honestly the existing sources apart from your books are not good sources. Theverge one says next to nothing about the ice-cream business, it's mostly a promotional piece for microsoft, and quite probably commissioned publicity. The Newyork entertainment piece is a short interview piece featuring 4 icecream outlets, of which this one gets less than 30sec. The eater is also really just a passing reference, being mostly about Hilary Clinton. These are fine as subsidiary references, but is there anything in depth and independent? If the books are, please put them in, because the article desperately needs them.

as for the comment about dismissing interviews, Pburka, I quote "Generally speaking, it is okay to sparingly use interviews to source some facts, so long as the article is also using a good mixture of other types of reliable sources" from Wikipedia:Interviews. That's precisely what I want. Elemimele (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I trust you're not mistaking an essay for policy. pburka (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. The WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS section most likely applies to this type of company.

I'm assuming all the sources are reliable (unless obvious blogs or social media) and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than that for establishing notability.
As per WP:SIRS each reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant, there can be 100 references but for the purposes of establishing notability we only require a minumum of two that each meet the criteria
WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
"Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, *interviews* fail ORGIND. They are considered primary sources for most purposes. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.

Not a single reference either mentioned above or in the article meet the criteria. Most discuss the tie-in with Windows11 but even then, the others focus on the owner/founder - great story but doesn't translate to notability of the company for me. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. If anyone wants to post other references (perhaps reviews?) I'm happy to review and perhaps change my mind. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete - despite refbombing, there is little independent coverage from good sources. 22:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep References represent SIGCOV and are independent and reliable. Passes GNG GoldMiner24 ^Talk 15:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article, not notable as explained by HighKing. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 20:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Routine promo article with no historical or encyclopeadic value. scope_creep^Talk 02:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are assertions about the sources that are diametrically opposite to one another, but at the moment the closing admin is being asked to judge the sources for themselves; elaboration from all parties of why they consider sources counting toward NCORP, or why they don't, would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 04:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: thank you for your accurate summary. My personal view is that although the supporting sources are in good places, they're all fairly trivial, and generic: for example one is an interview piece visiting several ice-cream outlets, which means it's more about the concept of ice-cream sales in NY than about Mikey's, and is a rather short feel-good space-filler; the Microsoft bit is about Mikey's, but my impression is that some marketing people had a mutually-beneficial idea, and this is the sort of publicity they'd generate to carry it through. My attention was drawn to this article in the first place by an addition that was ref-bombed with 17 sources, some of which were automatically tagged as deprecated and unreliable [4]. But of course many bad sources doesn't mean all bad sources. And I am absolutely happy to put my hands up and admit I don't know the full details of the ice-cream or publishing scenes in NY: an independent assessment of the sources from someone else would carry far more weight than mine. Elemimele (talk) 14:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - minimal coverage exists of this two (three?) location ice cream chain. Fails WP:GNG. Also, WP:TOOSOON. It's a nice feel good story - hopefully more coverage will occur as he expands. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question. The article would probably be a narrow pass on WP:GNG, but the community norm is that a mere WP:GNG pass when coupled with an WP:NCORP fail renders an article notable. Much of the coverage is about Cole as a person—coverage of Cole's story as a convicted felon-turned-ice cream salesman is an inspiring story, the coverage of which very well may render him passing WP:NBIO. But I'm not really seeing coverage in the online sources that the pair of stores passes WP:CORPDEPTH. I'm seeing above that pburka mentions at least one usable book (I'm not so sure about Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign manifesto being an RS in this context). I don't have access to the source, but I might be persuaded that coverage goes beyond WP:CORPDEPTH if the coverage in that book is substantial. Is anybody able to describe the sorts of facts that the book contains regarding the article subject? — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:21, 5 March 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) Ficaia (talk) 06:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Herrington

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

Lacks significant coverage. This (1) source about his death is just a gossip rag. Ficaia (talk) 08:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Dance, Television, Fashion, Sexuality and gender, California, and New York. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Internet. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Keep I don't blame the OP for failing to find any sigcov from before Billy's death, as there isn't that much in English. There is, however, a decent amount in Japanese. There is also a print source mentioned in the article, Windows100% Magazine, which likely contains sigcov as well. As for after his death, there is some sigcov in English. Mlb96 (talk) 04:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The two English-language sources you cite only really mention the subject's death. Two of the Japanese sources look like publicity from gossip rags, and the Japanese HuffPost article is just a very brief memorial. Ficaia (talk) 05:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the HuffPost piece is from after his death, my mistake. However, it does go into detail about his impact on internet culture in Japan. I also reject your characterization of ASCII Media Works as a "gossip rag," it is a perfectly respectable media outlet. And the first English source I linked barely even talks about his death at all, it's almost entirely about his life. Mlb96 (talk) 05:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. As this AfD is probably going nowhere, I'd withdraw it (But I'm a tech dunce and I don't know how :P) Ficaia (talk) 06:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you have XFDcloser enabled, you can click the button that says "Close" (it should be next to the words "Billy Herrington" on this page), select speedy keep and type "nomination withdrawn" into the box. If you don't have XFDcloser enabled, you could follow the instructions at this page. Mlb96 (talk) 06:17, 28 February 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} 21:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of players provided by clubs to Brazil national football team at the FIFA World Cup

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

This list appears to be copied from this 2014 Globo blog post which proves that there is at least one source covering this topic but I question whether there is significant coverage sufficient to warrant a stand-alone article per WP:GNG/WP:LISTN. Topic is already covered at Brazil at the FIFA World Cup#Players provided by club in what I would say is enough depth so this extra article seems to be a bit excessive for what is basically sports trivia. If this is to be kept or turned into a redirect, I would suggest changing the title as the current title is worded clumsily and suggests that this is a list of players when it is in fact a list of clubs that have let their players be released for international duty. This potentially violates WP:NOTSTATS. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I decided to create this article separately so as not to overload Brazil at the World Cup, and because there is a parallel at pt.wiki, I imagine the biggest problem was the very long name. If you choose to delete, can the content be moved? Svartner (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Lists, and Brazil. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - further to WT:FOOTBALL discussion, not needed and already covered elsewhere. Such an awkward title that serves no purpose as a redirect. Giant Snowman 17:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I do not think the content needs to be moved, as beyond what is already included in Brazil at the FIFA World Cup#Players provided by club the detail becomes excessive. An external link at the end of the article should suffice. Toadspike (talk) 04:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above comments. A separate article for this is not needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see the title being much of a search term and in my view this clearly looks like one of those articles suggested not to do with WP:NOSTATS. Govvy (talk) 09:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Feels a bit like WP:FANCRUFT to me. If consensus was to keep/redirect, I agree with Spiderone, the title would need to change as it is quite confusing/misleading at the moment. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- looks like WP:FANCRUFT to me. SPF121188 ^{(tell me!)} ^(contribs) 16:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The page is lacking notability. The information can / should be integrated into the pages for individual campaigns such as Brazil at the 1986 FIFA World Cup where the home club of the players would fit nicely. Gusfriend (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I read the title three times and barely understood what it was about. Incomprehensible WP:FANCRUFT nobody is going to look for or need. Dronebogus (talk) 14:40, 5 March 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 00:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Santosh Mahadik

AfDs for this article:

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

Nothing's changed since last AfD. Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and India. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT to stop this being recreated again. Fails WP:BIO1E purely local coverage. Mztourist (talk) 03:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E with insufficient coverage to establish that we'd need a separate article for the subject. I'd also be fine with a redirect to Indian Army operations in Jammu and Kashmir. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:02, 1 March 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. This was a widely attended AfD with a lot of strong opinions. The votes were evenly split 50/50 between keep and delete, with a few other votes to merge. No one is seriously challenging the notability of this list since the topic is discussed in multiple reliable sources, so that cannot be a valid rationale to delete the list. The notion that the list duplicates an existing category is not a valid reason for deletion per WP:NOTDUP. Some delete voters assert that the list is indiscriminate, unmaintainable, and not easily accessible, but there is no clear consensus that any of these are the case. The word "indiscriminate" is defined as "done at random or without careful judgment", and I can't see how this applies here. Additionally, the language at WP:INDISCRIMINATE doesn't seem to apply to this list either, as some Keep voters point out. Regarding the maintainability/accessibility argument, this discussion produced a plethora of alternative structures that could improve the situation, including:

Splitting the list into multiple lists by decade (List of feature films with LGBT characters in the 1980s, ...)
Splitting the list into multiple lists by sexual orientation (List of feature films with lesbian characters, ...)
Limiting the list to a more narrow scope, such as feature films with only LGBT characters that play leading roles in the film.

Therefore, while there is clearly agreement that this list needs a lot of work to be improved, there is no convincing policy-based rationale for deletion. I'd encourage all interested parties to start discussions at Talk:List of feature films with LGBT characters and put forth proposals on how the maintainability and accessibility of this list can be improved, using this AfD discussion as a fertile breeding ground for ideas. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 18:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of feature films with LGBT characters

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

List with significant maintainability problems, effectively duplicative of other content.
This was conceived as a one-stop list of all films with LGBT characters in the entire history of film, meant to explicitly name and describe each individual LGBT character within each film -- but needless to say, that runs into the tens of thousands, making it a massive job that surpasses the ability and willingness of Wikipedians to actually stay on top of it, and results in a list that's already far, far too long to actually be useful even before you account for the fact that a lot of films with LGBTQ characters are still missing here. (And I do mean a lot a lot: for example, I spotchecked the last ten Teddy Award winners for Best Feature Film, and only two of those are listed here at all, and there are just 37 Canadian films listed here even though Category:Canadian LGBT-related films contains 320 films.)
And since we already have a well-developed system of Category:Lists of LGBT-related films broken out by individual year post-1960 or by decade pre-1960, it's not at all clear that trying to one-shot every individual queer character in the entire history of cinema into one single list is all that useful.
If keeping active track of every individual queer character in the history of film is important to people, then that's better done by adding "queer characters" columns to the existing by-year lists instead of in one mass omnibus list going all the way back to the 1910s. Bearcat (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Trying to maintain a list of every LGBT character in the history of film on a single page does not seem like a good idea. The fact that there are as many films on this page from 2021 as there are from the entire period from 1900 to 1964 also suggests that the list is likely to grow exponentially. As the nom says, the separate lists in Category:Lists of LGBT-related films would be a better place for this kind of information. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Split-off decades, but do not delete list.

Since the lists under Category:Lists of LGBT-related films are alleged to be "a well-developed system", for comparison I looked at List of LGBT-related films of 2021 and it does not provide the names of the L, G, B, or T characters in the films, and who plays which character in the films. It does not provide one, single description (i.e. notes) about the films either. I looked at one citation used 25 times in the list: "Les films du Festival de Cannes en lice pour la Queer Palm" – what you find in it does not verify the inclusion and identification of the LGBT characters that supposedly appear in all the films the source is used for (for example: TITANE, WOMEN DO CRY, BRUNO REIDAL -- just three of several films that do not include mention of who are the LGBT characters). It's apparent to me that the "reliable published sources" used in this list are of very limited value. The purpose of citing reliable sources is to confirm the information and claims made in an article (and "lists" are considered articles). List of LGBT-related films of 2021 does not provide the names of the LGBT characters in the films, nor anything about what appears onscreen that is considered lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender.

Compared to List of feature films with LGBT characters#2021, for example, List of LGBT-related films of 2021 is more a directory of film titles and not much else. What I've found through looking at several of the lists under the "Lists of LGBT-related films by year" umbrella is that the films listed are not providing any information about the LGBT characters that are supposedly included in the films, nor why they're considered "LGBT-related". Claiming that a film has an LGBT-theme, as List of LGBT-related films of 2021 does, is not enough encyclopedic information. What makes a film in this list an LGBT-related film? Readers need to know what it is that has made the films in the "Lists" a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender related film.

One more example, take a look at Pandora's Box in List of LGBT-related films of the 1920s vs. List of feature films with LGBT characters#1900–1959. The former list says nothing about why the film is considered important in the history of LGBT-related cinema. The latter list, on the other hand, not only informs the reader of which character is LGBT, but also that it is "cinema's first explicit lesbian character".

List of feature films with LGBT characters is a superior list in both explanation of LGBT content and the reliable sources used for the films. It's not a perfect list, but it's a better constructed list. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say character information was already present in the LGBT-related films by year lists — I said it could easily be added to the LGBT-related films by year lists if desired. And as for the notion that a list of nominees for an LGBTQ-specific film award somehow isn't adequate sourcing for listing the film in a list of LGBT films, I've responded to your subsequent reassertion of the same dubious claim below. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete... per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We don't simply need a laundry list of every single character that identifies as LGBT in every single film in existence. Category:Lists of LGBT-related films by year is more appropriate as it deals with film themes identifying as LGBT. Ajf773 (talk) 10:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an editor claims a film has an LGBT theme does not make it true. It needs to be proven with sources that confirm the LGBT themes for each film listed. As I pointed out in my above comment, one source used 25 times in List of LGBT-related films of 2021 does not confirm the "LGBT theme" of all the films the citation is used for. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Just because the list is long doesn't mean we could just delete it whenever we want. That's disturbance to freedom of information. You can separate the films by decade just as Pyxis Solitary suggested, you can even make new pages just like Category:Lists of LGBT-related television shows. But deletion of the entire page not only causes great disrespect to the editors, who try to share more knowledge to others, but also prevent others from knowing more about related stuffs. Wikipedia is a place where different people should be able to edit and learn. We should point out what the real problems of the page are, instead of erasing them by deletion. Runningman2027. 10:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source you're referring to is a list of the films that were selected as eligible for an LGBTQ-specific film award for which a film simply cannot be nominated at all if it isn't LGBTQ-themed, which makes it perfectly adequate sourcing for including the film in a list of LGBTQ-themed films. It can, of course, be replaced in each use with a source more specific to each individual film which goes into more detail about the LGBTQ content in the film, if and when somebody deigns to actually do so, but being listed as a nominee for either the Queer Palm or the Teddy Award is in and of itself sufficient sourcing to justify adding a film to the list in the first place, because the nomination for an LGBTQ-specific award inherently proves that the film has LGBTQ themes in it right on its face. If a film doesn't have LGBTQ themes in it, then the Teddy and Queer Palm juries simply won't nominate it for those awards, precisely because they're awards for LGBTQ films. Obviously it's better to replace it with more detailed sources when such become available, but that doesn't mean it's inadequate sourcing to start the list with in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I have to fully agree with Pyxis Solitary here, as well as Runningman2027. Clearly, there are issues with the page, but deleting it is NOT the way to go about solving those problems, which can be talked about on the talk page of List of feature films with LGBT characters page. As such, I completely disagree with Ajf773, as this page does not include every single character in every single film, and Metropolitan90, in this regard, as well as the nom. I'm not sure why they didn't talk about this on the talk page rather than nominating it for deletion. It seems their concerns could be answered by having a discussion about this rather than going for the nuclear option and deciding to delete the page. It pains me to see people using the deletion process as a way to solve problems which could have been more easily addressed through a discussion on a talk page. This nomination is wrongheaded in more reasons than one. Additionally, the past consensus in 2011 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of LGBT characters in film, radio, and TV fiction was to keep this page (albeit with a different name) and I stand in support of that consensus. The Nom seems to be making an argument in line with WP:RUBBISH and WP:IDONTKNOWIT. I would say this page deserves to be kept, additionally, per WP:GNG and the fact it has over 260 references, has potential for improvement, links to many pages, and is focused on a specific topic, in this case LGBTQ characters, at minimum. I also disagree with Bilorv who says this is "too large in scope for a list, and better served by a category (or hierarchy of categories), as is already done." The scope of this list is fine. Perhaps it could be further narrowed, but as it stands now, the scope of the list is not indiscriminate and its presence does not violate MOS:ACCESS.--Historyday01 (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously know absolutely nothing about me or my edit history if you think this is a "rubbish" or "idon'tknowit" argument, because (a) I openly self-identify as gay on my own userpage, and (b) I was the creator of a significant proportion of the LGBT-related films by year lists. So I'd invite you to not try to read my mind, because you're clearly not psychic. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I can't keep track of every single editor on here who works on LGBTQ content. This whole AfD seems wrongheaded and I stand by what I said in that regard. Not trying to read anyone's minds here. I am still confused as to why this wasn't discussed on the talk page of the List of feature films with LGBT characters rather than an AfD. If this discussion had been there instead of here, I would be less anxious about this whole discussion. I just don't understand why you thought an AfD was a "solution." It isn't. Discussion on a talk page should be the first step before deletion. You did not take that step, which I find very unfortunate, and I wish that you had, as I would be more receptive to your arguments if you had made that step.--Historyday01 (talk) 03:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- in line with Pyxis Solitary's rationale. Wikipedia:Handling trivia might provide useful guidance on how to improve the list moving forward. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per policy and MOS:ACCESS. SN54129 14:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If being out of line with MOS:ACCESS was a good rationale for deletion, there would be a lot of otherwise completely okay articles that would need to be deleted. And I say that as someone who really cares about MOS:ACCESS specifically. - Purplewowies (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, and split apart list by decade. The nominator here has provided a rationale that can be addressed on the talkpage through cleanup. I want to remind others that consensus can change, and WP:WAX are factors here as bit of time has elapsed since the last provided examples. I am on the weak keep side here as the burden is on those who need to prove that x character is notable in y series for being LGBT. I can see something like: LGBT actors and actresses in feature films, but characters? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: too large in scope for a list, and better served by a category (or hierarchy of categories), as is already done. — Bilorv (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable list topic. The fact that it is messy does not mean it needs to be deleted, only cleaned up. The fact that it is long does not mean it needs to be deleted, only split into sub-articles of reasonable length, like we would do for films of specific years or nationalities or genres. I think what needs to be more clearly defined here is the scope of this list compared to a list of LGBT-related films. A film related to LGBT inevitably has LGBT characters, so it may be too much overlap to have a character-based list that includes everything from the film classification-based list. It may be worthwhile to have a list of films with LGBT characters that aren't LGBT-related films, and readers can be pointed to the list of LGBT-related films for that thematic focus. For example, I see The Fifth Element listed here with a secondary character being queer (Ruby Rhod), but I don't think the film itself would be considered LGBT-related. Where to draw the line, would warrant discussion. I can see the need for some criteria-applying or some splitting-off, but not for any wholesale article-deleting. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per arguments above, but feel free to revisit in, what, a year?, if it is not improved. Ironically, I had been considering making a "List of actors in LGBT-themed films" list article, to help with the verifiability problems of some of those categories, which I doubt would fly if this is getting AfD'd. Kingsif (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do think revisiting this in a year would be a good idea, Kingsif. After all, keep votes (including my own) are being based on the belief the issues can be solved through splits and some clean-up, but that should only really hold if there are editors willing to go through with that (in my opinion). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per other users. What even counts as having a LGBT character? Does it count if they character is unnamed? What if the character isn't being portrayed as LGBT in the film but is later retconned into being LGBT? JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 17:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like those issues could be solved by following what the sources say, JDDJS. I don't like how many characters here have {{cn}} tags, but I think that is best addressed through clean-up than deletion, and discussing what criteria is needed to call a character LGBT would be best served through talk page discussion rather than deletion in my opinion (the discussion would also impact List of LGBT films, for example). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My first inclination would be to merge with the articles in Category:Lists of LGBT-related films, since there seems to be a duplication of scope here. Are there films with LGBT characters that wouldn't be classified as "LGBT-related films"? I agree that articles like List of LGBT-related films of 2014 should indicate for each entry in what way the film is "LGBT-related", and this will often involve describing its LGBT characters (though not necessarily enumerating all of them). My second choice would be to address the size issue by splitting the article, possibly by identity (we already have List of transgender characters in film), or year, or both. Colin M (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are there films with LGBT characters that wouldn't be classified as "LGBT-related films"? - Yes! This has been debated before, but it seems pretty obvious; would you ask if there are films with black characters that aren't categorised as "black films"? No, because obviously there are. Themes and characters are not the same thing. The better question is the point of these LGBT character lists, but that is really a sourcing question, and if sources exist that find it important to document such lists, then we should improve the lists with those sources. Kingsif (talk) 07:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC) There are also LGBT-related films without main LGBT characters, like Burlesque, because of its themes and setting (and Cher, probably). Kingsif (talk) 08:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is also fairly reductive to assume/enforce that only LGBT-themed works will feature LGBT characters; 1. how many characters from not-LGBT-themed films would just be erased if the lists were merged. And hopefully, in future, there will be even more "not queer" media that just happen to have queer main characters - where would they go? and 2. what impression does it give to make no space on Wikipedia for LGBT representation in works that aren't super gay? But if going with the first suggestion, having the "LGBT-related" lists being the main, actually makes it more like Wikipedia impressing that inherently queer films are the only time queer characters exist (not even that queer characters only exist to tell queer stories, readers will have to be looking for the films/stories to find them). This might not mean much to you, but what happens when people catch wind that (in my slightly-hyperbolic but not inaccurate view) Wikipedia has decided to delete its lists of queer characters unless they are in queer films: world's biggest encyclopaedia now only reflects stereotypes, reversing efforts of expanding queer representation in mainstream media by actively deciding not to acknowledge it and refusing to share the knowledge. Kingsif (talk) 08:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. My initial impression was that the inclusion criteria for the "LGBT-related films" lists were quite loose (rather than just "super gay" films, as you call them), but on further investigation they do seem to be relatively narrow in their inclusion criteria, and I can see cases where a film character might have secondary sources discussing them in the context of LGBT representation, but without the movie they appear in being classifiable as "LGBT-related" (e.g. Damian in Mean Girls). That makes me more lukewarm on the idea of merging. I do worry that, as LGBT representation becomes increasingly common and unremarkable in mainstream media, this list veers toward WP:INDISCRIMINATE territory, and I wonder if setting a date cap might be appropriate. Colin M (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The by-year lists aren't restricted to "only" LGBT-themed films, while excluding films where LGBT content is more incidental. They're titled as LGBT-related, not LGBT-themed, and their inclusion criteria do not hinge on the subjective questions like how much LGBT content has to be present in the film. They're allowed to include any film that verifiably has LGBTQ content in it, regardless of whether the LGBTQ content is the "primary theme" or a more minor plot point, and if there are films missing from those lists (just as there are films missing from this one) then the solution is to add them. Bearcat (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been a discussion that established consensus for this? The boilerplate intro for the list articles says: It contains theatrically released films that deal with important gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender characters or issues and may have same-sex romance or relationships as a plot device. My reading of that would be that the presence of a minor LGBT character or plot point would not suffice. Colin M (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained below: if a film has any LGBTQ content in it that's "important" enough that reliable sources can be found to address its LGBTQ content for the purposes of verifying its includability in a list of LGBTQ characters, then by definition that content is also "important" enough to merit inclusion in a list of LGBT-related films. It's not a question of "primary theme vs. secondary plot point": it's a question of "do reliable sources actually discuss the film's LGBTQ content as an aspect of the film". If you can reliably source that a film has an LGBTQ character in it, because reliable sources have discussed the LGBTQness of the character, then that test has automatically been passed — and if you can't find a source that passes that test, then you haven't reliably sourced the inclusion of any of its characters in a list of LGBTQ characters either. The by-year lists are not, and never have been, deemed to require that the LGBTQ content has to be foregrounded as the film's principal storyline — they merely require that LGBTQ content is reliably sourceable as being present in the film. If there are films missing from those lists (just as there are many films missing from this one), it's not because the lists have restrictive inclusion criteria that kick some films out on a "is there enough LGBTQ content" test — it's solely because people haven't added them yet, just as not every film with LGBTQ characters in it has been added here yet either. Bearcat (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Colin M, it looks like I'm having a similar discussion with Bearcat below. My reading matches yours. Firefangledfeathers 23:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am amenable to your idea of splitting the article by identities. Four separate lists can evolve from List of feature films with LGBT characters as follows:

List of feature films with lesbian characters

List of feature films with gay characters

List of feature films with bisexual characters

And the title of the already-existing List of transgender characters in film can be changed to

List of feature films with transgender characters.

The "Film franchises" section can be made into a stand-alone list titled

List of feature film franchises with LGBT characters.

A list of films with LGBT characters serves a different purpose than a list of films with LGBT themes/association. From a reader's perspective, I am more interested in who the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender characters in a film are. And as an editor who has been editing film related articles for several years, I have found that many articles about films that have LGBT characters in them don't bother to say so — it's as if some editors choke when it comes to stating the words "lesbian", "gay", "bisexual", or "transgender". (A few weeks ago I discovered that an editor was mass-deleting LGBT categories from film and TV articles because of a lack of upfront material to support the categories. One film was The Prom, which is about a lesbian teenager who wants to take her girlfriend to the high school prom; and I edited the article to highlight the lesbian and gay about the film.) Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 12:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge it into pre-existing articles, and then delete/redirect. Per Colin M and per nom. This massive catch-all list would be impossible to maintain properly and is redundant in scope with other articles. It's been noted that some of those articles have flaws, but so does this one, with many unsourced entries. The less redundancy we have in article scope, the higher the average quality can be. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I can agree, but I also think it should be kept in its current form until sources can be added, like I recently did for a few films, for those films that need it, then it can be split off into specific pages as needed, with people each taking specific years to add citations to. So I suppose I can support what you are saying, but I think its too early to do that. The unsourced entries need to be improved with citations before it can be split off as you suggest.Historyday01 (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not redundant, per my comments above. They're not the cleanest of articles, but I also know that there are many, many, messy list articles that nobody even thinks about AfD'ing because they understand the subject and its scope and so its encyclopaedic value to exist, even in messy form; there may be some subconscious homophobia - from an ignorant, not malicious, side - in simply bringing this here. We have lists of LGBT people, what is so different with the lists of LGBT characters, besides it feels less shitty to argue it isn't important when they're not real. Kingsif (talk) 08:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"It's been noted that some of those articles have flaws, but so does this one, with many unsourced entries." – Have you seen the overwhelming lack of sources for many of the films listed in the Lists of LGBT-related films by year? Take a look at "List of LGBT-related films of 1969", "List of LGBT-related films of 1979", "List of LGBT-related films of 1989", and "List of LGBT-related films of 1999" for starters. The List of feature films with LGBT characters is tiny in contrast with the whole of "Lists of LGBT-related films by year" — yet this single list has comparatively more sources (286 as of this writing).
The tendency of some editors to throw the baby out with the bathwater is the Achilles' heel of Wikipedia. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this meets WP:NLIST. I am not experience in list deletion discussions, but I would be surprised to learn that "hard to maintain" or "too long" are valid deletion criteria, as both are fixable problems. I disagree with the Delete !votes that cite redundancy, as there's a difference between an LGBT-related film and one that has an LGBT character. If I were wrong about that, I'd fall back on Pyxis Solitary's excellent points about the quality of the lists. I can't see this list as INDISCRIMINATE, as the data is "placed in tables to enhance readability" and largely "put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources".
I'm including a short, collapsed list below of sources that support this list meeting NLIST's criterion, "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Anyone should feel free to add to the list. Firefangledfeathers 16:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources supporting NLIST

Reuters 2018
Variety 2021
BBC 2020
Washington Post 2020
IndieWire 2020
NPR 2021
Washington Blade 2022
GLAAD Media Institute
Morris, Gary (2002). "Film Noir" (PDF). glbtq.com.
Russo, Vito (1987). The Celluloid Closet: Homosexuality in the Movies. New York: Harper & Row. ISBN 0-06-096132-5.
Darren, Alison (2000). Lesbian Film Guide. Continuum International Publishing Group. ISBN 0-304-33376-X.
Millward, Liz; Dodd, Janice G.; Fubara-Manuel, Irene (2017). Killing Off the Lesbians: A Symbolic Annihilation on Film and Television. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. ISBN 978-1476668161.
Capsuto, Steven (2000). Alternate Channels: The Uncensored Story of Gay and Lesbian Images on Radio and Television. New York: Ballantine Books. ISBN 0-345-41243-5. LCCN 00104495. OCLC 44596808.
CineQueer, GLAAD's guide to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender images in film
The 28 Best Gay Movies for Rainy Days
Teague, Gypsy (Summer 2003). "The Increase of Transgender Characters in Movies and Television". Transgender Tapestry (102). International Foundation for Gender Education: 29–33. Retrieved February 25, 2022 – via Internet Archive.
Cook, Carson (May 2018). "A History of LGBT Representation on TV". A content analysis of LGBT representation on broadcast and streaming television streaming television (Honors). University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. Retrieved 6 November 2020.
LGBT representation at record high on streaming services, but some nations still need sex education, MSN, 2022
How The Representation Of The Queer Community Changed In The Last Couple Of Years, Outlook India, 2022
The long, potted history of LGBT+ Hollywood – from queer silent film to the problematic present, Pink News, 2022

Those sources support the fact that LGBTQ characters in film are a subject of analysis, yes. They do not constitute evidence that Wikipedia's information about the topic has to be organized in this particular form, when we already have other articles where we can do the same thing in a more manageable and user-friendly way. The problem here isn't that the information is fundamentally illegitimate in principle — it's a question of what's the best way for us to organize it, and one mass omnibus list that would run into the tens (maybe even hundreds) of thousands of entries if it were properly populated isn't the best way to do that. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious. What is "user-friendly" about an enumeration of "LGBT-related" films which give titles, directors, countries, genres, and cast — many of whom do not play LGBT roles in the films (see the example of Pandora's Box highlighted in my first comment, where you'll find that the actress that plays the lesbian character, which is a significant character, isn't included in the film cast at List of LGBT-related films of the 1920s) — and a notes area that says nothing about what makes the films LGBT-related? I can imagine that these lists may be viewed as a directory of film titles by film students. But what the lists in Lists of LGBT-related films say to the general reader is: "Here are films that are supposed to be LGBT related. Don't ask us why." Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've specifically included sources that are collectively discussing LGBTQ characters in film that are not LGBTQ-related or are discussing the film industry as a whole. Most of the specific films mentioned would not fit into the existing lists. Firefangledfeathers 18:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true at all. The existing by-year lists are titled as LGBT-related, not as LGBT-themed, and they have never, ever had any sort of "only films that are primarily LGBTQ-themed, and not films where LGBTQ content is present but more incidental" rule applied to them whatsoever — they're allowed to include any film that verifiably has any LGBTQ content in it at all, regardless of whether it's as a primary theme or a more minor plot point, and always have been. And meanwhile, this list is not a "list of LGBTQ characters in non-LGBTQ films" either, but is a list of "LGBTQ characters in any film the maintainers of the list have heard of". So the distinction you're trying to draw doesn't actually constitute a difference between this and the films-by-year lists, because this list doesn't exclude "principally LGBTQ" films and those lists don't exclude "only secondarily LGBTQ" films. Bearcat (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did say LGBT-related and did not intend LGBT-themed. The year lists say "contains theatrically released films that deal with important gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender characters or issues and may have same-sex romance or relationships as a plot device." Is that not an accurate description of their inclusion criteria? Either way, I still support keeping the list under discussion, but for different reasons depending on your answer. Firefangledfeathers 21:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Important", in that context = any character whose queerness is verifiable in reliable source coverage about the film. It's not a "protagonist vs. minor supporting character" distinction, it's a "sourceable vs. unsourceable" distinction (which, at least in theory, is the same distinction that this list is supposed to be following too) — if it's significant enough that journalists or film critics actually addressed the queer content in their coverage about the film, then it's automatically "important" enough to put the film in the by-year lists, precisely because the fact that it's sourceable as having been important enough to be addressed by reliable sources makes it important enough to be included in the lists. "May have" = "possible, but not mandatory", and thus the lack of an explicit same-sex romance doesn't preclude inclusion in the list at all. And I didn't say you used the word "themed", but you did apply the definition of "themed" in lieu of the actual definition of "related". Bearcat (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying, though I disagree that I applied the definition of themed, and have no idea how you could have gotten that from my comment. I continue to support keeping this list. If consensus develops at the year lists to drop the word 'important' and to clarify that the lists include films that are not LGBT-related, I'd support merging the lists. The year lists would also need to note whether a film is present because it is LGBT-related or because it includes a verifiably LGBT character. I know from skimming through the year lists that you are a major contributor (thanks!), and I am not a contributor at all, so I believe 100% your read on the consensus of editors. As a reader, I would be baffled to learn, after reading the lists titles and inclusion criteria, that a film with a minor queer character were included. As an editor, 'important' can be dropped if all it means is 'verifiable', as the descriptor applies to all valid Wikipedia content. Firefangledfeathers 21:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And there you go again: there is no such thing as a film that is verifiable in reliable sources as having a queer character in it, yet is somehow not LGBTQ-related. It's true that not every film with one or more LGBTQ characters in it is necessarily LGBTQ-themed, because they might be minor supporting characters rather than the protagonists of the main story, but every film with any LGBTQ content in it at all is, by definition, LGBTQ-related, and the by-year lists cut on relatedness, not themedness. It's simply a question of whether we can find reliable sources that address the inclusion of queer content in the film: if a film is sourceable enough to be included here, then it's automatically related enough to be included in the by-year lists too, and if a film isn't sourceably LGBT-related for the purposes of being included there, then it isn't sourceably LGBT-inclusive for the purposes of being included here either. There can be a distinction between "has an LGBTQ character in it" and "LGBTQ-themed" — but there isn't a distinction between "has an LGBTQ character in it" and "LGBTQ-related", because the inclusion of an LGBTQ character in the film makes it related literally by definition. Bearcat (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your position and disagree. There's a difference between LGBT-related and "has an LGBT character". You mention "by definition", though I know of none, so if you have access to a formal definition of the term, let me know. By way of analogy, I wouldn't describe The Princess Diaries as an Asian-related film because of Sandra Oh's character, and Zendaya's presence in Dune doesn't make it reasonably a Black-related film. I see that others above are wrestling with this distinction, and I think it's likely that readers will experience confusion when reviewing our year lists. There's some built-in flexibility between a list's title and it's content per WP:LISTNAME, but the guidance is then that "the detailed criteria for inclusion should be described in the lead". Here my reading of the criteria confirms my reading of the list's title, and both suggest that many films should be excluded from those lists that should be included in this one.

I am unlikely to respond to you again, Bearcat, as it's frustrating to see you so persistently conjure up strawmen. I hope the closer will understand that my lack of a response does not indicate concession to your argument. Firefangledfeathers 23:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not conjuring up any strawmen whatsoever. The inclusion criterion for this list is (or is at least supposed to be) that reliable sources can be found to properly verify the LGBTQ sexuality of one or more characters, which means that a film is fair game for inclusion if media coverage can be found to discuss the character's sexuality and not if it cannot — and the inclusion criterion for the by-year list is that reliable sources can be found to properly verify that the film has LGBTQ content in it. So any source that's actually adequate to fulfill criterion #1, by definition, also fulfills criterion #2 at the same time. That's not a strawman, it's just a simple fact. Bearcat (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replying, as is only fair, because I should have been more clear about "strawmen". I was referring to your repeated insistence that my argument has anything to do with theme. I would love for your to consider how strange it is for me to have never mentioned theme, repeatedly declared that my points have nothing to do with theme, and to nonetheless be repeatedly mischaracterized. I don't think your points on the inclusion criteria are strawmen; I think they're reasonable and good points, but ones that I disagree with. Firefangledfeathers 23:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, exactly what other word would you suggest I use, then? "Related" doesn't work, because "related" merely requires reliable sources to discuss a film's LGBTQ-related content, such that any source that discusses a film character's sexuality in enough depth to support their inclusion in a list of LGBTQ characters inherently makes the film LGBTQ-related enough to also belong in a list of LGBTQ-related films, because the only thing those lists require is that reliable sources actually discuss the film's LGBTQ content — so if "related" doesn't work under my definition and "themed" doesn't work under yours, then what other word would you suggest I use to convey the difference between our respective positions?

And as for "I wouldn't describe The Princess Diaries as an Asian-related film because of Sandra Oh's character, and Zendaya's presence in Dune doesn't make it reasonably a Black-related film", that's not actually an analogue to what's at issue here. Those obviously aren't Asian-related or Black-related films just because they have Asian or Black actors in them — but they would be Asian-related or Black-related films if you could find reliable sources that discussed and analyzed the racial backgrounds of their characters in terms of narrative relevance within the story itself, exactly as the LGBT lists also require. Bearcat (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I second Firefangledfeathers on this. The English language phrase "LGBT-related" does not have a single, unambiguous definition. Bearcat has come up with one definition, which is not an unreasonable one, but contrary to what they say, it is far from the only one possible. For example, it's entirely plausible that someone might describe a film as LGBT-related because it features one or more LGBT cast members or creative staff. It's also very plausible that a film might have a verifiably LGBT character but not be considered "LGBT-related" by some people. For example, read the entry for "Gobber the Belch" at List of fictional gay characters and tell me whether that establishes How to Train Your Dragon 2 as an "LGBT-related film". Also, Bearcat asserts that the inclusion criteria for these list articles follows their definition, but it doesn't seem there was any discussion establishing consensus for this. Colin M (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There hasn't been any discussion to establish a consensus for any inclusion criteria more restrictive than what I said either — so until there is a discussion that establishes a more restrictive inclusion criterion than that, established practice counts as a demonstration of consensus in and of itself, and I'm correct about what established practice has been. Consensus obviously requires discussion to hash out if and when there's some disagreement about it, but until such a disagreement arises simply observing established practice is sufficient evidence of consensus. Bearcat (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The one thing that puzzles me about whole discussion is why wasn't it held on the talk page of List of feature films with LGBT characters rather than in a AfD? My understanding is that issues with articles should be discussed on a talk page BEFORE an AfD. That was not done in this case and I find that very unfortunate. I will say that I have to agree with the arguments of Colin M and Firefangledfeathers when it comes to LGBTQ content, as a person who has often edited pages about LGBTQ topics for a while now. Historyday01 (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think it's inappropriate to try to hash out inclusion criteria while this list is on the chopping block. I would suggest editors supporting deletion to instead support conditionally keeping the article if inclusion criteria can be determined and applied, and to re-nominate if that fails. This list is not outright detrimental to Wikipedia -- it's just messy, long, and potentially redundant. I think it's possible to reevaluate the scope of this list and the list of LGBT-related films in a proper discussion. The challenge is that we are limited with language in drawing distinctions, but that happens with all kinds of classifications! Is a film really French if some filming took place in France? Is a film really a science fiction film if it has fantasy elements? Et cetera. I get that LGBT characters could immediately make for an "LGBT-related film" in the most technical sense. But I think there can be a difference between LGBT films (meaning that is the primary plot or theme) and films that have LGBT characters in supporting roles (the latter most likely to have appeared historically). There won't be a perfect separation, but I think inclusion criteria should be possible for most films and their characters. Please ping me for that discussion if it happens. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been saying the same exact thing too. I don't know why people think this list is somehow detrimental to Wikipedia. I'm even willing to say the scope of the list and the list of LGBT-related films should happen, but it should be done after the AfD has ended. I tend to support the page more strongly, however, as a big contributor to it, and would like discussion to continue, although none of those supporting deletion have committed themselves to any further discussion at this point. Historyday01 (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Pyxis Solitary, Firefangledfeathers, and Historyday01. I think Pyxis' analysis and suggestions are particularly strong, and help differentiate this list from others. I very much like the idea of splitting the content by decades and applaud the work that has been done on this already. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A question for the folks who vote delete per the list being unmaintainable. There are editors who have contributed to this discussion, like Pyxis Solitary and Historyday01 whom not only have been maintaining this article up to now, are also apparently willing to continue maintaining it for the forseable future. If there are editors present who believe they can maintain it, does that not counter the arguments that this list is unmaintainable? Understandably it would be a different situation if this list had been abandoned for some time, however that is not the case here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KeepA useful list for people wanting to read about LGBT representation in feature films.(Rillington (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Keep and perhaps trim down to those characters with main roles. One way to know would be if the actors have a Wiki page and the movies for sure should have a Wiki page. Zeddedm (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zeddedm, I can agree with that. Perhaps the list could be limited to "LGBT characters in a leading or supporting role" as they are in the Film franchises section. That can be discussed more when this discussion comes to an end. I am a bit wary of limiting it down to just characters with main roles, as I think there are some important films which have supporting LGBTQ characters.Historyday01 (talk) 03:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"One way to know would be if the actors have a Wiki page and the movies for sure should have a Wiki page." – Reality is not as easy as your suggestion. Wikipedia is a user-generated project and if editors don't include information in an article, it does not exist in Wikipedia. Take Barbara Stanwyck's filmography: it doesn't say that she's a lead in Walk on the Wild Side, nor does the film article mention the importance about her participation in the cast. But take a look at what List of feature films with LGBT characters states about the film, character, and actor — and then look at what List of LGBT-related films of 1962 informs the reader about its relation with LGBT (I'll spare you the finger walk: zilch). Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 17:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or partially merge/redirect to appropriate articles. I agree that the list is overinclusive to the degree of being indiscriminate. This means that it will necessarily alway be very incomplete and often of low quality, which does not serve our readers. In particular, with increasing LGBT inclusivity in Western media, it is likely that many or most new films will include LGBT characters to some degree, making the list even more difficult to maintain. Sandstein 07:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be broken apart into other articles, BUT that should only happen after the AfD has concluded.--Historyday01 (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bearcat found places that cover this. If there is no reliable source that mentions the character was LGBT, then remove it from the list. If they were important enough to mention that fact about them, then they should be on the list. Dream Focus 17:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't agree more. As one example, I started looking through it, but I stumbled upon one article in Transgender Tapestry just about trans characters in film and its a couple pages long and it lists all sorts of characters! My guess is that there is a plethora of articles in that publication, which is not only easily accessible but is by the International Foundation for Gender Education, a trans non-profit. That is only one of the many articles out there, while GLAAD covers this over and over again (its basically their mission to promote more representation), whether in their blog posts, Twitter posts, and yearly reports, although they mainly focus on television series. Historyday01 (talk) 05:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As going against WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Being about LGBT issues and simply having characters who happen to be LGBT in them are two very different things. The sheer size of the article shows how overly difficult it would be to maintain, as well as requiring vast amounts of ongoing effort to catalog LGBT characters from current and future films. Eventually, perhaps even now, it would need to be split into articles for every letter of the alphabet or even moreso - Category:Fictional LGBT characters in film was literally made for this purpose. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I somewhat agree, ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ, in that it is hard to maintain, but the deletion of this content would be a net negative. Wouldn't it be better to add citations to all the entries which need citations, THEN split it off? It just seems that wanting to delete it is jumping the gun. The loss of all these entries and all the hard work by those who have edited the page would be erased. It could even cause certain editors to be dispirited and not want to add LGBTQ content in the future. They might think that if this page is deleted, then what LGBTQ page is next on the chopping block? It would send the message that Wikipedia doesn't really care about LGBTQ topics at a time that Wikipedia already struggles with bias in its editors, content, and so on. We should be including content, in the right way, rather than deleting it. Historyday01 (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that a great many deleted lists over the years have involved some degree of "hard work", but their creators were unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy and unfortunately that work was usually wasted. However, simply because someone worked hard on something does not mean it is encyclopedic.

As for whether editors would be deterred from adding to similar articles, that could frankly apply to almost any article that is deleted on Wikipedia. Maybe someone would see their favorite extremely minor comic book hero get removed and lose interest in adding to those articles. The fact is that if someone is unsure of whether to devote massive amounts of time to an article there's always asking others for their opinion on whether it's truly notable or not. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to make the point is that it would be a loss for Wikipedia to delete the list. I'm not, at this point, willing to say how the list should be shortened or revised until AFTER it is on the chopping block. I fully support a continued discussion about the list, but only after the AfD has ended. LGBTQ pages are an important part of ensuring Wikipedia accurately reflects the world, especially when it comes to popular culture. The article was perfectly fine until the OP decided to nominate it for deletion rather than beginning with a discussion on the talk page of the page in question. Why the OP did not do that, I do not know, but I would be much more receptive to their arguments if the page wasn't on the chopping block. Your dismissive tone, from what I can gather, on this subject, is worrying. Historyday01 (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Just because other sites have produced indiscriminate lists does not suddenly make the topic fit for an encyclopaedia. LGBT in cinema is an encyclopaedic topic if covered in a scholarly fashion rather than a raw list of films. List of feature films with LGBT characters is about as indiscriminate as List of feature films with horses. SpinningSpark 13:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A strange comment because LGBT in cinema isn't even a page. Wouldn't it be better to preserve the page for now, add the necessary sources, then split it off as needed? Historyday01 (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wouldn't be better – that was my whole point. Such an article would start with sources discussing LGBT in cinema and write an article from there. Films mentioned in the article would be those films that those sources thought were significant to the subject, not an indiscriminate list of all films containing an ~~horse~~ LGBT character. SpinningSpark 18:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We will have to agree to disagree on your point. Even so, I am not opposed to having an article about LGBT in cinema and it would be a good addition to Wikipedia. If you wish to create such a page, feel free to do so. I can't because I'm too swamped with other things going on, but I support your proposal for that page. At the same time, I support preserving the page in contention until all reliable sources have been added, then it should be split off into specific pages, as others have proposed. Historyday01 (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Due to per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you actually have an argument beyond that? Because that seems like a bit of a copycat from what other people have said.Historyday01 (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep I'd rather we have "leading characters" or some such because this is pretty much every movie now. But sure, there are sources and I don't see it as indiscriminate per se, it's an important issue. Hobit (talk) 01:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sandstein. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The cleanup problems here I think are kind of irrelevant, in that there's no way for this article to cover its topic adequately under a best-case scenario given the scope is so wide to fall afoul of WP:NOTCATALOG. There are much better ways to categorize every article that could be covered (like a category!) or present the important examples (like an article about the history of LGBT representation in film/media!) I'm not really sure it meets WP:NLIST, especially in regards to useful list navigation. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 10:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think those cleanup problems could be solved if the page was kept, then split off not long afterward. Historyday01 (talk) 14:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an excessively indiscriminate list. This list, if complete, would be absolutely enormous and wouldn't provide much in the way of encyclopedic value. In the present day it isn't considered remarkable or groundbreaking to include an LGBT character in a film, and we don't compile lists of fictional characters by incidental personal characteristics. In the vast majority of cases (at least for the films I've seen) the character's sexuality is not relevant to the wider themes of the film. A list of films about LGBT issues is very different and much more encyclopedic. This applies even if there are sources about LGBT characters in film. It would be fine if someone wanted to write an article about LGBT characters in film, but to be encyclopedic it would have to be an article with prose rather than a big list. Also no objection if someone wants to very selectively merge it somewhere else. Hut 8.5 10:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe it would be better to save the list first, then split it off into specific pages after the AfD has ended. Historyday01 (talk) 14:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If List of feature films with LGBT characters is an "excessively indiscriminate list" ... then by that logic so is the collection of films in Lists of LGBT-related films. The latter is allowed to exist without: (1) describing why the films are considered to be LGBT-related, and (2) reliable sources for all the films in each list. Such a status of omission may be ignored by many editors here, but those who want to eliminate List of feature films with LGBT characters should also be prepared to apply the knife to the Lists of LGBT-related films. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 15:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I have to completely agree. I fear that if this page is deleted, then those who support this deletion will definitely try to apply to the knife to the Lists of LGBT-related films category and any other LGBTQ pages out there that they deem "excessively indiscriminate." After all, just look at the pages within List of LGBT-related films of the 1960s. NONE of those sub-pages cite ANY sources to support their claims that the films are LGBT-related. The same can be said for the subpages of List of LGBT-related films of the 1970s, List of LGBT-related films of the 1980s, List of LGBT-related films of the 1990s, and List of LGBT-related films of the 2000s which have few or no sources on each page. The subpages of List of LGBT-related films of the 2010s are the only ones which are appropriately sourced. However, if they were nominated for deletion, I would still support their inclusion. And what to do you know but the person who nominated the list of feature films with LGBT characters for deletion also nominated the List of LGBT-related films in 2019, but was unsuccessful, with general agreement favoring "keep" at the time. Why am I not surprised. Historyday01 (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think those lists are a sensible comparison. If a film is actually about LGBT issues then that's one of the most important properties of the film, and categorising films by what they're about is not indiscriminate. But merely having at least one character who happens to be LGBT is not a significant property at all. To use a different analogy, we can have List of black films of the 2010s because Black film is a recognised category. But nobody would ever try to write a list of films which have at least one black character, and if they did it wouldn't be encyclopedic. The state of the sourcing in an article isn't in itself a valid reason to delete it. (If no sources are available for that content then it's rather different.) I'm sure this can be moved to draft space or wherever if someone wants to merge it. Hut 8.5 17:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"But merely having at least one character who happens to be LGBT is not a significant property at all." Well now, you've just shown that you are unfamiliar with the films in Lists of LGBT-related films. Since very few of the films I've seen in the lists include a mention of the L or G or B or T in them, there's no way to know which of the films has just "one character" vs. several. You're shooting darts at a target while standing in a dark room. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 18:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to what Pyxis is saying, I think it is a worthy comparison because Bearcat, who proposed this AfD, nominated List of LGBT-related films for deletion back in 2019 arguing that it had "outlived its usefulness and been supplanted by other, more specific lists, for a subject that has become far too large to be maintainable in this one-stop format anymore," which seemed like he was making the argument it was indiscriminate, similar to his argument in the nom that this list has "significant maintainability problems, effectively duplicative of other content," again implying it is indiscriminate. Additionally, in past comments in this AfD discussion he has defended the inadequate sourcing on those pages, saying, in part, "Obviously it's better to replace it with more detailed sources when such become available, but that doesn't mean it's inadequate sourcing to start the list with in the first place", among other arguments. So, I think the comparison makes sense in this case. And it seems weird that those pages which stem from the List of LGBT-related films, which have few sources, generally, as I noted in another comment in this discussion, are allowed to stay while this page, which is much better sourced, is challenged and nominated for deletion. So, comparing it to the list in question makes perfect sense.Historyday01 (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is even vaguely relevant. All I said is that a list of films with LGBT themes is, in principle, an encyclopedic topic. Whether List of LGBT-related films is well sourced or well written has nothing to do with this. Articles here are deleted because they have fundamental problems which can't be fixed through editing, if something can be fixed through editing (such as adding more sources), then that's not a reason for deletion. See WP:NEXIST and WP:ATD. The idea that these pages are comparable because Bearcat has nominated them both for deletion is ridiculous. Bearcat has nominated thousands of pages for deletion, they aren't all comparable. What Bearcat has said or hasn't said on other topics is also not relevant here, and I don't know where you got the idea that I agree with everything Bearcat has written. Hut 8.5 20:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to disagree there. It boggles my mind that you say that "articles here are deleted because they have fundamental problems which can't be fixed through editing" and add that "if something can be fixed through editing (such as adding more sources), then that's not a reason for deletion." That is unboubtedly the case here and editing could easily address the arguments of those who favor deletion of this page. 71.179.1.78 (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The argument for deletion is with the scope and nature of the list. That's not something which can be addressed through editing - any list with the same scope would have the same problem. Hut 8.5 08:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it can be addressed through editing. Not sure how you don't realize that. 71.179.1.78 (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how do you propose we address the issues with the scope of the list through editing? If your suggestion amounts to writing a different list with a different scope then that's not editing. Hut 8.5 17:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pages are fluid and changing. Anything can be fixed and changed with editing, which involves moving content from one page to another, if need be. 71.179.1.78 (talk) 14:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anything can be fixed and changed with editing - er, no. If a topic is unsuitable for Wikipedia then any page on that topic will be unsuitable. And given what the deletion policy says, this position would make it impossible to delete any page, ever. Hut 8.5 17:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let me clarify. I'm trying to say that editing is the first resort to fix a problem, followed by discussion. Deleting a page should be a last resort option, especially for a topic such as this one. I am not opposed to deleting pages, but this page in question should not be deleted. Unsure why Bearcat did not follow WP:BEFORE, especially this part: If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag...this ensures readers are aware of the problem and may act to remedy it. Why did Bearcat not follow that? The fact Bearcat did not follow existing Wikipedia rules undermines the whole AfD and makes it a complete farce. 71.179.1.78 (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but change the scope or cut it up somehow. This one caught my attention, and I found myself discussing it with some non-Wikipedians after seeing the discussion. So, this is obviously a notable topic. There's no shortage of sources which treat them as a group. The objection seems to be WP:NOT on the basis of there being so many titles to include. Can you imagine talking to someone of the Stonewall era and saying "you know, in the future, the world's largest encyclopedia will have a list of films with LGBT characters, and by then it will be so common for there to be LGBT characters that some people will think the list is too big to maintain?" What do you do with a noteworthy topic that, due to changes in society, stops being all that noteworthy? Like, even 20 years ago, it was still meaningful to see LGBT characters in fiction. And for a lot of people it still is (especially, I dare say, people in the many countries where it's still not safe for them). There are countless books, articles, etc. which talk about the incredible importance of being able to see someone like yourself reflected in the media, and the struggle for that representation. What we have in this list is a timeline of that representation. It's great that it's overflowing. The challenge is what to do with it. We absolutely shouldn't just delete. Perhaps we can find a cutoff date in some RS, using a category for everything after that date. Or divide it by country (though that doesn't really help for the US list). This is not unfixable. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I totally agree. I'm willing to admit that the scope should be changed, but the solution is NOT to delete the page. Pyxis has already shown interest in splitting it into sexual orientations/identities on Talk:List of feature films with LGBT characters#Citations needed, but that should only be done once the AfD has ended. I find this whole AfD tiresome and the arguments of those in favor of deletion as tired out arguments which are also trotted out, often against LGBTQ pages, like List of LGBT characters in video games, List of African American LGBT, List of LGBT characters in modern written fiction, List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters: 2020s, LGBT themes in horror fiction, Queer coding, List of lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender-related films, List of media portrayals of bisexuality, and List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2010s,to name a few. Some the same people who supported deletion of the last page I mentioned have chimed in on this deletion, curious enough. Historyday01 (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the high level of ongoing discussion, relisting this to make sure all interested parties have an opportunity to express their opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Its not like the discussion is going to somehow improve because it is relisted. A weird decision. Historyday01 (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of distraction that isn't related to the merits of the discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Note to closer: Historyday01 and Runningman2027 appear to have been canvassed here by Pyxis Solitary here and here. valereee (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, that doesn't matter. I would have participated anyway. It doesn't somehow invalidate my comments, or those of Pyxis or Runningman2027, as all three of us are some of the biggest contributors to the article in question, so it only makes sense that we contributed. Also, two comments on two user pages does not count as canvassing. Historyday01 (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Historyday01, it actually can invalidate your comments. Closers are free to discount comments by someone who is canvassed to a discussion. It's one of the reasons it's a bad idea.

Accusing me of posting this as "trying to stir the pot" is a personal attack. Please strike that. valereee (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed that comment, but I still feel it is improper to point this out as it is trying to invalidate one of the biggest contributors to the page and it seems wrong to me. Historyday01 (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FFR, it's best to strike (surround with <s>text you're striking</s>, which draws a line through it, rather than remove, as it's considered less confusing to other editors, but no worries, I'm not a stickler for that when I'm the one being referred to. valereee (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: the top contributors to this article by text are Pyxis Solitary, Gary1227, Historyday01, and Runningman2027. As per WP:APPNOTE, it's appropriate to notify major contributors. I don't know why Gary1227 wasn't among them -- perhaps because he's pretty inexperienced -- but as the notification text itself looks pretty benign, this looks to be a non-issue. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing people who are likely to be on the same side of a discussion as you are is never a good idea. If, as HD01 says, they would have ended up here anyway (and I have no reason not to believe that), then canvassing is unnecessary. And it never looks good. valereee (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree 100% with Rhododendrites. I think its a non-issue and I'm not sure why you are bringing it up. If you want to talk about the page in question, feel free, but you seem to pushing this discussion in a certain direction and I find it weird. Stop with this misdirection. Please focus on the topic at hand: the proposed deletion of the List of feature films with LGBT characters page. That would be deeply appreciated, as this discussion is definitely an important one. Historyday01 (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Historyday01, what weird direction do you think I'm pushing the discussion in? I haven't even given an opinion on what I think should be the result here. Not sure I have an opinion, even. valereee (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but it seems weird you are bringing this up when it would make more sense to discuss the issue at hand, the AfD. Why weigh in on discussion if you don't even "have an opinion" on the topic? That doesn't make a lick of sense. Historyday01 (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying top contributors is not against canvassing rules. It's explicitly mentioned at APPNOTE. Yes, obviously top contributors are more likely to support retaining the article they've worked on. If you think that notification should not be executed by another of the top contributors, I'd urge you to propose that change to make it clear. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea. I wouldn't have felt like it needed to be pointed out if Bearcat had done those notifications. Or if Pyxis Solitary had pinged them from this discussion with an explanation "Pinging top contributors." valereee (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a big difference between leaving them a neutral message and pinging them here. If the messages had been a "zomg plz save this" then that would be a problem, but either way the point is notification. I don't really have a strong opinion on the form/location for that notification -- I just wouldn't support a rule disallowing notification of top contributors. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging them here is easily visible to all concerned.

Agree that there should be no rule against allowing notification of top contributors. The basic problem is when, like here, all top contributors clearly believe the list should be a keep. Sorry, I should take this somewhere else. valereee (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CANVASS > Appropriate notification > "On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include: Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article". For those who want to see exactly what I posted on the talk pages of editors Historyday01 and Runningman2027, here it is:

If you haven't seen the edit:
"This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.

Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's deletion discussion page."

Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 19:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we have categories for things like this, and examples have been given above in this AfD. — Czello 19:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a valid reason to delete. WP:NOTDUP says, "...arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Pyxissolitary. The "delete" arguments don't make much sense to me in a WP:NOTPAPER encyclopedia. Too much information? If that's the case, maybe figure out some sort of split. The goal is to give fullest possible coverage, and categories, while useful as navigation aids, aren't great for coverage. The keep arguments are better where building the world's largest encyclopedia is concerned. Now, as to maintenance, it has already been said that curation should occur through coverage in reliable sources. The goal should not be total inclusion. Wikipedia is not a random collection of knowledge. (I came here 'cause I saw the ANI thread.) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete It seems to be have an arbitary title and seems to be an indiscriminate list of information that has little historical or encyclopeadic value. Why create such a list. Is there is a complementary list for folk who exhibit other types of sexual orientation, no, so why explicity this type of article. Is it some kind of puff piece. The argument i've seen in the Afd about not being paper encyclopedia, means automatic delete, because there is no single cogent argument to keep it. There is not a redirect that I can see either. It is no backed academic or scholarly sources, so what is the reason. Changed to strong delete. scope_creep^Talk 13:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- So nevermind all the sources about this subject, about representation of LGBT people in film... it's just some "arbitrary" topic. It's so preposterous that it merits the rare strong delete. complementary list for folk who exhibit other types of sexual orientation - Is it that you're looking for a Q or a + at the end of the title, or are you talking about a list of straight and/or cisgender characters in film? NOTPAPER is usually a weak argument, yes, and when people use it it's typically because there's not otherwise a good reason to keep. I'm with you there. But there are an awful lot of arguments presented on this page, and you've only addressed the weakest one. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- – "Is there is a complementary list for folk who exhibit other types of sexual orientation": This "don't ask, don't tell" type of culture argument is very familiar to many of us who leapt off the hetero tree.

– "no backed academic or scholarly sources": Where in WP:RS and WP:PSTS does it say that the only acceptable sources that can be used in an article are "academic or scholarly"? If any merit were to be given to this rationale, then Lists of LGBT-related films by year should also be deleted. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 16:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. The scope of this list is far too large for a single list article. Ciridae (talk) 13:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Those in favor of deletion believe this article is too large and has too wide of a scope, arbitary, or unnecessary. I have to disagree with all of those claims. This page has merit and reliable sources to show it is notable. It is not "effectively duplicative of other content" as the nom posited, and the goal on Wikipedia should be "total inclusion" as Deepfriedokra said. Agreement with arguments by Rhododendrites and Erik here. 71.179.1.78 (talk) 14:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC) ~~— 71.179.1.78 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.~~ [reply]
I added the {{spa}} template since the IP editor's first edit was to add the above. Since then, they edited some more and then tried to remove this template, and then later struck it out. I had reverted the striking-out, but I decided to revert myself. I don't really find the post-!vote edits to be substantial enough to warrant the template's removal or striking out, but I'll defer to the closing admin about the weight of this particular stance compared to others' stances. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but break into decades or something like that to keep it manageable, as this list could run into the hundreds. Topically, this is, imho, an important list to have on the site, given Wikipedia's systemic biases, and as long as there are sources to back up the list's assertions, I see nothing wrong with it. Deleting it does no one any good, saves no real space, and continues Wikipedia's unconscious overemphasis on heteronormativity.--Gen. Quon_[Talk]^{(I'm studying Wikipedia!)} 17:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I usually don't vote in these things, and when I do it's to vote "delete". But after reading through this Pyxis Solitary's arguments make sense. She's put in alot of work in this article, and if they are any issues she is more than willing to fix them. Most of what I was going to say has been said by others, showcasing that the article should be kept. Rlink2 (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Arguing that a list based on sexuality is "indiscriminate", i.e. an unimportant or trivial characteristic of a person, is bordering on discriminatory, IMO. Second, if the list is unwieldly, split it into decades as others have suggested. Zaathras (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an indiscriminate list, and one of the reasons it's an indiscriminate list is because it isn't clear who is and is not an LGBT character, especially in older movies. Unlike with real people, where we have personal statements to go by, fictional characters often don't self-identify in the film. So how would we know? Because someone who writes for an RS believes the character is LGBT and mentions that in an article? If there are doubts about a character, would editors need to compare RS that say they are vs. ones that say they're not, and try to interpret what RS that don't comment on it might think by their not addressing the subject? Here are some examples from the list as it stands that I hope illustrate where I think the problem is. Raoul Silva from Skyfall is listed in the article. No source is given, so the editor presumably included him due to the scene described at Raoul Silva#Sexuality (but didn't include Bond, based off that same scene). Silva's article does have sources, and the people involved in the making of the film demur about what they intended Silva's sexuality to be. So should he be on this list or not? Buffalo Bill from The Silence of the Lambs is listed as a trans woman... right beside a quote from the director saying the character isn't transgender. Pussy Galore from Goldfinger is listed, with three sources, but they're about the novel, where the character is explicitly a lesbian (or, I suppose more accurately, what Ian Fleming thought a lesbian was), but is also a gang leader instead of a pilot. This is more than just some editing problem that can be solved with better sourcing. (There is also an editing problem, but this goes beyond that.) What should be done when there is some question that a character might be intended to have been LGBT, but there aren't sources covering what the filmmakers intended? Or the filmmakers have discussed it, but without giving a clear answer? Or where the various people responsible for the film disagree with each other?
The history of the way LGBT characters have been portrayed is certainly a worthy subject for an article, but this article is not that article, and I don't see how it can become that article. It's not a prose article, it's a list, and it's a list with practically no prose at the top. The "Notes" field in the list contains more blank spaces than notes, and many of the notes that do exist may be fine for the list as a list, but would not be useful for the hypothetical prose article. By way of comparison, we have an article African-American representation in Hollywood (which could certainly be both notably longer and better sourced than it currently is), but do not have an article such as List of feature films with African-American characters. Egsan Bacon (talk) 05:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because someone who writes for an RS believes the character is LGBT and mentions that in an article? Yes.
would editors need to compare RS that say they are vs. ones that say they're not Yes. Talk pages exist.
No source is given So add one. If one doesn't exist, then remove it.
but they're about the novel Then they're not good sources for the movie. Add one. If one doesn't exist, then remove it.
This is more than just some editing problem that can be solved with better sourcing You have not described anything other than the most basic editing problems.
practically no prose at the top WP:SOFIXIT — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Egsan Bacon makes a bad argument here, not recognizing that their issues could be solved without considering alternatives to deletion. Furthermore, pages like List of black video game characters and List of black animated characters exist. The argument of Rhododendrites is tip top here, and makes valid points.128.164.108.192 (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't entirely disagree that the idea of categorizing queer characters with clear sourcing it hard, especially given the extreme importance of subtext in the history of LGBTQA+ representation in film. Have we truly captured the history of representation in film if we exclude heavily coded/implied characters but include Dumbledore? Not to mention that coding extends to characters that clearly don't belong here, nobody would suggest to add Ariel despite both versions of the story having roots in the feelings of gay men. But this is not an issue specific to this list; this is inherent to any and all lists focused on queer characters, as well as equivalent categories (and, for that matter, to an extent to the queerness of real historical life people). Do we suggest that, based on this argument, we delete all lists about queer characters and LGBTQA+ related films? I surely hope not. I am currently of undecided opinion on whether this specific list should be kept, but the importance of queer representation in media cannot simply be wiped off the face of the world's leading Encyclopedia just because sourcing it is an inconvenience and a touchy subject. Of course you're not suggesting that, but your argument follows that logic so I don't think it is well applied here. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 18:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we should rely mainy on the text. Subtext can be captured through reliable sources interpreting the media to be LGBT (we don't want to publish our own research). I don't think we should include DUmbledore, because there is no subtext IIRC. I don't think a creator should be able to declare a character gay and then the media has an LGBT character. The text in itself is unrelated to the later statements of the author, at least in that case. It makes the list less useful for those looking for actual deptctions of LGBT characters, either explicitly or implicitly. The implication should be in the film itself. I don't think we should delete all the lists, but we should continue to discuss sourcing and maybe trim the list significantly of unsourced material. Talib1101 (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deleting this page would further reinforce the bias on this site, per Gen. Quon, and any issues with this article raised by those who want to delete it could be solved through discussion on the talk page of the List of feature films with LGBT characters. The entries are not indiscriminate, as Zaathras points to, and it is an important part of people's identities. Any substantive changes should be discussed on the talk page of the List of feature films with LGBT characters after the discussion had ended, not in this discussion.128.164.108.192 (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC) — 128.164.108.192 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Weak delete (Split). Keep it for now, but working to split it into subarticles of reasonable length. I would split it by century into two, by LGBT letter into four, or by both into eight. Once all films listed are merged into their respective lists, then redirect to a disambiguation. I guess what I'm saying is, we want this content to exist, and we want to make lists of LGBT films that are relevant to readers, but OP makes a good point about maintainability. (edited Talib1101 (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)) Talib1101 (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: List of transgender publications, List of lesbian fiction, and List of LGBT-themed speculative fiction are all good examples of more specific lists. Transgender and lesbian are for individual letters of the acronym, while speculative fiction is more specific a category than feature film. So I recommend splitting it by letter. A reader looking for feature films featuring transgender characters would have to use Ctl-F to have any chance at getting through such a long list just for the relatively fewer trans characters. Talib1101 (talk) 02:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- I !voted above to keep, but I think that something like this is actually the best way forward. Better than my suggestions at least... Hobit (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per many of the arguments made above. It's too broad, not encyclopedically useful, and entirely unmaintainable. Coverage of queer topics including media representation and historyis very important on Wikipedia, but this list is not a helpful way of contributing to that. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 04:17, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is it not "encyclopedically useful"? And how does this list not contribute to queer topics? If you think that such coverage is "very important," then it seems completely contradictory to say the list should be deleted. And if the list is "too broad" and "entirely unmaintainable" then wouldn't it make more sense to !vote to split the list as Talib1101 proposed rather than deleting it? Your argument does not make sense.71.179.1.78 (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, per WP:USELESS and WP:ATD (specifically "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."), that person's argument will likely be weighed next to nothing in the final analysis. Zaathras (talk) 17:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not that matters much since you're quite correct about the weight, but I've revoked my comment. After reading the arguments made more thoroughly and given the whole thing more thought I remain undecided on my stance but I think what I said above was definitely missing a lot of the nuance of the issue here. I tentatively think splitting it into lists constrained by decade or by identity would be the solution here, but I'll keep trying to organize my thoughts. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 18:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Potentially unbounded list with highly debatable inclusion criteria, likely to attract vandalism, and not overall useful. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is the inclusion criteria "highly debatable" and how is the page not "useful"? I don't understand why you would say this. Historyday01 (talk) 15:00, 7 March 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 00:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pallavi Gupta

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Google News gives no substantial coverage. IndaneLove (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. IndaneLove (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. IndaneLove (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Television. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, and no indication of meeting NACTOR requirements. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:50, 28 February 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 13:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Kaido

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS. Was in the Olympics, but didn't win a metal, which is the bar for (almost) guaranteed WP:N. Other coverage available is insufficient to demonstrate notability, generally failing WP:RS. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not have enough coverage to show a pass of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:41, 28 February 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!} 02:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Badweyn burial

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

This article is mainly based on a singular source (Douglas Jardine) which mentions “badweyn” only in passing. Additionally, a google search of “badweyn burial” does not yield any reliable sources to ensure the notability and verifiability of this article. Therefore, it is unlikely that it meets notability guidelines and should be deleted

“It is situated at Badweyn, which is the western boundary of the Dervish chieftainship-sultanate” - This is not supported by the cited article and appears to be WP:OR. The citation refers to the British intention to confine dervish in one area but does not state that this area encompasses a “Dervish chieftainship-sultanate”.

“…,and lies at the head of the Nugaal Valley” - Again, this claim is unsupported by the cited reference.

“According to John Anthony Hunt, the burial ground of Dhulbahante is Badweyn and his descendants, the Dhulbahante clan, are the owners of the Nugaal plateau and Nugaal valley” - The cited reference only mentions in passing that Dhulbahante was buried in “Badweyn”, no reference to descendants being buried here.

“The boundaries of the borderlander neutral zone was from Ankhor, (in Somali Conkor) at the coast, Eil Dur Elan (in Somali Dhur Cilaan) down the mount slope, Badwein at the open plains, and the 46th degree of longitude towards the Abyssinian border in the west, and the blockhouses surrounding the Dhulbahante garesa of Jidali, and the Nugaal to the east” - Again, there is no reference to a “borderlander boundary” in the cited reference and is WP:OR.

“Douglas Jardine described the boundary between colonial-signatory tribes and non-signatory tribes, and separated those of intra-46th meridian east territories as a distinct entity” - Another example of WP:OR, the cited reference (based on the provided excerpt) does not mention any boundary producing a “distinct entity”. Additionally, what are the "intra-46th meridian east territories" ? I am also unable to find the original source as per WP:Verify Jacob300 (talk) 11:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not supported by any cited source, and the article is filled with nothing but original research. Fails WP:N as well.

A lot of articles the article creator has either created or significantly contributed to have been deleted for violating WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:VERIFY, WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and having no WP:SIGCOV, among others (see Diiriye Guure, Shire Umbaal,Nur Hedik,Adam Maleh, Maxamuud Xoosh Cigaal as well as Kaaha Tafadhiig) Gebagebo (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Jacob300 (talk) 11:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Jacob300 (talk) 11:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Jacob300 (talk) 11:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Jacob300 (talk) 11:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:44, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is fairly heavilly linked from other history-related articles (apparently added by the article creator). I know that's not a criteria for deletion/inclusion, my concern is more that if this is deleted, the articles the links were added to will now have prominent redlinks and will need to be cleaned up. I found this article/AFD while reading Scramble for Africa for example, a fairly important history article. --Here2rewrite (talk) 02:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All of that said, I have read the nominator's argument and agree with them to Delete. Sourcing does not seem sufficient to support this article. --Here2rewrite (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It is a soap box and can't be verified. Bearian (talk) 18:34, 4 March 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 12:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Sri Radha Mohan Jew / Jeu

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

Does not pass WP:NRELORG or WP:GNG. A search for reliable sources gives enough proof that the temple exists, but no significant coverage. The (accessible) sources in the article do not mention the temple at all. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Not a notable temple. Such temples are in every street. Venkat TL (talk) 12:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MPGuy2824 of course, since both are same. Venkat TL (talk) 10:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Venkat TL, sometimes the nominator of an AfD doesn't have an opinion on what action should be taken (they might think that a discussion on the article is necessary though) and some AfD closers might count their nomination as being neutral. Additionally, some scripts that summarise AfDs, only look at bold text. ~~For both these reasons, I've decided to add my vote to AfDs that I start (whenever i remember to do it).~~ -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Venkat TL, Seems i was wrong. Reading through WP:DISCUSSAFD, it seems that a nominator's vote is not needed. Striking my vote and later statement. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MPGuy2824 nomination IS a delete vote, unless you mention another outcome explicitly in the nom. Nom is never neutral. Scripts and admins count Nom as Delete vote. 2nd vote without striking nom is a duplicate vote. Venkat TL (talk) 09:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not sure it passes my notability standards for houses of worship. It is barely 50 years old, has no known notable worshippers, no notable clergy or musicians associated, and one of thousands of places to go for Diwali. Bearian (talk) 18:38, 4 March 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 12:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 South American Under-17 Women's Football Championship squads

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

I'm not seeing how WP:LISTN is met since these lists don't seem to be published or discussed in anywhere other than the countries' own FAs and Twitter and Facebook accounts, so there are no reliable and independent sources available for this topic.

I also fail to see the reason why we should host a long list of non-notable minors between the age of 14 and 16 who don't have any reasonable chance of passing WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG in the near future. I just don't see the use in the list as there is no navigational purpose in having a list of non-notable people, even if the list is correct. I can't see that any of the previous editions of this tournament had squad lists so I'm taking to AfD to establish consensus on this. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Lists of people, Football, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Uruguay. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay, and Venezuela. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The competition itself may merit an article, but none of the people listed here are notable. --Michig (talk) 11:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - level of detail not needed. Giant Snowman 14:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Vaco98 (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all comments above. SPF121188 ^{(tell me!)} ^(contribs) 20:08, 28 February 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. Michig (talk) 11:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SKD Academy of Dramatic Arts

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

No indication of WP:Notability. No sources. A search for reliable sources wasn't fruitful. It might have helped if we knew what the initials SKD stood for. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in my searches I was unable to find any WP:RS coverage at all - only self-published and social media profile pages. I note that this was previously PROD deleted in March 2016 because it had no indication of notability and, to be honest, this second incarnation makes no indication of any notability either. Fails WP:NORG on both WP:ORGDEPTH (coverage is trivial) and WP:ORGIND (coverage is almost all self-published media directly from the organisation itself). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Spiderone. --Vaco98 (talk) 14:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Spiderone. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 2 March 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 Draftify. While there is no consensus as to a merger target, and it does not appear CutePeach returned to address the issues she raised to weeks ago, there isn't support for the article remaining in mainspace. I will draftify it upon close and suggest it probably go through AfC before coming back, if it isn't merged elswhere. Star Mississippi 02:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

World Health Organization Secretariat

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

Only primary sourcing. An attempt was made to move this back to draft space. See the subsequent edit summary "Onel5969 moved page Draft:World Health Organization Secretariat to World Health Organization Secretariat without leaving a redirect: objected to, so move back to mainspace - despite it being in terrible shape and poorly sourced"

The sources are all primary

To me this suggests that we need to have a discussion about whether this should be a freestanding article, or be merged, or redirected, or simply deleted. My suggestion is to redirect and merge to World Health Organization Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Director-General of the World Health Organization: given that the head of this body is the Director-General. A brief mention of this body's existence on the parent article should suffice as well. – robertsky (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Robertsky:, the Secretariat is composed of the Director General, but it is still distinct from it as an organizational body, just like the United Nations Secretariat is distinct from the Secretary-General of the United Nations. There are significant political tensions between the DG in Geneva and regional secretariat offices, going back many years, which is covered in RS. I added some secondary sources, and I am also working on creating WHO Executive Board, WHO constitution, IHR Emergency Committee for COVID-19 and many more WHO related pages that may seem obscure on first look. CutePeach (talk) 13:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- CutePeach, hmm.. the suborganisations do seems obscure, especially with the current pandemic climate where news outlets generalise most of the statements coming out from the various WHO bodies as WHO (thus Google/Google News searches, at least for me, returned WHO when I searched for WHO Secretariat). I think I know where you are coming from, and as long as the article is expanded and supported with sources adequately before the AfD is up, I will support the article to be kept.
  Additionally, due to the relative obscurity of the the suborganisations, I suggest creating and fleshing out the articles in your sandbox first before pushing them into the mainspace. – robertsky (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Robertsky:, I am working on this. Will put it up tomorrow. Please wait. CutePeach (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will finish this tomorrow Saturday. CutePeach (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I recently asked for the draft to be moved back to mainspace after it was moved to draftspace. Did the nominator check if other sources existed in books and academic sources as per WP:CONRED? I dont see here any arguments that challenge its WP:NOTABILITY. I have added a few secondary sources and I will add more soon. CutePeach (talk) 13:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While drafting is an option, CutePeach has asked for more time on a reasonable timeline (tomorrow), so let's see what evolves as far as content and consensus with a relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is notable and worthy of a page but the page needs work. Gusfriend (talk) 11:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:52, 27 February 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!} 07:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Pfeffer

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

Non-notable marathon runner. Has not won any of the "Big 6" marathons and could not find much RS about him. Natg 19 (talk) 06:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 06:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 06:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A former top 10 in the world marathon runner who set a world record for half marathon. How silly are these sports AfD nominations getting? Online coverage includes : [5], [6], [7], [8], and plenty more in Google Books. Further offline coverage from the late 70s/early 80s will certainly exist. --Michig (talk) 10:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly meets WP:GNG, having been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Hack (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. None of the provided sources are SIGCOV, although they are non-trivial, suggesting more in-depth coverage may be still be available elsewhere. Not !voting yet. JoelleJay (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Just expanded the book preview, which indeed looks more like SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 22:48, 5 March 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kubi gold mine

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

Former gold mine does not seem to meet WP:GNG- lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Ghana. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominator asserts GNG without any rationale why the sources in the article are inadequate. Nor was there any response to the sources I offered on the talk page which imo do establish notability [[9][10][11][12]. SpinningSpark 10:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found reporting on it on Google Scholar and event reports of owners/investors planning to re-open the mine. I've added both in. It seems notable to me, with regards to the GNG. CT55555 (talk) 03:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well sourced. Dem thar gold in AfD. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep neither the content nor the sources it had when nominated for deletion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per WP:HEY. Definitely did not have anywhere near enough in-depth sourcing from independent sources at time of nom (meaning zero). But now there is barely enough sourcing to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NEXIST it is not relevant what sources are actually cited in the article. The nom has still not given a rationale why the sources placed on the talk page (long before this AFD started) were deficient. SpinningSpark 18:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - To answer the various people who have asked, above, which sources do not meet WP:GNG, the answer is simple: all of them. Four of the sources given are primary, either direct publications from the mine's owners, or academic research reported direct from the primary journal source. The other two, although secondary sources, are brief throwaway mentions of Kubi in articles that are actually about another property owned by the same company. There is no evidence shown anywhere that this mine is independently notable. Pyrop e 19:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ghana is the largest gold producer of Africa, and the 7th largest in the world. The question is, was this a minor unknown mine, or a significant one. Given Ghana's place in world gold mining, it deserves a closer look. African gold mines are probably not the sort of thing one can just Google and expect to determine notability on the first page of results, but that doesn't mean it's non-notable in the world of gold mining. I do encourage to mine more deeply given what we know so far, the prospects look promising.. -- GreenC 23:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All good questions, and ones that people who want to keep the page need to answer. If there are articles providing significant coverage in third-party sources then I'd be happy to see them. However, if there aren't then you cannot demonstrate notability. We don't assume that something is notable just because it is related to some other thing that is notable. For example, gold mining in Ghana is notable – and there are lots of articles and other information sources out there that comply with WP:GNG which demonstrate this – but does it therefore hold that every gold mine in Ghana is notable? No. Pyrop e 19:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find any of the sources needed demonstrate notability. I have searched through AAPG Datapages, Google Scholar, Geoscience World, GEOREF, Google Search, Knovel Library Interactive, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, Web of Science, Wiley Online Library. I only found two papers. Although I searched using variations of 1. kubi surface “oxide deposit”, 2. Kubi "gold deposit", 3. Kubi gold mine, and 4. kubi gold, I found nothing containing information useful for either a Wikipedia article or determining the notability of the Kubi Gold Mine. Most were very brief, largely uninformative. I found one sentence, repeated verbatium in a few articles, about the “kubi surface oxide deposit.” With all of the searching I found one journal paper that specifically mentioned the “Kubi Gold Mine.”

It is Nzulu, G.K., Bakhit, B., Högberg, H., Hultman, L. and Magnuson, M., 2021a. Elucidating Pathfinding Elements from the Kubi Gold Mine in Ghana. Minerals, 11(9), p.912. (open access paper).

And another journal paper that briefly mentioned “...potential gold mine (Kubi Gold Project}...” This paper is: Nzulu, G., Eklund, P. and Magnuson, M., 2021. Characterization and identification of Au pathfinder minerals from an artisanal mine site using X-ray diffraction. Journal of Materials Science, 56(12), pp.7659-7669. (open access paper).

Finally, there are innumberable primary annual reports, promotional material, and press releases about the "Kubi Gold Project" by Asante Gold Corp that are available online, but none of what I looked at is suitable as a Wikipedia source. Paul H. (talk) 05:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I spent time searching JSTOR. I used various variations of 1. kubi surface “oxide deposit”, 2. Kubi "gold deposit", 3. Kubi gold mine, 4. kubi gold, and 5. Kubi gold project and found nothing related to Kubi gold mine. I also looked at Gold Production and the Ghanaian Economic Performance by Salifu1, O. and Oladejo, N. K. and Adetunde, I. A. (2013) and Analysis of the Trends of Gold Mining in Ghana by Gbireh, A.B., Cobblah, A. and Suglo, R.S. (2007). Only on page 30 of Salifu et al. (2013), I found a single, brief reference to "...mining from the Kubi surface oxide deposit." Paul H. (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I completely agree with Pyrop. There is nothing that I have found so far using Google Scholar and GEOREF that demonstrates that this mine is independently notable. There are likely tens of thousands of abandoned gold mines in the world. What makes this one special / notable? Paul H. (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment - There also exist innumerable gold mines in the world that have owners that plan to open them. In fact, many of the publicly stated "plans" to reopen an abandoned gold mine never happen. Thus, having owners state such plans does not make an abandoned gold mine special or notable as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Paul H. (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter if it's operational, closed, planning to open. None of those things are part of the notability criteria. It either is notable for what ever reason it is notable for, or it is not. In the context of the secondary reliable sources that are now in the article, I hope you will see that it is notable.

Check out how the article looked when it was nominated and see how it is now: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kubi_gold_mine&oldid=1064730973 CT55555 (talk) 07:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I already justified my keep above, but seeing some were unconvinced, I researched more and got enough new content to create a Ecology section plus added some 1996 news about the mine. Just to address Paul H.'s point, whether the mine is operational or not is not a measure of it's notability, abandoned mines can be notable, we just need to follow the notability criteria. That said, as my recent edits show, it's about to be reopened anyway. CT55555 (talk) 07:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The environmental controversy and sources found by CT55555 push this over to a Keep. When there are legal or human rights controversy like child labor, conflict resources, environmental harm to protected land, it elevates the topic to something more than another mine. -- GreenC 14:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Places that cover mining news cover this. Enough coverage has been found to convince me its notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 08:03, 7 March 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!} 07:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Duma Polska

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

Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of political parties and certainly not when they have very little credible third party sources, little to no impact, no notable people involved or as candidates, and barely 1% of votes cast. Nominated because notability guidelines simply not met. doktorb _words^deeds 04:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 04:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 04:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Europe and Poland. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing how they meet WP:NORG or WP:NPOL at this time. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Forvana (talk) 18:14, 4 March 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!} 02:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iryna Zhychuk

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

This artist fails notability. I cannot find any biographical information or any evidence that she has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. The article was created in 2011 by user Mykola Zhychuk, so I assume there is a conflict of interest. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not finding anything in an online BEFORE search to indicate that this artist is notable. Does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST criteria for inclusion. As mentioned in the nom, this may be a COI creation for the purposes of promotion. Netherzone (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find this person in any sources. The article was created by a SPA who may be related to the artist (Mykola Zhychuk). This same person also created the Ukrainian article (well, I think it's Ukrainian) linked from this page. Lamona (talk) 16:03, 2 March 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. As noted, failing NPOL is not in and of itself a reason to justify deletion; while satisfying NPOL indicates notability, the opposite, failing NPOL, does not by itself indicate a lack of notability. The keep arguments provided policy-based interventions regarding sourcing and refuted arguments on the status of that sourcing, the delete arguments were less grounded in policy and failed to address the counterpoints regarding notability. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 13:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fran Florez

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

Unsuccessful candidate for California State Assembly over 10 years ago fails WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 01:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and California. Shellwood (talk) 01:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on the sources I have added to the article, WP:BASIC notability appears supported with sustained, in-depth coverage focused on her and her career. Beccaynr (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds like a full-time second place candidate. Nothing of substance here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The comment "Sounds like a full-time second place candidate" is both false and a violation of WP:BLP policy. She won three city council elections, and served 12 years including time as mayor. She also served as the chairperson of the California High-Speed Rail Authority, an agency managing a gigantic multibillion dollar project. Focusing only on her unsuccessful Assembly campaigns is the wrong approach. 21:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Cullen328 (talk)

Serving as a member of the city council of Shafter, California (population 13,000) does not satisfy WP:NPOL. Neither does managing an obscure, state-level government program. And I don't see how "full-time second place candidate" is any harsher than labeling someone a "perennial candidate," especially if it's true. KidAd • SPEAK 22:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Obscure"? 6.6 million Californians voted to fund the agency. She meets GNG which is just fine as an alternative to NPOL. The problem with "a full-time second place candidate" is that it is demonstrably false. She had a full time job for at least 26 years working for Bank of America. Wikipedia editors are simply not allowed to promulgate falsehoods about living people. Cullen328 (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really struggling to understand the points here. Working as a bank officer ~~contributes to WP:GNG?~~ means she is not a perennial candidate? A significant number of voters supporting a measure to fund a state agency means that its employee is notable? KidAd • SPEAK 18:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me do my best to be clear. KidAd. Her decades of service with the second largest bank in the country means that she is not "a full-time second place candidate", as does the fact that she won three elections and served for 12 years in elected office. As for your "perennial candidate" accusation, Perennial candidates in the United States says that A perennial candidate is a political candidate who frequently runs for public office without a reasonable chance of winning. The term is the opposite of an incumbent politician who repeatedly defends their seat successfully. In the U.S., perennial candidates are usually affiliated with third party politics. Again, she won three general elections for local office and one major party primary for a state legislative office. When she lost to Danny Gilmore in the 2008 general election, he got 43,925 votes while she got 42,615 votes. Pretty close. She is not involved in third party politics. Do any reliable sources describe her candidacies as having no reasonable chance of winning? Instead, she was an incumbent who successfully defended her seat in two elections. You and the other editors are welcome to argue that she is not notable, but you are not entitled to make completely false statements about her life and career in doing so. Cullen328 (talk) 00:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I get the *keep* arguments, but in fact other than some local offices this person has mainly failed to get elected. The one that pushed me over the edge was that "The outgoing incumbent, Democrat Nicole Parra, endorsed Fran Florez's Republican opponent" - so this is someone who is not even supported by her own party. She has been mayor, but I don't think that's enough for NPOL - every city has a mayor. She tried and failed to succeed for state office. Note that the California High-Speed Rail position is an appointed position and always for four years. We don't know who appointed her, although we do know that at some point she chaired the organization. However, there isn't much that I can find about what she accomplished in that time, which is what would be needed for notability. Lamona (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think a review of the sources, including those added to the article since this discussion started, help show Florez is part of an extended political competition, and multiple independent and reliable sources have objectively found her role 'worthy of notice', which includes the Parra endorsement of her rivals. This article can be expanded with the available sources to more clearly add context about why the coverage of the Parra endorsement helps objectively support the WP:BASIC/WP:GNG notability of Florez. Beccaynr (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did review the sources. They seem like usual sources relating to local politicians and elections. Although she is mentioned in them, it is only as a candidate. I don't see anything about her as an "accomplished" or influential politician, just news about campaigns. We need some sources that say what is important about her, and I don't see that in these sources nor in searches I have done. Lamona (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I linked to the Subjective importance essay in my previous comment because it states, A common misconception about notability is that importance or uniqueness equals notability. Her WP:BASIC notability appears supported by multiple independent and reliable sources finding her 'worthy of notice' over time with WP:SECONDARY context and synthesis related to her career; a subjective determination of importance is not a factor in WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, or WP:NPOL. Beccaynr (talk) 21:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Granted, Florez is not inherently notable under WP:NPOL crit. 1 since she hasn't held elective office. But as NPOL itself notes, candidates and local officials "can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline", even if they don't meet NPOL. In other words, NPOL is an inclusionary SNG, not an exclusionary one, meaning that while people who pass it are generally notable, people who don't pass it are not necessarily not notable: they just have to go the GNG route instead. From a GNG perspective, I agree with Cullen328 and Beccaynr that Florez is indeed notable: sources like [13], [14], and [15] are independent and reliable, and they provide Florez with significant coverage. While these are local papers, there's no policy or guideline prohibiting the use of such sources in this context as long as the sources are reliable, which these ones seem to be. (After all, Wikipedia:Notability (local interests) was unsuccessful.) Finally, some of the delete !votes seem to focus more on whether Florez is an effective politician than whether the sources here are adequate to pass the relevant notability guidelines. Wikipedia has many articles on unsuccessful individuals, and that's because we rightly follow objective standards like the GNG rather than our personal views on who is sufficiently significant to merit an article. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:03, 6 March 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 nomination withdrawn. BuySomeApples (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Redrum (2022 film)

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

Non notable web film. Other than same promotional news published in multiple site, i didn't find any review, any significant coverage. Fails WP:NFILM, WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 01:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant reliable sources coverage available here and here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usman Bey (talk • contribs) 20:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is enough coverage now, so i am withdrawing my nomination. Thanks. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:57, 27 February 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GamesBids

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). Non notable website that fails the notability guidelines. I have also prodded the creator of the website Robert Livingstone. Sahaib3005 (talk) 18:48, 12 February 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 February 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the article now appears to have been WP:REFBOMBed which doesn’t really help in establishing notability. Sahaib3005 (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The article had been critically out of date, additional links and information brought it forward 10 years and made it clear that it remains a notable site, frequently mentioned in books and news. I vote to keep. menscerto 20:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, the user above seems to have a WP:Conflict of Interest. Sahaib3005 (talk) 12:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Note, source references above were incorrect. Subject is referred to as GamesBids.com, not GamesBids. See NYT - instead search https://www.nytimes.com/search?query=gamesbids.com for long list of hits. Same applies for others. Perhaps article name could be edited to Gamesbids.com for greater accuracy menscerto 19:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:42, 27 February 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 Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer (TV special). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Misfit Elephant

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

Like Dolly for Sue, this article also fails notability guidelines. There are no reliable sources out there, including in a Google search about this topic. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 02:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, Television, Comics and animation, Christianity, and Canada. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey OnlyFixingProse, I don't know if you are new to editing, but it seems you are or are kinda unfamiliar. I'm not fully sure about the Misfit Elephant, but Dolly for Sue has several sources and newspaper articles on her from the late 1900s. She was part of a popular mystery for years, appearing on news stories and tv shows as part of discussions. Her coverage was significant in the '80s. Many Rudolph characters from the 1964 film are notable, and although I would not be against a nomination for the elephant, Dolly for Sue is definitely a keep, even a basic google search will get you some good sources (maybe not ScreenRant or anything, but they work). Podcasts too with the voice actress and the discussion can be found on spotify. Im surprised the authors of the article have not added these sources. Hope this helps. 2603:7081:2501:8692:5048:5425:B482:CB21 (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide some of the sources that demonstrate the notability of the subjects on the appropriate pages. If there are sources that demonstrate the notability of Dolly for Sue provide them in that discussion and if there are sources for this article provide them here.

Also, nothing that OnlyFixingProse has done in proposing these deletions seems out of the ordinarily and you just saying WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES seems to show that you are more unfamiliar with editing than them. Cakelot1 (talk) 11:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found several independent sources for the user. You can view it at the current discussion. —Lord of Fantasy (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer (TV special), clearly not notable enough for a standalone article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer (TV special), no indication of notability per nom. Cakelot1 (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer (TV special) - There is no significant coverage in reliable sources by searching using any of the three names given to the character in the article. In fact, the term "Misfit Elephant" gives me more coverage on Dumbo than on this character. But, since it appears that "Misfit Elephant" is the official name given to this character on products, a redirect would be reasonable I suppose. Rorshacma (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that the page be merged with Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer (1964) instead of a deletion. Furthermore, a redirect is best. —Lord of Fantasy (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above, not seeing how the topic meets WP:GNG sufficiently to warrant a stand-alone article. Much of the character development is unreferenced, parts of the 'reception' that are referenced can be salvaged by merge but there is not enough WP:SIGCOV to warrant a stand-alone article. Ping me if better sources are found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer (TV special) per above. 180.194.127.148 (talk) 06:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer (TV special). Sandstein 14:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dolly for Sue

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

Fails notability guidelines. There are no reliable sources out there, including in a Google search about this topic. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 02:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fictional elements, Television, and Comics and animation. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would go with a solid keep and complete rewrite of said article. I don’t wanna accuse the proposer of anything, but if you correctly conduct a Google search then you would have gotten tons of independent sources talking or discussing the character from the 1964 film. As a user mentioned in another deletion discussion, Dolly was part of a major speculative mystery for some time, even got some mentioning in newspaper and magazines articles (and even a more recent one from 2010). I think the article just needs a major cleanup to comply with Wikipedia’s Quality Standards, that’s all, really. Although a merge/redirect to the 1964 film with her own topic section wouldn’t be a bad idea, the article can work as a stand-alone, considering all the available sources out there. Here are some of the many sources that I found through a basic cse Google search: CBR.com, Greater Long Island, distractify.com, PCM, this podcast with the supposed voice actress herself, and the list just goes on and on. I could actually provide several more from other sources on the character, really, but these are just the most recently published. I actually created this article only because of this popular speculative topic. Like I said already, it just needs a major cleanup. Hope this helps! —Lord of Fantasy (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources you mentioned above are unreliable, except for CBR, but a very weak source. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@OnlyFixingProse: I don't see distractify or pcmworldnews being labeled as unreliable by our wiki system? They don't look stellar but to call them unreliable we should have a WP:RSN discussion or otherwise you should present arguments here why they are unreliable, rather than stating that they are. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I found another source https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rudolph-dolly-mystery-solved_n_5c049a97e4b04fb211695383, but I agree Merge would be a better option. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 12:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer (TV special). There is a bit of discussion of her, but not academic, the notability comes from rather niche media and is pretty borderline. Unless better sources are found, I think the best case is to merge the referenced part of the "Character debate" to that article. Ping me if better sources are found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I finally found this good source (the one where she’s mentioned in the trivia show Wait Wait...Don’t Tell Me!) from December 8, 2007 which semi proves she was part of a popular mystery — I just need to find that interview and those books they mentioned. It’s mostly in the last five minutes of this podcast: https://www.npr.org/player/embed/17039461/17039446. I’m going to ping @Piotrus: per request. I also found this source, although I don’t know if it’s reliable: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rudolph-dolly-mystery-solved_n_5c049a97e4b04fb211695383. — Lord of Fantasy (talk) 06:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, but I don't think we have enough material (SIGCOV) for a stand-alone article. I'd encourage you to add wht you found, however, although best would be to merge this and have a short section about her in the article about the TV show. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think a section could be best at least. Here are some other sources I found a few hours ago: Television Academy, and Collider. Lord of Fantasy (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I found another one, but doesn’t just talk about her though https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/12/rankin-bass-rudolph-the-red-nosed-reindeer/616932/. Also, the sources that are found above isn’t great either. 180.194.127.148 (talk) 06:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This goes to show her notability is inherently tied to that of the show. Hence, my vote for merging. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 12:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Powledge

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

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Meets neither WP:GNG or WP:COLLATH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wish Dallas Morning News wouldn't paywall their stuff (is that a verb?) -- the Huntsville article is a good feature story. The "Oregon Ducks" source is not independent, but a quick web search turns his name a lot in many news articles, and so many mentions in articles about other feature stories speaks to WP:IMPACT. While not every assistant football coach is notable, this one appears to be.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG per Paulmdconald. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per GNG. Rlendog (talk) 22:19, 4 March 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!} 07:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aik Mohabbat Kaafi Hai

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

Disputed draftification. Fails WP:GNG Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 14:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 14:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 14:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have not reviewed the references, but that should not be necessary. An article should speak for itself, and this article does not explain how the subject show satisfies general notability or television notability. The subject show may be notable, but this article does not establish notability. Another article might be a keeper, but this is not it. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- The article is a notable televison drama having popular names from the Pakistan industry. It also have strong references from local newspaper and news channels as well. (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~- As it is popular television show in Pakistan aired on a private network, having sources from local newspapers. (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Lillyput4455 has !voted twice, but has an imperfect signature. See history. Struck !vote. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 10:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack reliable source. C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 08:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- It is popular television show in Pakistan aired on a private network, having reliable sources from local newspapers. (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- It is popular television show in Pakistan, having reliable sources from local newspapers. (M5315k talk) 16:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless better sources can be found. The BOL sources are not independent. I looked at each of the other sources and none were more than a short promotional blurb. Those of you who know it is a popular show: can you find reliable sources with significant information? Lamona (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – not a single source that is reliable, independent, and talks about the show at any depth. --bonadea contributions talk 19:18, 2 March 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. WP:MILUNIT is an essay and therefore a weak argument to make, and a redirect to Swiss Air Force can be created if this squadron is ever mentioned there (right now, no squadrons are). Sandstein 14:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. 14 Instrument Flying Squadron

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

fails WP:GNG due to lack of independent sources The Banner talk 12:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- We have articles on all the other squadrons of the Swiss Air Force. A lack of citations in a stub is not a valid reason for deletion; only for tagging for improvement. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Ow, I am willing to nominate all squadrons created by the community banned sockpuppeteer, if that solves your problem. The Banner talk 16:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MILUNIT #7. Clearly has sources. Print sources are acceptable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that a community decision or just a local decision? The Banner talk 10:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MILUNIT is not an official Wikipedia policy and thus an invalid argument in an AfD. Print sources are acceptable per WP:OFFLINE ~~(I can't judge whether the particular sources in the article go towards GNG though)~~. Alvaldi (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks the WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG. Of the two offline sources linked in the article, one is about the "Color scheme and markings of Swiss military aviation 1914-1950" which is hardly GNG material. The other seems to be about the Hawker Hunter jet. No evidence that either one has any significant coverage on the Squadron. Was unable to find any other sources online. That we have articles on other squadrons has no effect on this one as notability is not inherited per WP:NOTINHERITED. Alvaldi (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the source analysis conducted by Alvaldi unless someone can surface better sources. "We have articles on all the other squadrons of the Swiss Air Force" sounds a lot like an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument and doesn't hold water. As for WP:MILUNIT, it is an essay that explicitly states "The key to determining notability is ultimately coverage in independent sources per the general notability guideline" and "[The] presumption of notability for a military unit or formation depends wholly on the existence of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." -Ljleppan (talk) 08:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Swiss Air Force: Redirect to a sentence on Swiss Air Force. Gusfriend (talk) 05:22, 2 March 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 03:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Off Broadway Shoe Warehouse

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

non-notable -- the refs are PR. I don't see this is even worth a merge or redirect to its immediate parent company. DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and North Carolina. Shellwood (talk) 02:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Tennessee. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:27, 27 February 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 Already deleted by G4. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 19:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andoni Elephant Sanctuary

AfDs for this article:

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

G4 removed by article creator, may not be substantially identical to the previous version but neither of the cited sources mentions an elephant sanctuary in Andoni. (t · c) buidhe 01:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Environment. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:30, 27 February 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!} 00:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meltano

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

Fails WP:NCORP, googling yields extremely limited coverage outside of press releases and promotional material. Possible undeclared paid editing/COI. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 00:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 00:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 00:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 00:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google search shows that there isn't any independent source cover. The article itself consists only one reference which isn't also reliable source. Katobara (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems a cut-n-paste from an investor pitch, down to the first person plural "we". Created by single-purpose account Special:Contributions/Emilylucie who never made a single other edit. W Nowicki (talk) 21:29, 1 March 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. 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!} 07:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Middelkoop

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

Does not pass the WP:GNG. My WP:BEFORE by WP:NEXIST, that included Google, Google News, Google Books, and Delpher, came up with only internal scouting and self-published works. Strange that this could go unnoticed since 2016! An association football manager by the same name is better known and still fails the GNG. gidonb (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scouting-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article lacks any sources outside the organization he worked with providing any coverage of him. Wikipedia is not supposed to be based completely on organizations publishing coverage on their own volunteers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we have lots of articles that have been tagged as having no sources since before Jan. 1, 2010. That an article has gone six years in a sub-standard state of existence is no suprise at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean that many articles are unreferenced. That is true but not a major problem as long as WP:NEXIST is met. This article went without notability-supporting sources entirely, at the very least to the extent we could reasonably find. Thanks for addressing my concern! gidonb (talk) 10:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it appears to be cited, though I can't read French. There may be sources in Dutch, but I don't know. --evrik ^(talk) 02:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since when are a few citations an indication of notability? Reports get cited, as do self-published books. Do their authors become notable? There may be sources also doesn't fly. gidonb (talk) 02:20, 1 March 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 12:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Grieder

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

Unclear if this meets MUSICBIO or GNG. A WP:BEFORE did not yield any significant coverage. The article was tagged for notability concerns in 2019. TJMSmith (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 18:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has many credits for making music videos, and it is true that some of those videos gained notice, but it's the musicians and the songs that get noticed and Grieder is typically only listed in the credits. His independent film work has gained no notice beyond his own networking sites. Per WP:CREATIVE there is not enough evidence that he has received media coverage or professional notice in his own right. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to fail WP:GNG, I could find no coverage outside of passing mentions and primary sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:13, 1 March 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Southwestern Washington Synod (ELCA)

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

No WP:SIGCOV and thus fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. Propose redirecting to Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is equivalent of a diocese in an episcopal church, in this case with 82 or 90 congregations. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Peterkingiron, it still needs to meet NCHURCH and thus NORG, which it currently does not. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why nominate this one for deletion and not all the others? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Necrothesp, in my opinion it is generally good practice to test on a single article before nominating a series of articles for deletion. Series AfDs can be quite messy if done all at once when there isn't some precedent. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:53, 2 March 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 12:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maulvi Ahmad Taha

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

Meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Was deprodded without improvement, with the rationale, "all references are reliable and it is about a high official of the state." However just because it sourced and he is a government official does not meet either GNG or NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Afghanistan. Shellwood (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It can be kept in mainspace if the article is improved with references.Afzlfc (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Deputy governor could be a position that confers WP:NPOL, but I'm not sure in this case. Curbon7 (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as explained by the person who nominated this. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable.Lacks of media coverage. I can't find any source on Google. Mommmyy (talk) 13:26, 27 February 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!} 07:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nano Research Laboratory Tehran (Ultrasonic Research Lab)

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

non notable lab. lacks in depth coverage. Tame (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google search and Google News bring up nothing, Google Books brings up two results that upon further inspection have nothing to do with the topic of the article, and the two "sources" that this article cites are very clearly primary. Unless someone can find some offline secondary sources about this topic, this seems to be a pretty clear fail of WP:GNG. Duckmather (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For analysis of the content added less than 24 hours ago.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Don't delete Ultrasonic Research Laboratory of Tehran is part of International Federation of Inventors' Associations. They obtain IFIA certificate and their innovation was granted with IFIA Innovation Standard Grade A. This lab was introduced by multiple online references like IFIA, Delwaco.ir, Delwaco.com and Ultrasonic Lab. As you can see, I'm constantly updating this article. However, there are also much more subjects like certificates (ISO / IEC 17025 standard certificate, Certificate of Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) and Certificate from the World Food Safety Organization), innovations(Saffron Nanoemulsion), scientific articles (Employing Nanoemulsions in Food Packaging) to be covered. The article definitely deserves to be updated and kept on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radvino (talk • contribs)
Delete Fails WP:NORG, likely WP:COI. XOR'easter (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete The content of the page has been improved from the beginning. It is worth updating and keeping the page available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahimian r (talk • contribs) 10:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC) — Rahimian r (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Just a support lab at a University with no apparent profile beyond. Just achieving a certification does not demonstrate notability, and the other refs, not based on the certification documentation, are either peripheral (not about the lab) or non-independent. No expectation there is better sourcing out there to be found. Agricolae (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is being standardized which means it shouldn't be nominated for deletion. Just give them a break! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JinWidmore 85 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JinWidmore 85: New comments go at the bottom of the page, not the top. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mostly due to failing WP:NORG, but nothing really standing out from the academic side either. As others have said, it looks like a WP:COI issue with multiple new editors showing up. I'm only seeing non-independent sources, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, or basically puffery type sources involved here. I don't see this as a useful redirect either for search terms, much less a merge, so delete in this case. KoA (talk) 00:49, 6 March 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 Draftify and move protect using Extended confirmed protection. The article is now located at Draft:Yu-Gi-Oh! Go Rush!!. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yu-Gi-Oh! Go Rush!!

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

Yu-Gi-Oh! Go Rush!!

Upcoming television series that does not satisfy television notability or general notability because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Moved back from article space to draft space once by User:Onel5969, and then redacted to remove copyvio, and then moved back to article space without improvement; but removing the copyvio did not add content. The only reference is a product announcement, which is neither independent nor secondary. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. I agree the topic fails WP:GNG at present. That being said, Yu-Gi-Oh! is a very popular series and this will likely be notable in about a month when it starts airing, since all the other spin-offs are notable. A redirect to Yu-Gi-Oh!#Anime with the {{R with possibilities}} template can also be created. Link20XX (talk) 01:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify (with mainspace title redirected to Yu-Gi-Oh!#Anime) or Keep Currently, all the coverage I see is the announcement of the anime, which isn't enough to support an article past stub status. However, as Link noted the notability is near guaranteed once the series starts airing in 1 month (February went by fast!). It might be a bit WP:BURO to draftify it for that short of a time. Jumpytoo Talk 01:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify but move-protected. I think without being protected from moves, this page would stay in Draft space for a matter of minutes or hours before being moved back to main space. The same thing happens with all upcoming media/entertainment products, fans want to get the article in main space as soon as possible, whether or not it is ready. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and possibly move-protect pro-tem per Liz, to minimise 'fan' disruption. Eagleash (talk) 07:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - clearly not ready for mainspace, and definitely move protect. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Like every new anime, info for it comes out every few weeks through main website or other official sources. SpectresWrath (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources give it significant coverage. https://comicbook.com/anime/news/yu-gi-oh-go-rush-new-anime-2022/ https://www.cbr.com/yu-gi-oh-new-anime-go-rush/ https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2021-12-17/yu-gi-oh-go-rush-anime-announced-with-april-2022-premiere/.180735 and I assume many others. This a massively popular long running series, so a new show is sure to get ample coverage, and there is enough information to write a proper article from. Dream Focus 07:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I concur with the recommendation to draftify and move-protect. I would add that the move-protection should be ECP-protection rather than admin-protection. Not necessary to get an admin to approve; an AFC reviewer should be able to accept. Also, I didn't draftify because another unilateral draftification would have been move-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - It does not matter if it is "sure to get ample coverage" -- it does not have it as of right now, so there is no point for it to be in main space. Rin (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify for now, to be recreated in the likely case it gets more coverage like most anime does eventually these days. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and move-protect, as per Liz. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and move-protect, per Liz. The sources offered above are from specialized outlets, and I would expect some coverage outside of it, but for now there's none I can find. I'm sure it will gain traction in the days leading up to airing. Pilaz (talk) 00:17, 6 March 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 12:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Multicultural transruption

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

Basically an essay, not a notable subject PepperBeast (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --198.134.98.50 (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or, rather, it is an article about a concept invented by Professor of African American Studies at Northwestern University Barnor Hesse, sourced to Hesse's 2000 book. What the article doesn't indicate is that Hesse's idea has escaped its creator over the subsequent 20 years at least to the extent that 'Transruption, according to Hesse', 'what Hesse calls “transruption”', and 'Transruption, as Barnor Hesse defines it, is' were the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th Google Books results when I looked. So we cannot quite argue that this is one author's unpropagated idea, per the Wikipedia:no original research policy. Nor can we fully argue that it isn't notable, because it has clearly been noted, in multiple works by other authors. And applied by them, as (for one randomly picked example) by Randa Abdel-Fattah in ISBN 9781351717823 discussing the transruptive nature of Islam in Australia. Uncle G (talk) 00:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this essay. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like an essay or a summary to a peer-reviewed article. Oaktree b (talk) 18:43, 2 March 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 12:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MobileNotifier

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

Non-notable software PepperBeast (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NSOFT. No sustained coverage. - hako9 (talk) 00:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, coverage appears to be isolated to an extremely short period of time in 2011, with nothing since. As such, this fails WP:N and WP:10YT. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:56, 1 March 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 am swayed by the Comments that attest to the fact that the sources to not help establish notability for this television show. And even a stub article should adequately identify its subject. But this Delete decision does not rule out the possibility of a future article on this subject should new and better sources be found, ideally worked out in Draft space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bisaat

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

Disputed draftification, moved back to main space with no changes/improvements. Fails WP:GNG Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have not reviewed the references, but that should not be necessary. An article should speak for itself, and this article does not explain how the subject show satisfies general notability or television notability. The subject show may be notable, but this article does not establish notability. Another article might be a keeper, but this is not it. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I find this logic hard to follow. An article can exist as a valid stub, and you just stated that you did not actually look at the sources. matt91486 (talk) 12:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Matt91486 - A valid stub explains briefly why the subject is notable, as opposed to stating only that the subject exists (and so may be run-of-the-mill). Wikipedia is written and developed primarily for the reader, not primarily for the editor. The reader expects to learn something by looking at a stub, rather than to be sent on a question to read the footnotes. The footnotes are required to support the core policy of verifiability, but most readers trust that we, the editors, have already done the verification. A stub should speak for itself. If one of the references contains important information, the stub should restate or summarize the important information. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment / leaning Keep - this one might need an Urdu speaker to search for Urdu language references. Searching in English is difficult because of the similarly named Bisaat e Dil by the same creator on the same TV network. The 2nd and 3rd references are both moderately substantial and about the show itself, so if they are considered reliable they would contribute. matt91486 (talk) 12:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Would really benefit from being a draft and further development, but with author moving to mainspace, judge as such. Not seeing how WP:GNG is met, needs more and better sources, ideally some reviews to show coverage. Ravensfire (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The references in the article are strong enough to make it reliable. (talk) 12:01, 17g February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have a lot of sympathy with Robert McClenon on this. Wikipedia shouldn't be a meaningless catalogue of TV shows presented in such a way that the person who's seen the show learns nothing new, and the person who hasn't seen the show learns nothing at all. It's not enough to have only sources; there must also be some real, useful information. This one has none. I have no idea whether this is a documentary about life in a gas-station, a reality quiz-show or a police drama. Please, if we must have an article, let it say something! Elemimele (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would probably need an Urdu speaker to weigh in on this. English sources seem sparse, I can't even find an IMDb page for this show. The article itself looks like a valid stub, not unlike most other TV show stubs. RoseCherry64 (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have reviewed the sources, and they don't add anything to the article. User:Lillyput4455 is mistaken, and the sources do not provide significant coverage of the series. The body of the stub article does not explain why the series is notable, and neither do the references

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Secondary
1	dailytimes.com.pk	Announcement of roles of stars	No	No	No
2	images.dawn.com	Interview with stars	No	No	No
3	gulfnews.com	Interview with actress	No	No	No

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No new !votes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:59, 27 February 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.