Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 September 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 14 September 16 >

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brooks College[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. The article has only primary references to the article subject's own websites. A WP:BEFORE search revealed little or no mention of the organization and no reliable sources. Geoff | Who, me? 22:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the brooks college should go back to this version. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brooks_College&oldid=268962993 Class Action Lawsuits against Brooks College due to fraudulent activities. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-109hhrg99773/html/CHRG-109hhrg99773.htm https://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2009/comments09/c176.pdf Editior1482 (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Although this entity claimed accreditation status with Western Association of Schools and Colleges that could not be verified in the WASC directory, it does appear to be registered as a corporation with the office of California's Secretary of State. The building that is advertised as their address at 1225 Crossman Ave, Sunnyvale, CA 94089, looks nothing like the building advertised on their very slick website. It doesn't even take spidey sense to be suspicious it's a scam diploma mill. But let's assume it's legit... the article fails WP:NCORP, and especially WP:AUD, requiring multiple independent, secondary, reliable regional and/or national sources. Period. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I should have noted above that as a for-profit institution, the guideline that applies here is not just the WP:GNG guideline that applies to non-profits. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. The only consensus I can see over the voluminous comments provided is the desire to keep this article in some form. I suggest moving the discussion from AFD to the article talk page to explore the possibility of renaming the article or merging some of the content to other articles. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Queue[edit]

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

This event fails WP:NEVENT, as this is neither something with WP:LASTING significance nor an event with wide geographical scope and could frankly be deleted under WP:DEL-REASON#8. Any content here can be appropriately covered within the article on Elizabeth II's death, Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II, which is a more appropriate location to describe this article's subject. As such, I am proposing that we blank-and-redirect this article, as this is a non-notable event where any coverage would be better placed in the proper context of the death article. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture, Christianity, Geography, England, and Islands. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - extremely broad international coverage, not all feeding from local sources certainly gives a reasonable indication that it is notable. Additionally, not all the available content could reasonably be included in the Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II article, so it would also act as a reasonable spinoff article. The BLAR didn't merge the then present content (already shorter than the current level) into that article, additionally. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:NOPAGE, There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. I think this is clearly one of those times; we're covering the line to see the queen in this article. Even for Evita, the article describes the fact that 3 million Argentine mourners (one-sixth of all Argentina at the time) queued up for two weeks to see her or attend her funeral in a single section in her biographical article. I see no reason why the queue itself is expected to have lasting coverage that is better situated in its own article rather than in the broader context of the article on Elizabeth's death and state funeral. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    the article describes the fact that 3 million Argentine mourners (one-sixth of all Argentina at the time) queued up for two weeks to see her. -- What you claim here isn't reflected in the text of the article. 3 million people gathered. But a gathering is not the same as a queue. Seddon talk 03:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is this considered for deletion? "The Queue" is a cultural phenomenon and a historic event which is being reported on in newspapers and news channels around the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princessdawn (talk • contribs) 22:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is considered for deletion per the rationale presented in the nomination. 1234qwer1234qwer4 22:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Death_and_state_funeral_of_Elizabeth_II#Lying in state and the Queue; obviously does not need a separate article. The international coverage and wildly premature "cultural phenomenon" claim is not independent of the broader news around the death and funeral, and the content does not warrant a split. Reywas92Talk 22:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. It's certainly worth mentioning The Queue (and I do enjoy the capitalisation), but the information here belongs in the main article., A.D.Hope (talk) 22:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Death_and_state_funeral_of_Elizabeth_II#Lying in state and the Queue, pending a couple days to see if there's sustained coverage. Rather humored this made it to the Christianity AFD sorting, but I suppose it is actually appropriate. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above. There's already a more notable queue in British culture, it's the queue for Wimbledon tickets and it has appeared every year since 1922, yet only gets a mention in Wimbledon Championships#Tickets 141.143.213.47 (talk) 02:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (updated) per WP:NEVENT I disagree the nominators assessment here. The second criteria in NEVENT Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources very clearly applies here. It has resulted in the hospitalisation of 45 people, is being assessed as being a potential world record, the coverage is only increasing and is also likely to be the focus of future scientific studies. In addition:
  • Meets WP:GEOSCOPE -- Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely)
  • Meets WP:DEPTH -- The general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing. In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines (like The Guardian, Times...
  • Meets WP:GNG -- gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention.
Unlike the generic queues for Wimbledon, this queue... THE Queue... is itself notable. Seddon talk 02:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I respectfully disagree (about Wimbledon). The organizers call it "The Queue"[1][2] ("The Queue has capital letter status because it is a Wimbledon institution"), the press call it "The Queue" (or the "Wimbledon Queue" or "The Queue at Wimbledon", etc.)[3][4][5][6][7] "The Wimbledon queue is not a mere queue but, as the signs call it, ‘The Queue.’ It is an event, a feature of the championships since the early 20th Century." - so while mourners queuing to see Elizabeth lying-in-state is a noteworthy event, and the press have dubbed it "The Queue", it's not notable that they've dubbed it that, and there are challengers from other famous queues. 141.143.213.47 (talk) 10:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This event is likely to have set a world record so I'm game for creating a disambiguation page if appropriate for other lesser queues. Seddon talk 23:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above - agree fully with original nomination. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 04:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as it can easily fit in the section within the main article, but wait at the moment to see how the whole thing develops until Monday. Keivan.fTalk 04:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep It seems that we don't have to wait until Monday. The page has been expanded and can be a standalone article. Keivan.fTalk 16:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I'm not yet convinced of its independent notability in a week in which lots of things are going to be big or a bit (?) surprising. I'd say that if in a year it looks like it was, then try recreating it and prove us wrong in a calmer time, but for now I think it should just be within the death/funeral article. DBaK (talk) 06:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper. Not every current event needs an article, and this one is hardly notable. Antoniciagala (talk) 08:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above. I think the scale of this gathering of mourners is notable enough to get mentioned in the main article on the Queen's funeral, but unless some major event happens within the line itself, I don't think "A Particularly Long Line Of People" necessitates an article in and of itself, let alone a name with the gravitas of "THE QUEUE". Peribirb (talk) 08:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not "gravitas" that is making that name be used, it's because lots of sources are calling it that. Now if it ends up being partially spun off into a lying in state article, obviously that would also be accurate. But COMMONNAME would make this a logical name for its current form (although a disambiguator could certainly be added) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Death_and_state_funeral_of_Elizabeth_II#Lying in state and the Queue. I was excited about the possibility of a The Queue article, but I calmed down and instead created the Death_and_state_funeral_of_Elizabeth_II#Lying in state and the Queue subsection. I think the sensible course of action is to let that section develop and then we can review the situation and (re)create a spin-off article if needed. I suggest that if a spin-off article is needed, it makes sense to create something like The lying in state of Queen Elizabeth II, including content on The Queue, rather than a separate Queue article. That all said, I do agree with the article creator that The Queue has attracted considerable domestic and international attention (e.g., CNN, Le Parisien, Courrier International, Zentralplus). I would encourage those concerned about WP:RECENTISM to help chop out the trivia elsewhere in the Death_and_state_funeral_of_Elizabeth_II article. Bondegezou (talk) 08:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A day on and I've changed my mind. The article has grown significantly, and plenty more news stories have come out and have not yet been covered in the article. The article clearly passes WP:GNG. It is getting too long to be included in the Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II article. I would suggest that a Lying in state of Queen Elizabeth II article including events in Westminster Hall would be a more sensible way of carving up the material, otherwise it's a bit unclear where some events should be covered (e.g., someone rushing at the catafalque). Bondegezou (talk) 10:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another day on, and can we just Snow it now? Bondegezou (talk) 12:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait It'll be gone by Monday: take a view after that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alasdairking (talk • contribs) 09:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: the current peak at 4.9km is 1.1km shy of the longest ever funeral queue of 6km.[8] We should avoid an early SNOW close, as this queue might exceed that over the weekend. Fences&Windows 10:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it's 5 miles long, not 5km, so it will be the new world record holder. Fences&Windows 14:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge but Wait to Death_and_state_funeral_of_Elizabeth_II#Lying in state and the Queue. I do not believe that the queue in itself will have sufficient permanent notability to deserve an article of its own. It may be that the Lying in State will deserve its own article. Premature SNOW closure would be inappropriate. Much better to wait until after the funeral, when an experienced editor can restructure all the articles relating to the demise of the Crown and Accession of Charles III. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The queue is not notable in and of itself. Recent news reports give it undue weight. When the Queen's father died there was a similar queue. A year from now it will only need a passing mention in the Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II article. "The Queen lay in state before her funeral. [number] million queued for up to 14 hours to see her in a queue that stretched [miles] to [endpoint]." That's all the lasting and historical impact that will come from it. H. Carver (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until Monday. Personally I would want this to be merged with the main article but I can see that there is substantial coverage about it. Vida0007 (talk) 11:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was initially leaning towards "merge" but as the days went on I understood why this needs a separate article (per the reasons stated above and below this one). However, I do think this article needs to be renamed, as suggested by – robertsky and Lordrosemount below. Vida0007 (talk) 07:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the main article, we really don't need an article about the line. Oaktree b (talk) 11:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious merge.  — Scott • talk 12:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 14:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per arguments above; it may become (through coverage) worthy of its own page but current coverage doesn't support that. I do think it will deserve its own section within the merged article if the feature coverage continues. --\/\/slack (talk) 14:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Amending this to Keep given more news coverage such as [this article].
  • Wait, then Merge per above. This allows the details and references to be gathered on its own page and then added to the other one afterwards. — MrDolomite • Talk 15:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is getting huge coverage in the British media currently. If you Google "the queue", it currently takes you on to it. Given that we have articles for Hajj cough and Mobile Bay jubilee in the "Crowds" category already, this seems to meet our standards for notability. I can see that a lot of folk are voting for Merge. I don't mind that option too much, but the Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II article is very long already, so I have a slight preference to keep "The Queue" as a separate article. Epa101 (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A cultural phenomenon getting widespread international attention. Like the Queue itself, this article is only going to get longer over the coming days and is likely to overwhelm any article into which it is merged. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. There is too much content in the Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II article already, so merging may not be the best idea. It is not possible to predict the long-term impacts of "The Queue" by itself at present, nor is it possible to predict whether it will be known as "The Queue" on a long-term basis. However, there is enough verifiable content to sustain an article. --RFBailey (talk) 18:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Big coverage in the UK media currently. Too much content in this article to merge into the already large base article. It'd be good to split things off where necessary XxLuckyCxX (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait - It will be easier to decide once the lying-in-state has concluded on Monday morning. It's likely that we should merge, but given the amount of material currently in the article under discussion, it's worth hanging on and seeing what happens. Patience is free. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the reasons above. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This event does not fail WP:NEVENT as it is certainly: "significant (a 5 mile long queue), interesting (it's a 5 mile long queue!), and unusual enough (it's a 5 mile long queue to see the coffin of a dead monarch, possibly the last monarch in human history who will ever receive this much attention) to deserve attention or to be recorded". It is likely WP:LASTING in its significance as I think most observers recognize the absurdity of a five mile long queue to see a dead monarch in modern times. Paradoxsociety 22:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for the many reasons stated above. It can easily be part of the main page, no need to have a separate one. Eccekevin (talk) 23:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until Monday as many have said, then merge if/when it becomes clear this is the right choice. The Queue is certainly interesting as of now, but it will likely not be as notable in a year. In addition, I find the cultural significance stated in the article to be jumping the gun a little; the Queue has only existed for three days. How can we possibly know if it's culturally significant? If it proves to be somewhat significant in the long term, it can be given its own section in Death_and_state_funeral_of_Elizabeth_II#Lying in state and the Queue, as it is a part of a larger event rather than a standalone incident. The amount of notable details will likely fit there. However, it may prove worthy of its own article in the end; it's worth waiting as this is still an ongoing event. The Council of Seraphim | speak before the Council 00:01, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been several days and it seems the article may be worth a keep. The article has been expanded with enough relevant, well-cited details to make it worth its own article. That said, as many have stated, it may be best moved to a title like The Queue (lying in state of Elizabeth II) or Queue to view the coffin of Elizabeth II; as many have argued, the current name is catchy but likely won't be as ubiquitous in a few decades. I find that as a cultural phenomenon related to a historical event, with enough notable and documented incidents and relevance, it's worthy of its own article. Now that the event has passed, it's easier to see that it will still be relevant after time has passed, as a queue of this magnitude for a British monarch will likely not occur again. --The Council of Seraphim | speak before the Council 15:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, once the lying in state has finished, Merge. EmilySarah99 (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Big coverage in the UK and international media.—Champeillant (talk) 01:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree KEEP, I am researching queue behaviour and only found this after reading Elizabethh II death, and a redirection to The Queue. 86.160.53.162 (talk) 02:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Death_and_state_funeral_of_Elizabeth_II because we literally do not need a separate article about a queue - even a temporarily prominent one - at an event, when we already have an article about the event. Thparkth (talk) 03:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, but at very least the wp:Lemma is ambigous. See for instance Death and state funeral of George VI. --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 06:56, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the queue is something special and too large for a merge. Uwappa (talk) 08:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep– too much content to make a merge reasonable, enough sourcing, and part of such a major historic event that concerns of recentism are irrelevant. However it could be moved to Queue to see the coffin of Elizabeth II to have a less vague title. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 09:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I note the article has considerably expanded since this AfD began. In particular, edits late on 16 September 2022 added considerable material. Bondegezou (talk) 10:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, its gotten enough standalone coverage as a significant cultural event aside from the Queens funeral, and too long to just merge into the article. Its a once in 70 years event, I don't think its necessary to try and keep it all within one rapidly expanding article, especially considering the myriad of standalone articles for american cultural and political events. jonas (talk) 10:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment. This article got >16000 views yesterday. I had an article (Jewish Indian theory) in yesterday's DYK on the front page and that got fewer views. Bondegezou (talk) 10:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's because it's a topical news item at the peak of its importance and interest, and the news media having (Definitive!) Nounified an event has driven engagement. Will it still be topical next week? Will it still be in a year, or will we simply remember that the lying-in-state of Elizabeth II had X mourners in Y days with the queue reaching Z miles at its peak? 146.198.240.71 (talk) 11:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was erring on the side of Merge but having read this BBC article - Queen Elizabeth II: The Queue and the Cumbria expert who helped plan it (which I don't think is yet in article) combined with the other material now in the article I have no doubt this is a substantial standalone topic that's going to have longevity. DeCausa (talk) 11:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's enough content for a standalone article now. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delayed merge into Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II. Entire article could easily be condensed into a very short paragraph. However, I'd wait a few weeks until the surge of WP:RECENTISM has died down, as it will be easier to manage once the edit frenzy abates. Cnbrb (talk) 11:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has received a ton of coverage and will continue to do so. I think people will be researching this particular event as its own standalone thing in many years from now. The only thing that I'd maybe re-consider is the title of the article, "The Queue" is a popular name given to it, but maybe there's a better name that is more encyclopaedic. Jayden (talk) 11:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have already voted but I think the article is in a much better place than it was when the AfD nomination was initiated XxLuckyCxX (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although I'm not sure how WP:LASTING the event will be, it has been widely covered in-depth in international media from multiple angles and and with analysis which would seem to satisfy WP:NEVENTS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cakelot1 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems to pass notability just at a skim, and I’ve seen some very stupid, obscure things pass as “notable” for having the barest minimum of sources. Agree that it’s too long to merge unless it’s drastically trimmed. Also support renaming; current title is both informal and vague and will likely not persist into the foreseeable future. Dronebogus (talk) 12:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Talk about a flash in the pan. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 12:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article has expanded since the nomination and will continue to do so. Too large to merge. Receiving enough standalone coverage separate to the main goings-on. Meets WP:NEVENT in my view. 49 TL 12:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets GNG as is already mentioned in hundreds of RS. Abolish the monarchy, not this article. – Meena • 13:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe this event meets WP:NEVENT given the majority of the sources mentioned are articles about how unique this event is and it is a reflection of the unique British queuing culture. For this it meets notability not due to popularity but because of coverage of the unusual behaviour displayed by people going to queue. FeWorld (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the topic has received significant national and international coverage, and much of its content would be out of scope for the page on the Queen's death. It is much like the Clap for Our Carers page; despite both their limited timescales, the amount of cultural commentary they have received is notable and would have an undue weight if properly merged into their respective main articles. Wikipedia is not written on paper, and there is more than enough room for a well-researched article like this. --Voello talk 14:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The overall scale of The Queue along with the standalone coverage specifically of The Queue itself definitely err into the realms of WP:NEVENT. Definitely worth renaming the article after The Queue finally dissapates (perhaps turning 'The Queue' into a redirect to this particular post-rename article, or a WP:DISAMBIG similar to The Queen), but, for the time being, seeing as the present WP:COMMONNAME for The Queue is 'The Queue', renaming this article would be best postponed for the time being. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk | contrib) 15:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd concur that whilst a rename at some point in the future may be likely but for now, WP:COMMONNAME holds for "The Queue". Seddon talk 15:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The coverage has been extensive with articles in most major news outlets. Easily meets GNG. Thriley (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would keep the article because it seems to have become a major trend topic with a significant amount of reporting by both British and foreign news outlets, but I think there is scope to rename the article if there is conflict with other notable events colloquially called "the queue". Mitsuyashi (talk) 16:02, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the only alternative would be to place this content in the death and funeral article which is already extremely lengthy even prior to the funeral and may need splitting itself once things have settled down Davethorp (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've changed my mind due to the sheer amount of media coverage. It is definitely it's own thing and deserves its own article. Wait until Monday and then Merge into the Death of Liz 2 article. David G (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close this discussion based on WP:SNOW. It seems clear that the consensus is not to delete the article, and that a merge discussion would be more appropriate. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. There are multiple news articles (English-speaking and other) talking about The Queue. It has gained fame status by now. Mhapperger (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even CNN are referencing it as "The Queue", initially in light humour at a perceived British stereotype, but it has now gained worldwide media recognition as a quite unique phenomenon for the UK population in modern times. I think people are acting in bad faith generally over many articles related to the late Queen Elizabeth's death, and wikipedia should not get swayed by such opinions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iceblink (talk • contribs) 21:04, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Iceblink, I would not be accusing those with differing opinions in the AfD (or indeed, unnamed, unevidenced, editors elsewhere in the project) of bad faith. I'm familiar with both nom and a good third of those advocating merge/delete, and they are regulars who know what they are talking about, and do so in good faith. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure there are a few good folk, but seriously, Wikipedia and the Internet generally has been flooded by hate and ill-will in regard to Queen Elizabeth's death. The demonstrable affection shown by a five-mile queue in London drives these people literally to madness, I am sure. Iceblink (talk) 23:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I must concur with User:Nosebagbear on this. Disagree all you might, but please keep in mind that a) the notability has expanded in the real world as time has passed but also b) the article itself has been transformed in the time since nomination. Even then, lets keep things focused on facts and policy. Seddon talk 23:56, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There's never been such a queue, five miles, night and day, for four days, in any country ever in history Iceblink (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    While I agree that an article on a queue is unusual, and hence can attract opposition, @Iceblink is right in saying that there is a strong lobby of hatred, and the hatred seems to be originating in the United States. Why the US is more hateful than parts of the former British Empire is beyond me, but it is a point to remember considering the weight that US editors have on Wikipedia. Mitsuyashi (talk) 05:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait a few days until new visits drop, given notoriety of the topic and page. The Queue wikipedia page was referenced in today's Wall Street Journal.
    - In print: In London, 'The Queue' Takes On a Life of Its Own (Monday, 2022-09-19)
    - Online: https://www.wsj.com/articles/as-britons-wait-to-see-queens-coffin-the-queue-takes-on-a-life-of-its-own-11663498146?page=1
    In a week or two Delayed Merge may be sensible, based on comments regarding ambiguity with The Queue (Wimbledon), and other remarks here (e.g., by Cncnb). Jade44wiki (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This will become an important event because it shows how devoted people were to the queen and it will mean that there are more records of the phenomenon that this queue has become! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.156.236 (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC) – Moved to correct location. Madeline (part of me) 21:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as arguments above. Thunderstorm008 (talk · contributions) 23:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to pass notability given the substantial coverage; it's probably too long by now to be reasonably merged into Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II while keeping any semblance of depth. RickMorais (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article could benefit from a more formal/descriptive title but the LISQ will probably be the defining image/memory of this whole event, probably more so than the funeral itself in the long run.Danish Ranger (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While queuing is kinda a British stereotype, per the sourcing over the last couple of days this does seem to have become the definitive queue. At the present time the article clearly meets WP:SIGCOV, and with it currently being assessed for a Guinness World Record it may even meet the WP:LASTING criteria of WP:NEVENT. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The article meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The article is expanded and appears to be suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 03:19, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV including [9] 77.251.200.30 (talk) 05:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close the AfD based on the fact there is a general consensus that we should keep the article. AfD request was made at a time when the article was stub-class and it has expanded very quickly XxLuckyCxX (talk) 12:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for many of the reasons above, although it should be renamed to Stage Funeral Queue of Elizabeth II. The main article is already long enough. TitaraPheonix (talk) 08:02, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems to have significant coverage as well as prominence. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's interesting to note how the nominee of this deletion discussion started with "This event fails WP:NEVENT". Only three days later, that statement is clearly now very wide of the mark. I suppose there must come a moment where an event may transform from being something probably non-notable to actually being very notable. This unique queue is certainly a cultural moment in the making with a great deal of public attention and participation.Seaweed (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Article does not fail WP:GNG, passes WP:NEVENT and is too long to be merged into the main article on the Queen's death and funeral. HenryTemplo 15:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Early on in this AFD, I was considering !voting to merge this to Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II per WP:NOPAGE. However, since then, the Queue has definitely gained enough coverage to meet GNG, in part because it's grown to such massive proportions (both the article and the actual queue). Epicgenius (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Death_and_state_funeral_of_Elizabeth_II, as discussed above. Alex-h (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for now As others have noted, it is a significant event in and of itself, dominating news in the UK and recieving coverage from elsewhere. There is too much content to realistically make it a section of another article without losing some of the detail and depth. Others have compared it to other articles, such as the one about Evita, pointing out that they have less detail, as some sort of justification that there should be less here. Just because we do not have the information to document something else, it does not mean that coverage of this even should suffer. If, as many commentators claim, it will not seem significant in years to come, it can always be merged in future, but it is likely to reduce the level of detail of new information contributors add if it is merged now. It may turn out to be the right decision to merge it eventually, but even if so, keeping it until that is clear is a safer bet, and it is certainly of interest at the moment. Sipos0 (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It clearly is a resonabily significant media event in its own right with a decent amount of coverage. The name will probably have to be clarified at some point in the future.--Llewee (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've seen articles for much more obscure events than this. It has received news coverage in international media like ABS-CBN News here in the Philippines. HolaQuetzalcoatl (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and cull the speculation, warbling and forced significance. The primary topic is the Funeral. The fact that there is a long queue that has taken on an aspect of notability doesn't differentiate it from that primary topic. This article could, and should, be summarised as "the queuue was long and an estimated x thousand people attended". Anything more than that is navel gazing nonsense. In a year if it is still being referred to, and retained notability, maybe then - but otherwise this is just an example of an event starved media covering the one thing it can cover to the nth degree. Koncorde (talk) 20:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For additional context to the significance of this event, see Yahoo's documenting of the '52 Lying in State Queue which has no "cultural phenomenon" associated with it, despite it being a thing at the time also. We should be surprised if there wasn't a queue. Koncorde (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm at a loss on why there being a primary topic would mean a need to make a widely covered secondary aspect with dozens of RS have to be two lines. We don't do that for, say, Covid-19 secondary topics. And navel-gazing is an introspective thing - it's often given as the reason why there is a de facto higher burden for a Wikipedia article on Wikipedia, but I can't see why it pertains here. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because the "secondary aspect" is not distinct from the first, is in context of the first. That we have succeeded in bloating "the queue" with opinions and other coverage isn't evidence of significance - it's evidence of recentism and a lack of editorial oversight. Navel gazing is the act of focusing on one thing to the expense of wider issues - in this case apparently a long queue and a 24 hour news cycle desperate to fill content that we're now just going to uncritically reflect. Koncorde (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject if this article, a very long queue, is a significant event of the time, with various royals greeting people in the queue. More importantly, the fact that this queue is part of an historic event makes it notable. There is significant news coverage of this queue Cooluncle55 (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's significant, notable, and has sufficient information to write an article. Merging would only lose infomation to little effect. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has obviously become notable - a huge amount of varied independent sources are already in the article. Gazamp (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Since this article was created, The Queue has received world wide coverage, with many news agencies from across the world visiting and doing reports on location. 31.125.77.82 (talk) 01:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC) Paul[reply]
  • Keep per Seddon. The queue to see Elizabeth II's coffin has gotten extensive coverage, and been the topic of frequent public discussion. Also, the article has been expanded a lot since this AFD was proposed, so pruning it to make it fit into the death article will remove lots of presumably notable information.- 87.58.119.203 (talk) 01:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per above comments. Article certainty meets notability criteria too. Spilia4 (talk) 03:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Has clearly become its own distinct topic with enough content for its own article. BlackholeWA (talk) 06:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It also needs to be updated to include the final number of people who queued and to include the various minimum and maximum queuing time and average time. 86.165.113.166 (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is clearly a landmark event and has its own distinct characteristics separate from the Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conner74 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though I would support the article being moved to a more relevant and less ambiguous title. Compusolus (talk) 11:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I'm just not seeing how this gets over (a) WP:NOPAGE, and (b) the requirement for lasting significance. In 10 years, will people really be talking about the queue apart from the death and state funeral of Elizabeth II, or at that time will it just be "and a huge queue formed"? Just doesn't seem like we need more than a summary in the main article, but I appreciate that I am swimming against a strong current at this point. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although modify the title to make it more specific. JadeKrusade (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The three main arguments given by Merge voters are those given by Rhododendrites above and a third line (no pun intended) that is captured in H. Carver's assessment that "recent news reports give it undue weight". I feel such a judgement is not for Wikipedia to make—I cannot cite the exact policy but it runs against the spirit of, say, WP:SYNTH for Wikipedia to dismiss the in-depth coverage offered in reliable sources (e.g. "Queen Elizabeth II: The Queue and the Cumbria expert who helped plan it" from the BBC) as a mistake on the sources' part. Koncorde's remark that this is "navel-gaving" pushed by an "event-starved media" falls into the same error in even more obviously editorialising language. I have the same unease with the claim that our perception of The Queue in retrospect will reduce to "and a huge queue formed". This is a subjective judgement which runs contrary to the consensus in reliable sources: so it is essentially WP:OR. From another angle, it is also against the spirit of WP:CRYSTAL to guess at what judgements might suggest themselves in the future. Implicit appeals to common sense—it "just doesn't seem like" it merits an entry—hold no weight. In relation to WP:NOPAGE, discussion of The Queue as a cultural phenomenon (such as the flash fiction by Will Dunn or comparisons to brunch) is better confined to its own entry rather than clogging up the already long and complex entry about the demise of the crown. It may be "just" a queue, but love it or hate it, it is a queue which reliable sources have covered in depth as a standalone topic. —Kilopylae (talk) 13:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This'll be my only response in this thread (it's just too much, and headed in a pretty predictable direction).
      for Wikipedia to dismiss the in-depth coverage offered in reliable sources - Nobody has done that. We need evidence of lasting significance to demonstrate notability (which we do not yet have), and we need a reason for this to be separate from the main article (notability is required but not alone sufficient for this). This is a subjective judgement It is no more or less subjective/crystal bally as the prediction that coverage will continue. These arguments are effectively the contradictory advice given at WP:DELAY and WP:RAPID (i.e. wait to create an article, and wait to delete an article). When someone ignores the former advice, the best we can do is use our judgment/experience to evaluate whether it's exceedingly likely there will continue to be coverage of this subject. My reading is that we will not see sustained coverage of the queue as distinct from the rest of the funeral, etc. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This page is too long for a merge into the main funeral article, which is already long, and The coverage of The Queue shows it will likely have a place in the British public consciousness like Clap for Our Carers does. It's also possibly the holder of a world record, although that hasn't been confirmed yet. | 🔬🚆 |   Telo | TP   | 15:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above. The death of Elizabeth II has received saturation-level coverage in British media and it would be possible to write articles about even minor aspects of it as they pass the GNG. However as an encyclopedia we aren't supposed to do that. Instead we summarise the important information and leave out the more minor details. I'm not convinced that this aspect of the death will be significant, say, 10 years from now, and per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING we are only supposed to have articles on events with long-term significance. Yes, the article is too long to be merged into the funeral one, but that's the point - this level of coverage is too detailed. Hut 8.5 16:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I never thought I'd be saying this, but the WP:SIGCOV of The Queue itself is way, way, over the GNG boundary, indeed there has been more written in very reliable sources about The Queue than there have been about other notable elements of the death and funeral of QE2. Black Kite (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The Queue is now notable enough entirely independent of the State Funeral of Queen Elizabeth II. Main article is already extremely lengthy and a separate article purely dedicated to The Queue makes sense.
gbrading (ταlκ) 17:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The Queue should be kept separate from Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II. It has so much information surrounding it, plus adding it to the main article regarding Queen Elizabeth's death would make that article very long. UpdateWindows (talk) 19:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The Queue itself has achieved notability and has had independent media covering separate from that of the state funeral itself. Chaotic Enby (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The Queue is arguably notable in equal amount as the funeral itself. Anecdotally there is more discussion of the queue than the funeral itself and more concretely the queue has received international coverage for days. I'd wager that many future users of Wikipedia will be looking for the information and trivia surrounding the queue in comparative amounts to the funeral itself. GirlDoingMaths 21:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For the aforementioned reasons of notability. GuardianH (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close, the general consensus is that this article should be kept. As such, this discussion should be closed. Ashleyknowsthings (talk) 21:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but move to something more sensible once things have returned to normal. The current name is suffering badly from recentism. EditorInTheRye (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The event has been incredibly significant, seeking headlines all around the world. The spectacle of the true length and events during this queue is one that should be remembered as an event itself rather than solely part of the Queen's funeral. This is the first time in a long time something like this has happened. Also, there are many more insignificant events and articles on Wikipedia. Something like the queue, with dozens of thousands of participants and it being published worldwide should not be on the chopping block. MichaelDeng06 (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: But rename to something like Queue to Elizabeth II lying in state.(talk)
  • Comment - I probably lean keep based on the level of coverage this has achieved, but I do wonder if the title should be changed. The Queue in the long term is probably too vague. Dunarc (talk) 22:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-name to Lying in state of Elizabeth II It seems pretty clear to me that the lying in state was a significant event that will have a lasting enough impact to have made it otherwise justify a spinoff from the main article about the death, funeral, etc., which risks becoming a bit of a grab-bag of miscellany. A lot more is known and has been said now about the queue than will become known in time about the laying in state, as accounts inevitably emerge from people who helped organise it but can't tastefully talk about their experience at present; and I'd assert that a lying in state in Westminster Hall is ipso facto a notable historical event given that we haven't had one since Churchill died, and you only have to spend five minutes in Westminster Hall to see, from the plaques on the floor commemorating previous occasions, the historical relevance of such events. The queue to get into it was significant and notable, we're all agreed about that, but in terms of how Wikipedia should structure its coverage I think an article focused on the lying in state that includes some coverage of the queue would be the best way to go. Likely will be how it eventually ends up regardles of the outcome of this AfD, so I suggest we just rename now, unleash the editors and have done with it. Lordrosemount (talk) 23:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, but maybe have a redirect from "The Queue" as well, since when even the likes of CNN are calling it that there may be a need, for historical reasons, to understand the reference when reading old media coverage. Iceblink (talk) 23:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There was some Academic fieldwork into it https://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/22064595.essex-university-survey-reveals-people-queuing-see-queen/ Okay possibly merge into an article on the Laying in State, but it's a distinct matter from the death and funeral of Elizabeth II. Still in the end passage of time will tell.. review in say 3 months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.189.190 (talk) 00:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Lying in state of Elizabeth II: The article is a victim of its own success and WP:RECENTISM. As indicated in the article, The Queue refers to the main queue of the event, while the article covers more than just that. For now a rename. We can circle back a couple of months later when editors decide to see if there are elements of RECENTISM to be removed/summarised here and other related articles. – robertsky (talk) 00:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That actually is a good idea. Maybe we should start a WP:RM once the deletion discussion is closed. Keivan.fTalk 04:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with this suggestion. Vida0007 (talk) 07:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Do not merge. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The page is already large enough that it warrants its own page rather than just a section. And just because others feel it is not notable makes no difference. It is well sourced, and therefore notable. El Dubs (talk) 03:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename my initial inclination is to merge into Death_and_state_funeral_of_Elizabeth_II#The_Queue but there is sufficient reliably sourced content for a standalone article. However, it should be renamed per Lordrosemount and Robertsky. Polyamorph (talk) 07:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Tons of content, large-scale, worldwide, specific coverage above that of the general death/funeral material, lasting notability and interest as a particularly unique feature of the whole process. Heck, it has more detailed, quality coverage in reliable sources from around the world than a significant percentage of notable Wikipedia articles overall. Oppose the various oblique renames. (The worldwide, wide coverage was not of the "lying in state of Elizabeth II", the coverage was of "The Queue"; it tries to shoehorn the actually notable item of international interest (The Queue) into a barely-notable item of far less interest (the formal lying in state process) to try to get it over the line to notability.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect, there wouldn't have been any queue if it weren't for the lying in state; that was its entire purpose. It just seems silly to me when you have a major event that lots of people have queued to participate in to centre the queue instead of the event. To me the event is obviously the prior matter. Lordrosemount (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, coverage in multiple reliable sources, and a much discussed phenomenon. Would be too long as part of the Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II article, but could potentially form part of a Lying-in-State article depending on consensus. Bob talk 12:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you are keeping it, please pick a better ame for the article. 148.64.30.135 (talk) 13:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It would be disrespectful to Her Late Majesty's memory to delete such an important record of her State Funeral. 82.23.25.205 (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II is already very long, having to cover a whole series of events, announcements, ceremonies, processions, 2 lying-in-states and 3 actual funeral services. Merging into that would not be practical. "The Queue" has become a viable article topic in its own right, with a wealth of in-depth and international coverage. There are independent reliable sources covering a whole host of aspects: the cultural phenomenon, the subject of psychological study, the logistic and security challenges, the "queue-jumping" controversies, the attendance of celebrities, dignitaries and royals. the wub "?!" 14:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This is a unique historic event and highly notable. Mattmm (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree it should be kept. It seems to me to have been a unique phenomenon, not 'rather unique', or 'very unique' but simply unique. It was the queue all future queues will aspire to and would be lost if simply subsumed into the death of the Queen or her funeral C.cohen (talk) 19:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Lying in state of Elizabeth II: I strongly believe this should be renamed to Lying in state of Elizabeth II. "The Queue" sounds very ambiguous, and it can mean so many other things. "The Queue" just sounds confusing. "Lying in state of Elizabeth II" sounds so much more appropriate than just "The Queue". Edl-irishboy (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per the reasons above. ed g2s • talk 20:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I respectfully disagree with the nominators assessment and do believe this meets the criteria for WP:NEVENT. It has received widespread media coverage both within the UK and abroad and I do believe it will stand the test of time as a memorable event. There seems sufficiently sourced and encyclopedic content here and as per Nosebagbear above that would seem too much for inclusion in the existing Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II article and hence this seems a reasonable spin-off. I wouldn't necessarily be against a rename, though, or perhaps a slight broadening in scope to cover the lying in state of Elizabeth II more broadly. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 21:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. The Queue is catchy but hardly encyclopedic. Wikipedia has many articles less news worthy. The article is too big to merge. User-duck (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. None of the alternatives look good at the moment. I think there's no reasonable doubt that the topic is notable; the question is just which page it belongs on. In principle, merging with Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II would make sense, but that article is already a bit too long. The proposals for renaming to "Lying in state of Elizabeth II" seem to be describing a different article from The Queue: currently the article is focussed on the unusual phenomenon of such a large number of people forming a queue, and how the queue is organised. There's room for questioning whether The Queue will attract the persistent and in-depth coverage recommended by WP:NEVENT, but it's too early to assess that. If there's still doubt regarding notability a month from now, someone can renominate the page for deletion or other treatment. Jowa fan (talk) 22:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't particularly long at all? Koncorde (talk) 09:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is clearly enough coverage now to demonstrate its lasting significance, and it is too long to merge into other articles which themselves are already on the long side. Edwardx (talk) 12:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per all the above points made excellently by other editors and close as WP:SNOW IntUnderflow (talk) 00:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The actual numbers over the four days were not much more than for previous lying in state queues, but none of them had such heavy security restrictions to slow the progression, and none lasted close to the nearly five continuous days, night and day, for this queue. It was a unique phenomenon, I don't see it happening again for any well-known person's death. --Iceblink (talk) 04:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Punwasi[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a journalist and unelected political candidate, not properly referenced as having a strong claim to passing our notability criteria for journalists or political candidates. The principal notability claim as a journalist is that his work exists, which isn't automatically enough in and of itself in the absence of third-party analysis about him and his journalism, and candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se -- but this is not referenced to any WP:GNG-worthy coverage about him, but to a mixture of primary sources that aren't support for notability at all with glancing namechecks of his existence as a giver of soundbite in articles about subjects other than himself.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the subject of, rather than a speaker in, his sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Journalism, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to 2022 Toronto mayoral election where the subject is mentioned. If the subject is elected, no prejudice against recreation. --Enos733 (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If this article wasn't 6 months old I would of tagged it for WP:G11. Even if this person was notable the article as is needs to be fundamentally rewritten to be suitable. Jumpytoo Talk 22:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete promotional tone, "prominent financial analyst" is nothing but puffery. Sources are passing mentions/refs that aren't about him but mention him as part of xyz project. I've not heard of this fellow, I have strong doubts he'll win the election, so we likely won't need to re-create the article, but anything is possible I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 12:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertorial 142.188.68.129 (talk) 03:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't meet standards of notability, consists of self-advertisement. He seems very invested in his Wikipedia presence, so there's a strong likelihood he wrote this himself Chuborno (talk) 02:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, The article very much comes across as self-advertisement. Does being #23 on a Forbes blogs top 40 finance influencers mean you get a wikipedia page? I just don't see him being notable enough to warrant an article.184.147.107.78 (talk) 08:11, 22 September 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 Thomas Aquinas. Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thought of Thomas Aquinas[edit]

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

I have removed the WP:SYNTH, WP:OR and unsourced material from this article. This was much needed. However, as pointed out already back in 2007, the article "Thought of Thomas Aquinas" 's subject is vague.

There exist pages like Hegelianism, or encyclopedic formats like Hegel's Social and Political Philosophy. A summary of a thinker's philosophy is usually in a section of their biography article, e.g. Arthur Schopenhauer#Philosophy. However, this WP article seem to have been little more than a blog for the WP user A E Francis' very personnal erratic reflexion on and random interests in such and such aspects discussed by Aquina. Why present usury? Why social justice? Very few secondary sources are used, so it looks like those aspects are personnal choices.
Therefore, this article should be either deleted, or turned into a redirect to Thomism. Veverve (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to Redirect Agree with nom. Would go further and say that the whole article is SYNTH, inasmuch that the notion of a comprehensive "thought" from Aquinas isn't presented in the sources and when it is, it's in the context of Thomism, which we already have an article for. Some of the ideas mentioned here might have enough coverage to merit their own articles, but that's some splitting we can do by reaching into the article history post-deletion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Christianity. Shellwood (talk) 08:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (and redirect) to Thomas Aquinas. This appears to have been the consensus of the previous deletion discussion although it was not implemented and was closed as Keep. Merger to Thomism is very much not appropriate as Thomism is the school of Thomas Aquinas and the topic "Thought of Thomas Aquinas" is about his views, not the views of the school. --Jahaza (talk) 08:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Thomas Aquinas, as the bulk of that article is already about his thought. I also agree with Jahaza that Thomism is not the appropriate target here, because Thomism is about the school that grew from his thought. Jdcompguy (talk) 11:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would prefer delete to merge, or at least make it a non-redirecting merge, since typing in the current title is unlikely in itself. George Huntley (talk) 15:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, preferably to Thomism, which is largely about his philosophy and theology. The bio-article Thomas Aquinas is largely a bio, with a section on his philosophy at the end, with Thomism as it main article. That article ends with a section on modern reactions to it, but that does not make it an inappropriate merge target. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine with a merge to Thomism (which is the argument that describes his school of philosophy/theology). But also there is a distinction to be made between the greater philosophy of Thomism and thoughts that are particular to Aquinas (something like... Political and religious views of Thomas Aquinas might be a legitimately distinct topic from the concept of Thomism itself). I'm not sure that the two are entirely redundant to one another, nor that an article at this title is necessarily non-notable. My reasoning for a merge is simply that the current article is better covered in the context of the current Thomism article than in a standalone one. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Thomas Aquinas preferably or Thomism alternatively. Thparkth (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Thomism, due to WP:OR and WP:FORK issues. MrsSnoozyTurtle 12:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Thomas Aquinas. Bruxton (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Looks like a Merge is happening although editors are split whether it should be with Thomism or Thomas Aquinas. I see related content in both articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm still looking for opinions on what merge target is preferable here. Do I need to ping all participants?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Thomas Aquinas. I agree with Jahaza's assessment of the suitability of Thomism as a target. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Thomas Aquinas. I agree with Veverve on the reasons for deleting the article. Regarding the target of the merge, I agree with Jahaza... no doubt Thomas Aquinas is dominant within Thomism, but the article Thomism makes clear that the school continued to develop in various directions and so extends significantly beyond him. So it is better to place the content of this article within the biographical article, and some content could later also be copied from there to Thomism as appropriate. Gazelle55 (talk) 18:14, 19 September 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 Bat flip#José Bautista bat flip. The only alternative to a redirect is a No consensus decision as participants are all over the map here. But I feel that there is more support for a redirect but, as a closer, it was confusing as several targets were mentioned. If you would prefer another redirect target, please discuss it at the talk page. The content is still present if there is any that those advocating a Merge want to make use of. Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

José Bautista's bat flip[edit]

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

Unnecessary content fork. A bat flip is a relatively common baseball “move.” This play is not independently notable and is already sufficiently covered in Bat flip#José Bautista bat flip Frank Anchor 18:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This was previously nominated for deletion in June 2022 as part of a group nomination and closed as a procedural keep due to varying levels of notability between pages within the group.Frank Anchor 18:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Frank Anchor 19:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecessary content fork that includes much WP:COATRACK material. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Redirect - Not all but enough of the texts cited in the article talk specifically about José Bautista's bat flip that it constitutes WP:SIGCOV of this specific event and not just bat flips in general. The contents of this article definitely have grounds to be kept as far as notability is concerned, either as this article being kept, or merged and redirected to Bat flip#José Bautista bat flip. Diffidently don't delete tho.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 19:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This was one of the seminal moments in Blue Jays history, and has entire chapter devoted to it in "100 Things Blue Jays Fans Should Know & Do Before They Die" by Steve Clarke. Also widely discussed in Toronto media, including this recent article, [10] and this [11]. Oaktree b (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both of these pages are WP:ROUTINE coverage and only make one passing mention of Bautista's bat flip in the body of the article. Further, being a "seminal moment" in franchise history (based on the opinion of one person) is not justification to keep an article. Frank Anchor 20:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's still discussed a decade later is proof of notability, comparing other things to it as in those articles. Also has a chapter in the book as described. Also discussed in Sports Illustrated, [12], a discussion about how important it was to the player here [13], the bat itself was sold at auction [14], as was the ball [15]. It's been covered from multiple angles in Canadian media outlets for the last decade, should meet GNG. It's also been discussed in scholarly journals [16],[17], in fields from theology to theatre review. May only be trivial mentions, but help to show how the event has become part of Canadian pop culture. It's also been used to illustrate race relations in sport, in a thesis [18] and similarly in this one [19]. This should be GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Coverage of the event itself, of the ball, of the bat, of the importance to the player, how rude it was or wasn't. I'd gladly use these sources to write the article if it wasn't done already, should be more than enough to prove notability for our standards here. Coverage of the event, of the items involved and of the importance of the action. Oaktree b (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to José Bautista. I acknowledge the notability and significant coverage of this, but is an instance of a bat being thrown in a game, a brief event which took place in under 5 seconds, really enough to warrant its own article? Pardon me if this comes of as ignorant as I'm not really a sports person. All in all I feel like it should just be a section of the article of José Bautista, even with all the notability. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, it's already mentioned there. See the José Bautista#2015 section....... PKT(alk) 18:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment pinging @Spanneraol:, @BornonJune8:, @Ejgreen77:, and @PKT: who made specific comments regarding Bautista’s bat flip (either supporting or opposing deletion) during the previous group AFD linked above. This is NOT WP:CANVASSing as I intend to get input from both sides of the previous discussion. Frank Anchor 12:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It just is not a notable enough moment on it's own. Covered in the division series article and in Bautista's individual article but not notable on it's own. There are lots of obnoxious bat flips in baseball and this one is nothing special.... especially since it occured in a division series... maybe Blue Jay fans remember it but the rest of baseball fans don't. Spanneraol (talk) 13:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Spanneraol: First off, how exactly is Bautista's bat flip not special or a notable enough moment on its own? It was and is still, a heavily used meme online. And how can you say that since it occurred in a Division Series that it's not that special? Would it have made a difference had it happened during the World Series or League Championship Series? Keep in mind that even if it happened in the Division Series, it was still in the decisive fifth game (a game that would send the Blue Jays to the LCS for the first time since 1993). And the bat flip was the climax of an insane, 58-minute long 7th inning. It's still a way more important game than any regular season game. It's a very vague, subjective, and/or broad generalization I think to suggest that the rest of baseball fans (outside of Toronto) wouldn't remember it. BornonJune8 (talk) 10:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • A bat flip on it's own is never anything notable. The homer maybe but even then it's just one play in the game... It isn't something that is notable outside of the game it occurred. The climax of the inning was the home run, not his celebration of it.. which doesn't even get mentioned in the box score. Lots of things become memes... doesn't make them worth having a wikipedia article.Spanneraol (talk) 01:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bat flip#José Bautista bat flip. The topic is notable but much of the article is WP:FANCRUFT and/or summarizing an otherwise run-of-the-mill playoff game. The current text at the “Bat Flip” article is sufficient. Jose Bautista or 2015 American League Division Series#Toronto vs. Texas could be redirect targets as well, and much of this page is copied and pasted from the latter. Carson Wentz (talk) 01:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Spanneraol: Again, we need to understand and frame things in the right or proper context. The home run proved to be the game and ultimately series winner for the Blue Jays. And the bat flip goes directly hand in hand with the home run. You can't talk about one thing without discussing the other. If the dramatic bat flip didn't immediately follow the swing of the bat, then maybe I could better see your point about it just being one play in the game, especially a decisive playoff game. But I reiterate that it was the culmination of a very long, drawn out, and problematic inning for both Toronto and Texas. BornonJune8 (talk) 06:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (disclosure: I'm a Blue Jays fan and remember the moment very well, to this day). The bat flip is more than adequately discussed in José Bautista#2015, and in Bat flip#José Bautista bat flip, and in 2015 American League Division Series#Game_5_2. Joey Bats's flip doesn't warrant an article all on its own - in fact most of the article in question repeats information in the other articles. If consensus does not end in deletion, then go with redirecting to Bat flip#José Bautista bat flip. PKT(alk) 12:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Redirect per the above. This is more of an illustration than anything, but to give a comparison for what does and does not stand alone as an article, the bat flip is probably less notable and certainly has received less significant coverage than the incident with Kanye West and Taylor Swift at the VMAs, and that doesn't have its own article either. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:55, 16 September 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! 23:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jin Hiratsuka[edit]

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

Contested PROD with the reasoning "he played in a competitive cup game for a fully pro Japanese top-flight team (Shimizu S Pulse)"

This player played one professional Cup game for Shimizu S Pulse. Although it's not reflected in the article, he's since continued his career in Japanese lower leagues.

I don't believe this player meets GNG. We have a few sources but they all appear to be routine coverage. Searches in English and Japanese don't reveal anything significant. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - @GiantSnowman: I found [20], [21], [22], and [23] among many many more Japanese sources. He is a young player with an ongoing career and played for Japanese top flight (J-League, which is considered one of best if not the best Asian league) team. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 01:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think those sources are good enough (using Google Translate). I also see no evidence of an ongoing career. Please expand & improve & update the article and I'll happy re-review. GiantSnowman 11:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @GiantSnowman:, I spent an hour or two and expanded, updated, and improved the article and added more sources. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Good work - I'll AGF and assume the sources you have added add up to AGF. If anyone thinks they're not enough then ping me. GiantSnowman 18:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 21:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. While the first two sources provided do seem substantive, they are strictly coverage of his youth career, the details of which are considered generally unencyclopedic/UNDUE for any athlete but especially for ones who do not also have noteworthy careers at the highest senior level. If the only non-trivial attention he received was a brief burst in May and July 2017 as a high schooler, in media that regularly covers all levels of soccer in Japan, then per PAGEDECIDE (and BLP1E) I do not think there is merit for a standalone article. JoelleJay (talk) 20:09, 18 September 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. There is no clear consensus on notability either in terms of numbers or arguments, and no consensus for moving to draft space. This would normally tend to a no consensus result, and the article kept. However, there is a stronger, albeit conditional, argument for lack of notability in addition to the argument indicating lack of in-depth reliable sources, therefore I am giving this a soft delete where on request the article can be undeleted and moved into Draft space in order to be worked on. SilkTork (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC) SilkTork (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1970 Salvadoran Primera División[edit]

1970 Salvadoran Primera División (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There seems to be more unknown (TBD) than known. In this form, not an encyclopedic article. The Banner talk 13:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to draftspace unclear whether it passes WP:GNG or not based on the sources. Moving to draftspace gives an opportunity to improve the article by finding some more of the information, and should give time to prove notability. Just because this season existed and we have other similarly poor articles for many other seasons of this league, that isn't a reason to keep this in article space. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify as a reasonable alternative to deletion in this case; subject is potentially notable but sources don't demonstrate this. I disagree that the subject is inherently notable; in fact, neither of the two keep comments have explained why this subject is supposed to be notable. The article is incomplete and not at all suitable for mainspace. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:05, 19 September 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 move to draft. While there are also arguments for outright deletion, these contribute toward the general consensus that this article is not, in its current state, suitable to be in mainspace. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1971 Salvadoran Primera División[edit]

1971 Salvadoran Primera División (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There seems to be more unknown (TBD) than known. In this form, not an encyclopedic article. The Banner talk 13:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Per WP:NOTDONE, subject its self is notable.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then please fill in the many "TBD"'s. I guess those facts are decided for a competition about 50 years ago. The Banner talk 08:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Someone should fill them in at some point. Given the article was created by @BKReruns only 2 days ago maybe we should give them a bit more chance to add information?
      To those saying "delete" because of notability concerns, notability is not the issue, this article was not nominated for deletion for lack of notability. The notability is obvious, it is an article about the 1971 season of the top level/top division/top flight football league in El Salvador. PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • So, even without content you consider it notable? Based on what? No article is automatically notable. The Banner talk 22:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 12:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per @PiccklePiclePikel:. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to draftspace unclear whether it passes WP:GNG or not based on the sources. Moving to draftspace gives an opportunity to improve the article by finding some more of the information, and should give time to prove notability. Just because this season existed and we have other similarly poor articles for many other seasons of this league, that isn't a reason to keep this in article space. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify as a reasonable alternative to deletion in this case; subject is potentially notable but sources don't demonstrate this. I disagree that the subject is inherently notable; in fact, neither of the two keep comments have explained why this subject is supposed to be notable. The article is incomplete and not at all suitable for mainspace since it has barely any substantive content. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify The subject is likely to be notable, but the article isn't suitable in its current state. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:35, 23 September 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. Article improvement or a potential page move can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russia's War Crimes House[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not 'Russian war crimes' but War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Xx236 (talk) 07:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though possibly continue to develop into broader topic of other museums / public education / documentation about the Ukraine War, including Russia's war crimes (and possibly Ukraine war crimes). This could be a list-article. No doubt there are or will be other full museums and major exhibits. Editors should not be deterred by the obviously POV name and focus of this museum/exhibit, it is legitimate/important to cover major POV museums, and of course also allow for sourced reviews/commentary criticizing them for being one-sidedly POV if that applies. Consider, for example, the Museum of Chinese and American War Crimes in the former Saigon, Vietnam. Which was obviously to me a legitimate museum, with signicant artifacts, when I visited many years ago [To be clear, although I would not have been able to read much of the exhibit explanations there, I am sure it was clearly strongly one-sided, did not attempt to present any America-centered justifications which could possibly be made for America's intent and actions. I did believe the artifacts of the war were genuine. --Doncram (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)] Or, apparently, it might have by then been renamed Exhibition House for Crimes of War and Aggression. It has since be renamed to be less provocative. But how the Vietnamese portrayed American involvement in Vietnam, in museum there and a similarly named one in Hanoi, is legitimate to cover. Also, the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum long had a very POV section covering Watergate, in a side, dark room, where Watergate was quietly dismissed. A new director of the museum, much later, discussed the notability of that coverage, and was intending to showcase/cover that itself. Note The Wall Street Journal article does not take a critical stance as if this is invalid POV, though, and is a substantial reliable source. --Doncram (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Further, here is New York Times substantial coverage about another Ukraine War memorial, an exhibit titled Crucified Ukraine at a World War II memorial museum in Kyiv, whichever museum should probably be in Category:World War II memorials in Ukraine and now also Category:Ukraine War memorials. And there are no doubt more, adding up to substantial coverage of the topic area. --Doncram (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Doncram: There's already a pretty extensive article on Russia's war crimes during the invasion at War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The two comments are about memorizing the crimes, not about the crimes. Xx236 (talk) 07:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, yes, I am focused upon the memorializing process, which involves exhibits, monuments, museums. I mostly edit about places listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places, which is about artifacts (buildings, monuments, statues, warships, other things) that are large artifacts, that, like items at a museum, with interpretation/education/presentation can evoke the ways, events, etc. of the past to the public. At this Russia House there was a significant exhibit, at least, which attracted significant coverage, although it may or may not become a permanent museum. --Doncram (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as well - not a "real" house but more of a happening according to this WaPo story. The house was rented for a week and an exhibition was held there May 22-29. And that's about it. We're unlikely to find new references about it popping up over time (as would be the case for a museum). Superboilles (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - even a pop-up art show or biennial can be notable, but the coverage is barely significant. Bearian (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (I !voted "Keep" above) Superboilles, thank you for identifying the WaPo article to add. It does now seem that the "Russia's War Crimes House" was an exhibit, not the opening of a permanent museum. I added, to the article, information about other exhibits/memorials regarding the Ukraine war; there are a number of them. I'd like to move this to a title like "Artistic characterizations of the Ukraine War" or "Exhibits, memorials and monuments of the Ukraine War" (at least when there are memorials and monuments to include) or similar. Which I believe is a valid topic already (this is not crystal balling), and which will serve the function of a list-article in collecting much more going forward, avoiding creations and AFDs about individual exhibits/works, or at least indexing them. Most editors are aware of there being various and changing perspectives on the memorialization of the U.S. Civil War, particularly the presentation of Confederate monuments and memorials, which is a big deal. There's much to say about these things. And in Wikipedia there are now categories and list-articles about most or all major wars since then.
I would try to give it a general intro characterizing what artistic works/exhibits/monuments/memorials do, akin to the well-written-in-my-view explanation in lesson plan / teaching materials at this "Facinghistory.org" page, where it's stated: "Monuments and memorials serve multiple functions in the communities in which they are erected. When the members of a community create a monument or memorial, they are making a statement about the ideas, values, or individuals they think their society should remember, if not honor. As a result, these structures not only influence the way people understand the subjects of their commemoration, but they also reveal the beliefs of the people and the time period in which they were created. They thus serve as historical artifacts in themselves." AND "Memorials and monuments are designed to convey forceful messages about the events or individuals they commemorate. Each has embedded in it a particular perspective, an interpretation, a set of values or judgments. As a result, these public structures often raise contentious questions...."
It would be okay by me for this AFD to be concluded "Keep, but move to a more general title and develop...." or similar. --Doncram (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 08:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 21:30, 15 September 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. Reasonable people may disagree about the interpretation of SIGCOV, but consensus is with the "keep" side here. I will note that the cancellation of a show isn't a valid reason to delete an article about it, just as the airing of a show isn't a valid reason to keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Night Wanderer[edit]

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

Fails GNG, was never streamed because it was cancelled. See 8 Highly Anticipated Chinese Dramas That Were Suddenly Canceled! on YouTube @2:41, for the announcement of cancellation. Also iNews, iMedia <–– not the best sources but also serve as an example of the sources used in the article. Atsme 💬 📧 02:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Adding more PAG-based reasons to DELETE - starting with WP:NFTV which basically states that unaired programs could be draftified until they are released, but the point here is that if it is not going to be released, why draftify? To that add noncompliance with WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V relative to it ever being released. In addressing the cited sources, including the list of sources below, GNG clearly states that advertising, press releases are not considered independent. Every cited source for this article is a form of advertising or promotion of the series that was subsequently cancelled. Most use the same 2-minute trailer, and/or they focus on the actors rather than what went into the production because the actors are what sell. These types of plot reviews using trailers not only also fails WP:GNG, it fails WP:NTVEP as follows: The scope of reviews should extend beyond recaps and simple review aggregator coverage, such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. Keeping in mind the cited sources are far less reliable than the examples, and are questionable at best. I see nothing that makes this cancelled series notable, especially the fact that it fails WP:10YT. The cancellation takes us into WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM, and if anything would be included in the respective BLPs. Atsme 💬 📧 17:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Selection of four sources that provide critical analysis of the TV series' preview and trailer and discuss production and background information:
      1. Ren, Xinyi 任芯仪, ed. (2021-10-15). "电视剧《夜旅人》首发预告 时空交织勾勒爱情传奇" [The first preview of the TV series "Night Wanderer" intertwines time and space to outline a love legend]. Beijing Youth Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-10-30. Retrieved 2021-10-30.

        The article notes from Google Translate: "Produced by iQiyi, co-produced by Yongle Film and Television, Moying Box Pictures, produced by Moying Box Pictures, and jointly produced by Gongfu Xiaoxi Pictures, the TV series "Night Wanderer" released two single posters and a trailer today. The film, full of details, is very exciting. ... "Night Wanderer" has been attracting attention since its official announcement, and this first trailer has revealed a mysterious corner of the show. At the beginning of the trailer, the figure holding an umbrella in the rainy night, and the corridor lights shaking in the dim light and shadow, together render a confusing atmosphere. The constantly circulating record player and the colorful dance hall outline the intoxicating old Shanghai in the past, a magnificent and delicate picture of the times comes into view."

      2. Xu, Meilin 徐美琳 (2021-10-15). "电视剧《夜旅人》首曝预告，邓伦、倪妮跨越时空深夜相逢" [The first preview of the TV series "Night Wanderer", Deng Lun and Ni Ni meet in the middle of the night across time and space]. The Beijing News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-09-12. Retrieved 2022-09-12.

        The article notes from Google Translate: "On October 15, the TV series "Night Wanderer" starring Deng Lun and Ni Ni released the first trailer. ... The time and space of 1937 and 2017 staggered in an old apartment building No. 699 in Shanghai. Zong Ying (played by Ni Ni) was originally a famous surgeon, but was unable to go to the operating table due to stress disorder due to medical malpractice. She had to go to the Forensic Forensic Appraisal Center of the Medical College and became an expert in forensic pathology."

      3. Ren, Xinyi 任芯仪, ed. (2021-11-15). "《夜旅人》正式杀青 邓伦倪妮跨越时空体验鲜活人生" ["Night Wanderer" officially finished, Deng Lun Ni Ni experiences fresh life across time and space]. Beijing Youth Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-11-27. Retrieved 2021-11-27.

        The article notes from Google Translate: "Recently, the TV series "Night Wanderer", produced by iQIYI, jointly produced by Yongle Film and Television, and Moying Box Pictures, produced by Moying Box Pictures, and jointly produced by Gongfu Xiaoxi Pictures, was officially completed and a trailer was released, with a high-quality production level and an original plot setting, which has aroused wide expectations. ... The new and old collide in the modern Republic of China In the official preview of the finalized version, the elegant and quiet colors and romantic freehand style show the inner turmoil of Sheng Qingrang (played by Deng Lun) and Zong Ying (played by Ni Ni) in the big era. ... After five months of filming, "Night Wanderer" ended the first journey of "Night Journey". The gold medal team and all the leading actors worked hard to create the style of Shiliyangchang and the prosperity of modern magic capital for the audience. The coexistence of modern style and style allows the audience to see the age texture of the play, and at the same time, it also visualizes the great changes that have passed by."

      4. Yu, Haocong 于浩淙, ed. (2022-03-15). "邓伦的《夜旅人》还能播吗 邓伦的《夜旅人》定档了吗？" [Can Deng Lun's "Night Wanderer" still be broadcast? Is Deng Lun's "Night Wanderer" finalized?]. china.com [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-09-12. Retrieved 2022-09-12.

        The article notes: ""Night Wanderer" can be said to have both a modern background and a Republic of China background. The story is about the bizarre love fate of a modern female forensic doctor and a lawyer of the Republic of China who meet in the middle of the night in the interlaced time and space. ... "Night Wanderer" is a fantasy love drama directed by Wan Liyang, starring Deng Lun and Ni Ni, starring Wang Yuwen, Gao Ye, Wang Duo, Liu Runnan, Yang Shize, Chen Xijun, Han Shuo, Wang Yuanke, Wang Dong, etc. ... The play tells the time and space of 1937 and 2021, staggered in an old apartment building No. 699 in Shanghai."

    2. Additional sources:
      1. Chen, Chen 陈晨 (2022-03-16). Liu, Yan 刘琰; Tian, Yunfei 田云绯 (eds.). "邓伦偷逃税款被罚1.06亿 《夜旅人》或将无法播出 爱奇艺受牵连" [Deng Lun was fined 106 million for tax evasion, "Night Wanderer" may not be broadcast, iQiyi is implicated]. Economic Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-09-12. Retrieved 2022-09-12.

        The article notes from Google Translate: "Affected by the scandal, Deng Lun's iQIYI customized drama "Night Wanderer" completed by the end of 2021 may not be broadcast. As for how to deal with the problem that "Night Wanderer" cannot be broadcast, the reporter tried to ask the relevant personnel of iQiyi, but has not yet received a reply. ... Among the works to be broadcast, the most watched is the iQIYI customized drama "Night Wanderer" starring Deng Lun and Ni Ni, which will be completed by the end of 2021. According to people in the film and television industry, "Night Wanderer" is one of iQiyi's top dramas in 2022, and its lineup and publicity costs are all based on the configuration of the top drama. Deng Lun's accident directly led to the possibility that "Night Wanderer" will become the second "Green Hairpin"."

      2. "鄧倫或拖累《夜旅人》播映無期" [Deng Lun may drag down the broadcast of "Night Wanderer" indefinitely]. Sing Tao Daily (in Chinese). 2022-03-18. Archived from the original on 2022-09-12. Retrieved 2022-09-12.

        The article notes from Google Translate: ""Love the Way You Are" starring Angelababy and Lai Kuan-lin and the fantasy romance "Night Wanderer" starring Deng Lun and Ni Ni, but Deng Lun was recently accused of tax evasion and was charged and fined 106 million yuan, even if Deng Lun later issued He apologized, but the brands that endorsed him immediately cut their seats, and mainland film and television platforms also removed his previous works. Although iQIYI focuses on promoting Deng Lun's new work "Night Wanderer" this time, I believe its broadcast currently is being postponed indefinitely."

      3. Zhu, Yijin 朱奕錦 (2022-03-19). "夜旅人 │ 倪妮遭鄧倫拖累　工作人員為其着鞋都被鬧耍大牌" [Night Wanderer │ Ni Ni was dragged down by Deng Lun, and the staff helped her put on her shoes, causing her to be called self-important] (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2022-09-12. Retrieved 2022-09-12.

        The article notes from Google Translate "The original drama "Night Wanderer" cooperating with Deng Lun and Ni Ni attracted much attention, but now it seems that it is difficult to broadcast, and many fans think that Ni Ni is worthless. However, a scene of the drama was exposed on the Internet a few days ago. In the film, Ni Ni was wearing a gorgeous costume, a staff member supported her, and another staff member was putting on her shoes. She looked down while eating and looked down again. Or looking left and right, without speaking or bending over, looking a little arrogant, which led to being called "playing a big name" by netizens."

      4. Hu, Kaixin 胡凱欣 (2022-03-17). "鄧倫被內地公開逃稅　疑現身上海急處理望新劇《夜旅人》順利播出" [The mainland said Deng Lun publicly evaded taxes, and he was suspected of appearing in Shanghai for emergency treatment. He hoped that the new drama "Night Wanderer" would be broadcast smoothly] (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2022-09-12. Retrieved 2022-09-12.

        The article notes from Google Translate: "Netizens are even more worried that Deng Lun and Ni Ni's new drama "Night Wanderer" will not be broadcast in the mainland as scheduled, because iQIYI only announced "Night Wanderer" on the international version of iQIYI as one of the key recommendations of the year. There was no mention of whether it would be broadcast in the Mainland."

      5. Wu, Longzhen 吴龙珍, ed. (2021-11-14). "邓伦发文告别剧集《夜旅人》：很庆幸自己是一名演员" [Deng Lun wrote farewell to the drama "Night Wanderer": I am glad that I am an actor]. The Beijing News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-09-12. Retrieved 2022-09-12.

        The article notes from Google Translate: "The male protagonist Sheng Qingrang (played by Deng Lun) is an elegant and easy-going lawyer in the Republic of China, and the female protagonist Zong Ying (played by Ni Ni) is a modern professional woman with a cold face and a soft heart."

      6. Xu, Meilin 徐美琳 (2021-07-20). "电视剧《夜旅人》开机，邓伦、倪妮领衔主演" [The TV series "Night Wanderer" starts, starring Deng Lun and Ni Ni]. The Beijing News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-09-12. Retrieved 2022-09-12.

        The article notes from Google Translate: "On July 20, the TV series "Night Wanderer" starring Deng Lun and Ni Ni exposed the starring posters and opening photos."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Night Wanderer (Chinese: 夜旅人) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 01:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Atsme, though I could go with draftification, but certainly not keep. It's great that Cunard has found lots of refs in Chinese (thanks and well done!). Atsme and I came across this article in NPP school, but the translations clearly and absolutely show each of these refs are routine summaries, press releases, and plot overviews for an unreleased show. These fail WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG or something along the lines of WP:NFILM and WP:NEPISODE and also WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:V. VickKiang (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I will address the arguments for deletion:
    1. Editors have said that the sources provide "routine summaries" and "plot overviews". The sources provide detailed analysis and reporting beyond this.
      1. The first Beijing Youth Daily article by television critic Xinyi Ren says, "At the beginning of the trailer, the figure holding an umbrella in the rainy night, and the corridor lights shaking in the dim light and shadow, together render a confusing atmosphere. The constantly circulating record player and the colorful dance hall outline the intoxicating old Shanghai in the past, a magnificent and delicate picture of the times comes into view".

        This is detailed analysis that goes beyond "routine summaries" and "plot overviews".

      2. The second Beijing Youth Daily article by television critic Xinyi Ren says, "the elegant and quiet colors and romantic freehand style show the inner turmoil of Sheng Qingrang (played by Deng Lun) and Zong Ying (played by Ni Ni) in the big era. ... The strong contrast of the times not only enhanced the visibility of the ups and downs of the story, but also expanded the depth and thickness of the idea. ... "Night Traveler" is based on Sheng Qingrang and Zong Ying's shuttle between Shanghai in the two eras. It skillfully integrates various elements such as the sense of age, fate, the love of children, the righteousness of the family and the country, and richly shows the two eras. Enmity and hatred and Shanghai style."

        This is again detailed analysis that goes beyond "routine summaries" and "plot overviews".

      3. Economic Daily notes the importance of the TV series: "According to people in the film and television industry, "Night Wanderer" is one of iQiyi's top dramas in 2022, and its lineup and publicity costs are all based on the configuration of the top drama. Deng Lun's accident directly led to the possibility that "Night Wanderer" will become the second "Green Hairpin"."" This is detailed reporting and analysis.
      Editors have asserted without evidence that the bylined articles are press releases. I have found no evidence that the articles are press releases.
    2. WP:NFTV and WP:NTVEP: This redirects to Wikipedia:Notability (television)#Television pilots, future series or seasons, and unreleased series and Wikipedia:Notability (television)#Television episodes, respectively. Wikipedia:Notability (television) is an essay about notability. A November 2021 close of Wikipedia talk:Notability (television)#Request for comment to establish this notability guideline as an SNG concluded that there was no community consensus to promote this essay into a guideline. Arguments for deletion based on this essay are not rooted in a notability guideline.
    3. There is no notability guideline for television series. This means that the notability guideline applicable to Night Wanderer is Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. There is no requirement in the guideline for television series beyond "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
    4. WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V: The article does not violate Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball or Wikipedia:Verifiability. Night Wanderer is a TV series that finished filming after five months. The production company released two posters and a trailer. WP:CRYSTAL says:

      Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions. Wikipedia does not predict the future. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view. In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as films and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims (for films, see WP:NFF).

      The policy says "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included". Sing Tao Daily thinks that the TV series' "broadcast currently is being postponed indefinitely" owing to the star Deng Lun's tax troubles. Including this speculation from a reliable source in the article would be compliant with both WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V. The article does not contain "unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions" about cancellation.

      It is fine for Wikipedia to have an article about Night Wanderer even if Night Wanderer is never released. The article would discuss what reliable sources have said about its production and history as well as the critical analysis about its trailer.

    5. WP:NOTNEWS: According to Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Duration of coverage, "Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle." This is the case with Night Wanderer. It received significant coverage in July 2021, October 2021, November 2021, and March 2022.
    Cunard (talk) 07:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cunard: That's a great rebuttal! Though, I still disagree. The several refs you provided aren't detailed anaylsis. Quick descriptions of the settings, in a few sentences, is definitely not SIGCOV. The only critical evaluation in the Beijing Daily is together render a confusing atmosphere and [the constantly circulating record player and the colorful dance hall outline the intoxicating old Shanghai in the past, a magnificent and delicate picture of the times comes into view, is it SIGCOV? Then let's discuss Economic Daily: "Night Wanderer" is one of iQiyi's top dramas in 2022, and its lineup and publicity costs are all based on the configuration of the top drama. Deng Lun's accident directly led to the possibility that "Night Wanderer" will become the second "Green Hairpin" and "Night Traveler" cannot be broadcast, it will cause serious damage to the platform. The loss will be self-evident, I remain unconvinced that three sentences are enough to be significant. WP:GNG is still not met, IMHO none of the refs are solidly enough to count as significant coverage, even though these refs taken together as WP:LOTSOFSOURCES might be convincing to some. VickKiang (talk) 08:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first four articles I provided in my original comment are completely about Night Wanderer. I translated the articles from Chinese to English using Google Translate. In English, the articles are 577 words, 338 words, 593 words, and 215 words. The television critics provided analysis about Night Wanderer along production information and the television series' plot. The totality of the sources qualifies as significant coverage about the television series. There is no support in Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline (the notability guideline applicable here since there is no notability guideline for television series) that for a review with critical analysis, the plot summary and production information parts of the review do not contribute to the source qualifying as significant coverage. Cunard (talk) 08:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Atsme: @Cunard: That might be true, and I'd say more participants would probably see your argument, which is well-written and policy based, as better than mine. But in IMHO, context matters. These first four refs are basically plot summaries and quite a routine production info, with occasionally a couple of lines of "review". Also, why could we stack trivial/non-SIGCOV refs together to make an article notable without being WP:LOTSOFSOURCES? More detailed critique:
Ref 1: List of cast and plot details. P.S. it's not even a "review", just reviews of the trailer and poster. I doubt many will consider this to be significant coverage.
Ref 2: Just a preview, just includes a plot summary with "..." and info on the dates. (If this is considered to be SIGCOV, minor undistributed films with release dates set and a trailer put could have an article.)
Ref 3: Plot summary and cast info, with the end a quick mention: The coexistence of modern style and style allows the audience to see the age texture of the play, and at the same time, it also visualizes the great changes that have passed by.
Ref 4: Piece with 2 or 3 sentences of opinion, then the story and cast details.

With the film not even released, these aren't reviews but are all semi-promotional, non-significant overviews of the filming. I know this is about films, but to quote something similar from WP:NFILM, Similarly, films produced in the past that were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles unless their failure was notable per the guidelines. I'm unconvinced that this failure, which is just speculated by RS because of tax issues, is notable. Still, it's perfectly fine that you disagree with me. That's part of building a consensus, and if more editors agree to keep the article, I'll concur with the result of the consensus. Also, thanks very much for finding the refs- the amount of digging and WP:BEFORE search you do in other languages is so impressive! Overall, I'm very impressed with your great salvaging of the article through finding lots of details and the policy-guided responses, but I still couldn't bring myself to keep this article. I'd also be interested in Atsme's opinion. Many thanks again for your time and work with this article, and have a good day:) VickKiang (talk) 09:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Also, why could we stack trivial/non-SIGCOV refs together to make an article notable without being WP:LOTSOFSOURCES?" - I disagree that these sources are "trivial/non-SIGCOV refs". From Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline:

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

Sources that provide hundreds of words "address[ing] the topic directly and in detail" are considered "significant coverage" under the guideline. There is no notability guideline that excludes from consideration the content you are excluding. There is no evidence that the sources are promotional. Critical analysis about the TV series' trailer is critical analysis about the TV series. This television series received significant coverage when production ended, when the series' poster was released, when the trailer was released, and when the series release was speculated to been postponed indefinitely. A series that receives this level of sustained coverage is notable. iQiyi is one of the largest online video sites in the world. When a source discussing Night Wanderer's release postponement cites industry experts as saying it had been "one of iQiyi's top dramas in 2022", it solidifies notability.

Cunard (talk) 09:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing against your points still, but many thanks for your detail!
iQiyi is one of the largest online video sites in the world: popularity is not a gauge of notability; it's like saying a viral video with millions of YouTube views deserves an article.
I also disagree with WP:NOR and WP:V. From here, we could write a mainly plot-based article, with very brief descriptions of the production, which relies on details for the cast and trailers/videos that are part of the plot. It's very close to WP:WHATWIKIPEDIAISNOT in that the article would almost entirely be a plot summary. The guideline states [summary]-only descriptions of works. Wikipedia treats creative works (including, for example, works of art or fiction, video games, documentaries, research books or papers, and religious texts) in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works. What could be written for this indefinitely delayed film? Development/design? No- save a very brief trailer and video info that is basically a plot description and a cast list, which we can find for virtually every single film listed in a decent database. The reception/significance section is also virtually impossible. IMHO, it's difficult to write an article currently that doesn't violate these.
On WP:GNG: [a] series that receives this level of sustained coverage is notable- a couple of coverage in 2021, and several news-like coverages about the actor quickly mentioning the show in 2022 only for the tax issue. I know this mainly applies to WP:NFILM, but most refs you provided, in fact, meet plot summaries without critical commentary (or we could consider a one or 2-sentence description of the setting as "critical commentary" if so, that's certainly all right). Yes, it's for NFILM, but if we're dismissing WP:NTELEVISION entirely, that seems to be a similar guideline that this fits somehow. Again, thanks very much for your detail and replies! VickKiang (talk) 10:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is more than enough analysis and production information in the articles I found for this to not be a plot-only article. The relevant guideline for television series is Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, not WP:NFILM or the essay WP:NTELEVISION. If WP:NFILM applied to this article, the sources I provided would meet the "plot summaries without critical commentary" clause since the sources do provide critical commentary as I have shown. Cunard (talk) 10:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Atsme: @Cunard: I disagree with that this television show meets WP:GNG. Per WP:GNG: [Moreover], not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources. It's absolutely clear IMHO that, even if these are RS, the coverage are not "reviews", as you suggest, but announcement columns and minor news stories. If it's stated that these refs are "significant", that's all right and part of building a consensus, but I'd like to point out that context matters, not just a word count. If this is a corporation or product, it would definitely end in delete because the guideline explicitly states that routine news releases aren't acceptable to be SIGCOV. But the general notability guideline has it in a footnote and is less clearly worded. So, obviously semi-promotional news releases, disguised under 1 or 2 sentence commentary on the settings of the trailer, could be branded as a review (sigh)... I'm just providing another AfD here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sri Asih (2nd nomination) that ended in draftify, but if these routine news releases are SIGCOV, then they could technicially be kept. But, for a show that is cancelled indefinitely, draftification is not an option, as the article is not even borderline notable, unless it is suggested that a cast overview like IMDb's listings, plot summary, and 1 or 2 sentence mentions are reviews. Many thanks for your time and help again, though I disagree strongly, thanks for your participation and work to keep this article! VickKiang (talk) 05:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
VickKiang did an excellent job of explaining in detail why this article should be deleted. Perhaps you are not quite understanding the fact that it was cancelled before it was ever streamed. Try seeing it as vaporware because that is pretty close to what we have here, except for the fact this series was cancelled so it is no longer even vaporware. It got some promotional coverage disguised as reviews in questionable sources, and even then it was all based primarily on future projections, peek previews, promotion of its potential. None of that satisfies even WP:SNG. It is not encyclopedic material, much less worthy of being a standalone article about a potential now cancelled streaming internet series. It will be forgotten in a month or two = not notable, not note worthy, not worthy of inclusion in WP, poorly sourced, fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:V, WP:10YT, WP:GNG & SNG and so on as explained multiple times above. If even the first episode had been streamed and reviewed in multiple RS, it might have stood a chance for being redirected, but that didn't happen; coulda, shoulda, woulda – did not happen. Atsme 💬 📧 13:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Cunard: I know you are trying to get this kept and notifying the creator is a good thing to do, but this is IMHO a biased notification- it's great that you are encouraging the creator to vote, but asking others to reinforce your viewpoint of keeping this through I encourage you to participate in the AfD discussion to share your rationale about why Night Wanderer passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline is a bit strange IMO. Also, I'd like to argue against your arguments that the refs are RS. Where is it consensus that suggested these are not OR? Not all highly circulated newspapers are RS, such as The New York Post. These aren't even covered in RSP, an explanatory essay. Linking to WikiProjects would also be essays, which makes your argument poor IMO as you are entirely ignoring WP:NEPISODE and WP:NTELEVISION based on that they are essays, I'd like to know why would you consider these questionable refs to be RS? VickKiang (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had not intended to respond further but since you are pinging me and raising a new argument about reliability I will respond again. I asked the article creator to participate in the AfD since I have seen new users have the misconception that they are not allowed to participate in such discussions. I asked them to share why they think the subject meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline since new users frequently do not know the guideline that should be followed. A more neutral notification would have used "whether" in place of "why" so I will take that as feedback.

      There is no requirement for sources like Beijing Youth Daily and The Beijing News to be covered in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources before they can be used as sources. Regarding "Linking to WikiProjects would also be essays", I did not base my rationale for retention on any essays, so it's unclear why you are saying I am. I am basing my rationale for retention on RfCs. I consider Beijing Youth Daily and The Beijing News to be in the same category as Xinhua News Agency. WP:XINHUA links to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 312#RfC: Xinhua News Agency, which says (my bolding):

      There is consensus that Xinhua News Agency is generally reliable for factual reporting except in areas where the Government of China may have a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation. For subjects where the Chinese government may be a stakeholder, the consensus is almost unanimous that Xinhua can not be trusted to cover them accurately and dispassionately; some editors favour outright deprecation because of its lack of editorial independence. There is no consensus for applying any one single label to the whole of the agency.

      Caution should be exercised in using this source, extremely so in case of extraordinary claims on controversial subjects or biographies of living people. When in doubt, try and find better sources to use in its stead; use inline attribution if you must use it. It is nonetheless a generally reliable source for views and positions of the Chinese government and officials.

      I consider these sources to be "generally reliable for factual reporting" as Night Wanderer is not an "are[a] where the Government of China may have a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation".

      In a discussion AfD nominator Atsme started on User talk:Jimbo Wales, Atsme wrote, "If the topic is notable on a global scale, then English sources will be available, and if not, the article belongs in the respective language WP where users/readers are able to properly verify the material, yes or no?" Atsme further wrote: "At least paywalled sources are an indication that they are a likely RS, but a list of cited Chinese sources (or whatever other country) that include newspapers like the Beijing Youth Daily (in Chinese), the official newspaper of the Beijing Municipal Committee of the Communist Youth League of China doesn't sound like a RS for verifying a TV series that has not yet been televised or streamed. I may be wrong, so be my guest and read the archived review from the original and see what you think about the process of actually getting to read the source. It may help explain why we have a 10k to 18k article backlog, and a dwindling number of reviewers."

      I strongly disagree with the concept of "notable on a global scale" where articles about non-English topics are required to have significant coverage in English. This is a global encyclopedia and it is perfectly fine to use "a list of cited Chinese sources (or whatever other country) that include newspapers like the Beijing Youth Daily (in Chinese), the official newspaper of the Beijing Municipal Committee of the Communist Youth League of China" when those sources meet the WP:XINHUA RfC standard.

      Cunard (talk) 06:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: No, your reply is WP:OR. Even you admit that I consider these refs to be similar quality compared to Xinhua when evaluating the refs. So, you deem, without evidence (not even an essay), that the news sites are RS? For example, in an AfD, there are two sources, all of them like SPS and blogs, and we could just say, since we deem the source to be similar in quality to another, it's RS? And, why is a situational reliable ref that's unreliable not just for political-related topics but also extraordinary claims on controversial subjects or biographies of living people should be considered as notable? Also, this RfC conclusion also supports my statement that to include cancellation of the show because of tax issues is gossipy and WP:NOTNEWS. Even your reply admits that the news are similar in Xinhua, to state from your perspective, should not be used for extraodinary claims, further supporting that this article fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V. Also, Xinhua per the RfC is probably one of the better Chinese refs, your generalisation that the refs are RS is fully invalid. Further, are we forgetting that almost all of the refs you cite are from just two organisations (excluding reprints of stories)? Per WP:GNG: Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability, yes, they may be different stories, but are all from the same organisations, so I'm still viewing your argument as a WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, using questionanble refs that are elevated to be reliable, and insignificant routine coverage deemed to be reviews. VickKiang (talk) 07:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR says in the opening sentence that the policy applies to Wikipedia articles. It says in the introduction, "This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." I have conducted original research to conclude that the Beijing Youth Daily is a sufficiently reliable source under the WP:XINHUA standard. Beijing Youth Daily is a "well-established news outle[t]" under Wikipedia:Reliable sources#News organizations. From this book:

With a daily circulation of one million copies in 2000, Beijing Evening News has the highest circulation, while Beijing Youth Daily enjoys the highest advertising revenues. ... Beijing Youth Daily was once the official paper of the Beijing City Communist Youth League, and that organization remains the paper's "sponsoring unit" ("zhuban danwei"). It was suspended during the Cultural Revolution and revived in 1981, but remained a small-scale operation until the early 1990s when a series of reforms made it more efficient, established its own distribution network and advertising agency, and introduced a series of additional newspapers. Beijing Youth Daily is now the flagship of its own group, which is second in size only to the Guangzhou Daily Group."

This book from Routledge notes, "The Beijing Youth Daily is affiliated with the Beijing Communist Youth League, but is a semi-independent paper and is staffed by contractors rather than Party insiders. It has built a reputation of being aggressive, ambitious and energetic. ... The semi-independent newspapers Beijing Youth Daily and Beijing News are mavericks, yet the power that they wield is different from that of CCTV. They face challenges in getting interviews with officials, and their reporters lack the protect on of official Party sanction."

These sources were published before star Deng Lun encountered tax troubles, so they would be used to verify critical analysis, plot information, and production information. They would not be used to support anything controversial. Speculation about the indefinite postponement of Night Wanderer owing to the tax troubles can be sourced to the Hong Kong-based HK01 and Sing Tao Daily. You have raised WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V again which I explained do not apply. Regarding the sources being "all from the same publication", this is incorrect. The Beijing Youth Daily, The Beijing News, HK01, and Sing Tao Daily are all different publications from different organisations.

Cunard (talk) 07:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my mistake, yes, they are from "different organisations". But, there are still only 4 refs, most reporting similar stories, including the latter two covering very briefly, and none of them meet SIGCOV at all. Even if you cherry-pick one ref praising Beijing News organisations, it's absolutely clear that it's a conclusion that's part of your opinion that the sources are reliable. Also, for WP:OR, I know I should have chosen a better word, but basically I'm implying that your idea is a generalisation that depend on one refs semi-praise. Also, what makes Hong-Kong based newspapers automatically RS? The RfCs linked on RSP also recommends another well-known but now defunct newspaper, Apple Daily, as needing caution, which is still a generalisation. Indeed, your cherry picking for The Beijing News on that it's semi-liberal is contradictive, our WP article states According to the South China Morning Post, an English newspaper from Hong Kong, the general public were afraid that The Beijing News would be turned into a "propaganda mouthpiece".[12] In February 2014, The Beijing News, made a news coverage regarding Zhou Yongkang's son possible corruption, but the article was taken down from the newspaper's website[13], so is one ref sorta praising the coverage, despite China's increased censorship recently, enough for it to be considered okay for political related and controversial-BLP related material? Same with HK01, see [24] that refutes your view that these papers should be considered to be superior or at least on par with Xinhua. So, what makes the speculations automatically worthy of inclusion on WP? For your comment that the refs provide critical commentary, I can't come to see even plotline reviews as full critical reviews (see previous link), so how are these almost all routine releases (even cautioned by a footnote from GNG) meeting GNG. As such, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:V are obviously still failed IMHO, many thanks for your time and help! VickKiang (talk) 08:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I consider these sources sufficiently reliable and in-depth. You do not. It is clear that we will not come to an agreement, and I do not want to spend more time formulating responses at this time, so I will withdraw from this thread of discussion. Cunard (talk) 08:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Cunard's analysis of sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 06:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Cunard's explanation. Taung Tan (talk) 17:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious- which few refs do you think are the best and ensure that GNG is met? I'd be very interested to hear your opinion, and many thanks! VickKiang 22:41, 22 September 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. BD2412 T 23:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ninian Sumadia[edit]

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

Sumadia is an appointed (not elected) member of the National Anti-Poverty Commission (Philippines). This appointment in and of itself does not appear to convey the level of notability to merit a Wikipedia article. Google searches turn up little to nothing of use up which to build a biography. The article has been marked for notability for 6 years with no apparent improvement. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Alma (numismatist)[edit]

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

Not seeing much in the way of GNG-qualifying sourcing, either in the article or via a WP:BEFORE search. There's a bit of coverage in the local press, but it's all either non-independent interviews or unreliable letters from readers. Other sources are unreliable (e.g. The Sun) and/or passing mentions; there's no in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Note also that the article was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blake Alma (TV Host) and SALTed at Blake Alma. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are dozens of sources both local and national covering the reliability of this article. Some of which are used as sources in this article. User:Coincollector4ever (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC) Note to the closing admin: this user created the article that is subject of this AfD, and ran the sockpuppet BillofRights2000.[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Liliana (UwU / nya) 22:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am with User:Coincollector4ever on reliability as sources like WCPO-TV, Local12, the Sun, and USA Today provide significate coverage on the article's relevance. Admittedly, I do live in Sharonville, Ohio (which is where is article's topic is originally from) and I primarily focus on local politics and articles pertaining to my area. I have been editing on Wikipedia for 6 years now. Granted, have heard of this biography before this article was made in local newspapers. I'd assume User:Coincollector4ever is associated with the character or/and is a follower of his social profiles, given User:Coincollector4ever dedication to this article. Despite that, the sources do provide enough coverage and reliability per my experience here on Wikipedia. (User talk:BillofRights2000 / (talk) 22:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC) Struck confirmed sock vote. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 12:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Should have been summarily deleted as a recreation of a previously AFDed article. Coverage worth notability is local boosterism only; other coverage is videos and low-quality sources. Creator didn't edit articles at all for six years, then returned solely for this article, and repeatedly and persistently adds deprecated sources; this editing pattern strongly resembles commercial editing. WP:BOGOF should not apply here - David Gerard (talk) 10:46, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per the nomination Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 16:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If User:Coincollector4ever really is the same as User:Outdoorsmen2000 (who created Blake Alma through User:Alvin'sfriend), then this is a clear speedy delete. But that is not what the sock puppet investigation has concluded (yet), and so at this point the discussion should focus solely on the merits of the article, and not on who created it (or why). The previous deletion in itself is not a good reason for speedy, since most of the claims to notability concern the last few years, after the previous article was deleted. And I personally see very little evidence of COI editing. StAnselm (talk) 19:16, 16 September 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.

Cliff Thornton[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Sal2100 (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. After combing through multiple search engines I found nothing, outside of this one item of local news coverage, that would constitute (non-routine) significant coverage of the subject in reliable secondary sources. Sal2100 (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nomination withdrawn. Based on FormalDude's added sources, plus an additional one I found on Google Books (and added to the article). Sal2100 (talk) 21:16, 21 September 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 per existence of two valid topics. BD2412 T 01:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Peters[edit]

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

We only have one article on a person by this name: Tina Peters (field hockey). Another Tina Peters is mentioned in 2022 Colorado Secretary of State election, but as there's a clear primary topic the latter article can be connected to the former with a hatnote and without the need for a disambiguation page. I was prepared to await an AfC decision on Draft:Tina Peters (Colorado) (see Talk:Tina Peters#Tina Peters (Colorado)), but as no progress in that direction has been made for a month I think we should delete this unnecessary disambiguation page, and move the hockey player article to the base name, with no prejudice against recreating it if an article on the Colorado politician ever comes into being. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I could use a tiny bit of help on Draft:Tina Peters (Colorado). A further development in the last week's news was issuance of warrant for her arrest, due to her making appearances out of state which were not consistent with her probation conditions. She needed both to make request and receive approval (or find no objection) to her travel. There is good material already worked out in the article, it is just incomplete, could simply be marked as that. Frankly if someone would just promote it to mainspace then many people would get busy refining it, as it is political/topical. I am currently under an editing restriction not allowing me to move it. It is obviously a valid bio article topic; she is very much a public person now. Arms & Hearts, could you just move it and then come back to withdraw this AFD? --Doncram (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Arms & Hearts, how much have you heard about the hockey player, vs. about the Colorado county clerk and election denier? I would say it is overwhelmingly the case that the latter is primary usage for the term, so the latter should be moved to Tina Peters and there should be no hatnote from the article directly to the hockey player, but rather there will be a hatnote to the disambiguation page, to be moved to Tina Peters (disambiguation).
FWIW, I edited the draft article and submitted it to AFC. I updated it somewhat, but didn't bother with covering the arrest warrant. There is simply too much going on in the news with her for a single editor to keep up. It needs to be in mainspace, where it will be heavily reviewed and changed.--Doncram (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In the absence of an article about the county clerk, this page helps prevent confusion about the two people. If the county clerk (or any other Tina Peters) gets an article, then this page would be useful as a redirect or disambiguation page. MrsSnoozyTurtle 12:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Thank you SWinxy for notifying us about the article about another Tina Peters. I think it is now clear that this article is needed as a disambig page. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I accepted Tina Peters (Colorado). There is significant enough coverage on her to warrant the page. Only now because of this, a dab page is warranted. I encourage a separate discussion on if the Coloradoan is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. SWinxy (talk) 19:26, 23 September 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. Despite spirited opposition from the nominator, there is only one other person who has called for deletion in this instance. Furthermore, the keep side have successfully pointed to significant coverage in major publications such as the Houston Chronicle and reviews of his performances. It was repeated in the discussion that the coverage of Mr. Keast in the LA Times and WaPo is critical, but for WP:N purposes, whether the coverage is positive or negative is not relevant.

I will also note that the arbitration committee recently stated a principle regarding WP:BLUDGEON here. While making replies to comments is clearly within the scope of acceptable conduct, making accusations such as "You just steamrollered in here without a clue" is not constructive. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett Keast[edit]

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

BLP with woeful refs. Profiles and sps sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Very very early career. scope_creepTalk 18:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with nom. Appears to be a beefed up LinkedIn resume. One source says he was born in Houston, and that's it. Whole bunch of records released with little to no sourcing to support it. Rest are trivial mentions in non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being the main author of the article I obviously vote for keeping it. Keast and his orchestra did indeed receive broader attention ( Five-Star-reviews from BBC Music Magazine, Fanfare Magazine and Das Orchester). I just added those after a quick research. Everybody who knows a little bit about the world of classical music is aware, that only very few people in this field make mainstream headlines. That does not make them less relevant. Andek (talk) 07:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The orchestra perhaps did, but the sources don't indicate that he did. scope_creepTalk 07:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is his orchestra. Andek (talk) 07:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That makes little sense. He's the founder and director of the orchestra. Those reviews are about him. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we need sources for wiki. "Just because" isn't a good enough reason. Oaktree b (talk) 12:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just added three sources to the article.-Andek (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Oaktree b: Would you mind viewing the sources further down and seeing if those could potentially change your vote? Why? I Ask (talk) 09:22, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Contrary to nom, Houston Chronicle and Limelight are not profiles and sps sources. Maybe San Francisco Classical Voice too. Keep but maybe redo as an article on . Another review in das Orchester [25]. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Duffbeerforme: What does that mean exactly? Rewrite the article as Berlin Academy of American Music and get rid of the BLP elements, or rename possibly with some BLP elements? That review is a bit of passing mention as well. scope_creepTalk 09:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
refocus to be about the group but keep some details on founder and conductor. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are plenty of sources out there: a review of his album in the Winnipeg Free Press [26], a write-up in the New York Daily News [27], and a profile in Newsday [28]. This is alongside the Houston Chronicle and Limelight magazine sources already in the article. There seems to be a BBC review too, but I can't access the source to verify. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Winnipeg Free Press [29] states he is a conductor. Not the most salubrious reference.
  • Here is the LA Times [30] There are large projections on stage of Bernstein famously conducting with extravagant feeling, something the company’s conductor, Garrett Keast, aggressively attempts to match with a pit orchestra.
  • Here is the Washington Post [31] and conductor Garrett Keast was not able to control balances to the singers’ benefit at all times.. Not even particularly decent conductor.
So there is reams of routine coverage, on the mediocre conductor, but none of it is signifcant and fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 20:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused? What's wrong with the Winnipeg Free Press saying that he is a conductor? And continued routine coverage in major newspapers alongside direct articles about him establishes notability. I didn't even reference the LA Times or Washington Post.
Your comments on Mr. Keast are bordering on WP:NPA. Please watch yourself. Why? I Ask (talk) 23:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All it says is he is a conductor. That is it. That is a true definition of a "passing mention". As its very very early career, he is working as a guest conductor moving from position to position , so it mentions him in the theatre pages as a conductor all over the US, but there is no real WP:SECONDARY coverage. It is all "he is a conductor, he was trying to do this and so on", but no more than that. It is not significant coverage. scope_creepTalk 06:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you're going to ignore the other two sources and the Houston Chronicle? It's a review of an album; not a biography. It's just one source out of many that can help prove notability. Reviews of an album in a paper of record are still nothing to balk at. Why? I Ask (talk) 07:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also some of the mentions hes getting, there is more stating he is not a good conductor. That fact of the article being on here, is a true WP:PUFF piece, is to advertise his album. scope_creepTalk 06:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And his talent as conductor has to do with... what exactly? The fact that you're able to find enough sourcing saying that only further proves his significant coverage. And his album has been reviewed by BBC and Das Orchester as mentioned above. Two notable things on one page: an album and conductor. Why? I Ask (talk) 07:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Usually it two reviews. I couldn't see the Houston Chronicle ref and could find the BBC one. I did find this though: Chron interview. I don't know if that Chron is reliable source. scope_creepTalk 07:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Chron is the Houston Chronicle. Why? I Ask (talk) 12:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found the Limelight sources at [32] which is a review. So that is one review and one interview so far, that are in-depth. Interviews can't be used to establish notability. scope_creepTalk 09:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews can be used to establish notability, but just like anything else, it's done on a case by case basis (see WP:Interview). I'd say in this case, it establishes notability. And you still haven't refuted my other two sources. Why? I Ask (talk) 09:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is an essay not a policy and having long experience in Afd, close to 4k, I've seen it refuted many many times. Its junk. scope_creepTalk 10:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And then there's no policy for not having interviews published by reliable sources count toward notability. Aside from that, the Houston Chronicle isn't even a basic Q&A format. It shows high editorial oversight. Why? I Ask (talk) 14:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment reviewed the sources as suggested, some are passing mentions. I'd give a weak pass to the interview, rest are brief and don't have substantive coverage. Still not sure GNG is met. Even in French sources (he worked in Paris), brief mentions [33]. This is paywalled, unsure if it's a substantial source [34] Oaktree b (talk) 13:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete Still only seeing brief mentions. He's just a guy doing his job it seems. Oaktree b (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I managed to find the BBC Music magazine that stated as a reference on the article. The Febuary 2022 edition. It states: Transatlantic Works by Stravinsky, Takemitsu et al Berlin Academy of American Music/ Garrett Keast et al Onyx Classics ONYX4223. It on page 91, the "Brief Notes Reviews" section. It is five star review. It is another passing mention. scope_creepTalk 14:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Houston Chronicle is a decent reference, no doubt about and its signifcant but that is not enough in this day and age to constitute WP:SIGCOV. The other stuff, that I looked at with the references above, the bio with about 15 lines is introducing him to the public, indicative of early career and lots and lots of passing mentions. It is a case of WP:TOOSOON. He seems to be very well liked, for example shown by the ref in the BBC mag, but its not signifcant coverage. scope_creepTalk 08:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Whether or not the Houston Chronicle article, which is excellent coverage (in terms of WP:SIGCOV) on its own, is "enough" is irrelevant here. The amount of non-trivial coverage in large international publications unquestionably satisfies WP:GNG, as demonstrated above. Additionally, all of the comments about this guy being a "mediocre conductor" are textbook WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and the implication that long-standing (since 2006!) editor User:Andek just created the article to promote someone's album is absurd and a violation of WP:AGF. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It not a case WP:IDONTLIKEIT nor WP:AGF. All the coverage is passing mentions apart from 1 decent, profile review and bbc profile. That is it. scope_creepTalk 15:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To spell it out, the WP:IDONTLIKEIT part is calling him a "mediocre conductor" and claiming "some of the mentions hes getting, there is more stating he is not a good conductor" as reasons to delete the page. The WP:AGF violation is your accusation that "the fact of the article being on here... is to advertise his album," when taking 30 seconds to check who wrote the bulk of the article shows otherwise. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reference stated he wasn't a good conductor. You haven't even looked at the references. You just steamrollered in here without a clue. scope_creepTalk 16:05, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have indeed looked at the references -- the fact that you assume I didn't and "steamrollered in here without a clue" (how exactly does that differ from just... commenting?) is another WP:AGF violation -- and agree with Why? I Ask about their usability. I don't have any opinion on this guy's skill as a conductor, but there is nothing in policy that states that a negative review is unusable for notability purposes. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
scope_creep and Oaktree b. Your comments seem to show you both missed the German review I linked above. Any commentary on that one. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's useless, it's a CD review that talks about the music on the album. Oaktree b (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2022 (UTC)][reply]
Yep, should have gone with my first thoughts and only pinged Scope. Waste of time doing otherwise. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Duffbeerforme: Thanks for bringing that up. I'm sorry I missed. I did search for that for quite a bit of time and couldn't find it. It is a profile references, a cd review. The extent of his passing mentions "Nevertheless, it is remarkable thanks to the colorful and varied compositions in excellent interpretations by the Berlin Academy of American Music under the direction of conductor Garrett Keast." They like him a lot, but it is another passing mention. Its not significant and more the same of the same kind of coverage we have seen elsewhere. scope_creepTalk 14:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But it is coverage for the group, backing up the alternative of refocusing the page to be about the group. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 22:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marionnet[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The best source I see is a conference paper by the authors ([35]). They published a follow up few years later I think ([36]). I am not seeing much impact or significance of this project, and frankly, the article seems to acknowledge the small impact of this: "The system is now in active use in several universities" (in use how?), " Marionnet has been presented at two international Computer Science conferences, many French events[5] and at FOSDEM". For a French project, there is no French interwiki (I checked, I don't think it was ever written about there). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:I think it is fair to object. Marionnet is still being used and in fact developed. Here is a very recent reference:

Mariotel: A Web-Based Virtual Remote Computer Science Lab J.V. Loddo, R. Kanawati ITHET'22 November 7-9, 2022
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-662-46315-4_1?error=cookies_not_supported&code=c044d7bb-80a6-4fa0-9ee3-fff9137d3fef

Rushed Kanawati's home page lists a papers about Mariotel, along with a public presentation in Germany: https://www-lipn.univ-paris13.fr/~kanawati/ The paper has been accepted but not yet published as of September 2022.

There has been another paper about Marionnet by Camille Coti, published in 2015: https://dblp.org/pid/78/4708.html Disclaimer: I have not read it.

Other disclaimer: I am Luca Saiu, one of the original authors. Am I in a conflict of interest? I am not sure. I am no longer involved with the project, Université Paris 13 (since renamed), or indeed France. --positron (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate you disclosing the potential COI. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am leaning keep here. Personally speaking this discussion has just revealed a tool to me that I would find very useful! But is that enough for WP:SIGCOV ? I am not sure. Yet it does get a mention as per the sources quoted above. I will try to find out a bit more about it before firming up my !vote, but the project is GPL free software so this is not a promotional piece. I think the Wikipedia project is probably better for having this page here. But thanks to the nom. for bringing it to my attention :) Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Marionnet being a last name makes it less than ideal for finding sources for this software, but in addition to the above sources I did find coverage in sources such as the Wiley-published Risk Propagation Assessment for Network Security. In addition this initial paper by the software's authors has been cited by 37 other papers with varying degrees of depth of coverage. Regardless of that, I think the above sources plus the Wiley book does give it enough significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to meet WP:GNG and arguably points 1 and/or 3 of WP:NSOFT's inclusion criteria. - Aoidh (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sneha Jain[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG ( All sources are from one TV serial ) PravinGanechari (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete again, still not notable. Sourcing is scant, few if any we can use. Most appear to be tabloid stuff, but I can't read some of them. Confirmation she's on the cast list, being on her period and talking about the casting couch... Oaktree b (talk) 12:10, 16 September 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. There is a majority for deletion, but not a consensus. Cunard who supported keeping the article provided a number of sources to support his position that Chase Tang meets the WP:GNG criterion of significant secondary coverage. While it has been asserted that the coverage isn't sufficiently significant, I find little in the way of arguments to support that position, and several of the later "delete"s lack much reasoning beyond an assertion of non-notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chase Tang[edit]

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

No evidence of any significant notability. The NETFLIX appearance which sources make much of, is for an uncredited part. This is also true of all the remaining acting parts. There is no evidence that the subject meets WP:NACTOR which requires that "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions;"  Velella  Velella Talk   12:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada.  Velella  Velella Talk   12:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could've sworn I'd previously nominated this but alas...it's returned. Tang isn't notable as an actor, the article is largely based on blackhat SEO, PR and the like and his roles are extremely minor. PICKLEDICAE🥒 12:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NFILM. The "first major role" is a single episode appearance in a Netflix series, that's not a significant role. Sources feel like mostly promotional in tone. Ravensfire (talk) 13:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am surprised there is so much eyes and clout on my clients profile, I can see haters are in abundance. You mention about notability and notoriety, if you choose to delete this page, there 50% of Wike Pages should also be deleted.
    Presotea and TITIKA a are both global brands
    https://www.jejunemagazine.com/home/presotea
    https://www.titikaactive.ca/blogs/event/titika-active-couture-finds-it-first-male-ambassador-by-signing-chase-tang
    please focus on your own life and stop attacking my client, I would really appreciate it. 2605:B100:10A:4865:C115:CF30:A6B8:A4C4 (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    PICKLEDICAE🥒 do you have a serious unhealthy obsession with attacking my client? Are you being paid for this or do you just spend every waking minute monitoring and obsessing over my clients Wikipedia page? 2605:B100:10A:4865:C115:CF30:A6B8:A4C4 (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish I got paid to edit Wikipedia, but enforcing policy is a far cry from an attack. Perhaps you should educate yourself and your client on the purpose of Wikipedia and it's terms of use. PICKLEDICAE🥒 15:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    PICKLEDICAE🥒 You are enforcing Wikipedia? Your world seems to revolved around Chase Tang Wikipedia. If he has no notoriety or nobility, why are you so obsessed with his profile and dedicating so much attention and time towards his profile?
    You never responded to PRESOTEA or TITIKA as international global brands btw? Easy to hide behind a screen PICKLEDICAE🥒 2605:B100:10A:4865:C115:CF30:A6B8:A4C4 (talk) 15:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Who is hiding? My identity isn't anonymous and unlike you, I actually know how to read and comply with Wikimedia's terms of use. I've already explained in my !vote why the sources found are inadequate.
    But man, if I got paid for every time clout chasing PR lackeys accused me of "attacking" or "trying to delete" their client(s), I'd actually be rich. PICKLEDICAE🥒 15:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Titka is a blog, so, no dice. I have no idea what Presto Tea is, likely something similar. Oaktree b (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Your not hiding?
    you create a Wikipedia account under the name PICKLEDICAE🥒 and spend every waking minute monitoring my clients account. Your not anonymous? We know nothing about you other than the fact you spend a lot of time behind a screen.
    Chase has worked hard to build his career, you are not the first person to show extreme jealousy and envy, it needs to stop! 2605:B100:10A:4865:C115:CF30:A6B8:A4C4 (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And please stop harassing users, or you're next to be banned. Your client or not, we're reviewing the merits according to the rules established here. If you can't play by them, please move it along. Oaktree b (talk) 00:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very little evidence of notability. The Chronicle Herald article has half a sentence on him, the Decider mentions him. None of the other sources is independent. Maproom (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    MAPROOM please read and analyze these two articles for everyone, thank you
    https://halifax.citynews.ca/amp/local-news/halifax-raised-actor-lends-his-face-to-climate-change-awareness-campaign-1826690
    https://www.thestar.com/amp/halifax/2019/10/29/chase-tang-on-being-a-netflix-supervillain-and-joining-the-un-climate-awareness-campaign.html 2605:B100:10A:4865:C115:CF30:A6B8:A4C4 (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Both predominantly reporting Tang's words. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Or pay others to help promote them. I suspect a COI here. Oaktree b (talk) 00:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Toronto Star and the Global News articles cited seem to meet GNG, there's also one from the Guelph Mercury [37] and one in Narcity [38]. The CBC one given in the article also helps. Article needs a rewrite as it's very promotional, but here we are. Oaktree b (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also this in the Toronto Guardian, a local online newspaper [39] and this feature on an Canadian entertainment program (like Entertainment Tonight) [40]. We're well in GNG, not sure ACTOR has been met. Oaktree b (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage in the Epoch times, which is not a notable source [41] but it shows sustained coverage. This in a language that Google translate won't pick up, selecting Chinese, it seems to talk about him [42], appears to be a Chinese source from Madagascar, so unsure if it's RS. Oaktree b (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. Retinalsummer (talk) 03:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I originally was thinking keep a few years ago when it came up for deletion on simple.wiki as there are a lot of localish references to him, but they do seem to just mostly be regurgitating his own words and are likely just articles paraphrasing a promotional release. So I have since changed my mind. -DJSasso (talk) 12:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are significant articles about him in: Toronto Star, Toronto Herald, Halifax Saltwire, and a shorter CBC piece. I looked to see if these articles were mere copies of each other, but they are not. They do all refer to his "big break" part on a Netflix show - yet I somehow don't see this as BLP1E. I suppose if he totally disappears from acting sight after this one could conclude that. I'm still for Keep. Lamona (talk) 03:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. English-language sources:
      1. d'Entremont, Yvette (2019-10-29). "Chase Tang on being a Netflix supervillain and joining the UN climate awareness campaign". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2022-09-13. Retrieved 2022-09-12.

        The article notes: "The 31-year-old, who grew up in the Nova Scotia communities of Bedford and Upper Tantallon, has just embarked on another project he believes is one of his most important yet. Tang, who formerly went by Chia-Hao Tang, recently lent his face to a new United Nations campaign called The World is in Our Hands."

      2. "N.S. actor Chase Tang happy to be part of new wave of diversity in Hollywood". CBC News. 2019-09-02. Archived from the original on 2022-09-13. Retrieved 2022-09-12.

        The article notes: "Chase Tang was raised in Bedford and Upper Tantallon, N.S., after his family emigrated from Taiwan when he was a child. He grew up playing hockey, then worked in the corporate world before turning to acting. He has been cast as the villain in Jupiter's Legacy, which will be his biggest role to date."

      3. Conter, Jenna (2019-11-04). "Halifax-raised actor lends his face to climate change awareness campaign". CityNews. Archived from the original on 2022-09-08. Retrieved 2022-09-12.

        The article notes: "Up-and-coming Halifax-raised actor, Chase Tang, has been getting a lot of press as of late. Sure, he landed a big break as a villain on Netflix's Jupiter's Legacy, starring Josh Duhamel, but that's not important right now. His truly Canadian modesty shines through when he speaks about lending his strengthening celebrity voice and his face to the latest campaign for climate change awareness, The World is in our Hands."

      4. Khan, Anam (2021-02-06). "Netflix actor gives back to the U of G". Guelph Today. Archived from the original on 2022-09-13. Retrieved 2022-09-12.

        The article notes: "Tang graduated with a commerce degree and worked in the corporate world for eight years. Curious about the entertainment industry growing up, he decided to quit his job and finally pursue acting in 2016. That year, he took his first acting class. ... At the end of 2019, Tang signed for his first major show with Netflix which launched in 2020."

      5. Cooke, Stephen (2020-01-03). "As Netflix debut nears, Bedford actor Chase Tang makes the most of career momentum". The Chronicle Herald. Archived from the original on 2022-09-13. Retrieved 2022-09-12.

        The article notes: "Bedford-raised actor Chase Tang kept building up steam as 2019 progressed, and he has no plans for stopping in 2020. The former Nova Scotia AAA hockey player quit a corporate job in Toronto to pursue modelling and acting a couple of years ago and landed his first major role as the villain Baryon in the Ontario-shot Netflix superhero series Jupiter's Legacy, set to appear on the popular streaming platform later in 2020."

      6. "Chase Tang is one to watch in new action series 'Jupiter's Legacy'". etalk. CTV Television Network. 2020-11-17. Archived from the original on 2022-09-13. Retrieved 2022-09-12.
      7. Goulart, Alyssa (2019-09-24). "Netflix Just Cast A Canadian To Star Alongside Josh Duhamel In A New Superhero Series". Narcity Media. Archived from the original on 2022-09-13. Retrieved 2022-09-12.
    2. Chinese-language sources:
      1. Xiao, Fangqi 蕭方綺 (2020-01-16). "唐嘉壕棄300萬元年薪進軍好萊塢 4年變身超級英雄" [Tang Jiahao gave up 3 million yuan annual salary to enter Hollywood and turned into a superhero for 4 years]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-09-13. Retrieved 2022-09-12.

        The article notes from Google Translate: "31-year-old Hollywood Chinese actor Tang Jiahao recently participated in the Netflix superhero series Jupiter's Legacy. He is a big bad guy in the play and has a lot of martial arts. He was interviewed yesterday and talked about the past. Originally a senior executive of a financial enterprise with an annual income of more than 3 million yuan, four years ago, he gave up his high salary to realize his dream and officially embarked on the road of acting."

      2. Ip, Wenzheng 葉文正 (2020-09-29). "好萊塢演員唐嘉壕全裸怕走光　用塑膠袋捆「第三點」" [Hollywood star Chase Tang was naked and feared exposing himself. He used a plastic bag to bundle the "third point"]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-09-13. Retrieved 2022-09-12.

        The article notes from Google Translate: "FTV's "Entertainment Super skr" hosts Forrest Gump and Xiaolu went international, and interviewed Hollywood actor Chase Tang. ... Chase Tang came to the show to promote "Jupiter's Legacy", which will be broadcast on Netflix at the end of the year or early next year."

      3. Sun, Yixuan 孫伊萱 (2020-01-15). "2度得憂鬱症！好萊塢男星曝這巨星很雙面「用演技交朋友」" [2 degrees of depression! Hollywood actor revealed that this superstar is very double-sided "using acting to make friends"] (in Chinese). SET News. Archived from the original on 2022-09-13. Retrieved 2022-09-12.

        The article notes from Google Translate: "This time, when he returned to Taiwan to sign the contract, he also specially met with Taiwanese media. ... He only made his debut at the age of 26. He has done a lot of work in the past, in 3C industry, marketing planning, insurance, and later became an executive of a financial company. When his income is the highest, his annual salary can be as high as 140,000 Canadian dollars (3.2 million Taiwan dollars) ... Chase Tang, who immigrated to Canada with his parents at a young age, played ice hockey very well when he was 10 to 13 years old. At that time, he was almost a big star in the eyes of the locals, and everyone liked him very much."

      4. He, Peijuan 何佩娟 (2021-06-10). "放著高薪工作不幹　唐嘉壕賣房闖進好萊塢" [Not doing a high-paying job, Chase Tang sold his house and broke into Hollywood] (in Chinese). Mirror Media. Archived from the original on 2022-09-13. Retrieved 2022-09-12.

        The article notes from Google Translate: "Chase Tang, who performed in Netflix's "The Legend of Jupiter", was born in Taiwan and moved to Canada with his family at the age of 6. He used to be a professional ice hockey player in high school, and he also broke into the National Hockey League tryouts in North America. Later, he injured his knee in an accident and had to give up his dream of being an athlete."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Chase Tang (Chinese: 唐嘉壕) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the above sources provided by Cunard are insignificant and/or possibly unreliable. The interviews don't appear independent enough to justify the inclusion of this article. Is there something notable the subject has accomplished? See also WP:NACTOR; for point #1, this subject doesn't have notable roles in films and for #2, I don't think they've "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment" (what I said about the sources).

Also, the user who made this article, Melaniewang, the user who made the article Chase Tang on Simple Wikipedia, Irene Germo, and the user who took this photograph, claiming to be a "photographer", Krisz Tarcsi, are all single purpose accounts. NytharT.C 06:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Which of the sources are insignificant? Which of the sources are unreliable? Cunard (talk) 06:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Which source supports WP:NACTOR and shows that Chase Tang is notable enough to have an article? They appear to be routine coverage and promotional. NytharT.C 06:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Based on the article reading like a press release, some of the comments in the above discussion {my clients profile," "my clients Wikipedia page" etc), and the editing history, the likelihood of WP:CONFLICT appears to be high with the current state of the article. WP:TOOSOON may be the actual case here. 5Q5|✉ 13:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No significant coverage to show notability. Does not meet WP:NACTOR. Fails WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per self-analysis on Chinese language sources provied by Cunard above. Even if/ though Chase Tang doesn't meet NACTOR, he doubtlessly passes WP:GNG. Taung Tan (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain that please. In what respect is WP:GNG met if WP:NACTOR fails ?  Velella  Velella Talk   18:04, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A topic can meet GNG (significant coverage in independent reliable sources) without meeting any subject-specific notability guidelines. Per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, "A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 08:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mx. Granger: There can be coverage, but where's the significant coverage? As I explained above, most of these references contain promotional interviews and routine coverage that doesn't seem to be significant. NytharT.C 08:19, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as terribly as the article is written, and as much as I despise paid editing, it's pretty clear from the sources quoted (including the one in the Halifax Chronicle Herald) that GNG is easily met. User:Djsasso noted the sources were localish - but the sources listed are from major media outlets in both Atlantic and Central Canada (well, the Toronto Guardian is localish ... but it easily meets GNG without that article!). Nfitz (talk) 02:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of foreshocks and aftershocks of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake. Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2011 Sanriku earthquake[edit]

March 2011 Sanriku earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No impact. WP:NOTDATABASE WP:NOTCATALOG Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 11:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:NEVENT. Definitely not worthy of its own article. Perhaps deserves a mention in 2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami if the claim that it was a foreshock can be supported by a reliable source. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Striking my !vote and abstaining from this AfD as the article has been expanded based on Japanese sources, which I lack the language skills to verify. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after recent additions to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:13, 15 September 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) Singularity42 (talk) 21:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1974 Ethiopian coup d'état[edit]

1974 Ethiopian coup d'état (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed WP:BLAR. Article is an unattributed copy-paste from Ethiopian Civil War#History. I thought a redirect made sense. Article creator reverted without explanation. As per WP:BLAR, AfD is an appropriate forum to resolve this dispute. Singularity42 (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The article can be expanded to further paragraph and I willingly do it as soon as possible. I'm not agreed to merge in the Ethiopian Civil War as it is standalone coup d'état and no need to insert infobox there twice per MoS. For copyright reasons, I would like to trim contents and write in my own with copyediting. The Supermind (talk) 20:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is the version of the target page when the redirect was made, prior to Supermind's changes: [43]. Singularity42 (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are a lot of sources that detail about the coup d'état such as in JSTOR and Google Book. AfD should considerate to this issue but please give me a time to develop it or incubate to draft space rather than speedy deleted? The Supermind (talk) 20:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD generally runs a minimum of 7 days. Do you want to just draftify it for now and I'll withdraw my AfD nomination? Partly my bad - I should have run this option by you before this AfD nom. Singularity42 (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I want to draftify, I'll develop it there. Thank you for your understanding. The Supermind (talk) 20:33, 15 September 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. Unless I'm missing something, there's no "delete" opinions from unblocked users. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Krtin Nithiyanandam[edit]

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

He is not notable. It might have been thought he was at the time, but nothing has come of this. The most recent reference on his page is almost 5 years old (from Dec 2017), and his LinkedIn profile shows nothing of note since 2018, and even this was a Junior Prize. There was a lot of hype at the time, but he has achieved very little. Perhaps his article can be reinstated in the future when he achieves something noteworthy. WondrousMachine (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Speedy Keep - As noted in the first AfD, there are multiple, independent sources that established notability for this subject. Also, Notability is not temporary. This subject meets WP:GNG easily. SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 17:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Let us examine the relevance of each of these references:
    1. 'The Google Science Fair is an international competition for students from 13 to 18. It's an inspiring way to support the world's young scientists.' It is a school science fair, plain and simple, from 2015.
    2. The Rising Stars of 2017 - indeed, the pinnacle of his career.
    3. Taken from his school website. Need I say any more?
    4. Acknowledging he has won a Junior prize.
    5. One of 30 influential teens from 2017. Do they all have articles? No, because they are not noteworthy.
    6. 'May have cured breast cancer'. Didn't, it would seem.
    7. More on the Google Science Fair Prize, from which nothing came.
    8. His own TED talk.
    9. Ditto.
    10. Link doesn't work.
    11. See 6
  • Strong Speedy Delete -:While notability is not temporary, the time has come for a reassessment of his relevance to society. The fact that those things he did really did come to nothing, is without a doubt sufficient grounds for deleting the article. It is incumbent upon you to explain to me why, in 2022, he is still relevant. WondrousMachine (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer- this Delete !Vote is coming from the nominator. SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 17:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - First of all, you shouldn't be voting, your nomination indicates your vote to delete. And, the burden is actually on you to adequately convince that this article shouldn't exist, especially since it's already been through AfD. SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 17:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And I have done exactly this: his prizes are all junior, he has achieved nothing since 2018, and the fact that if everyone of the comparable notoreity got a Wikipedia article it would basically be LinkedIn. All of the things that he won prizes for came to nothing. He didn't cure Alzheimer's, he didn't cure cancer and he hasn't saved the planet. WondrousMachine (talk) 17:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying, you just seem very passionate about this article being deleted. Let the process play out and see what other users say about it. If others come in with alot of Delete votes, I'll strike mine, but for now I'm sticking to my !vote. SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 17:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Delete - To be honest this guy does seem pretty irrelevant. And as was said in the last nomination, it's just a resume boost. Tanner68573 (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note- The above !vote is the editors first edit. SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 17:47, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Two distinct events/news stories that received global coverage means WP:BLP1E doesn't apply. Doesn't matter if there's been no on-going coverage due to [[WP:NOTTEMP. No reason to delete this. (On a technical level, I believe AFD is malformed and so maybe should be procedurally closed since it's re-using the existing AFD nomination from 2019 instead of recreating a new one but I lack the knowledge to be sure/attempt to fix it). Skynxnex (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It does matter that there's been no ongoing coverage. This has been discussed: while notability is not temporary, his achievements were clearly fleeting and, even at the time, unremarkable. All individuals with comparable notoriety receiving a Wikipedia page would turn this into LinkedIn. It's not a free-for-all for 16-year-old has-beens. I ask you this: after a dry spell of just how long will you be forced to concede that he is irrelevant? WondrousMachine (talk) 19:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you care so much about this particular case? (I am trying to WP:AGF but all of your edits are to try to delete this page--save a single edit to change an unrelated talk page comment from 2010 (which I've reverted).) If you really want this deleted, you'll have to convince enough editors that he really fails to meet WP:GNG and/or there's another policy based reason. The fact that enough WP:RSes covered his activities significantly (twice!) makes him notable, we don't need to evaluate if the sources were correct or not, AFAIK. The fact that you claim he's now a "has-been" doesn't matter, because lack of on-going coverage now doesn't change if he was ever notable. 'May have cured breast cancer'. Didn't, it would seem. We have many pages about people who have their main claim to notability to be that they tried, and failed, at curing breast cancer; that isn't a reason to delete their pages. Saying negative things about the subject isn't a reason to delete, explaining why it fails notability or otherwise meets a criteria for deletion is. Skynxnex (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - I should also add that this is his most compelling achievement: 'In 2017, Nithiyanandam was named as a Rising Star in Science by The Observer and as one of TIME's 30 Most Influential Teens of 2017.[2][5] Krtin currently attends Stanford University.' This speaks for itself, he is a current student who achieved mild relevance in 2017. There is nothing remarkable about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WondrousMachine (talk • contribs) 19:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer- Per this SPI, the nominator and the only other Delete !vote are connected. SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 13:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: I have moved this to its own page. I've fixed the main links to it, but DELSORT links and such still point to the incorrect AfD; I added a hatnote. I was going to speedy-keep this while I was at it, but realized it didn't quite meet WP:SK4 since the nom wasn't evading a block at the time of creation. So... meh. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:28, 21 September 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 Gloomhaven#Sequel. The consensus is explicitly for the topic as it stands today; if notability changes substantially, possibly as the result of new media, this discussion is no bar to recreation. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frosthaven[edit]

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

Information on this article is entirely contained on the Gloomhaven page, save for the Infobox information. Unreleased board game, 50% of the article is about the kickstarter campaign, fails to show independent notability and certainly WP:TOOSOON until separate notability can be shown. Suggest merging infobox into Gloomhaven#Frosthaven. Skipple ☎ 16:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Skipple ☎ 16:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Gloomhaven as a "Sequel" section, as is typical for sequels that are announced but with not enough information. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per the above reasoning. Gloomhaven is clearly notable. Jclemens (talk) 00:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm also find with deferring this for a few weeks, and agree that if it is merged, it can be expected to quickly be un-merged once it ships as other RS'es cover it separately. Jclemens (talk) 00:37, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Gloomhaven. Currently is definitely WP:TOOSOON and fails WP:GNG, but there are RS here worth preserving. VickKiang (talk) 03:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noting here that the article and sources are already located in the Gloomhaven article. There may be one reference that needs to be transfered. Skipple ☎ 12:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    All RS on Frosthaven have been merged to Gloomhaven Skipple ☎ 18:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Gloomhaven#Sequel - As mentioned by Skipple, it seems like the entirety of this article and all sources are already present at the main Gloomhaven page, so merging is not actually needed at this point. I suspect that once Frosthaven is widely released, there will be enough sources that it can be spun back out into a separate article, but it is currently WP:TOOSOON for this to occur. Rorshacma (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh, it looks like it is (finally) coming out. So reviews will be flying I'm sure. Given we've had it for a while and it's likely to be notable by the end of the month, I'd rather we not merge it now only to see it changed. suspend AfD until Oct 1st is my IAR way forward. Hobit (talk) 22:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strike that. merge for now with an understanding it's likely to get unmerged sometime late this year or early next year. Hobit (talk) 12:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Postpone per Hobit - that seems reasonable, although if it's releasing that soon then there may be reviews over just the next week. BOZ (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's all right, but current article says The game is scheduled for release in September 2022 despite no reviews now. VickKiang 23:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a further look into this, the way it's written is a bit misleading. The game isn't being released to the general public but rather starting to ship to Kickstarter backers. The game is set to release to the public in early 2023.
According to this article from Wargamer a couple days ago, A Kickstarter update from August 12 says Cephalofair’s goal is to get backer’s Frosthaven copies in their hands by Christmas 2022. Curtosy ping for @BOZ: and @Hobit:. Skipple ☎ 23:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree--I can't link to the latest update (blacklist), but it indicates that you're right. I'm okay with a merge for now, !vote changed. Hobit (talk) 12:27, 20 September 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tami-Adrian George[edit]

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

Previously deleted article. Subject doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. No significant roles. Career is a series of minor movie roles and single appearances in shows. Rumor of being cast in a show that never happened won't get past it either. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agree, ACTOR not met. Mostly bit-parts/one-offs. Article uses flowery language, seems promotional. No sources found for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 14:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and California. Shellwood (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject on principle, I feel is very notable. Despite that, recent notoriety public reception related to the subject, gives more proof of validity for the article. Article was deleted in a past AFD yes, but the article was formatted incorrectly, and not sourced properly. Also, article also went through a submission review, which mind you passed. So with that being said, I feel the article should stay. Bronoton (talk) 03:15, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What significant roles in multiple notable films or television shows has she had? And what notoriety? Keeping on principle isn't a valid reason. It's just WP:ILIKEIT. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh dear. Major character in Starship Troopers, and other series, such as Star Trek etc. Common recurring roles in both film and television. Capture footage/motion footage work in Video games. Also, a lot of WP:BIO, and WP:NACTOR nobility and notoriety, comes from reception. Ergo, in other words, does the subject have a trending support/reception base, which the subject also has that. Perhaps this is trivial, but as a Wikipedian thats a minority/of color myself, I feel there aren't that many Black female performers, I feel the subject has nobility perhaps on that too. So I feel I made my points clear enough, that I'm hoping you shall understand. If there are still any misconceptions, perhaps we aren't going to agree I'm afraid. I guess I can try to do some last minute revisions to this article, if the AFD doesn't get refreshed, but it's up to the admin as to whether the article stays, which I believe it should. But I said my piece. Thank you. Bronoton (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think your view of what a "major character" means needs some work. A single episode is not a major character. None of her TV roles are recurring. Her race and gender are irrelevant to this discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject has only held minor roles in her film and TV appearances (almost all of which are one-episode bit parts). Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:49, 20 September 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Groves[edit]

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

While a working music producer, can't find the in-depth coverage to show they meet GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly not notable, as lack of significant coverage. Gnews just brings up Soundcloud, Spotify and his other profiles. ZanciD (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Couldn't find any authored articles. There's also a boxing / sports journalist with the same name. Apologies Lee. Chumpih t 03:27, 20 September 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. This is a messy discussion, numerically split 3-4 for delete-vs redirect and 2-2 on the redirect target. THe argument to redirect would normally be strong, given WP:ATD, but in the absence of a good target, is rendered virtually null. There is a clear absence of consensus about the target; the two !votes favoring redirecting to one of the band members are nullified, in my view, by the argument that when two members exist, redirecting to one of them isn't appropriate. The argument to redirect to the album is weakened by questions about whether the album is notable at all. There is clear consensus that a standalone article isn't viable, and the most direct way to implement that is deletion, which I'm enacting. If the article about the album survives the AfD it is probably being sent to, it will likely be reasonable to redirect this there. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Demon Queen[edit]

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

Prev. deleted, clearly fails GNG & NMUSIC, cited sources unreliable except for a single NYTimes citation that is not even about Demon Queen but Black Moth Super Rainbow, and it's passing mention in one sentence about style of music.deleted unrelated materialAtsme 💬 📧 20:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC) The albums are self-released labels, basically FB, YT style garage-band recordings. This article was created by User:Goldborg (64 edits), and I suspect a COI is involved or possibly UPE, and that includes the related articles in the suggested redirects: Tobacco (musician) was created by Satwig who has 6 edits, it was expanded but even then, the cited sources do not pass RS to support N/GNG. Black Moth Super Rainbow (created by Sdhursh (7 edits) and it is not notable beyond 1 or 2 sources with passing mention used to describe this type of music by a very small cult following; thus, the self-promotion. It is G11 but not an obvious one, so here we are, and I'm thinking if the closer is of the mind to also delete the related self-promotion articles being suggested for the redirect of this article, they have my support. It's a self-released label, self-promoting garage band, duo, and music producer striving for attention with a very small cult following...maybe 2,000. Atsme 💬 📧 16:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ha! Not the one. This article is a little above a garage-band. Atsme 💬 📧 01:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Tobacco (musician) as one of his several side projects. His main article already says that he briefly collaborated with another guy in the Demon Queen project, and that's all there is to know about that endeavor. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I did consider a redirect but it is inappropriate because Zachary Hose is the other half of the duo that comprises Demon Queen. We need to avoid the habit of redirecting non-notables to a single article, especially if the target article has questionable notability, because what we are doing in essence is allowing WP to be used for promotion via redirects of these little garage band-type projects, and non-notable niches in the world. Atsme 💬 📧 13:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a huge fan of that process either, but Wikipedia usually favors the alternatives to deletion option. If someone in the future searches for "Demon Queen" they can be redirected to Tobacco, which reduces the temptation to create a new Demon Queen article that would have to go through another AfD discussion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my years of experience as an NPP reviewer, redirects are too easily reverted, hijacked, and misused. We currently have 4,885 redirects in the NPP queue, and that number is down from over 8,000 which is typical. An AfD is far more dependable, and much harder for garbage and non-notable articles to be recreated in main space. I do hope you will re-consider. Atsme 💬 📧 14:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have also been through this hundreds of times over several years and usually just vote to delete something like this, but then I get overruled by someone who cares more about WP:ATD and how the search term might be used in the future and how we have to save edit histories for proper attribution blah blah blah. See the pointless arguments I got into here and here for example. So this time I recommended to redirect and got pushback in the other direction. This illustrates the conflict between different WP procedures, and I have highlighted that conflict many times before, all to no avail. The community needs to figure this out. I did not come to this AfD for yet another argument so I don't really care what happens to this useless article on Demon Queen, as long as it's something. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I feel your pain, and I hate being the one who added to it; it was not my intent. I'm here now because the article was created by a block evader and deleted. Now the article is back 2 years later, and here we are; at least we had a 2 yr break. I hope one day you will forgive me. Atsme 💬 📧 17:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I forgive you but I do not forgive the WP community for giving us two directly contradictory attitudes on deleting or redirecting unworthy articles. And both are based on policy. Back to Demon Queen, they absolutely do not deserve a WP article, and the worst thing that can happen here is a useless "no consensus" because the community can't figure out the contradiction. I've seen it happen many times. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:07, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you upgrade to delete, we stand a much better chance of it being deleted. That guy has gotten enough publicity on WP. Atsme 💬 📧 14:34, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Address the community's contradictory policies, not me. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, there would be no purpose to AfD if we keep redirecting everything that is not notable to something similar or somewhat related. We can redirect non-notable inventions to the article INVENTION or what the subject closely resembles, such as a newly developed cell phone on the market by a brand new manufacturer – it's not notable but we'll just redirect it to Apple iPhone because it uses some of the same parts. A redirect is not policy, it is a guideline, and it is not contradictory if you are properly interpreting what it prescribes. Tobacco is a single person, and Demon Queen is a non-notable duo. See #5 Note in Notability: Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability. Also WP:CONTN: Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Sorry, but the duo (e.g. the subject) is neither covered by independent RS, nor is it notable. There is also: No inherited notability – Web content is not notable merely because a notable person, business, or event was associated with it. All of the aforementioned applies to the duo. This article is not about a song/album Tobacco produced as a solo, and even if it was, the song/album is NOT NOTABLE. The DUO fails NOTABILITY/GNG. A redirect is inappropriate because nothing in that article is notable, and because it is a DUO; we should not redirect a standalone duo to a single person because you are giving indirect credibility to the non-notable duo via inherited notability, the latter of which is noncompliant. Atsme 💬 📧 15:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Clearly not notable and a redirect does not aid the Wikipedia project in this case. Interesting discussion above which raises some important meta questions, but I oppose redirect here because per WP:RFD#DELETE 1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Tobacco (musician) (would also support a delete if that's more popular), though I'd like to note that Tiny Mix Tapes, Exclaim!, and PopMatters all have entries at WP:RSMUSIC and would be reliable coverage for an album article if someone wants to make one, in which case I'd prefer a redirect to there. QuietHere (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Tobacco (musician) Bruxton (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks just about even between delete and redirect
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Award Top albums of 2013 (2,489th)
  • Award Top albums of the 2010s (25,519th)
  • Award Best albums of all time (90,703rd)
  • It appears to me the whole lot needs to be deleted including Tobacco (musician), and Black Moth Super Rainbow because it comprises what is obviously a fringy self-promoted non-notable musician who knew how to use the internet to self-promote, (not unlike selling self-published books). Maybe I'm holding my mouth wrong, but I'm not finding anything notable about Black Moth Super Rainbow that satisfies N or GNG or SNG – none of it. Seriously, it even fails WP:10YT, and the cited sources clearly do not satisfy RS, except for maybe one or two paid promotions disguised as articles. Even then, it is about nothing - not worthy of being noted. This whole self-promotional mess and related articles suggested for the redirect should all be deleted. Atsme 💬 📧 16:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:NMUSIC, "an album does not need to be by a notable artist or ensemble to merit a standalone article if it meets the general notability guideline" (and that's assuming you're right about any of the other articles being non-notable which I wouldn't automatically assume). Article easily passes WP:SIGCOV which is the actual relevant measure of notability on this website, unlike this Best Ever Albums website you're linking which I don't think I've ever heard of before. And being a self-released project does not negate notability, WP:SELFPUB is for sources not for subjects. Are you gonna try and claim that a self-published album like The Big Day or Wasteland are non-notable as well? QuietHere (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no need to assume anything – it is WP:NOT garage band; there were 712 pageviews since 2021 and most of those are BOTs and WP editors trying to fix it. I have 3x that many pageviews on my UTP in a month. It is a vanity self-released label, and surely you know WP's position about that, and what is required in the way of RS. I invite you to consider WP:NPPSCHOOL to get a better handle on what is notable and worthy of inclusion. You know, sometimes even the coverage doesn't make it notable for inclusion. Atsme 💬 📧 17:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • SMH Lament - And now we have two questionable articles. If the album is notable then the band probably is too, or not, who the heck knows. I hereby predict that an Admin will toss this off as "no consensus" without addressing a single one of the policy challenges raised above, thus making this whole rigamarole even more pointless than it was two weeks ago. Way to go, Wikipedia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
m( Extremely frustrating, but I still have faith in some of our admins/closers to make the proper decision based on the arguments, not the voting or suggestions. I think most of the time, our admins are as snowed under as NPP reviewers and don't want to get bogged down, so they may do a quick scan without little research. I try to teach my trainees in NPPSCHOOL to not rush through a decision of notability and to cover all the bases. One such situation is Barbara Dawson that ended-up at DRV. I have always done my best to save articles that are worthy of being saved, and try not to waste too much valuable time on garage bands and sports figures that only need to show-up to earn a blue ribbon. Atsme 💬 📧 18:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would at least throw in an argument for whichever admin comes to close this that there's a strong case against redirecting to one member of the duo, a strong case for redirecting to their album, and the redirect votes (despite naming different targets) outnumber the delete votes three to one (or two if Atsme's nomination counts as a vote). Especially if DOOMSDAYER520 and Bruxton would be willing to change the redirect target of their votes then I think that should stand fine for a consensus. QuietHere (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
doomsdayer520, we do the best we can. But just like there aren't enough editors on the project who participate in the AFD area, there aren't enough admins willing to spend time going through the more challenging AFD discussions. What seems obvious to you may not appear that way to the discussion closer. And when BOLD action is taken, you can find yourself taken to Deletion review and be accused of "Supervoting" by the parties that are unhappy with the closure. That is such an unpleasant experience that it tends to make AFD closers more conservative. I don't think any editor or admin enjoys their editing decisions under intense scrutiny even when you are very confident you made the best decision among the possible alternatives. But I don't expect this discussion to be closed as "No consensus". Just my 2 cents. Liz Read! Talk! 01:04, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A whole bunch of people are telling me to reconsider my vote, as if everybody after me made more sense. I envisioned a conflict among contradictory policies and that's exactly what we got. The thing is, this is not even close to the first time this sort of thing has happened. Others can be found easily, and I linked a couple back near the top of this wall of text. If someone has the wherewithal to address the contradictory policies at a higher level, I will contribute to that discussion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comment Thanks Liz, it is good to hear your perspective. Regarding QuietHere's assessment of consensus, I would just add that (1) of course the Nom.'s !vote is understood, and (2) the fact that multiple redirects are proposed is, to my mind, evidence that no redirect should be used. If there is consensus that a particular redirect is appropriate, then that is fair enough because redirects are cheap, but the purpose of a redirect is to signpost future readers to the content they want. A redirect, however, takes precedence over site search, and so per WP:RFD#DELETE 1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. It is not just the multiple targets either. A search for "Demon Queen" might now or in the future throw up hits in pages on fantasy gaming, fiction novels and TV shows. Anyone searching on the phrase might be rather surprised to find themselves taken directly to a page on some obscure garage band instead. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
+1 and an excellent point, Sirfurboy. I am keeping that diff for future use in NPPSCHOOL. Thank you. Atsme 💬 📧 10:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A good point indeed, though for the sake of this discussion I will at least say that unless you have specific examples in mind, this reads as speculative and not actually relevant at present. Sure, said articles could come along in the future (assuming they don't exist now, but I did a brief search and didn't see anything that stood out), but if they're not here now then the result of this discussion doesn't need to reflect articles that don't exist. And if/when they come to exist in the future, perhaps converting this page to a dab and/or moving the redirect to Demon Queen (band) would be appropriate.
And I'll also reiterate the arguments against/for those two targets as a reason why both proposals existing should not be taken as evidence against any redirecting. If you have a more specific objection to either potential target then that'd be more helpful here than a general dismissal. QuietHere (talk) 13:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[45], [46], [47], [48], [49] just for starters. I make no representations about the quality of any of those pages. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Three of those fall under WP:PARTIAL. Rangda only uses the term once in prose, and not as a proper noun, so the connection feels a bit too thin. And for Maoyu, the term's usage is referring to a specific character rather than the work itself so I think a hatnote saying "For the Maoyu character, see Maoyu" would be the most appropriate. QuietHere (talk) 14:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Exorcise Tape. As QuietHere has stated, it is possible to have a notable album when the band is not notable. It makes no sense to redirect to one performer in a band when the member's article does not have a section dedicated to the music project. There are many examples of albums that are notable when the band is not (Forest Floor, In the Groove and Witch Egg to name a few), so let the album article stand and bring the band back to the article strong enough to stand on it's own instead of off on a tangent. Mburrell (talk) 21:49, 21 September 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. The arguments to merge are strongest, in my view, but nonetheless do not have clear consensus. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AN/ARC-182[edit]

AN/ARC-182 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AN/ARC-27, here's another case of a catalogue-like, poorly referenced entry about a piece of military equipment that seems to fail WP:GNG. My BEFORE, again, failed to locate anything but a few passing mentions that suffice to confirm this entity exists/ed, but not that it is notable. More cleanup of Category:Aircraft stations is likely still needed. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom Andre🚐 05:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it has at least some Google hits and 10 editors involved, and of course publications (military, federal register, technical manual, side mentions re use and history/radio buffs), so it seems reasonable to keep. It seems more activity than some other kinds of article such as astronomical (e.g. HD 44131), biological (e.g. Scarabaeus satyrus), or some technical terms. It would seem better to me to merge it, per the GNG guidance “it might be useful to discuss it within another article“ and have this as a section in a list article or table on the series of military radios, but that would require a wider judgement and work merging numerous articles. It just seems better presented by external overviews as Military Radios or Equipment listing. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have large numbers of articles on military electronics of the United States and other countries. If anything their value is even greater today, with a major war ongoing in Europe and frequent stories in the press about different types of weapons being used and transferred. An argument could be made for merging many into a single article e.g. Military radios of the United states, or.some such, but that would be a major work project and have little benefit to Wikipedia. As for Category:Aircraft stations, this seems to be created as part of Category:Radio stations and systems ITU, which appears to be recapitulating the types of radio stations as defined under the UN's ITU regulations. I don't see the point in attempting to list all the aircraft radios in that category, it is the only ITU station type where this is being attempted. Indeed, I don't think the ARC-182 qualifies as an Aircraft station under the ITU definition. Rather it is one possible component of such a station which might be installed on a particular aircraft. I suggest Category:Aircraft stations be listed for deletion as misconceived.--agr (talk) 19:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of military electronics of the United States per WP:PRESERVE. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid argument. The only non-primary source with (maybe) more than passing coverage I could find was [50]. The argument of the frequent stories in the media about different types of weapons being transferred to the Ukrainian military does not hold water either. Yes, specific weapon systems are under the spotlight due to their use in the war (HIMARS, Javelin, M777, and many others to a smaller scale). But not individual components. As far as I know, nobody made an article in the style of "The US is transferring the HIMARS to Ukraine, let's discuss the radio used by that system". As the nom wrote, the subject of this article fails WP:GNG, as do most if not all specific types of aircraft radios. But this one still is worth mentioning somewhere in my opinion. BilletsMauves€500 21:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BilletsMauves, Thanks for mentioning HIMARS and the like. A year ago they might have been considered by some to be too obscure to merit separate articles. Now they are featured in the nightly news. In online discussion, many more weapon systems from multiple countries are mentioned, often with links to their Wikipedia article. Our editors did not write all these articles in anticipation of war breaking out in Europe, rather from a desire to have complete coverage of the major systems used by the world's militaries. That is what an encyclopedia does. Aircraft radio systems are not minor components, but significantly affect the capabilities of military aviation, in terms of range, security, protection against jamming and interoperability with other services. I could easily see a story emerging about re-equipping Soviet era fighters with radios such as these, for example, or their use in small patrol boats. Whether we have one large article on, say U.S. military aircraft radios, or several smaller articles hardly matters.--agr (talk) 16:14, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ArnoldReinhold huh ? HIMARS, Javelin and others already passed GNG by a wide margin back then. Passing GNG does not necessarily have to do with coverage in mainstream media, far from it. That with "a story emerging about re-equipping Soviet era fighters with radios such as these" is irrelevant: we judge the subject's notability in its current state, and we don't try to predict what it will be in, say, six months. While I agree that radios are important systems on an aircraft, the question is whether or not this specific model passes WP:GNG. And it appears that it doesn't. That's all. BilletsMauves€500 20:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The argument "maybe this will become notable one day" just reinforces the problems with "it's not notable now", plus WP:CRYSTALBALL. And, uh, this is a 1970s tech that might be obsolete by now (the article does not suggest it is still used). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I found a couple of references using Wikipedia Library and another editor has added as well. To respond to earlier comments, there is no reason to assume the -182 is no longer in service anywhere. It was adopted by many countries and replacements like the ARC-210 are very expensive. Even the US faces budget constraints when replacing radios. And it has historical value in the progression of US capabilities. Wikipedia cover military weapon systems in great detail, without any crystal ball forecast of when or where our articles might be useful. Yet that coverage has proven valuable in the past. There is no reason why military aircraft communications systems should be any different, whether in multiple articles or combined into a single article.--agr (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Currently split 2-2-2 for delete, keep, and merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

mello, AFD is not a vote. Liz Read! Talk! 04:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know that, sorry for unclear phrasing that implies the contrary. I understand that merely getting the most votes does not make an option win, but I wanted to just succinctly state how split people are over here. I would not encourage closing based on just the amount of votes it has received. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep References added recently (such as the Aviation Week story focusing on this particular technology) have shown enough notability for a standalone article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The current sourcing includes primary sources (refs #1, #6), a few passing mentions (refs #2, #3, #5), multiple refs to the unreliable globalsecurity website (ref #4, #9). These aren't enough to convince me to change my !vote above. I don't have access to #7 and #8, could @ArnoldReinhold: (I assume these are the ones you refer to above?) describe their depth of coverage? Based on the pulled quotes, they sound like they'd be passing mentions as well. -Ljleppan (talk) 18:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • AWST reference 7 discusses the ARC-182 among several programs. Reference 8 "Two New Jam-Resistant Sicgars Radios Readied for Flight Tests" is all about plans to upgrade the ARC-182 and one other radio to provide Sicgars frequency hopping capability, so discussion is significant. Also, I don't see why Globalsecurity, which largely references government sources, would be considered unreliable. There are a number of articles, similar to this one and it may make sense to cabin them into, say "United States military aircraft radios." I may take that on when I have a bit more time.--agr (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:50, 15 September 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. While the article does have many sources, there is merit to the argument that none of them really give in-depth coverage beyond news articles/press releases stating that someone won an award, and that none of the sources really show that the award is a significant one. Without any analysis as to which of the sources provide notability, I cannot give the dissenting "keep" much weight. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A' Design Award[edit]

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

To start with, this thing has all the hallmarks of a scam (asking for self-nominations "subject to a nominal fee", see also this and that reddit threads). But... that’s, like, my opinion, and even so, it might still be a notable scam.

Admittedly, I have not read all the 31 references. However, all I checked are either from the design award themselves, or from recipients of the awards, or otherwise non-independent - most of those can be seen from the ref title/URL only, and others can be quickly discerned by clicking the link.

A WP:BEFORE turned up nothing of value. A generic search for "A' design award" brings up non-indy sources, and trying to restrict the search to newspapers etc. causes the search to match the string a design award which of course is not specific enough. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 09:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have looked at those sources. All of them (yes, 10) follow the same template: a (pushy) call for contributions, and a few photos from previous winning entries. Looking at the "metadata", two of them have a byline that makes it clear they are non-indy: this has This award/grant/scholarship announcement was submitted by an ArchDaily user, and that has this is a sponsored post. (Possibly the non-English ones also have some language of that sort, but I’m accessing them through DeepL, so I might miss some stuff.) Only one of the other eight has a byline attributing the content to a staff member (and that staff member is the editor-in-chief, so possibly that is the default one). Finally, one of them has text both in English and Spanish, which highly suggests an unchecked copy-paste job.
Each individual source would be meh, but the real problem is that they are clones of each other. In my opinion, we should not only discount the obviously bad ones (the two that say they are non-indy + the Spanish-English mix which is likely not the result of a reliable editorial process). If the bad ones had not come to light, maybe we could pass the article with the rest, but now that they have, the whole thing is obviously part of one unified PR push from A'. (The creation of the article by a paid editor fits that pattern.) TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 13:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable award and odd sources, nothing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:27, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slavi Panayotov[edit]

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

Not passing WP:NACTOR or ANYBIO, Reliable sources, GNG. Dark Juliorik (talk) 09:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:12, 15 September 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 Sea of Okhotsk#Whaling. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whaling in the Sea of Okhotsk[edit]

Whaling in the Sea of Okhotsk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is not an easy nomination to make. Unfortunately, the article creator -- through an impressive level of mania -- has turned out an article that belongs in the Twilight Zone. At nearly 120kb, it's bloated out of proportion, and carries a breathtaking 636 citations. It is choked with unencyclopedic trivia and WP:UNDUE detail that has had more than one editor pronounce it unreadable.

Equally unfortunately, the article creator has been defending his work with an unwarranted level of ownership reflected in the edit summaries, in other related creations of his, and at ANI, disparaging the efforts of those he feels are "non-experts" in the field. I can't claim that the subject is non-notable, or that it is unverifiable. But I feel that the article is unsalvageable as it stands, and that blowing it up and starting from scratch is the only viable option. Ravenswing 12:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 12:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Or possibly harpoon. Or apply WP:DYNAMITE (though I've seen video suggesting the latter is inadvisable for deceased cetaceans). If an encyclopaedic article on the topic is possible, it isn't going to be rendered down from this humongous blubbery monstrosity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Uncomfortably support based on WP:TNT. Would also support massive rewrite via draftification. Gusfriend (talk) 12:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No objection to draftification, as long as it's not to the article creator, whose competence is in doubt. Ravenswing 12:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ... and who was indeffed earlier today for threats and personal attacks requiring revdel. Ravenswing 20:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well then, that's not appreciated. We're left with this citation nightmare to deal with. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is ship logs put onto a screen, not an encyclopaedically written article. I'm sure the topic is valid for an article, but this isn't that article. Even after spending far too much time on it, it's unreadable and just full of unencyclopaedic info and (I never thought I'd say this) far far far far far far far far far (is that enough?) to many references. Canterbury Tail talk 12:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a whale of a problem. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sea of Okhotsk#Whaling. While most of the current content does not fit here, I believe that some of the first paragraph in Chronology, which is sourced to relatively recent secondary sources (Bockstoce 1986 and Kugler 1984), would read fine in the larger article. I suspect this is a valid topic, but it's not one that should be based on primary sources the way this one appears to be. CMD (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per CMD as a plausible search term for what can be encyclopedically described at Sea of Okhotsk#Whaling. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Overlinking parody. Nobody has the time to fix this. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete oh boy, this is about the most ref stacked article I've seen. I'm not evaluating that many sources. TNT seems like an option, but just delete it. Article creator having been blocked doesn't help the situation. Oaktree b (talk) 12:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sea of Okhotsk#Whaling. While the article as written is problematic, there is useful, reliably sourced information there on a valid encyclopedic topic if someone wants to use it to either write an appropriately sized section within the Sea of Okhotsk article, or even write an appropriate article for Whaling in the Sea of Okhotsk. Redirecting would be appropriate for anyone who enters "whaling in the Sea of Okhotsk" and would preserve the information and sources for anyone who wants to use them.Rlendog (talk) 20:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is almost entirely OR. It's pretty clear to me from an (admittedly) cursory glance that the majority of the references are to archival sources. The abbreviations appear to refer to specific archives listed under "Logbooks and journals." TNT seems like a good option here or possibly redirect if not enough secondary sources can be found. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sea of Okhotsk#Whaling, best option. ZanciD (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lara Sharma[edit]

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

Article subject has not been covered by significant coverage in multiple secondary sources independent of the subject. Article should hence be deleted as it does not meet Wikipedia’s general notability guideline. MaxnaCarta (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MaxnaCarta (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, India, and West Bengal. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I found [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], and [57] among many many more sources from theawayend.co, thehindu.com, sportskeeda.com, khelnow.com, etc. In addition, he definitely has many Bengali sources. He is young player with ongoing career int eh fully pro Indian top flight. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have an opinion yet on this deletion discussion, but some of these sources are a bit iffy. 1 and 5 are from Sportskeeda, a generally unreliable source. 2 has a few paragraphs of good info but is mostly interview based. 3 is an interview. 4 looks good, containing lots of info along with an interview. 6 is from the Indian Super League so I'm unsure if that counts as independent coverage. 7 is just a short intro to a YouTube video, so I'm not sure it counts for much. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 11:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    While those 7 sources listed definetly are enough on their own, those sources I listed are not the only sources I found, there are many many more sources from theawayend.co, thehindu.com, sportskeeda.com, khelnow.com, etc. In addition, he definitely has many Bengali sources. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 15:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources above which show notability. GiantSnowman 18:20, 16 September 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 12:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Laguna City F.C.[edit]

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

Virtually unreferenced stub on a non-notable footy team. Search finds nothing beyond the usual social media accounts and directory listings etc. Fails WP:GNG / WP:NTEAM. This was declined at AfC but the creator moved it to main space anyway; then a speedy request was removed by a mystery IP editor (!), so here we are at AfD. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:19, 15 September 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 Popalzai. Clear consensus to redirect, but nobody has explicitly mentioned a target. Reading between the lines I'm led to believe the !votes are referring to Popalzai, but if I'm mistaken, and there isn't clear agreement, a talk-page discussion or RfD may be needed. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Habibzai[edit]

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

Stumbled upon this stub while adding article descriptions in my commute. It's plausible that the subject exists, insofar as there are people with the last name Habibzai. But I've performed a WP:BEFORE and found essentially zero reliable sources discussing it. The Panjab Chiefs mentioned it but I question the reliability of this source, and it's literally one mention. There's a ResearchGate link but that's not a WP:RS. BeReasonabl (talk) 12:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified editors who have edited the article over its 10 year existence. BeReasonabl (talk) 12:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect - insufficient coverage for a standalone article; basically a DICDEF. - Sitush (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need a redirect target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 10:55, 15 September 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. Sources are not required to be online; old print sources are certainly acceptable; but if no evidence of their existence has been found, "keep" arguments based on the supposition that they do are rather weak. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Woodcote House School[edit]

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

Non-notable primary school. Of the sources cited, only the Tatler piece comes even close to RS sigcov, and it alone isn't enough; search finds nothing beyond the usual directory listings, social media accounts, etc. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, United Kingdom, and England. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can't believe a 170-year-old prep school isn't notable. And there does seem to be a fair amount about it online. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't find anything online, but if you can, feel free to post it, and if it satisfies ORGCRIT I'm happy to withdraw this. I actually would say that, given the school's age, there's more likely to be offline sources, but those I can't comment on. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You still want to gamble on the existence of off-line sources, Necrothesp? As far as we know, Wikipedia is based on sources, not guesswork. The Banner talk 14:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed it is. However, many editors now seem to obsess about online sources and don't realise that offline sources are just as valid. They also don't seem to understand that older instititions are more likely to be covered in print sources than digital sources. My point is that articles shouldn't be deleted simply because editors can't find anything online about them, as many editors seem to propose. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Honestly, I'm actually doubtful that the OP is even good-faith. George Huntley (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, that is no argument for keeping the article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    George Huntley indeffed for disruptive editing. Just saying. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:07, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as quite clearly fails NSCHOOL and GNG - Google News brings up 4 2-bit mentions [58] and the main Google results page just brings up spammy-listings. If Necrothesp or George Huntley can provide sources to back up their !votes I will happily change my !vote. As an FYI per WP:SCHOOLRFC schools are no longer considered to be inherently notable like they once were. If this school is truly notable - prove it. –Davey2010Talk 18:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a search brought up no sources that would contribute to a GNG pass. A primary school, no matter how old, not having any reliable coverage discussing it is not at all unusual. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not just a primary school. It's a prep school. That would be unusual. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most sources I found are related, social media or listings. Unsufficient in-depth sources. The Banner talk 14:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep per Necrothesp. Give an expert at this subject a chance to bring it up to NSCHOOL since this is the first trip to AFD. I can change my opinion to delete after that's been done or we've given some time and it appears that no one will step forward. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 10:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources, their website, their facebook and various lists of schools are about all I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 12:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, same reasoning as Royal Autumn Crest --Holyisland (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Articles are judged based on what can be shown, not based on the hypothetical existence of sources; if that was the standard applied to notability then we would never have cause to delete anything. This article completely and utterly fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL (which includes WP:NORG). Newspapers.com does have mentions of the school going back to the 1880s, but they are all non-independent sources like this ad or trivial mentions like this one. I spent way too long going through all of the mentions on Newspapers.com and they are all either routine, trivial things or advertisements. There's no significant coverage to be found there. Yes, WP:ITSOLD. But it's not notable. It doesn't matter that this is the first time it's been brought to AfD; we don't keep articles or give them a free pass on notability just because they've not been previously nominated or discussed. If the concern is that an expert is needed to improve the article, then if one wants to give it a shot they can gather sources that nobody else has been able to find, WP:REFUND the article to their userspace and improve it from there, but it doesn't belong in mainspace and I don't see a good reason to do anything short of deleting it. - Aoidh (talk) 05:08, 22 September 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 12:21, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Wilhelm Lindholm[edit]

Otto Wilhelm Lindholm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article came up by way of an ANI complaint, and after some measure of work, it's apparent that the subject just doesn't meet the GNG (or any other relevant notability criterion). The article is overwhelmingly sourced from the subject's own memoirs -- and edited by his own great-grandchildren, and such other sources as are mentioned involved casual and often tangential namedrops. Nor, when the verbiage is boiled down, does this article contain useful and encyclopedic detail beyond a straight CV of the areas he went whaling and the ships he bought.

We wouldn't accept a contemporary bio of a businessman with so little a level of notability, sourced from his own memoirs. It may be an interesting read, but it cannot be used as the basis for notability of its author. Ravenswing 07:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Russia. Ravenswing 07:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Between the fall of 1861 and the spring of 1862, Lindholm traveled across Siberia by sleigh and steamer to Nikolayevsk. From there he sailed in a small sloop to the Sea of Okhotsk, where he spent the summer collecting whalebone from the shore left by stranded whales. Beaching his sloop near the mouth of the Uda River, Lindholm and his companions traveled upriver to Udsk for the winter. The following year..." Fails WP:GNG, WP:GOODGRIEF. Okay, I made the second one up. Tendentious minutiae dressing up a non-notable person. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:32, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ... and that's after I did some serious pruning of the aforementioned tendentious minutiae. It was twice as long before I started. Ravenswing 11:50, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no claims to notability, just because something's published about someone doesn't make them notable. Canterbury Tail talk 12:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because he killed my best pet whale. And other than that, no notion of notability. (PS. I've never had a pet whale.) - UtherSRG (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you need a cetacean, you should talk to tamzin. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, my wife DOES have a pet whale. She's an Atlantic humpback, and her name is Midnight. (One of those adoption-to-benefit-the-fund things.) Ravenswing 20:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete couldn’t find anything resembling a credible source to establish notability. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:157B:E272:A36F:CB09 (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Only thing I found in the National Archives of Finland newspaper archive is this 1926 article (continues on next page), which could be about him. I'm not sure how to concisely characterize the story, but it discusses a Finnish captain called Otto Lindholm who had gone to Russia for seal hunting and had died there c. 1912. It includes a bunch of biographic info, but is written in a style where it doesn't really sound too reliable (e.g. ...where he had died, unless I'm mistaken, in 1912.). The story is ostensibly about the Russian Far East military forces in 1903, but spends a bunch of time talking about the Finnish captain. He is not mentioned in Suomen kansallisbiografia. As for the sourcing currently in the article, Ref #1 seems rather non-independent based on author list. The History of Modern Whaling (Ref #3) appears to have approximately one page of content about him, which is a bit so-and-so in terms of establishing notability but not horrible. It does describe him as a the pioneer of Russian coastal whaling in the Far East, which I think could be be interpreted as a claim for notability. I don't really have visibility to Refs #2, #4, #5 and #6, but Google books gives a bunch of hits in Eurasian Environments (Ref #6) and there's at least a mention or two in the Anderssen book (Ref #5). Does anyone have visibility to these sources? Leaning towards a "weak delete" unless we can get descriptions of refs #2 and #4-6. -Ljleppan (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - as per my rationale/comment above -Ljleppan (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete couldn’t find anything by Googling to find evidence of notability. ZanciD (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources and nothing to prove notability. NMasiha (talk) 19:10, 18 September 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 Vennila Veedu. Liz Read! Talk! 06:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vetri Mahalingam[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals #3:

The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a film)

Both the films have received independent reviews and are reliable, no doubt. But there is no reliable sources of the director other than passing mentions. This source has him talking to The Times of India about an unreleased film but not much can be found about his career that are non-passing mentions (like an interview with a newspaper). His third film had a low-key release but not many notable newspapers reviewed that film, so he only has two notable films. Is two a body of work? What about his short film titled Pencil? Based on this source, it received a "lot of accolades" which one other that the "Melbourne Tamil Sangam's Film Festival" (is that even notable)? When did the short film release. Original research should not have to be used.

Is his third film notable (reviewed by Maalai Malar)? If it was (had another reliable review) then maybe he would have been notable. Sadly Filmibeat.com (review here) is listed as unreliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force.

I would propose a redirect to Vennila Veedu, his most notable work. DareshMohan (talk) 07:12, 15 September 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 Alone (2015 Kannada film). Liz Read! Talk! 06:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JKS (director)[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals #3:

The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a film)

Both the films have received independent reviews and are reliable, no doubt. But lack of significant coverage (not passing mentions) is why this should be deleted for now. Also so many directors have directed two films, is two really a body of work as opposed to four, five, etc.?

All the sources in this article, in Shathru (2013 film) and in Alone (2015 Kannada film) are passing mentions. This source mentions him three times (JK/the director) but is about an unreleased film. DareshMohan (talk) 06:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would propose a redirect to Alone (2015 Kannada film), his most notable work. DareshMohan (talk) 08:02, 16 September 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. Despite a leaning "delete", consensus seems to be divided between "keep" and "delete". Nonetheless, anyone is free to add any of the sources indicated in this discussion to the article. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 10:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Stuart[edit]

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

NN college softball player, fails the GNG going away, with only one semi-valid source from a small town paper. The other sources are casual mentions, primary sources and the subject's Twitter feed. Meets no criteria of NSPORTS. Article created by a SPA who had almost no edits outside this article. Ravenswing 19:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Softball and Philippines. Ravenswing 19:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and California. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with above, all I can find is the article in the Irvine newspaper. Lack of sources. Oaktree b (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For one thing, there seems to be insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources. My google search found some interviews in regional Southern California websites [59] [60] and a second, 2019 article in The Press-Enterprise in Riverside [61]. However, Stuart was a Women's College World Series All-Tournament honoree as part of the championship winning team in 2009, which should qualify her in WP:NCOLLATH. Arbor to SJ (talk) 06:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't. The bar in NCOLLATH is set very high, and that bar involves either being named All-American, being a national champion in an individual sport, or being the best player in the nation at their position. Being named to an "all-tournament team" is well below that standard. Ravenswing 11:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But that all-tournament team honor was for the national championship. Arbor to SJ (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As may be, but that still satisfies no notability criteria, NCOLLATH included. We decide on AfDs based on the notability criteria in place, not on how we wish they might read, or on WP:ITSIMPORTANT arguments. Stuart never was national champion in an individual sport. She was never named an All-American. She never won an award for being the best player in the nation at her position. She was never elected into a NCAA Hall of Fame in her sport. There is no element of NCOLLATH she meets, and your argument that she does is just not borne out by the facts. Ravenswing 19:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So the Women's College World Series All-Tournament award does not count as a "national award" in WP:NCOLLATH? Arbor to SJ (talk) 04:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct. Far from an individual honor, twelve players were named to the All-Tournament team. Nor was Stuart even the tournament MVP; her teammate Danielle Lawrie was. Ravenswing 06:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that per WP:NSPORT, WP:NCOLLATH doesn't supersede WP:GNG. When taken to AfD, all sport subjects must show that they have the significant coverage to pass WP:GNG, regardless of whether they pass any sports-specific notability guideline. Alvaldi (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:BIO per Arbor's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 02:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. The Shoutoutsocal and SD Voyager articles are interviews with no significant input from the reporter and thus are primary sources (the only real coverage in the article comes from the subject herself). The Press-Enterprise article has minor input from the reporter but its really nothing more than informing us that the subject holds softball clinics. I did a search on Newspapers.com but only found some match reports that mentioned her. I did come across this Press-Enterprise during a Google search and I would consider this as significant coverage. However, GNG requires multiple sources of significant coverage (and from different publications, so other pe.com articles don't count). If somebody finds additional significant coverage, I am more than happy to reconsider my !vote. Alvaldi (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. Not much in terms of WP:SIGCOV except for an article in her hometown paper. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 05:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: May I suggest that with four advocates of deletion (including the nom), against two keep votes based on a misunderstanding of NCOLLATH, consensus is already in place, and no further relistings are necessary? Ravenswing 06:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I also agree on this SeanJ 2007 (talk) 12:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Same here. In addition to not actually passing NCOLLATH, NSPORTS in general has been depreciated and this subject does not pass GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Search results from Seattle Post-Intelligencer are here. Results for The Seattle Times found here. I'm not invested enough in the topic to pay to review the results to assess depth, but someone interested in saving the article may wish to do so. Cbl62 (talk) 13:12, 20 September 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! 05:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eliezah Titus Busonga[edit]

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

Not enough WP:RS and fails WP:SIGCOV; doesn't meet WP:GNG? — Tulsi 24x7 05:22, 15 September 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! 04:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two-ball[edit]

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

Article has no sources, possibly contains original research, and is not linked-to by other Wikipedia pages. Has not been edited since 2018. Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:05, 15 September 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! 04:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Abuska[edit]

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

Coverage of this player appears to be limited to routine databases and his mention, in a list of several others, in a number of articles about a match fixing scandal (e.g. https://www.modernghana.com/sports/1176519/breaking-news-cas-free-21-players-involved-in.html). Rusalkii (talk) 04:02, 15 September 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! 04:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Abuchi[edit]

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

Could not find any coverage of this player beyond routine databases. Rusalkii (talk) 03:59, 15 September 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 Rico Nasty#2021–present: Rx and Las Ruinas. Liz Read! Talk! 03:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rx (mixtape)[edit]

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

This is what happens when we make articles on future-stuff without an official announcement. This was never given a release date (only a general timeframe), was supposed to happen last year, and she's since released Las Ruinas. It's all-but clear this will never happen and this "non-happening" is not notable enough for its own article. —VersaceSpace 🌃 03:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect just as SBKSPP says. QuietHere (talk) 04:52, 17 September 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! 03:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Levert, Indiana[edit]

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

Having Caris LeVert join the Pacers for a season was not helpful for searching, but as far as I can tell this one is some phantasy of the highway department, or maybe the GNIS compiler misread things. At any rate, the location is spang in the center of Lake Everett, and while there is a neighborhood on the north side, the fact there are no real estate hits for Lavert indicates that nobody seems to think this is the neighborhood's name. Beyond that, I get nothing but gazetteer and clickbait hits. I think this is a totally fictitious place. Mangoe (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: no evidence that the place has any sort of significance; searching for '"Levert" "Indiana" -wikipedia -caris' yields gazetteer and clickbait hits per nom. —Danre98(talk^contribs) 03:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 08:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - All I could find was this list indicating a place called "Levert", but it's published by the same department that publishes GNIS. Nothing to support that the houses near the lake at that location are in a place called "Levert". Magnolia677 (talk) 11:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Could not find any significant coverage of a place called Levert. –dlthewave ☎ 12:49, 15 September 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 Luge at the 1968 Winter Olympics – Women's singles. Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila Johansen[edit]

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

I am proposing this article be deleted or redirected to Luge at the 1968 Winter Olympics – Women's singles.

I boldly redirected myself but BeanieFan11 (correctly) reverted it after finding some coverage.

I have added both pieces of coverage I can find into the article but I still don't think it's enough for a GNG pass. One is very local and the other appears to be based almost entirely on an interview. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 12:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect becuase readers might find knowing her luge stats useful. I disagree that the local part of the coverage should be a disqualifying factor for the billings paper, but, regardless, it's only one source and cannot meet the GNG. I thought that the other source was an unreliable blog. My search yielded nothing more. —Danre98(talk^contribs) 03:20, 15 September 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. Just noting for the record that the previous AFD was about a different person with the same name. Liz Read! Talk! 04:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yohai Aharoni[edit]

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

only source in article is a database. fails notability guidelines for sportspeople. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 14:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i got WP:HEY'd. again. anyway, i withdraw my nomination statement. i can't close this because others have voted to delete/redirect this. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 13:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Israel. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 14:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: for anyone else experiencing confusion while looking for sources, the subject currently being discussed is the footballer born in 1943, and not the יוחאי אהרוני who was born in 1986, whose article has already been deleted. Cheers, Gilded Snail (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A former player in the Israeli national team. Not as a bencher. Scored the second and final goal of Israel against India in the 1964 AFC Asian Cup, a cup that Israel won. Also important in the Israeli top tier. Sources exist. For example here.[62] gidonb (talk) 00:47, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 1964 AFC Asian Cup: not enough significant coverage to be notable for an article. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This AfD is already open for a week but no valid rationale for deletion has yet been brought forward. As a successful player on Israel's national football team (he contributed a goal toward its only Asia Cup), Aharoni is very notable. He was successful also in Israel's prime league. So much that POLITICAL pressure was used to get Aharoni to change sides and three specific players were offered if he would only move. That's a very NONROUTINE story for a professional footballer! The entire nomination appears extremely random. Which player is next to be nominated under such RANDOM criteria?! gidonb (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And to the gentle call of the relister below to state under which guideline the article should be kept: WP:SPORTBASIC #6#5. Maybe also the place to explain what happened to the sources. There is one great source, that is now a reference in the article. We have access to this source only because of Aharoni's IMPORTANCE as a player. Aharoni was curated at the Museum of Hapoel Petach Tikva which carries a non-routine article about the player, at any scale. The Israeli national newspaper archive contains mostly the issues of Maariv, international Jewish, and some immigrant newspapers. Maariv is historically a moderate right-wing newspaper. Aharoni, during most of his career, was a player in labor-affiliated sports teams. Left or left-leaning newspapers are not in the archives. Also, ALL sports dailies miss from this archive. The museum had an article from a sports daily possibly found (difficult!) among the physical papers at the Tel Aviv Central Library. Since accessibility to historic Israeli newspapers is so bad, important Israeli players, such as recently a Maccabi Netanya oldtimer, are routinely kept without references. No need here as WP:SPORTBASIC #6#5 is met. gidonb (talk) 11:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another reference talks about Aharoni's induction in his team's star boulevard. Rather than SIGCOV, as the reference above, this source talks straight to the NOTABILITY of the winger. gidonb (talk) 12:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "WP:SPORTBASIC #6"? It has four bullet points and they aren't numbered, so I'm genuinely confused about which policy you're pointing to. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 13:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We both miscounted. Fixed on my end. gidonb (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops! Thanks for clarifying. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Copying the comment I left when deProding the article: "This website has about two paragraphs on an Israeli soccer player, born 1943, with the same name (so probably the same guy), and a comment on that article by someone says "I will never forget the headline in the newspaper: "A star in the name of the national team, the Israeli Yohai Aharoni."" Additionally, that website has a Hebrew newspaper clipping which they say is on him here." BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - @GiantSnowman:, Per everything above. Clearly was significant figure in Israeli football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 15:38, 16 September 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 Mainstream (disambiguation). The arguments to keep hinge on what this article could be, not what it is; as such there is consensus to redirect, but if anyone wishes to salvage material from the history for a new article, they are welcome to do so. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstream[edit]

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

I am afraid this article is a major mess that may warrant WP:TNT. The treatment of "mainstream" as an overarching concept is very brief and poorly referenced (to a dictionary, and to three academic articles that however do not discuss mainstream as a main concept, but just very minor aspects of it in the context of media consumption in the Czech Republic and mainstream churches). In other words, the definition in the lead, sensible at first glance, seems ORish. Then we have an etymology section and a collection of chapters on "mainstream this" or "mainsteam that", including my new chapter on mainstream fiction (which I mostly merged to literary fiction as well, since it seems to be on this topic). The "Sociology" section seems the worst, since despite being short it seems to mix several concepts, from that of normality to the critique of mainstream sociology. Overall this article seems like a disambig expanded to discuss various concepts that are not connected to one another by any independent, reliable source. I am afraid WP:TNT may apply, with my recommendation being to split/merge some content (ex. the religion and science section can be used to start mainstream religion and mainsttream science articles) and then redirect this to the disambig page. For those who would like to keep this, I ask - can you find a source that discusses mainstream as an overarching concept, as well as the dimensions of m edia, religion, science, fiction, etc.? Otherwise, again, we have a wiki essay on "all things called mainstream" (that is "grossly incomplete", since why not discuss within "mainstream biology", "mainstream physics", "mainstream culture", "mainstream toys", etc.). That's what disambigs are for. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Philosophy, Popular culture, Religion, and Science. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the current disambig page as there is no universal concept of "Mainstream" and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. 0xDeadbeef 07:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:TNT this as a redirect as per SirHex Deadbeef. If there is anything recoverable from the explosion, you can find good places to store the rubble. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Process comment I do not see a compelling reason to delete this. It looks like writing the "mainstream this" and "mainstream that" articles in summary style could be done incrementally, with content out-merged there, eventually leaving this page as a disambiguation page, without anything needing to be deleted. So, I guess this is a keep in terms that nothing needs to be deleted to accomplish the reasonable goals Piotrus is setting out. In fact, keeping everything here in history might be quite preferable for attribution purposes. Jclemens (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jclemens I am always supportive of preserving history (SOFTDELETE), but redirecting accomplishes this. The problem is that the article is an ORish WP:SYNTH of "various concepts called mainstream" that no reliable source has presented (if it was a list, it would be failing WP:NLIST...). I think the reader would be better served with a disambig and several new articles (I've created a redirect for mainstream literature, and I think mainstream science and mainstream religion can be created as well from splits of content here). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that we're in any substantial disagreement here on the outcome. Jclemens (talk) 05:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens Redirect+split vs keep is I think a bit of disagreement :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep and improve. Obviously "mainstream" is a word evocative of thought that is the opposite of whatever is considered "fringe". Identifying and describing its parameters may be difficult, but I feel we owe it to our readers. BD2412 T 03:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note - I would have no objection to moving this to draft pending improvements. BD2412 T 03:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to disambiguation page. Does a much better job of getting people to relevant information. Cobbling together every definition of mainstream is going to be WP:OR and doesn't fit on Wikipedia. Jontesta (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to mainstream (disambiguation). I can see what has been attempted here and respect the effort, but the asserted definition of the topic is false. Mainstream does not include all popular culture, nor is it mutually exclusive with the idea of a subculture. A mainstream results from the predominant power structure within any given culture - this may contradict the mainstream of other fields or cultures and may be at odds with popular culture (consider the assertion in mainstream economics that all market actions are rational vs the popular belief that people's actions are regularly impulsive and/or irrational).
It does not make sense to attempt a holistic treatment of mainstream because it does not exist in a holistic way. Similarly a summary article isn't viable because there are too many mainstreams to cover (mainstream food, mainstream cars, mainstream children's books) and most treatments of that subject are highly culturally specific (for example, in China the Jonas Brothers are niche, not mainstream). We shouldn't encourage the creation of an article that defines mainstream as something that exists outside of its originating context. SFB 20:04, 21 September 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! 06:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Women's Revelations Cup[edit]

2022 Women's Revelations Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Football, and Mexico. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a lot of coverage about this tournament in Spanish and English (even though Canada finished last). You also get different results if you use google.com.mx since Mexico was the host. Additional sources in India as well since this was a warm-up tournament for the 2022 FIFA U-17 Women's World Cup in India. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further note: You can't just search on "Women's Revelations Cup" (in quotes) and expect to find it via google.com (which by the way filters what you can see based on your geographic location and search patterns). Try "Revelations Cup" and "women" or "Revelations Cup" and "FMF" and "2022" – it could also be because "Women's" doesn't parse well because of the apostrophe, etc. – you start to get a different set of results than if you only search with quotes or only search google.com. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • lens Review

checkY This article meet with neutral point of view of all countries in the tournament.
checkY This article was based only on information published in reliable sources (secondary sources and official web site for complemented).

Some topics are of interest only to some people, but since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles that interest some people should be kept.

 Comment. This article should be kept. The article can be tagged for cleanup or attention, or improved through editing, but not for deletion.

Relates articles:
2022 Sud Ladies Cup
Revelations Cup
2022 SheBelieves Cup. Rey1996ss (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what's needed is some reliable sources in newspapers or websites for example. Wikipedia articles don't help, unfortunately. The good news is, Cielquiparle says there are sources and they are very good at finding them. Looks like they've already added some. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and pinging @GiantSnowman: The actual article already has more sources than most equivalent tournament articles. Even if a couple of the sources below are blogs, there is also coverage in Canadian mainstream news outlets and local Mexican media outlets as well.
Some basic match reports do not infer notability. GiantSnowman 18:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: I'm not sure I agree – what is a tournament, after all, if not a series of matches that are notable collectively? – but yes, there is also non-match-report coverage we can demonstrate, that makes the 2022 Women's Revelations Cup at least as notable as the men's Revelations Cup.
If there is some other criteria we should be following for tournaments specifically, or other type of coverage you are looking for, please let me know. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is an international friendly tournament obviously. If you need more references about Colombia holding the winner-tournament trophy click below:

Reference 1: Colombian Football Federation
Reference 2: onefootball.com
Reference 3: Fémina Fútbol Magazine
Reference 4: minuto30.com
Reference 5: Revelations Cup Mexico-Official Twitter
There was a little confussion - some people thought this wasn't real, or this wasn't a tournament. But this was the inaugural edition of the tournament, some people did not know about this tournament. There are many friendly-tournaments: SheBelievesCup, Toulon/Maurice Revello, or Arnold Clark Cup. The only difference is that this is U-17. In fact, the match ceremony was attended by members of the local government of León, Guanajuato.
Authorities for Mexican Football Federation and local government of León in the tournament award ceremony: click on 2:31:06
Colombia with the tournament champion trophy: 2:37:28 Rey1996ss (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A lot of sources have been presented, just need some assurance they confer adequate notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

checkY The article should be keep This article confer notability WP:EVENT:

  1. The scope of reporting its national and international.
  2. The article were very widely covered in diverse sources: Television, sport magazines, newspapers, social media etc.
  3. The article is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable.
  4. Its the inaugural edition for women's and there was 2 editions for men's: this does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable.
  5. A lot of sources have been presented: the event received significant coverage. There are secondary sources and principal/direct references as well.
  6. Diversity of sources, per above: Wikipedia's general notability guideline recommends that multiple sources be provided to establish the notability of a topic.
  7. The matches not be considered routine because this is a Tournament: at the end of the tournament was given: a troppy champion, top scorer award and fair play award. -That's the same situation in 2022 Sud Ladies Cup, that article it's a 4 U-20 teams tournament, the Women's Revelations Cup it's a 4 U-17 teams tournament, so both articles should be keep.Rey1996ss (talk) 00:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. CSD G5 Liz Read! Talk! 05:01, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

8Xbet[edit]

8Xbet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Every listed source is about the company's partnership with Manchester FC in Asia, and any source I came across doing a WP:BEFORE search had the same problem. There is no coverage I could find that verifies that this is a notable gambling site. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Sports, Football, Websites, and Asia. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. No substantial coverage actually about the company, it's all about their link with MCFC. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joseph2302 they also have news about Teddy Sheringham. I have added more citations. Copwars (talk) 07:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @WaddlesJP13 pinging you as I have added more citations. Copwars (talk) 07:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't agree with this nomination. I see plenty of news on them and some have company details too. I have also added more sources. Check these: sbsnews.co.uk, igamingbrazil.Copwars (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Copwars: The problem is that 8Xbet is only receiving this much media attention simply due to its partnership with Manchester City FC, the two sources you've found, which both involve Manchester City, only further validate that there the company is only notable as a sponsor and not a company. Company details in news articles like these are pretty standard and they do not verify notability, only basic details such as the founder/CEO, headquarters, foundation, etc. If there were any independent sources solely about the company, that would verify notability. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @WaddlesJP13 Nevertheless they have coverage in many publications and NCORP says coverage in multiple publications is needed, it doesn't say anything about repetitive news, unless you can point out to many where it says that news cannot be about the same subject. In addition, they have news about Teddy Sheringham not just Manchester City. Copwars (talk) 07:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Expertwikiguy spam. MER-C 11:32, 17 September 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! 00:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Black Rock Arts Foundation[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Minor project, appears promotional, also appears to fail WP:SIRS. NytharT.C 00:30, 15 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_September_15&oldid=1111852026"